Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2878. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is always good to follow Mr Macindoe on this particular bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and indeed many others. Much of what he says does not hold up to scrutiny at all. Indeed much of what the Government members have had to say on this bill does not hold up to scrutiny at all. This is a nasty bill. It has nasty provisions and it is a nasty Government that is trying to foist this upon our most vulnerable.  
There are some things we agree on. We agree with the Government when it says that the best way to assist the people we are talking about is through work. We agree with the Government on that but that is where the similarities end. When Labour was in Government it did just that. It got our most vulnerable into work. It reduced our unemployment to the lowest level in the Western World. When it did that welfare numbers came down people were in work and people got on with it. But that side is not creating work. Labour took an aggressive approach to creating jobs aggressively triaging— 
Melissa Lee 
: Transferred to invalids benefits! Transferred to sickness benefits! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That member there who says a lot took the shortest call possible and promptly fell asleep. Melissa Lee had better listen and argue this particular point because I do not know where that member was when this bill was being debated.  
What this Government has done in this particular bill is what it has done in the ACC area and in other areas as well and it is doing it now in local government reform. You create a problem—you create the figment of a problem—then Mr Macindoe you apply your own ideology. That is all this Government is doing—applying its particular ideology. The language we hear from this Minister for Social Development is: “We will back the young people.” If this is backing the young people then this is not backing at all. To what extent is this backing young people? I shall go through it step by step and show Mr Macindoe how that really is indeed intellectual dishonesty because it is not backing young people.  
The process of submissions was truncated—it really was truncated—for no good reason. The only reason the Government gave was: “Oh well welfare reform was introduced last year. People have had their say so we need a very short period.” What was the Government frightened of? Was it that too many people would come and tell members opposite that this is a bad idea? On another bill before the same select committee the Social Services Committee we have a long long period of time for submissions and it is not as important as this bill. It has already had other reports done. But here members on that side are saying: “No let’s truncate.” 
 You know my colleague Su’a William Sio went through the submissions absolutely honestly and religiously. I am happy to quote it back to the members opposite absolutely and honestly. I have my notes from the select committee. I am happy to read them out to the members opposite. What he said was exactly what the submitters said.  
Submitters did not support this bill at all—at all. I do not know where those members opposite were but they must have been asleep. Sam Lotu-Iiga was far too busy managing the process and not listening to what people were saying because if he had listened this bill would not have survived in this form. It is a travesty. It is a travesty to the power of a select committee. It is just not trusting our responsible citizens to come to the select committee and make submissions. That side did not hear. Can Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga put hand on heart and say that the Government heard the submissions and has made the changes? 
Su’a William Sio 
: No he can’t. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member cannot because the member had instructions from his Minister whom they are all singing great praises of. I do not know who is in for promotion next but Todd McClay has done a travesty to his own.  
Listen to the figures. There were 85 submissions 50 opposed nine supported and six were unclear. Do the maths. If you do that maths it makes 73 percent who opposed the proposal—73 percent. Applying the standard of the debacle of the class sizes the Government should walk away from this bill. It should walk away from this bill because it has no legislative ability to do this. It has none at all.  
The Government talks about taking an investment approach. An investment approach? My big toe! There is no investment in this. If we invested in jobs then that is an investment approach. The marketeers have come up with a nice slogan: “Let’s use an investment approach let’s use the social service language of wraparound and we will get there.” The Government will not get there because there is no intellectual honesty about this particular approach. This is a mean Government. Its approach is insincere. It is a punitive approach. It is uncharitable. It cares little for the most vulnerable in our society. That is what this Government has done.  
You know it is ironic that this Government is so hell-bent on doing so much damage—and this bill will do damage. If that member Mr Macindoe believes this will be his finest hour then I feel sorry for him. This cannot be his finest hour. This is going to be quite pathetic—quite pathetic—because there is no investment in this particular approach.  
Many submitters rejected the Government’s approach to solo mothers who are bringing up a second child. Now after 12 months that mother has to go to work. For a moment Minister turn away from the mother and focus on the face of the child. What does the child need? What did the child do wrong? That child needs the mother there for as long as any mother can stay at home. But no that Minister in a nasty way will take that away from our young babies and that is mean. That is mean-spirited. What is there about an investment approach in that? That baby will need that mother. It is not the baby’s fault that the baby has been born but that is a fact. The least we can do is support them to get the best service to bond and to have the time together.  
It is quite ironic that this Government talks a lot about evidence. I want the next speaker or any member of that Government to get up and tell me what the theory is that actually says that this is the way to treat young people. We are taking the very tools we have to train them taking their money away from them and locking it up somewhere. Every theory I know—and I have studied this—says that power to make decisions shifts as the child grows older.  
The independent youth benefit has been a problem. Some parents have had difficulty with this. This is the group of young people who have really split with their own families. Those families have not liked this benefit because somehow they have blamed the benefit but the benefit has been a response to those parents who have really disenfranchised their own children and separated from them. The State has had to look after those young people and now those families have the ear of this Minister. They have had the ear of this Government. They have had the ear of this particular Cabinet because the Government is devising mean policies to ensure that they can come now and be punitive. There is no science in this approach. People presented to us and said that when this approach was used in America it actually increased dependency. It actually increased it. So where is the evidence? Let the next speaker tell me where the evidence is. Let the next speaker tell me where the science is because it is not science. All it is is a series of punitive mechanisms.  
Submitter after submitter said that this was mean this was bullying this was punitive and this will not work. Name me one respectable organisation that submitted and I will read the submitters out. The Human Rights Commission the Children’s Commissioner—they all said the same thing. Nine people supported this particular measure. Mr Macindoe by any standards you should have the courage to say that at least other people thought very differently.  
How does this move our people further? How does this really get young people to grow up perfectly? How does this actually give our children and our babies the best possible start in life? It does not. Somehow because someone is a beneficiary this Government is entitled on our behalf to be mean to them. Well this side will never do that. This side will invest in the proper sense as indeed it has for a long time. This side will get those people an education will get them jobs.  
Government members of that select committee cannot be proud of the way in which they conducted themselves. It was not a happy select committee; it was a mean select committee and the members did not conduct themselves well. I was not pleased to be part of that select committee Mr Macindoe and I am sure that you were not as well. What that select committee was doing was railroading using this Minister’s directions to you. Mr Macindoe you and your colleagues took leave of your senses to just look at the evidence look at the science and take cover. Your ideology got in the way just like your asset sales ideology does.