Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll just be quickly speaking to some of the factors. I'm a little bit confused about the issues the member Simeon Brown has raised as I'm not entirely sure if they lie with Part 4 but I will respond to some of them. With respect to why the 28 days was settled upon for absence overseas it was because that's consistent with other policies. So currently you need to inform if you are going to be overseas for 28 days with respect to the disability allowance and accommodation supplement as well. So this is about consistency and that's what we want to ensure that we have with our social security legislation.He has asked how introducing the winter energy payment could be deemed policy-neutral. Keep in mind that at the time the previous Government did the rewrite the winter energy payment didn't exist. It was something that was introduced by this Government so of course it has to factor into the legislation; that's just an absolute necessity.And also he has asked about how people will inform if they've been overseas. Well it's really interesting that you ask that question because the process that we've undertaken to ensure that people are informed about the winter energy payment and what they're entitled to has really significantly increased the number of people informing the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) of things like the fact that they will be overseas. So with regard to the winter energy payment letters went out to everyone. On an average week prior to that letter going out MSD was being informed of on average 125 people who were saying they were going to be leaving the country for 28 days or longer. And following that letter it's increased to 800 per week that are contacting MSD to let them know that they'll go overseas.So in many ways this has been a bit of an awareness-raising exercise and probably prior to this many didn't know that they were supposed to inform MSD of the fact that they were going away. So I think that that is an indication and a lesson to all of us that we do need to keep people informed about how they maintain eligibility because not everyone knows that. So this exercise has been very successful in doing that.Going back to Part 4 because as I said I'm not really sure if Simeon Brown was speaking to Part 4—Simeon Brown: Section 203—have you read your Act?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do want to just cover off what are the essential changes in this rewrite that you would think——that we would think—that the Opposition would be interested in but Simeon Brown is yelling out unnecessarily things that are irrelevant to this debate. So as I said what is important to note is that Part 4 outlines provisions and factors affecting benefits. The bill as introduced contains two minor and technical changes which we would assume that the Opposition would be speaking to. That is clarifying that where a non-beneficiary client has an outstanding warrant for their arrest and is a risk to public safety their supplementary assistance will be stopped immediately with no 50 percent protection for any dependent children. And the term shared custody of a dependent child" has been updated to "shared care".Can I just say that this is a really good indication of the good faith in which we came into this because some of the policies that exist in the legislation as part of the previous Government's administering of the social development sector are not necessarily things that we agree with but when we are undertaking a policy-neutral rewrite that is not the time to turn all of that upside down. So some of these measures that are in here that we are tidying up but not necessarily changing to any great extent—or not changing to any great extent—may be things that are considered as part of the welfare overhaul. Because as I said it's not that we agree with every policy that's in here but during a policy-neutral rewrite—that is not the time to try and make those changes. So that is the good faith in which we entered this exercise."