Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Given the discussion points that were raised during the first and second reading and the fact that the member Louise Upston has also continued on that same theme I thought I'd take an early call just to respond to the concerns that have been raised about the repeal of section 192.The question that was put to me specifically was with regards to the evidence that I have been presented with and the numbers. Fortunately what I have in front of me is a briefing from the Ministry of Social Development that was done in collaboration with Oranga Tamariki in February 2019 that in the executive summary of refers to the advice that was actually given to the previous Minister for Social Development in mid-2017—who would have at that time been the Minister Anne Tolley—referring to section 70A which is now section 192 that says the information was requested by that Minister for Social Development then and that the policy advice that was given to the Minister of the time—which reflects the same policy advice that I have been given—is that there was insufficient evidence to assess the policy's effectiveness in achieving its intent or how it affects clients and their children and whether it was in the best interests of children. So that is the advice in summary with regards to why we are repealing section 192 here today. As I've said on at least two occasions today in the House this is an evidenced-based decision—evidence that not only I received but the former Minister under the National Government received in writing that we have a copy of. I'm more than happy to share it with the National Opposition if they don't have a copy of that information. It does also go on to say that it throws children into further poverty and hardship—children who are more likely than any other child in this country to be experiencing the poverty and hardship.I know there's been lots of debate in the House and concerns raised by the National Government that by doing this we won't be able to hold the absent father to account and force his hand with regards to paying child support but clearly there's no evidence to suggest that this punitive sanction—Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister's referring to an official document and given that it's being debated in the committee it would be good if she could table it.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member could have waited until the Minister had finished her call. Every member has a right to be heard but that could have been done at the end.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you Mr Chair. I'm more than happy to table this document. I'm actually really concerned that the National Party have come to the House so ill-equipped without the information that they need to be debating what is a very important issue. So if they don't have this information then I'm more than happy to give that information to them because it is available online.Document laid on the Table of the House.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can I also state on the record that the member Louise Upston asked about figures and this report which was fairly recent—because it was February 2019—said that at the end of June 2018 25500 children—Hon Louise Upston: So not the previous Government.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —were in families affected by section—I will state this one more time just for the record for Louise Upston who doesn't seem to be listening. This report is a February 2019 report. In the executive summary it refers to the policy advice that the Minister for Social Development was given previously which is what I said in the House earlier. I really wish that member would listen.Now going on to what she asked with regards to the numbers of children at the end of June 2018 25500 children were in families affected by section 70A reductions—so that's section 192 now. Of these children 9500—one-third—were not themselves the subject of a deduction but of course they're living in a household where that deduction is made and so they are impacted by that deduction. The 25500 children who were in families affected at this date made up an estimated 2.3 percent of all children in New Zealand. The proportion of New Zealand children who were ever in families affected is much larger. Among children born in 2010 to 2011 an estimated 11 percent of all children ever present in New Zealand by age six were in a family affected by section 70A benefit reductions at some time.I think it's really important to take this seriously because as a Government we have committed to child poverty reduction targets. Now where there is a measure in place through our legislation that disproportionately impacts children and actually throws them into further poverty then we actually should have consensus given that we had consensus—bar ACT—on the fact that we will reduce child poverty in this country. This is only one measure. It's not the answer to all but it does take us a step further to being able to respond to that commitment that we have made in this House.I know—well I anticipate—that the Opposition is going to continue to traverse this issue but I wanted to put out there right from the beginning that I have the evidence in front of me now to support why the sanction doesn't work—the same evidence that was presented to the previous Government. So I really don't want to spend hours on end debating the moral assertions that are being made by the other side of the House on these women or the absent parent or the decision not to name the other parent. At the end of the day our concern is for the children that live in those homes and we are not going to continue with policies that have no evidence base that are punitive and that only serve to punish children and throw them further into poverty. Thank you very much.