Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much Madam Chair. I'm keen to ask about the use of benefit sanctions and I think it's fitting considering we've just come off a general debate where that was a really strong theme. I know we still have a sanction regime in place and the sanction regime ends up having a really deep interaction with the need for things like hardship grants based on the fact that it cuts people's income—whether it's 100 percent or 50 percent.So I'm interested in knowing from the Minister's perspective what she believes the purpose of the sanction regime to be in relationship to supporting people engaged with the welfare system and/or meaningful employment.I'm also interested in understanding what she believes the interactions between the use of sanctions and the need for hardship grants to be because I note that if we take away someone's income—whether it's 100 percent or 50 percent—and they're already on the breadline then they need more hardship grants. I'm just interested whether any modelling had been done the ongoing use of benefit sanctions and increase in hardship. I note the comments from Beneficiary Advocacy & Information Service one of the welfare advocacy groups that noted that benefit sanctions result in either crime or hungry people. And you know that would apply I believe to the current sanctions regime. So I'm interested to know her reckons on that.I also wanted to understand whether she had any projections on whether she expects the warrant-to-arrest sanction to continue on an upward trend. I know in previous debates we've traversed the use of that sanction and she's been on the record of this House I believe saying that the sanction doesn't work and that she doesn't agree with it. So I'm interested to know whether she expects it to continue to rise.I'm also keen to understand whether she has any evidence of the impact of the warrant-to-arrest sanction to justify the continuous use particularly noting that the Minister referenced the Welfare Expert Advisory Group; one of the key recommendations there was overhauling the sanctions regime and removing basically most sanctions. So really interested to see how she foresees that use going forward.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you to the member for those questions. We have not removed all of the sanctions or work obligations that are currently in place. In my mind they need to be used sparingly and there needs to be honest attempts to communicate with clients before sanctions are enforced in any way because of the serious implications of a sanction being used. That was certainly my expectation of the ministry; they still are there but they are a last resort as opposed to being something that you wave over people.I do think that there are mutual obligations when it comes to the welfare system. I do believe that the ministry itself has an obligation to clients to make sure that they get the support and the entitlements that they are eligible for and that they need but I also think that there is an obligation to engage and where that doesn't happen—sometimes I actually worry to be honest to the member. I worry because if there's an attempt from Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff to contact clients because they are due for an appointment and there is not communication back and they can't find that person and they receive no notification of what might be going on then it becomes very difficult to engage with that person and—I've said this to MSD—who knows where they are? So it is a last resort that will be applied.Usually and I think that member knows the actual sanctions are actually often—and even under the previous Government—applied because of the fact that that engagement doesn't occur and they maybe not only just missed an appointment but you don't hear from them; you don't know what's happening. So for us I think there is a place sparingly to use those and so we haven't moved to remove some particular sanctions or sorry work obligations—obligations in general.We did and that member knows move to get rid of two which we deemed excessive and to have a particular impact on children. Of course that was the subsequent child policy and also section 192 which penalised mothers who were unable to name the other parent or for whatever reason couldn't. So those two were removed.With respect to the warrant-to-arrest sanction it's certainly different from the other ones given that there is a justice component to it. Is it on the cards in the near future to remove? I cannot say that is the case. However we continue to review our work programme and assess the sanctions with regards to where there is a negative impact or where they are excessive—and we continue to review our work programme and look at what we may do moving forward.