WEBVTT - Carmel Sepuloni on what's wrong with the welfare system 0:00:05.960 --> 0:00:08.399 Hello, and welcome to on the Tiles. I'm your host, 0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:12.600 Deputy political editor of The Herald, Thomas Codlin. Today a 0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:16.640 meeting of deputies, a double deputy and a deputy of 0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:20.880 History of Deputization. Carmel Sipeloni, deputy leader of the Labor 0:00:20.880 --> 0:00:24.960 Party and and former Deputy Prime Minister as well. Thomas 0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:25.800 welcomed to on the Tiles. 0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:27.760 How you doing, I'm doing very well, thank you. 0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:31.560 I wanted to start with Auckland. You know you're you're 0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:34.159 an Auckland and you've been an MP since two thousand and eight, 0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:37.400 a spell outside of Parliament, your seeing term, I think, 0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:41.199 but you've you've represented an Auckland electorate for most of 0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:45.200 that time. Calston Labour's trying to win back the city. 0:00:46.000 --> 0:00:48.920 I mean, when did you Did you ever feel last 0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:51.040 year that you were about to lose it to the 0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:51.800 extent that you did. 0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:57.040 I started to feel that decline and support during the 0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:00.920 Auckland lockdown. I was living up there, living the lockdown, 0:01:01.440 --> 0:01:06.160 doing the zoom world, trying to continue with all of 0:01:06.200 --> 0:01:08.640 the work I needed to do as a minister. But 0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:12.720 I could feel it and see it even amongst those 0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:15.120 that I knew, and within my own neighborhood. 0:01:15.360 --> 0:01:18.200 And yeah, that's an experience shared by many of your colleagues. 0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:20.320 There's really it started then, it's a long time ago. 0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:22.920 Did you you know throughs it was what twenty twenty 0:01:22.959 --> 0:01:25.360 one through twenty twenty two to twenty three? Did you 0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:29.200 were you trying to message to the Wellington leadership like, hey, 0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:32.800 let's we're losing up here. We can't afford to lose 0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:35.040 this city. What was What were the discussions like there 0:01:35.040 --> 0:01:39.520 there was retail crime issues, happened after the lockdown, you know, 0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:42.080 a general sense that Wellington was just not quite in 0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:42.880 sync with Auckland. 0:01:43.959 --> 0:01:47.640 Yeah, and we did have those conversations. I feel like maybe, 0:01:47.680 --> 0:01:51.800 in hindsight, I and some of the other Auckland MPs 0:01:51.800 --> 0:01:55.000 could have been more assertive on what we felt was 0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:57.680 happening in Auckland. And so there's probably a level of 0:01:57.720 --> 0:01:59.840 regret there that we didn't push a little bit harder. 0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:02.080 I feel like some of the decisions that we made, 0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:06.400 for instance, around how we would address retail crime were 0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:09.400 the right decisions? Were they fast enough? I think that's 0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:11.720 the question that we need to ask ourselves. 0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:16.040 I remember, I think your former colleague Kadie Allen mentioned 0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:18.040 an into your One of your colleagues might have mentioned 0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:21.680 how difficult it was as a labor cabinet some of 0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:25.160 those decisions around crime. I think looking at the additional 0:02:25.240 --> 0:02:29.560 search powers where we're put through last year watches and 0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:34.520 jewelry and other things of high value were added to 0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:37.720 a list of goods prohibited for sale for cash over 0:02:37.760 --> 0:02:41.840 specified value. There's anti porning kind of legislation. That was 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:44.240 difficult I think for labor to come around to. Did 0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:48.440 you share that difficulty, Well, what wasn't difficult. It was 0:02:48.800 --> 0:02:51.800 the work that we did around our young people. So 0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:54.520 those that were getting into trouble that we're committing the 0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.480 ram raids, we had all the evidence. We were fully cognizant. 