Maharey Steve: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19583] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I do not really agree with Dr Newman on much in relation to welfare policy but there is no doubt that unlike the spokesperson for the National Party she does spend a great deal of time trying to work out her ideas which is something I always admire. When she gets up she usually has something to say. She asked a question that does not have much to do with Part 3 of this bill but I will reply to it anyway. She is concerned about the amount of money being spent on the domestic purposes benefit. 
The member will remember that when we came into power the National Government had had a system that meant in essence that Work and Income staff spoke to a person on the domestic purposes benefit when his or her child was 6 and again when the youngest child was 14. As far as I can tell National took that as great intervention. Looked at more closely there was a little flurry of activity perhaps—not always but perhaps—when children were around the ages of 6 and 14 but after that nothing ever happened. Nothing at all was done for people on the domestic purposes benefit. That was the system that the National Government used to run and that the ACT party thought was quite useful. 
We did not think that it was good enough. We had the view that people who are on the domestic purposes benefit move through it in about 3½ years on average. In the past they often came back to it because the wages they could get in the 1990s were too low to be able to support their children. The average person on the domestic purposes benefit is about 32 years of age and is a woman moving from being in a relationship to looking for some form of independence. In our view a much better thing to do was to start even before people came on to the benefit by asking them to begin writing for themselves a plan that would tell us how they would return to work or to prepare for the day that they could return to work. 
Ms Bradford who is in the House today had a big hand in helping us with the process of planning. So now I can inform Mrs Newman who seems not to have noticed of the reason that the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit is coming down in a sustained way. It should come down and that is a view that Ms Bradford and I share. It is something that is not right in this country—when we compare ourselves with other like jurisdictions we have too many people who are on a sole parent benefit. We have too many people who are in that category and we want to see the figure come down. 
We know that it is because they cannot get quality childcare and the kinds of wages that would allow them to support their children that they are often in situations where they simply do not get the training that allows them to lift their capacity to move into a job that will pay them a decent wage. So we have begun to pay attention to a whole range of policies that provide practical support to allow people on the domestic purposes benefit to plan for a rapid return to work and to stay there which is of course what we want. We do not want them to come back because they simply cannot afford to live on the wages that they are getting. 
So I can inform the House that Mrs Newman’s very good question and it is a question that she has persisted with over time was addressed last year. Ninety-three percent of people on the domestic purposes benefit now have a personal plan that leads towards them returning to employment. This is a vastly superior system to one that simply meant a little flurry of activity when the youngest child was 6 and then 14. We sincerely hope that this plan will see the rapid movement of people through the benefit and on to independence by giving them the support that they need. 
I return to Mrs Collins’ deep concern about section 70A of the principal Act and the speech she gave before. She has given speeches on that section all the way through the debate. I encourage her if she does take another call to tell us her policy. We have spent a wee while on this debate and have heard her talk about what the Government is doing. She says she does not agree with it even though the numbers are dropping—down to 16130 from a peak of over 20000. I think that is absolutely right. Men should be fronting up to their obligations. We are seeing a steady decline now. 
But it would be good if Mrs Collins could identify an idea. It does not have to be a big idea or something that is too rigorous—an idea would do. I notice that Mrs Wong once again is having to step into the breach as she often does to support her colleagues. She is a thoughtful intelligent and able member of Parliament. I look forward to her rising in a moment to give us an idea. Mr Gudgeon has done so from New Zealand First’s point of view and Mrs Newman from ACT has done so. Let us hear one from the National Party.