Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Mr Chair. I rise to speak for the first time on this omnibus bill.Hon Member: First of many.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: First of many absolutely I'm digging in for the long haul. This is a bill that gives a lot of scope for comment. The Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill—I thought I better give it its full title before I put the boot into it—is an omnibus bill that I think does highlight the fundamental philosophical differences that exist between the political parties in this House.I heard Jan Logie from the Greens talking about trusting women to make the right choice. I think naivety and hoping is not quite enough when you are legislators. We need to make sure that there is fairness and protection for the vulnerable. We also need to make sure as lawmakers that we do what is for the greatest good for the greatest number. This bill doesn't stack up on any account in that regard.In fact the Hon Dr Nick Smith made a valuable point in relation to the philosophical difference and it is this: where in this bill is there any incentive at all for men to really step up and take responsibility for parenting a child? While the other side of the House may be quite happy to let men get away with the kind of rorts that Dr Nick Smith described that used to exist before we put in the requirement to name the parent do we really as a country want to go back to the bad old days where there were backhand deals done men got away without paying very much and the State ended up paying for everything? I don't believe that for—Brett Hudson: It's not the State; it's the taxpayer.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The taxpayer. Well I tend to think that as taxpayers we need to in terms of how the State protects taxpayers' interests as well ensure that we are having a fair spend of that hard-earned taxpayers' dollar. This I believe will result in some epic squandering and the wrong signals—it's just the wrong signals. If a man is to father a child he needs to actually step up and support that child. We need to be there as the State with the taxpayers' money ensuring that the children are not badly affected.Again I come back to something that Jan Logie said: that there would somehow be this punitive measure on the child and that it was really not fair in any way that there would be hardship. For the member's elucidation the exemptions in the existing law do provide for parents who are in fear of their safety if they name the other parent or if the child is a result of a sexual assault. So there has always been compassionate and understanding flexibility around family situations which really are very sad. I think that as a Government when we calibrated the existing law we did it properly. This is a measure that's going to send altogether the wrong signals.So as it's gone through so far—and I'm now looking at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) factor—some Supplementary Order Papers particularly around clause 6A I think are worth highlighting. My colleague Dr Alfred Ngaro has moved an amendment to ensure that there is a proper reporting basis to all of this. So he has suggested a report on what he calls key outcomes" on the repeal of sections 192 to 194 which means that the Ministry of Social Development would be required to report on these outcomes. "(a) Full and correct entitlements from across the ministry; … (b) take-up rates of payments;"—which I think makes a great deal of sense and would give us an idea of the landscape really and who would be using this amendment. The "(c) employment outcomes for people receiving a benefit;" that is very valid as well because to create a safe environment for a child and to give mana to people they need to be in work and they need to not be dependent on the State. So there needs to be encouragement and incentives for people to get off benefits; this bill sends altogether different and contradictory signals. The impact of employment supports and services on those receiving a benefit is also contained within that SOP 243.I think it is very good to have clear reporting because you cannot manage what you can't measure and we need to be able to measure if this bill goes through—and unfortunately the numbers are stacked against a sensible outcome and it does appear that it will go through. If we look at repealing sections 192 to 194 I think putting in the measurement devices that were contained in the Simon O'Connor SOP 241—Simon O'Connor: A very good SOP.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —to put in clause 6A—yes I can hear the member behind me talking up his SOP and I agree with him. I think that in the same way that Alfred Ngaro's amendment suggestion means that you can have measurable reporting my colleague Simon O'Connor's goes another step further. And when you have around 10000—[Time expired]"