0:02:57.960 --> 0:03:01.240 Of the fact that they had multi poor, complex issues 0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:03.280 and that we weren't going to be able to resolve 0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:07.800 the issue of them offending and committing crimes against retailers 0:03:08.120 --> 0:03:10.440 unless we got in there and addressed all of the 0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:14.360 issues that were occurring. Now, that program of work was 0:03:14.400 --> 0:03:18.360 actually successful. Even the Minister for Children during scrutiny week 0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:23.480 said that it was. It didn't necessarily do what some 0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:28.440 people wanted, which was to come out looking tough on crime, 0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:33.560 and you know, and and punishing in certain ways these 0:03:33.600 --> 0:03:36.480 young people. But it was the more effective approach and 0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:38.360 it's proved to work. 0:03:38.560 --> 0:03:44.040 In Heinz I think and some of Prisippins Precipicins interviews. 0:03:44.640 --> 0:03:48.480 Surely after he became Prime minister there there was just 0:03:48.680 --> 0:03:51.960 a discussion about that, some of the differences in cabinet 0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:55.280 around the Auckland Lockdownhes was saying, look, I was I 0:03:55.320 --> 0:03:56.720 was sort of pushing. I probably would have gone a 0:03:56.720 --> 0:03:59.560 week faster to lift that lockdown in Auckland. I think 0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:02.000 grant rop And might have been on Society mentioned. This 0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:06.520 is just from memory now, but just Sindra Juams was 0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:09.800 quite wedded to the position that was ultimately taken in 0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:12.240 terms of just stamping out delta. Where were you on 0:04:13.320 --> 0:04:14.480 in that discussion as someone wh. 0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:16.680 I was living in Oakland and I am near the 0:04:16.760 --> 0:04:20.160 end of the Auckland lockdown, I feel like we were 0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:23.400 losing the social license. You know, I saw pretty respectable 0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:26.440 people when I'd go for a walk, completely breaking the rules, 0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:29.000 you know, having people over. And at that point, when 0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:31.480 you've lost social license, you really do need to reassess 0:04:31.480 --> 0:04:34.359 whether it whether or not you can continue. So probably 0:04:34.480 --> 0:04:40.640 would have been down for a reduction in that lockdown, 0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:43.520 ending it much sooner. At the same time, I have 0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:46.800 to say there were some parts of our community that 0:04:47.040 --> 0:04:50.680 were pretty adamant that we needed to continue, and I 0:04:50.720 --> 0:04:55.000 do want to acknowledge disabled people who were really scared 0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:59.280 of getting COVID and what the implications might mean for them, 0:04:59.360 --> 0:05:01.120 and so there were so many things to weigh up. 0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:04.360 Sort of it's interesting looking back at it now. You know, 0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:07.279 Labor's a mainstream party, it has a very broad church support. 0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:11.240 You've got people who well, you know, half the country 0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:13.440 in twenty twenty, which is as bad as broad as 0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:17.240 you can get. But then you've got that, you've got 0:05:17.279 --> 0:05:21.839 a core or a small element of your vote which 0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:24.760 is very wedded to the very rigorous stance you took 0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:26.919 on COVID nineteen, and then you've got a much you know, 0:05:27.040 --> 0:05:31.760 there's a spectrum beyond that. Is it impossible to keep 0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:35.479 those two groups of people together, people who were who 0:05:35.520 --> 0:05:38.880 were so wedded to that very stringent early twenty twenty 0:05:38.960 --> 0:05:42.159 position and the people who are probably quite happy with 0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:44.520 where you got to, which is a traffic light and 0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:46.279 then ultimately lifting restrictions altogether. 