Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3650. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairman thank you for a wise decision—another one. Well I think Mr Sabin is right. I think he is absolutely right and I think he spills the beans. He spills the beans on the perspective of this Government that is driving this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.  
I want the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development to tell Mr Sabin and tell this Committee how many 15-year-olds have had babies. How many Mr Sabin? How many does that member know of—just quickly? I wonder how many there are but he applies his prejudice. He applies his prejudice; he gives the lie to this Government’s perspective. I just wonder whether he has really thought about this because this is really the evidence that what drives this measure is not a better outcome for our children a better outcome for our young people or a better outcome for our mothers.  
What drives this measure is the punitive attitude that Mr Sabin personifies in this House. If the Minister for Social Development does not agree with it I invite her to comment on that speech—that that speech indeed is not a speech that the Minister would endorse. The Minister should in this Chamber now dissociate herself and her Government from that pathetic speech—because it is actually quite damaging. However that is his prejudice and his bias. 
Let us start with the comments of the Minister for Social Development. The Minister quoted figures last night and she started with them again today. This also in a sense is an anchoring evidence base that the Minister speaks so much about for some of the provisions of Part 3 around work testing when the child is of a particular age. The Minister said that 68 percent of sole mothers with children aged 14 currently work and it is 83 percent in respect of those in partner relationships.  
This is the evidence that says that therefore it is OK to apply that same test to sole mums in every case. That is the test in every case. But by the Minister’s own figures 32 percent or one in three sole parents find it necessary to stay home and look after their children. Possibly the percentage of others may be even greater—I do not know. But at least 32 percent or one in three sole mothers decide on the basis of their knowledge of their children their knowledge of the needs of their own young adolescents and their knowledge of what is available in the communities in which they live that they ought to be at home with their young children.  
What this Government is doing is actually taking away that option from people who for a period rely on benefits to live. For somebody with a child who is 14 it is probably not too long before they get into full-time work anyway. So 32 percent actually find it necessary to stay at home to look after their children. The Minister ought to know that because her ministry has done the figures. Who are these people? What are the conditions in which they find it necessary to stay home and be with their 14-year-olds? That needs some explanation as well.  
You see what is wrong with this particular approach which is reflected in the provisions of Part 3 is that there is no sustained logic as to how this can be applied in a way that will achieve the kinds of results the Minister wants to achieve. The Minister talks a lot about evidence—about evidence-based work and evidence-based policy. But at a critical time in a young person’s development age 14 one can expect or guess at least that for some of these parents—and I use the Minister’s figure of 32 percent—their children would have developmental needs and those parents are meeting those needs by being there.  
The Minister is saying no that option is not available any more under the provisions of Part 3 of this bill. I think that is something that is particularly worrying to this side of the Chamber. It is not only worrying but it is why we are not supporting these provisions with a lot of passion I tell Mr Sabin—because our experiences are quite different. I want to talk a little bit more about the Government’s approach—