Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for the question. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide this august house with a comprehensive overview and a necessary reality check regarding the social welfare insurance scheme, which originally commenced in 2018. As we mark the cessation of the scheme, it is imperative that we look objectively at the data to understand why this administrative decision is not just fiscally responsible, but long overdue for the people of Fiji. By way of background, the Ministry of Finance began paying for this micro bundle insurance as an initiative to increase the penetration of this product in 2018. The scheme initially covered civil servants and social welfare recipients. However, civil servants were subsequently removed from the scheme due to the high cost of maintaining their coverage. Under the arrangement, the government pays quarterly premiums for eligible recipients with age-restricted coverage that applies to term life for insureds age below 70 years and funeral cover for insureds age below 75, while personal accident and fire covers remained open. Mr. Speaker, say let us look closely at the financial footprint of this policy. Over the past 8 years, the government has diligently paid approximately 60 million in hard-earned taxpayers' funds to FijiCare Insurance as premiums. However, a deeper dive into the metrics reveal a stark and troubling imbalance. Out of that 60 million, only 33.8 million actually reached our citizens as direct payouts. To give you a clearer insight, Mr. Speaker, in the 2023-2024 financial year, 7.1 million was paid in premiums. Only 3.8 million was paid out in claims. In 2024-2025, 7.2 million was paid in premiums and again only 3.8 million was paid out in claims. Most recently in 2025-2026, 7.7 million was paid in premiums and only 3 million out of that was paid out in claims. From a macroeconomic Mr. Speaker, this represents an incredibly inefficient use inefficient use of public capital. On average, a mere 56% of the total funds paid out by the government ended up in the hands of the beneficiaries. The remaining 44% did not serve our poor. Instead, it was absorbed by administrative friction, overheads, and private corporate margins. No responsible government can look at a 44% loss in welfare capital and call it an economically sound delivery mechanism. >> [snorts] >> In macroeconomics, we call this a dead weight loss to our public finances. To put things into further perspective, let us analyze the operational reality of the last 5 years. The government has consistently injected roughly 7 million annually into this policy to cover around 100,000 insured welfare recipients. Yet, out of the 100,000 citizens, the insurance framework has only processed an average of 5,000 claims annually. We are paying massive premium blocks for a system where 95% of the covered population see no tangible touch point or benefit in any given year. Furthermore, we must look at the economic reality of who this policy actually serves. The data clearly shows that the primary beneficiaries are family members rather than the elderly recipients themselves. They receive one-off financial assistance for life and funeral costs, which dropped drastically from 1,500 for those under 60 to a to only $500 for seniors aged between 60 and 69. It covered fire up to 3,000, personal accident up to 3,000. But look at the structural underutilization of these funds. Mr. Speaker, personal accidents under this scheme are extremely rare. To highlight this, the entire 2022-2023 financial year, there were only four paid out accident claims across the nation costing a total of 10,500. So, for 6 years, we've been holding millions in public capital hostage for an accident cover that is virtually untouched. Mr. Speaker, we must talk about the economic principle of opportunity cost. Every single dollar we locked away in private insurance premiums was a dollar taken away from direct high multiplier economic investment. By seizing this highly inefficient framework, we are freeing up millions in liquidity. Fiji's social safety net must be direct, impactful, and efficient. Shifting away from this insurance model allows us to reallocate precious resources directly to those who need them the most. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure this house that removing this insurance scheme will have minimal to no impact on the existing social welfare recipients. The government will continue to provide direct social welfare allowances under our six comprehensive schemes. For the upcoming 2026-2027 fiscal year, we've locked in a massive total investment of 184 million across these essential pillars. Family Assistance Scheme, 46 million 464,000. Child Protection Allowance, more than 18 million. Social Pension Scheme, more than 82 million. Food Allowance for rural pregnant mothers, more than 420,000. Allowance for persons with disabilities, eight more than 18 million. And Transport Assistance Scheme of more than 14 million. Mr. Speaker, let us address the specific contingencies. There are several types of accidents. For personal accidents resulting in permanent partial or total disability, robust financial assistance is already provided through relevant state agencies including our ministry. Furthermore, the Accident Compensation Commission or the ACCF scheme is fully available. Family members can easily apply for compensation through ACCF, which currently sits under the ministerial assigner assignment of my colleague, Honorable Minister for Justice, and is administered through a board chaired by the Permanent Secretary for Employment, Productivity, and Workplace Relations. For our citizens living with disabilities, our protection extend far beyond simple insurance payouts. We provide dedicated allowance for disabled individuals, direct grants to organizations supporting persons with disabilities, and focused funding for the economic empowerment of persons with disabilities. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Housing actively funds the retrofitting of homes to accommodate disabled individuals. When it comes to essential health care and tragic situations like unclaimed bodies, these supports are managed by Ministry of Health and Medical Services, and our people actively prefer to visit public hospitals or utilize free GP medical scheme, a reality proven by the significant increase in the Ministry of Health budget and the expanding utilization rate of the GP scheme. Our ministry covers the funerals in our state homes and those who have been abandoned by family. Mr. Speaker, for the new financial year, immediate emergency relief has been seamlessly accommodated within our state structure. Immediate fire relief is directly budgeted under our ministry through the assistance to fire victims at 75,000, while the long-term fire construction budget is covered by the Ministry of Housing at 200,000. Additionally, public rental housing continues to be heavily subsidized by the government with social welfare recipients counting counted among the core tenants. Education and health services remain free, and bus fare continues to be subsidized. Mr. Speaker, these allocations clearly indicate that across the whole of government, we have more than sufficient safety nets in place, and we continue to build on these as we identify real gaps with the new schemes that may be needed. The discontinuation of the scheme forms a central part of the government's ongoing efforts to streamline assistance programs, eliminate fiscal wastage, and avoid the duplication of services already funded through other targeted government initiatives. This program has has been suspended and will undergo a thorough review to integrate stronger governance mechanisms, data-driven beneficiary verification in a structured coverage framework that reflects actual demand and true national priorities. I thank you for this time, Mr. Speaker.