0:05:46.480 --> 0:05:50.560 I think for a large part of the COVID period, 0:05:50.720 --> 0:05:53.320 not saying that we've got rid of COVID, but the 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:56.760 intense COVID period, most people were on the same page. 0:05:57.640 --> 0:06:01.920 It was nearing the end of that intense period where 0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:06.800 there started to be much more differing views, and I 0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:09.680 think you started to see a split, and as I said, 0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.880 there were some groups of people who very rightly wanted 0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.159 to hold on to much harsher measures for a longer 0:06:16.160 --> 0:06:16.880 period of time. 0:06:26.920 --> 0:06:29.960 You held the Social Development Portfolio for the whole six 0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:32.120 years of your time in government. What are you most 0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:32.479 proud of. 0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:36.640 I'm most proud of the work that we did around 0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:41.560 actually addressing incommatequacy and the welfare system. That investment into 0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:45.839 lifting benefits was hugely significant. It was a reversal of 0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:49.800 Ruth Richardson's changes back in nineteen ninety one. But it 0:06:49.839 --> 0:06:54.080 wasn't just that that saw the increase or addressing of incommatequacy, 0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:57.960 lifting their abatement thresholds so that people could earn more 0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:01.120 and still receive the benefit. So work a little bit 0:07:01.120 --> 0:07:04.200 more part time still receive the benefit. But that's the 0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:06.760 income adequacy side of things. And I've always been really 0:07:06.760 --> 0:07:09.760 clear that for me, the welfare system is also about 0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:13.960 supporting people into work. So we made huge investments into 0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:16.880 upskilling and training opportunities, and many of those programs that 0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:18.880 we instigated over the six years that we were in 0:07:19.160 --> 0:07:21.360 were really successful and that's work that I'd want to 0:07:21.400 --> 0:07:22.200 continue as well. 0:07:22.480 --> 0:07:25.880 Yes, it's interesting you should raise that budget twenty twenty one, 0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:30.000 which was the benefit increases. So I was looking through this, 0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:35.320 so the cost was three point earlier. Yeah, a lot 0:07:35.360 --> 0:07:37.200 of money, and that was over the four or four years, 0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:39.200 and I think that I was just adding up the 0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:41.440 so of that budget, which I think was a three 0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:43.760 point eight billion dollar over one year, about a billion 0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:46.000 of that was for us. And I was looking at 0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:49.400 the Child Poverty Report for that last night and part 0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:50.840 of me I meant to print it off, but the 0:07:50.880 --> 0:07:53.360 image has decided not to appear on my print up. 0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:56.160 But it lifted. It was estimated to lift between twelve 0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:58.840 and twenty eight thousand more children out of poverty on 0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:02.160 the before housing cost me in the year after it 0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:05.160 was implemented, and between nineteen and thirty three thousand more 0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:07.800 children out of poverty on the after house after housing 0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:10.000 cost measure and that same year, So quite it's probably 0:08:10.040 --> 0:08:15.320 I think of all the budgets, probably the most impactful impactful, 0:08:15.720 --> 0:08:16.200 I think. 0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:18.560 So, But it was never about one initiative that was 0:08:18.640 --> 0:08:21.640 one of the ones I'm most proud of. But there 0:08:21.640 --> 0:08:25.560 were other measures and policies that we implemented where people 0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:27.880 didn't even know there was an issue. So one of 0:08:27.920 --> 0:08:32.640 those was child support pass on, where sole parents had 0:08:32.640 --> 0:08:36.679 been discriminated against in the welfare system since nineteen thirty six, 0:08:37.800 --> 0:08:41.080 and by passing on child support, I think we were 0:08:42.200 --> 0:08:45.760 forecasts to lift between six to fourteen thousand kids out 0:08:45.760 --> 0:08:48.880 of poverty. So it was always about a suite of 0:08:48.960 --> 0:08:52.280 measures that would help us achieve the main goals. 