Walker Holly: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3651. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chair to speak a little bit further to Supplementary Order Paper 77 which has been such a point of contention so far in the debate. I want to thank the member Jacinda Ardern for her contribution earlier and for her suggestion about splitting the amendment into two separate Supplementary Order Papers which I have done and will table in the Committee at the conclusion of my call. The reason for doing that as outlined by Jacinda Ardern relates to the justification given by the Minister for Social Employment for the financial veto. It seemed to me that a large emphasis was placed in that justification on the changes relating to what would be new clause 35A in respect of the recovery of debts so I have separated that amendment into a separate Supplementary Order Paper. If the Minister would like to use her discretion as we would like to offer the same discretion to the Chief Executive of Work and Income to take into account the impact on children then she is able to do so in considering these two amendments separately.  
I just want to speak a little bit to the implications of what it means if the Government decides to apply its financial veto to both of these amendments and to extrapolate out and perhaps tease out a little bit for the benefit of the Committee and those listening what exactly the Government has conceded in choosing to apply the financial veto to the amendments. As we have heard from the Minister she believes that I think in relation to both the recovery of debt and the imposition of sanctions if Work and Income was not able do those things—to recover those debts or to impose those sanctions—there would be a financial cost to the department. That is true and I accept the Minister’s rationale on that but I think it is very important that we tease out the conditions in which sanctions or that debt recovery would not be applied.  
If we look at the Supplementary Order Paper it refers to situations when a sanction “may deprive the child of food and shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The Minister has assumed that this Supplementary Order Paper would not allow Work and Income to apply sanctions or recover debt in any situation ever. She has assumed that it would rule out all circumstances of Work and Income being able to do that. What that means is that the Government has effectively acknowledged in exercising its financial veto that to do so would deprive the child of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.  
What the Government has basically admitted is that the provisions in the bill as it is currently drafted before the Committee—the sanctions that it would impose on sole parents—would be detrimental to the well-being of children because if we had an amendment that gave Work and Income the discretion not to do it the Government has assumed that it would not do it. Let us think about that for a minute. If we gave Work and Income the discretion not to apply sanctions because it might be harmful to children the Government has assumed that Work and Income would take that discretion and not apply those sanctions. Well what does that tell you about the sanctions in the bill? It tells you that they would deprive children of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of children. That is what the Government has admitted in choosing to use its financial veto on these provisions.  
That is significant. That means the Government despite using the rationale of trying to improve outcomes for children as part of the rationale for even making these welfare reforms in the first place has acknowledged by way of this financial veto that in fact the sanctions are detrimental to children and would deprive them of such basics as food and shelter. That is extremely concerning both from a child’s perspective and as I mentioned earlier from the perspective of making sure that we meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that the affected citizen in need of social security needs to be able to support themselves and their children.  
What we have effectively had from the Government is an admission that the sanctions in this bill deprive people of the ability to supply the basics for their children. That is very concerning. That means that when the sanctions regime outlined in this bill is applied parents will no longer be able to supply their children with the basics—with food with shelter with a warm dry home with clothes with shoes with raincoats.  
I am looking forward later on tonight to hearing from Julie Chapman née Helson who is the Chief Executive of KidsCan who is coming to speak to a cross-party group of MPs.