Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13175] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will put some questions to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment and I would like to get a couple of answers. 
One of the questions that I have regards the support the Government will be giving to sole parents or domestic purposes benefit recipients in order for them to study. I raised this question earlier in the night but I have not had a response yet from the Minister and I would like a response. Why will the legislation allow for supporting domestic purposes benefit recipients for study at only level 4 or higher and not at levels 1 2 and 3? How do we allow them to prepare adequately for study at level 4 or higher if they do not have any secondary school qualifications and they are not supported to get levels 1 2 and 3? That is one thing I put to the Minister. 
I also ask how it makes sense then to maintain the training incentive allowance only for those studying at levels 1 2 and 3 when they will no longer be supported to study at those levels if they are domestic purposes benefit recipients. Those are the No. 1 questions I put to the Minister and I would like a response in respect of those questions. 
Moving on I will touch on a few other things. One of them is the fact that last night I was at a Pacific Women’s Watch meeting. I spoke to the women about the impact of the welfare reforms on single mothers because they were quite interested in hearing about that. The thing that came up not only in my speech but also from the audience attending last night was the complete disregard this legislation shows for the valuable contribution to our society that is made by people for whom caring for children the sick or the elderly is in fact their primary yet unpaid work at this time in their lives. 
We have talked a lot about the importance of work and of supporting beneficiaries to go out there and take up work. We on this side of the Chamber support that. We are supportive of it which is why we put Working for Families into place. But we do not believe that we should underestimate the importance of a mother staying home and looking after her children if that is what she feels she needs to do. I bring up again the fact that in the Minister’s own maiden speech she said that parents should have the right to choose—the right to choose to work full-time the right to choose to work part-time and the right to choose to stay home and raise their children if they wish. That is the issue we need to discuss here. We are not saying that we do not support women to get out into the workforce; we are saying that if they decide that what is best for them is being at home because of their circumstances or the needs of their particular children then we should support them in doing that. 
It is not always going to be the case that getting out into the workforce is the best thing. I can think of some examples. I can think of one friend who has seven children and whose husband left her 2 years ago. She did not expect that to happen. For her to go out into the workforce and be expected still to run a household and run around after her seven children and look after them adequately is I think a bit unfair. If she wants to get out into the workforce that is up to her. But if she decides that with seven children she needs to be at home then I think that that is a fair call and we should be supporting her on that decision. 
Earlier I heard Mr Woodhouse interjecting. He said that children go to school and that it is during those hours that parents should be able to go out and work. Well unfortunately we do not necessarily have jobs that fit around the schedules of children and their school hours so we will not always have that choice. On top of that when we look at the individual circumstances of rather large families—and we can go back to that woman with seven kids—we can never predict when children are going to be sick or when the mother will be called upon for support at school. How often can a mother—say one with seven children—get away with saying to her boss that her children are sick? Even when a mother has only one child or two or three we know how often those things happen and how often we need to be at school for whatever reason. Can members imagine having seven children and the expectations and demands that will be placed on a mother in that situation? I think it is a little naive of Mr Woodhouse to assume that every parent can get out there and work during school hours because that is not always the case.