0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:54.880 Sorry such and pass on child support. That is when 0:08:54.880 --> 0:09:00.800 the sole parent access is the child support through Sorry. 0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:03.400 I'm so. Traditionally, what's happened is that if you're on 0:09:03.440 --> 0:09:05.800 a benefit and you're in a new relationship your kids 0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:09.160 to someone else, and that someone else pays child support. 0:09:09.400 --> 0:09:11.679 If you're in a relationship with someone you're both on benefit, 0:09:11.760 --> 0:09:14.120 you can get that child support. If you're a sole 0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:17.400 parent and you had an ex who was paying child 0:09:17.440 --> 0:09:20.280 support for the children, then that money went to the 0:09:20.400 --> 0:09:23.760 state to subsidize the benefit that you were receiving so 0:09:23.960 --> 0:09:29.920 clearly discriminatory. And as we know, sole parents or children 0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:32.559 and households where there's a sole parent are more likely 0:09:32.640 --> 0:09:34.960 to be living in poverty. So measures like that make 0:09:35.000 --> 0:09:35.520 a difference. 0:09:35.600 --> 0:09:37.440 Now you mentioned before that you see what you see 0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:40.439 the welfare spaces is about helping people into work as well. 0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:45.000 Some that's quite that view often divides people in that 0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:49.560 space you often see. I mean there's big debate about 0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:53.000 the way in which working for families, by seeking to 0:09:53.480 --> 0:09:57.080 encourage people into work, actually penalizes people and pushes them 0:09:57.120 --> 0:10:01.320 into poverty. I mean, do you think could is there 0:10:01.360 --> 0:10:03.600 anything that you are looking at or think could be 0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:08.920 done to ensuring comeadequacy help people but achieve your aim 0:10:08.960 --> 0:10:10.320 of getting people into work as well. 0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:13.199 Well, we certainly hadn't finished what we wanted to do 0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:16.160 with working for families, and we had that under review. 0:10:16.240 --> 0:10:19.760 We made some first step promises in our manifesto going 0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:22.240 into the election, but there was more that needed to occur. 0:10:22.960 --> 0:10:25.840 One thing I would recognize is there is always that 0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:29.400 debate with the in work tax credit and whether or 0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:31.560 not that should be given to war families or not. 0:10:31.960 --> 0:10:35.199 Now I'm not saying that all families don't need financial 0:10:35.280 --> 0:10:38.640 support in some way. But one thing I've always been 0:10:39.240 --> 0:10:42.960 keenly aware of is that for our poorest families there 0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:46.400 are in work expenses that can sometimes make it really 0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:50.080 difficult to work. You know, the additional cost of having 0:10:50.080 --> 0:10:53.160 to move around, transport, the additional costs, even though some 0:10:53.280 --> 0:10:55.920 might be subsidized, not all of it is for childcare. 0:10:56.679 --> 0:11:00.200 And so there are very real in work expenses we 0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:03.800 need to be mindful of for our lowest income working 0:11:03.840 --> 0:11:04.720 families as well. 0:11:05.120 --> 0:11:08.040 Right, So, so yes, for people often talk about marginal 0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:11.040 the marginal text rate issue, and but then obviously transport 0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:13.600 and child here, it does it does mount up? Would 0:11:13.600 --> 0:11:16.679 you be open to I mean, the inwork text credit 0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:20.000 was that was the sort of centerpiece of your Working 0:11:20.000 --> 0:11:22.800 for Families policy of the election. It was national stole 0:11:22.920 --> 0:11:26.520 and then you tuned on part of it. Yeah when 0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:30.160 they got into government, so they and they you tuned 0:11:30.200 --> 0:11:33.480 on the abatement threshold, which was a twenty twenty six change. 0:11:33.480 --> 0:11:37.079 I hope, I'm yeah, And he's going to lift for 0:11:37.120 --> 0:11:42.080 two thousand, that's right, yes, thank you? Would would you 0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:44.160 look at this and just for our listeners following along, So, 0:11:44.200 --> 0:11:46.600 the family text credit is a tax credit that basically 0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:51.199 goes to everyone on a benefit, but also people who 0:11:51.240 --> 0:11:54.040 are in work and receiving Working for Families. It's quite 0:11:54.040 --> 0:11:56.600 a broad based text credit a few hundred thousand families. 