Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. As this debate continues I would just like to take an opportunity to answer some of the questions that were directed towards the Green Party about why we supported the National Party's piece of legislation previously and the tax cuts that we're now supporting being overturned.I would say and I have said earlier in the debate that it was a really tough call for us because we supported the increase to the accommodation supplement. We recognised the extreme need in our communities. We see the people on the streets. We see the families in cars and babies living in sheds. We knew that we had a moral duty to respond to their need. We were put in a situation of supporting that legislation because of that need while recognising that that legislation was going to take money out of our tax system by giving $444 million to people in the top 10 percent of earners—people like me. That was really uncomfortable but we did it because we saw the need at the time.We are really pleased while we don't see this legislation as a perfect solution that actually we can address the need without giving people like me the opportunity to buy more lattes because the truth is that I don't need any more lattes. I know that people could say well OK I could use that money to donate to groups I care about and that's true. I do that. But the truth is I don't believe that Women's Refuge and Rape Crisis—all those groups that are spending so much of their precious time fund-raising and trying to get me to support them should be using their time doing that. I think that the taxpayer dollar should go to towards ensuring they have the money to deliver.Those tax cuts would have taken money away from being able to do that. I hear some people say: well those tax cuts I could have used that to give money to the people on the streets—all of those people on the streets that I see every day. Sure I enjoy having the chance to chat to those people but that is not my picture of the future of this country. That kind of Dickensian approach where I get to feel smug and righteous and great about myself because I bestow my beneficence on those poor people. I want those people to get enough through our basic way we structure our society that they don't need to be there on the streets. That is why we are supporting this legislation because it is turning around that charity model that was so much a part of that last Government's philosophy.I heard in previous speeches from that side of the Chamber that people actually like participating in fund-raising to buy crayons for their kindergarten that there hasn't been an underfunding of those core public services and that people like that and they don't want that taken away from them. But the community I live in does not have the resources for that. It is entrenched inequality between those communities where people have the time and they have the money to get out and fund-raise amongst their friends to give to their local kindy. In communities like mine where that money is not spare if that money is put into the kindy it comes out of the money that went into the food bill to help people put food on the table. It is our duty in this House to even out that inequality. That is part of what this legislation is trying to do.I would just briefly also like to address the point around immunisation and Well Child checks and to reinforce the message that we trust parents. We don't believe that children will be better off by removing money from them and they're not going to get any better results from that.