9. Benefits—SanctionsHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentBenefits—Sanctions9. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What are the exemptions in section 70A of the Social Security Act 1964 that mean sanctions aren't imposed on sole parents who don't name the other parent?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): There are five exemptions to the benefit reduction. These are applied if one there is insufficient evidence available to establish who is in law the other parent; two the client is taking active steps to identify who in law is the other parent; three the client or their child or children will be at risk of violence if the client carried out or took steps to meet their child support obligations or there is another compelling circumstance for the client's failure to meet their child support obligations and there is no real likelihood of child support being collected; or five the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation. Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister now accept given the comments just made that there are already exemptions available for situations related to family violence? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The advice that I have been given—and the same advice was given to the former Minister for Social Development—is that the sanctions regime for this particular section has been applied inconsistently and also that there is no evidence to support that the sanction has achieved its own goals in terms of its original intention and I'm concerned because there are 18000 children that have a reduction in their income because of the way in which this sanction is applied. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was actually a very specific question asked and while the Minister gave a very good answer it wasn't to the question that was asked. Carmel Sepuloni have another go. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No I'm not concerned. Hon Louise Upston: When will the Minister do her job to make sure that existing policies and exemptions are actually implemented by her department? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The advice that I have been given on this sanction is the same advice that was given to the former Minister for Social Development which points out very clearly that there is no evidence to support that this sanction is achieving its objective but what it is doing is that it is punishing 18000 children for a parent being absent. I think that this is my job. Hon Louise Upston: What evidence does the Minister have that the current sanctions—which were introduced by a Labour Government in 1990 and increased by the Labour Government in 2005—are not working? That's what I'm wanting to hear. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are talking about section 70A here and I think I've given a very clear description of why we will be repealing it. Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was quite clear in my question around the evidence that she has. She referred earlier to the evidence and I'm asking that that is put before the House. Mr SPEAKER: Ask the question again and I'll make a decision about whether—Hon Louise Upston: What evidence does the Minister have that the current sanctions introduced by the Labour Government in 1990 and increased by the Labour Government in 2005 are not working?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Advice from my officials and anecdotal evidence from places like Triple P and other beneficiary advocate groups. Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would request that the Minister table that advice.Mr SPEAKER: Well she didn't quote from an official document. Did the Minister quote from an official document right then which she's got now? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No. Mr SPEAKER: No she didn't so there's no—Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister accept that changing the rules and removing this sanction will mean that pressure will go on the very solo mothers you've been talking to by their liable fathers so that they don't have to pay to support their own children? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I accept is that women and children should not be punished for an absent parent. There are currently 18000 children that are being punished and we want to stop that.