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:3675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I do not know what to make of that little groan from the crew over there led by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and company. I think the title of a bill should actually say something quite particular about what the bill is really about. Clearly the title that we currently have does not quite cut it and lots of alternative titles can be suggested. Of course usually they can be quite humorous but I do not think there is much humour in any alternative title for this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because there is so much wrong with this bill and I think the title should reflect that.  
I think it should be called the “Anti - Young Persons Bill” because the presumption about young people in this bill is that they are incompetent. We do not even allow them to make mistakes. We say: “You can’t manage your money so we will manage it for you. We will give you a little bit at a time until you finally earn the right to have it all back.” We do not bring up our children like that. Nobody in this Chamber brings up their children like that so why is it that these young people are being put in that position? The presumption is of incompetence so maybe it should be the “Social Security (Presumption of Incompetence) Amendment Bill”. Then the young people can relate to it as a bill that is theirs. Certainly that gives us a lot of scope for this particular bill.  
The “Anti-Adolescent Bill” would be another one—that is an alternative title—because now a single parent has to go back to full-time work when their child turns 14 or come off benefit. So what is it that makes it so that all of a sudden our 14-year-olds are being asked to manage themselves? The Minister for Social Development’s argument has been that 68 percent of parents do and therefore everybody who is a beneficiary must. The Minister has not explained anything about the figures she has used or some contextualising about the nature of the two groups of parents. The Minister said nothing. She simply has taken that and it has been her driving argument here for making 14 years of age the cut-off point when parents must be available for full-time work. Most people in this Chamber know that that adolescent period is demanding—not for everybody but certainly for a group of parents their adolescents are so demanding that they require their full-time attention. But of course anybody who has been on a benefit and could do that will now not be able to do that. So it is an anti-adolescent bill and that should be the title: the “Social Security (Anti-Adolescent) Bill”. That would be a title that would be quite appropriate in this particular case.  
The Minister has defended it saying it is not punitive that there is nothing punitive in this bill; it is all enabling. The Minister’s demeanour throughout all the calls she has taken is to play the line that we are simply enabling our young people and our beneficiaries to avail themselves of the facilities available. But you know the measures are punitive and it actually does produce perverse effects. There can be situations with two solo mums both with a 6-year-old and a 1-year-old when one would have access to the benefit and the other would not. That is entirely possible and yet the Minister says there is nothing punitive in this. There are punitive provisions in this particular bill as well.  
Who supports this bill? Certainly professional after professional after professional came to the Social Services Committee and they did not support this bill. They found so many things wrong with it and that was the overwhelming nature of submissions to the select committee. So the bill’s title could reflect that professionals do not support this—[ 
Bell rung 
]—Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Dr Rajen Prasad. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Thank you. That has been the second time in 2 days that my favourite Chairman has recognised that the person has something more to say. I can see things are looking up at last. Maybe it is something about the second row that does it. But certainly back to the serious point I was looking to hear the views of the professionals who came. You would expect them to have understood what the bill was trying to do. You would expect them to reflect from their experiences why this bill would work and why these provisions would work. But they did not and of course nobody has listened to what they said; hardly any of that has been taken into account. So it could be the “Nobody Believes the Government Bill” because the submitters certainly did not.  
It certainly is a “Government Knows Best Bill” because that is what it has been. It has been that the Government has made up its mind and therefore that will prevail and it has forced this through the House. But of course it could easily be the “Mike Sabin Bill” because he articulated in his one call which I recall in Part 3 what the Government’s perspective was. It actually was the most punitive statement that any member has made in the time I have been in this House—the comment that these are lifestyle choices these women make. I did challenge the Minister to repudiate that statement and to stand aside from it. She did not. Therefore I am entitled to draw from that that it is indeed the Minister’s view and that demonstrates the punitive approach to sole parents and to bringing up children.  
Who are the people who will avail themselves of the provisions in this bill? It has been said quite consistently that it is the poor and it is the poor who are in this position. So this is an anti-poor bill because it is not really designed to make life great for them. It is designed to actually put a whole series of blocks in their way and that also begins to reflect this bill.  
Turning to another line of thinking the bill has been poorly handled. When we go to the commencement date we see that the Minister has had to change that commencement date. Right from the beginning it was a rushed process and maybe that explains the commencement date—I am referring to the commencement date Mr Chairman. It has been poorly handled. The date has had to be changed. The deadlines have not been met. People have not had enough time to submit in a detailed kind of way. Perhaps one of the consequences of that has also been that the information-sharing system which is still being designed is going through another select committee and the two systems have not been synchronised. And now this one survives for 3 years with a review and things will happen. I know the Minister says that it has been tested and it works well but the Privacy Commissioner appeared before us and others from the legal fraternity did as well and these are questions they raised. So the commencement date is a problem and it has had to be changed. One of the consequences of that has been that the information-sharing provisions of this bill are wrong.  
There are just so many things wrong with this bill and I think there is scope for the title to reflect that. We have got a provision for what the alternative title ought to be.  
Finally there has been a lot of reference to quality childcare. The arguments are not convincing. The Minister shakes her head but they are not convincing. That quality childcare should be available is a constant theme from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. If we are going to use these provisions then quality childcare must be made available. As to that 68 percent that the Minister quotes maybe they do have access to that and can afford it by some means but certainly many cannot. Babysitting clubs are not a substitute for quality childcare when mums have to go out. I have given the case of a person having to deal with the demands of two young children and when the 5-year-old goes to school then the parent does have a little bit of time.