Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8925. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I repeat that all of the consequential changes that are being made under Part 2 are because of what has been approved under Part 1 so there is a link between what Part 2 is doing and our discussion about the provisions of Part 1. I want to talk in particular about clauses 64 and 65. That is what I will be referring to. 
It is interesting that one of the things that happens in this bill—and it is something we have not talked about a lot in the debate on Part 1—is that sole parents will no longer qualify for the sole parent benefit when their youngest child turns 14. So for the first time we now have this new rule that when children are aged 14 their parents are no longer really that responsible for bringing them up. Something is being said here about bringing up teenagers. You could have a 16 a 15 and a 14-year-old and the moment the youngest one turns 14 you are unable to qualify for the sole parent benefit. What is that saying about how we bring up our children? And why is it that this Minister for Social Development and this Government place so little emphasis on the care of 14-year-olds? 
That redefinition of the sole parent benefit actually has this impact. I believe that quite often for many many parents that is a much more demanding time particularly when you have more than one teenager. It is a time when young people are testing all the boundaries and it is a time when parents—in this case a sole parent—would want to be home but now they have to be available for work. They can no longer access this particular benefit. That is a change that has been made and there has not been a lot of debate about it but it is one that concerns me because it leads me to ask the question of what the consequential changes that are being made under Part 2 say about the optimum environment or the best environment for bringing up children. 
It is very hard to find anything in this entire bill including the consequential changes under Part 2 that is about creating a better environment in which parents or a sole parent can bring up a child. I wonder whether this Government has any focus on that. That is a worry because we do know the set of conditions under which children do much better. It has to do with what happens in the home. It has to do with what happens in the community in the provisions of social policy and the way in which society sees parents bringing up children. But this Government for this group of parents who are bringing up their children has now put so many obstacles in their way that I wonder what it says about the optimum environment for bringing up children. 
I rather suspect that the Minister has tried to muzzle some of her own speakers. It is a surprise that a couple of them did sneak in a call but when they did speak to the consequential changes that are being made in Part 2 because of the decisions in Part 1 they did indeed expose the Government’s own thinking. I wondered what Sam Lotu-Iiga was saying when he said that the purpose of this bill is really to reduce the cost of benefits. I think the chairman of the Social Services Committee is actually honest about that because that is the underlying belief. It is not about creating a better environment for our children and it is not about parents in difficult circumstances—vulnerable parents—bringing up their children; it is about saving money. That is all that that member is talking about. 
Every time Melissa Lee speaks on bills like this she does make a fool of herself because here she was saying— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: —again again I know—that she did it and therefore it is OK for every sole parent to use childcare and to do what this bill is saying because she was able to do it. What Melissa Lee does not tell us is that she was middle class she had the financial resources she was a businesswoman and she had a mum living at home as well. There were a whole bunch of other circumstances. What Melissa Lee is saying is that it was good for her and therefore it is good for the sole parents who themselves are vulnerable. 
I think there is a good reason why the Minister has muzzled her side from talking about this. The consequential changes themselves in Part 2 of this particular bill really carry on the negative impact. Thank you.