Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I thought I'd take a call following the four speakers that have spoken on this bill just to address some of the issues that they've raised and also to speak to some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been referred to. I will start by just saying to the member that just spoke Dan Bidois that the entire 500 pages is the entire bill with the amendments in it. It keeps getting referred to as if it's an entire amendment but it is actually the whole bill with amendments inside it. If we had tried to separate it out it would have been incredibly confusing so that's why it's 500 pages long; it's not 500 pages of changes.There were four tabled amendments that were referenced by the previous four speakers: two that have been put up by the Hon Louise Upston one that's been put forward by Simon O'Connor and one that's been put up by Parmjeet Parmar. The thing that they all have in common before I go into detail about why we won't be supporting them or why I don't support them is that all of them are not policy-neutral. We've been quite clear from the start that we are making this a truly policy-neutral rewrite. That wording was actually the wording of the previous Government in respect to this bill but the reality was that there were policy changes in it and so this Government has made an honest attempt to make this policy-neutral. Basically the SOPs that I've seen that have been put forward don't tick that box immediately therefore can't be supported because they are policy changes and we are not supporting policy changes in a policy-neutral rewrite of the Social Security Act.I will speak to some of the specific ones that have been raised. Simon O'Connor has a tabled amendment up that he himself referred to which was to insert new clause 91A. What he's asked for as I said is not only not policy-neutral but it's not actually within the scope of the bill or the purpose of the Social Security Act. We would need to rewrite the purpose of the Social Security Act and make major changes to the actual piece of legislation to make his tabled amendment relevant to what we're discussing here in the Chamber today and I think there is no desire across the committee for that to happen. So without going any further that's really all that can be said for that particular tabled amendment.We've got the Hon Louise Upston who has a tabled amendment up which wants to insert new clause 93(b) which would create exemptions to the winter energy payment. Firstly as I said that's not policy-neutral. The serious concern I have about it apart from the fact it's not policy-neutral is that it would be completely out of line with other supplementary assistance—so the accommodation supplement and disability allowance which like the winter energy payment can only continue for a 28-day absence. So this is about consistency. If we were to do what the honourable member Louise Upston was asking then we would be continuing to make a mess of the social security legislation when this whole exercise is about cleaning it up. So we don't want those inconsistencies. There are other reasons why we couldn't support it but the two reasons I've given are very clear so I will leave it at that.Moving to Louise Upston's other tabled amendment that has been put forward which would require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to have regard to regional skills shortages seasonal work and rate of unemployment when determining if employment is suitable." Actually this is some of the work that this Government is quite serious about particularly with the work that we're doing around our regional growth fund and with respect to skills shortages that are taking place not only through MSD but also in portfolios like immigration. So there's a lot of work already happening in this space but as I said it actually wouldn't be policy-neutral so we're not going to insert that here and there are a number of other reasons which I won't go into. Then there's one other that was discussed. I think it was the member Parmjeet Parmar's tabled amendment. This was in regards to her wanting to require a newborn's responsible practitioner—I'm assuming midwife or other medical professional—to consult with the newborn's mother about which general practice to nominate as the newborn's primary healthcare provider. There are a few other elements to it. It's not only not policy-neutral; it's not within scope of this bill. That is a health matter not something that sits with the social security legislation. There is also—can I just state that clause 120 does already set out what was introduced by the previous Government which was a social obligation for beneficiaries with children to take all reasonable steps to ensure their children are enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. So I think that really covers off the concern that the member Parmjeet Parmar had. So those are the reasons that I am not supportive of the SOPs that have been mentioned so far during this debate."