0:11:57.280 --> 0:11:59.319 The inwork text credit is only for people who are 0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:02.280 and work, And there is a debate around whether or 0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:04.200 not you should beef up the family tax credit because 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:06.360 it goes to more people. Would you be interested in 0:12:06.640 --> 0:12:11.000 perhaps broadening the family the work tax credits to help 0:12:11.000 --> 0:12:13.160 people who are only receiving the family tax credit. 0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:15.720 I wouldn't want to kind of preempt what our changes 0:12:15.840 --> 0:12:17.880 might be, but this is a policy that we need 0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:21.080 to look at seriously going into the next election. What 0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:24.040 we were made very aware of when we're in government 0:12:24.320 --> 0:12:28.439 is that if we were going to do anything significant 0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:30.640 that was going to lift children out of poverty, it 0:12:30.720 --> 0:12:32.960 needed to be in the Working for Family space. And 0:12:33.000 --> 0:12:35.280 what we announced in the lead up to the election 0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:38.360 were only first steps that, you know, in terms of 0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:40.560 what we might do with our manifesto, there had to 0:12:40.600 --> 0:12:43.040 be something else that was done through Working for Families 0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:47.400 if we were going to be genuine about lifting children 0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:49.440 out of poverty. So there is definitely more work to 0:12:49.440 --> 0:12:50.120 do in that space. 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:53.000 And I'm not going to ask you to what I 0:12:53.000 --> 0:12:54.360 would love to twist your arm and give you to 0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:57.720 get you to spill the election manifesto in this podcast. 0:12:57.720 --> 0:13:01.760 We don't have it yet, that we're still consulting. There's 0:13:01.800 --> 0:13:04.760 really nothing to spill it this stage except it is 0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:07.680 an area that we're taking seriously and we're looking at right. 0:13:07.520 --> 0:13:11.720 So, but are you could be interested in looking at that? 0:13:11.760 --> 0:13:14.360 I mean, it's it's that family tax credit when I 0:13:14.440 --> 0:13:17.920 whenever I profess to be an expert or to even 0:13:17.920 --> 0:13:20.080 talk to a great number of people about this, but 0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:24.200 whenever I do, that is really the thing that everyone sees. 0:13:24.240 --> 0:13:27.600 It's that that family text credit issue is really one 0:13:27.600 --> 0:13:28.280 that people want to see. 0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:29.880 You know, we will look at a range of things 0:13:30.040 --> 0:13:34.400 and and what our overall objectives will be and what 0:13:34.480 --> 0:13:36.679 will help us to achieve that. I think the thing 0:13:36.679 --> 0:13:38.320 to keep in mind, and this is when we were 0:13:38.320 --> 0:13:40.400 weighing things up and looking at it over the course 0:13:40.440 --> 0:13:42.920 of the year or even two years and the lead 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:46.560 up to the last election, is that unless there's an 0:13:46.559 --> 0:13:49.800 injection of money, then you are going to be taking 0:13:49.880 --> 0:13:54.040 something from someone and giving it to someone else. And 0:13:54.679 --> 0:13:58.439 you know, right now, I don't know whether there are 0:13:58.480 --> 0:14:01.559 any families that could have to lose given the current 0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:04.920 economic climate, and are the cost of living issues that 0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:07.960 people are facing. So you know, these are things that 0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:09.400 we're going to have to discuss over the course of 0:14:09.400 --> 0:14:09.840 the next right. 0:14:10.120 --> 0:14:11.680 And so when you say that this is this is 0:14:12.160 --> 0:14:15.400 this idea that you would take, you would would change 0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:18.640 the way that the scheme works. So you would be 0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:24.280 increasing the eligibility of the in work text credit by 0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:26.280 reducing what other people get somewhere else. 0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:28.880 And so who would stand to lose then, and are 0:14:28.920 --> 0:14:32.720 they in a position to lose really, So you know, 0:14:32.760 --> 0:14:35.280 whatever we look at, we need to be mindful of 0:14:35.320 --> 0:14:39.120 the fact that, yeah, unless there is an injection of money, 0:14:39.640 --> 0:14:42.200 then you don't want to be taking from one group 0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:45.440 to give to another and creating, you know, people that 0:14:45.480 --> 0:14:46.040 are worse off. 0:14:46.880 --> 0:14:51.480 Would you that the the most working for family's tax 0:14:51.520 --> 0:14:55.560 credits I think become are adjusted for inflation, but only 0:14:55.560 --> 0:14:58.880 when inflation exceeds five percent And that's a problem too. 0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:02.680 Yeah, it's it very complex and you can't anticipate what's 0:15:02.720 --> 0:15:03.560 going to happen. 