Menéndez March Ricardo; Upston LouiseRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just wanted to pick up on the previous comments in relationship to the impact of child poverty in relation to this bill because I hear the Minister comment that there's other commitments but can we just get clarification about the impacts of this bill? Will this bill worsen child poverty? I think that's a pretty simple question right? I know that I can't demand a yes/no answer but I would like an answer in relationship directly to the impacts of this bill. Further to that I was wondering whether a child impact assessment had been done in relation to this bill and if so can she provide us with details of what that had produced? Because that is an important tool that we have to actually assess the impacts of policy and legislation on children. So wanted to get a sense whether there had been one made as part of that and what it resulted in. If not I guess I'm just concerned as to why that would have not happened considering that there's already been acknowledgements of the impact of children because of this policy.The other thing that I wanted to pick up is that during the first and second reading speeches from the Minister she talked about how this bill—and part of the intent of this bill—was to get people into employment. I just want to get the Minister to help us draw the causation around that because the lower benefit increases—is there any evidence that she got around how lower benefit increases would lead to better employment outcomes? Because so far I haven't seen any evidence around this presented by the Minister and I wanted to get a sense around those that come in.To the Chair I'm mindful that we didn't have a select committee process and this is why some of those questions are being asked right now which we would have had the chance to unpack from officials or the Minister herself during the select committee process—and from beneficiaries themselves. So to recap so far it's whether this bill will worsen child poverty; whether a child impact assessment had been done; any research about lower benefit increases leading to better employment outcomes.The other thing that I wanted to understand is whether she had done any analysis around for example whether lower benefit increases would lead to a higher demand on advances and hardship grants and what are the costs that would create. So we know that hardship grants are really high at the moment. The need for them is at record levels and one of the ways that we can mitigate the pressure on front-line staff would be by increasing baseline benefits so that people don't fall behind that need those hardship grants. But if we're increasing benefits in the long term at a lower rate does she expect there to be additional costs being incurred in the Ministry of Social Development in the delivery of hardship grants? Because then it seems to me like the cost savings that she's making with benefit increases could be passed on to the delivery of advances and hardship grants. Those have flow-on impacts as well both in terms of the debt that those beneficiaries incur and also the weekly repayment that they have to make to those agencies.If she hadn't done that projection and assessment around the impact on hardship grants and advances how can she be confident that the cost savings she's projected and hoping to make will be accurate? Because that's I guess another consideration in terms of what's been presented here and then how the system is in reality. Because it may be narrow in terms of the number of words in the piece of this legislation but the flow-on effects—and we know that because the welfare system is so complex that the flow-on effects of even making small changes to the to benefit levels are huge. So that's why I'm asking about advances and hardship grants. Keen to get answers to those questions—I know that they're quite broad-ranging—and if those questions are not addressed I'll just try to get them addressed later down in the debate. Thank you.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I don't intend to repeat answers to questions that I've already delivered in the House so I'll move on to the questions around employment.So one of the things that the member may well be aware of is you know there has primarily been a gap between those receiving welfare payments and those who are on for example a minimum wage. When that gap is too narrow the incentives for people to move off welfare into work reduce. Previously it's been the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for example that provide that advice. So the first issue is there is absolutely a link between benefit rates and incentives for people to move off welfare and into work which is why when we talk about one of the intentions of the bill—about putting the welfare system on to a more sustainable footing—that is absolutely it.So what we do know and I note members on our side of the House have referred to welfare numbers. To be blunt I'm shocked and horrified at the recent Taylor Fry report that indicated some of the average lengths expected for people currently on welfare. That is a direct result of welfare dependency and I'm not willing to tolerate that. A young person under the age of 20 who comes on to welfare is expected to spend on average 24 years. So members opposite may have a different view about our side's motivation to support people into jobs but I'm really clear about it. That is a part of this legislation—it is a minor one.To come to the member's second question around hardship grants it's really important for those watching this debate to understand our Government's focus on the cost of living. We don't expect that will be something that is solved in five years or 10 years. That is a matter of urgency. So in terms of dealing with the cost of living crisis—and yes hardship grants have been going up—we have to deal with the cost of living crisis and that will have a direct impact on hardship grants as will supporting people into employment.My colleague Rima Nakhle earlier referred to a gentleman that we met in Takanini. For him working two hours a day is potentially sustainable for him. So when we are talking about people being in employment it is also recognising that not everyone will be able to be in work full time. So I don't want any member in this House misrepresenting the perspectives of the coalition Government in terms of this. So that answers those two questions. Again Madam Chair I don't anticipate repeating answers to things I've already answered.