Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and welcome to the Chair. Look I've just got some questions for the Minister regarding what I canvassed in my first reading and second reading speeches.I'd be keen to understand in terms of the journey of this bill when she would have received advice for the first time that this was going on the journey around receiving that advice and then time lines around addressing this. I totally acknowledge the point about the pandemic and prioritisation but it would be good to get some clarity around that.I would also be keen that—as part of identifying that there were issues in the delivery of the accommodation supplement whether she sought any other advice on how to improve the delivery of the accommodation supplement and if not whether this was the only thing that she has been exploring in regard to changes to the accommodation supplement. As we know this is not the only complicated and often nebulous part of the delivery of this income support.The other thing is: does she have any knowledge or reports of there being a practice that has been inconsistent with the Act; if so do we know how many people have been potentially impacted by this inconsistency if there was one and what has been the impacts of it?I invite the Minister's reflections on how we can better improve the accommodation supplement so that it is less complex.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I'll attempt to respond to the questions of that member. The first question was in relation to when we realised that there was this alignment issue. As pointed out in my second reading speech it was through the 2018/2019 annual review. At that point that it was picked up work began; however it wasn't completed when COVID hit our shores and it was one of those areas where despite the fact there was an alignment issue the policy intent was still being realised. I would have been concerned if our superannuitants were being disadvantaged. Of course we're always concerned when law doesn't align with policy but it was one of those areas that could be parked for then. It did need to be picked up again—in fact the Office of the Auditor-General through Audit New Zealand said that we needed to treat this with some urgency and hurry up and fix it. So this seemed like the most appropriate place to do it during this urgency session.It is a technical fix and so I know some members have said it should go through a select committee process but I would like to just say please rest assured: I really do not think very genuinely that there was anything in here that you need to be concerned about. It is a fix.With respect to the member's question around any broader changes to the accommodation supplement that was not a consideration with this bill; we needed to just treat this one with urgency. I think anything in relation to the broader accommodation supplement issue does need to be considered carefully. There is a review of that under way at the moment. We certainly haven't made any decisions in that space but it is something that we're looking at. That has to and should be separate from making this fix.