0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:07.240 And very expensive. Are when when it when it when 0:15:07.320 --> 0:15:09.240 it triggers, when it hits five percent but also very 0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:13.400 punitive when inflations through three percent. Well you you, you know, 0:15:14.840 --> 0:15:18.800 Labor's rightly proud of the child poverty impacts of the 0:15:18.880 --> 0:15:21.520 of the benefit indexation that Andrew Beecroft was then Children's 0:15:21.520 --> 0:15:23.280 Commissioner said it was the single greatest thing you could 0:15:23.280 --> 0:15:26.600 do to alleviate at child poverty. That's now been reversed. 0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:30.480 But but would you know, would you look at future 0:15:30.600 --> 0:15:33.720 and actually doing indexation of both benefits and those texts. 0:15:33.720 --> 0:15:36.480 Well, at this stage I can't say that's off the table. 0:15:36.600 --> 0:15:38.600 You know, I'm quite open minded as to what we 0:15:38.680 --> 0:15:40.720 might look at over over the next couple of years 0:15:40.720 --> 0:15:43.640 and the lead up to the election. And I know 0:15:43.760 --> 0:15:47.240 that that issue is very complex. It is difficult to 0:15:47.400 --> 0:15:51.000 be able to ascertain what might happen. And it does 0:15:51.120 --> 0:15:52.840 mean that some years you get a big increase, in 0:15:52.880 --> 0:15:55.160 other years do you just for below the five percent 0:15:55.200 --> 0:15:58.320 and then there's nothing for nothing extra for those that 0:15:58.360 --> 0:16:00.960 are receiving working for families. So it's not off the 0:16:00.960 --> 0:16:02.680 table in terms of something that we might look at. 0:16:02.840 --> 0:16:05.520 I think historically I think the Clark government it was 0:16:05.560 --> 0:16:09.000 indexed and then it was you know that the Key 0:16:09.040 --> 0:16:13.280 government maybe to stop the indexation, so you know it's 0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:16.880 a trend herexation. 0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:19.280 It is also the really hard thing about when you 0:16:19.360 --> 0:16:22.960 come in after a government have changed a whole lot 0:16:22.960 --> 0:16:26.000 of things, because then you're weighing out what you reinstate 0:16:26.120 --> 0:16:29.000 back to what for us, you know, my view, what 0:16:29.200 --> 0:16:32.440 was fair, and then at the same time looking at 0:16:32.440 --> 0:16:36.760 the exciting new things and looking at what is fiscally possible, 0:16:37.080 --> 0:16:40.400 I guess, And so those are some of the considerations. 0:16:39.640 --> 0:16:41.560 Going into what else are you looking at as part 0:16:41.600 --> 0:16:43.400 of the Working for Families review? That's sort of It 0:16:43.480 --> 0:16:46.680 was under review for a long time and there weren't 0:16:46.760 --> 0:16:49.720 many major changes that emerge from it, but possibly because 0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:51.280 changing it is very expensive. 0:16:51.480 --> 0:16:54.920 It's very expensive, and it's very complex. So I can't 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:58.080 even say that we landed on anything other than what 0:16:58.120 --> 0:17:01.360 we went into the two thousand twenty three election with 0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:04.639 in our manifesto, because we hadn't it was continued to 0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:06.800 look at it and try and ascertain what we could do, 0:17:08.000 --> 0:17:09.959 where we would get the money from to do it, 0:17:10.880 --> 0:17:14.480 and what issues we were trying to address by any 0:17:14.600 --> 0:17:18.280 changes that we're implementing. So obviously child poverty reduction remains 0:17:18.480 --> 0:17:21.400 a focus and a priority for us, and that will 0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:23.400 continue to be a focus and a priority going into 0:17:23.440 --> 0:17:26.040 the next election. There were other issues where there working 0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:28.359 for families. It was the complexity of the system and 0:17:28.400 --> 0:17:30.879 the fact that so many people didn't understand how it worked. 0:17:31.000 --> 0:17:33.240 But it is a nightmareishly complicated system. 