Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to speak primarily to the indexation aspect in this speech though I will address one other aspect in relation to section 192 and this idea that there is no incentive for mothers to name the father if we remove the sanction. It assumes that those women see themselves receiving income support for the entire lives of their children that they never imagine anything more for themselves; that they might be employed and receiving that child support themselves in their future. I think that sums up a particular view that that side of the House has that is not shared on this side. I would like to reference some of the comments that were made by the member the Hon Amy Adams in challenging this Government around poverty and the housing crisis and saying how their solution had been tax cuts and it would have been much better. That was the fact that we have deeply entrenched child poverty after nine years of that Government and that we have absolutely a housing crisis that somehow is now acknowledged but wasn't under their leadership"—and I use that word lightly—and that this Government has had 18 months and with the Families Package from the last Budget really we're only just starting to see that have an impact now. So I say: just give us a bit more time. I would also just say that when they say that the answer was tax cuts—really when we're seeing the schools without enough classrooms when we're seeing hospitals with mould coming down the walls—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are straying a little bit from the—JAN LOGIE: This is to the point that was raised by the member and about income adequacy and the solutions and the importance of indexation. We know cutting taxes gives us less money as a country to deal with building those classrooms and addressing the healthcare system. So tax cuts are not the answer to poverty; it actually is a removal of resource for us to be able to deal with our collective challenges. I do want to say though that the Greens are supportive of this bill because it really does move us forward but we are a bit disappointed that there isn't an increase to base benefits. We would have liked to have seen that. The indexation—it is a point that it will be $10 to $17 a week over the Consumers Price Index adjustment by 2023. We do support the view of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that the need is urgent and that poverty its impact is really profound. When I see members of the Opposition nodding to that it just makes me deeply uncomfortable because we had these conversations so many times in Opposition and all we got was just denial and the message that I continue to hear: that work is the solution—completely ignoring the fact that there are people who are locked out of the employment market by virtue of disability by virtue of the needs of their children who need them to be at home parenting by virtue of health concerns like cancer. I know the Minister in the chair was a champion in Opposition for those changes so it does not sit well to hear those arguments being made so lightly now where they have no ability to deliver on those changes. The Greens are committed to getting that increase to base benefits because we know the cost of poverty is deeply profound; it impacts on people's health their wellbeing their ability to participate and their entire life opportunities. When we talk about addressing core wellbeing for us we know all of the evidence points to income adequacy being a central part of driving poor mental health and negative outcomes. We are working constructively to move that along and look forward to the next step in that work."