0:17:33.600 --> 0:17:36.160 It is it is, and so how do we simplify 0:17:36.200 --> 0:17:39.080 the system so that it's more accessible to New Zealanders 0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:42.119 so they actually understand what they're entitled to, so that 0:17:42.119 --> 0:17:45.000 they can access what they're entitled to and have a 0:17:45.080 --> 0:17:47.679 daily conversation about it as if it's every day because 0:17:47.760 --> 0:17:51.320 people actually get it, as opposed to stab in the dark. 0:17:51.359 --> 0:17:53.480 Am I eligible for something here? Oh? Yeah, I am? 0:17:53.560 --> 0:17:55.800 You know, and then people are hedging and not getting 0:17:55.800 --> 0:17:58.080 everything they are entitled to because they're afraid of getting 0:17:58.119 --> 0:17:59.640 them too much in triggering that's. 0:17:59.480 --> 0:18:03.479 Right of you being overpaid and then at the end 0:18:03.480 --> 0:18:06.600 of the text you having to repay money to in 0:18:06.680 --> 0:18:11.000 then revenue. So there is work around simplicity as well 0:18:11.040 --> 0:18:13.119 to make it more accessible for New Zealanders that I 0:18:13.119 --> 0:18:14.000 think we need to undertake. 0:18:14.040 --> 0:18:16.520 What could you do? You have any idea of what 0:18:16.800 --> 0:18:19.040 we we You could have the. 0:18:19.080 --> 0:18:21.120 Answer if I had the answers. I might have gone 0:18:21.119 --> 0:18:24.200 into the election campaign with a more wholesome working for 0:18:24.359 --> 0:18:28.280 families policy, but we didn't yet have all the answers. 0:18:28.359 --> 0:18:31.280 We just knew Stage one was the boost and the 0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:34.280 threshold lift so that more families could access it. 0:18:44.280 --> 0:18:47.440 Do you think, I mean one of one of the 0:18:47.600 --> 0:18:51.399 other complaints is that you're getting to quite high marginal 0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:54.919 tax rates around you know, people who are families whoever, 0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:57.720 someone full time on the minimum wage was really getting 0:18:57.760 --> 0:19:02.000 smashed just because of high wage inflation. Which is a 0:19:02.320 --> 0:19:07.000 good thing about text policy, well, it has an interface 0:19:07.080 --> 0:19:10.000 with the working for families and I just you know, 0:19:11.440 --> 0:19:14.280 I think of all the if you're taking a step 0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:17.879 back and labor and national fighting over text, but I 0:19:17.920 --> 0:19:20.600 think that the possibly the most difficult thing for labor 0:19:20.680 --> 0:19:23.880 on text is that is that forty eight thousand threshold 0:19:23.960 --> 0:19:28.840 for the thirty percent tax rate kicking and that's this year. 0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:31.720 Is someone on the minimum wage just just just nudging 0:19:31.760 --> 0:19:33.680 that so that they have a couple of hundred dollars 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:38.000 which would have been textedt thirty percent had threshold not lifted. 0:19:38.560 --> 0:19:41.560 Is that something you know, with your chip poverty reduction, 0:19:41.800 --> 0:19:44.560 with your social development had on that would have been 0:19:44.600 --> 0:19:48.760 difficult as a labor imp because that is that that 0:19:48.960 --> 0:19:50.960 is such a high marginal tax rate, that's such a 0:19:52.080 --> 0:19:55.720 minimum wage income. You know that that is not good 0:19:55.760 --> 0:19:57.800 for you achieving what you wanted to achieve. Having that 0:19:57.880 --> 0:19:58.199 level of. 0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:03.480 Textshold without being backward looking on that looking forward, then 0:20:04.160 --> 0:20:08.359 these are considerations that we need to be very mindful of, 0:20:08.440 --> 0:20:11.560 and we need to be having conversations about chippies. Made 0:20:11.600 --> 0:20:15.359 it really clear that you know, nothing's off the table 0:20:15.440 --> 0:20:19.760 that we're having conversations about tax and our party membership 0:20:19.960 --> 0:20:24.800 is keenly informing that looked like I'm really excited about this, 0:20:25.720 --> 0:20:28.359 and so we and we need to be mindful of 0:20:28.440 --> 0:20:31.320 a range of things, including the interactions with other systems 0:20:32.280 --> 0:20:35.359 like working for families, like the welfare system, and we 0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:37.320 need to be looking at it in that kind of 0:20:37.400 --> 0:20:40.679 fulsome way to make sure that what we end up 0:20:40.760 --> 0:20:44.160 with leads New Zealand to a place where New Zealanders 0:20:44.160 --> 0:20:44.800 are better off. 0:20:45.080 --> 0:20:47.320 I mean, you could, you know, you wouldn't need to 0:20:47.400 --> 0:20:50.399 do it was very costly what the current government did, 0:20:50.480 --> 0:20:54.160 and Labor's prosecuted that ruthlessly, but you know you could 0:20:54.240 --> 0:20:56.760 just lift that forty eight thousand dollars threshold, which you know, 0:20:56.920 --> 0:21:00.800 ensures that that people on a minimum wage would keep 0:21:00.880 --> 0:21:02.800 far more of their of their income over the next 0:21:02.840 --> 0:21:05.080 few years to avoid getting texted their text brackets. 0:21:05.119 --> 0:21:07.560 It's one idea, Thomas, but. 0:21:07.640 --> 0:21:09.160 You know, you could there are many things you could. 0:21:09.400 --> 0:21:12.960 You know, that's just it. You can see why the 0:21:13.520 --> 0:21:18.119 after fourteen years, you know, and obviously that there is 0:21:19.600 --> 0:21:22.119 there is substantially less child poverty impact from lifting the 0:21:22.200 --> 0:21:26.160