Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. We've already heard a lot of history in the House tonight and that's really important. It's a wonderful way to mark history to bring evidence and put it in front of the House. We've heard about the need—and the agreement across the House about the need—to enable the McLean Institute to move with the times allowing them to support women and children in need of welfare assistance in a way that accommodates today's social challenges. And—usual story—I always look for a teachable moment. This legacy that has come from—we heard from the other side of the House—someone who truly understands that any one of us could fall on hard times and that we must do all that we can to look after each other. We heard about the definition of straitened circumstances" which we know that we have plenty in our community today that live in straitened circumstances. It is interesting comparing the wording that we had brought to us that is in the preamble to the bill—we've had a couple of members discussing this tonight—and comparing that to clause 5 which modernises the purposes. I think there's a really interesting question to ask ourselves as we reflect on how we used to describe each other and how we used to look upon who was worthy of support—the idea that you had to be 18 to be considered an adult in the eyes of the boundaries that were put in and that you didn't need help if you were over 10 and the idea about what we do with those between 10 and 18. We all know that they are some of our most vulnerable young people that really need looking after. So that gap is a really fascinating insight into the way that society looked upon itself. What do you do at 10? I don't know go out and get a job in a coal mine on the West Coast. I don't know. The idea that you have to have lived in the colony for three years was interesting and so was the idea that so many of us back then were immigrants. So it makes an interesting observation about who should and shouldn't be included in this assistance.We've also heard about the old-age pension. Well I'm quite sure that there are many I know—maybe even a few in the House—that would consider that if you're on the super you're not necessarily old. So these were some interesting observations about how we take note of our social identity and the fabric of modern society and we see that reflected in the purposes when we've stretched the idea for women and children who are in need—no age limits and no requirements.In the original preamble they talk about people who are able to live in harmony under the same roof. Yet in the purpose of the new bill we talk about those who are in distress due to mental health or addiction issues disability trauma violence homelessness poverty or dislocation—possibly the polar opposite of how society looked upon those in need and what they needed. Obviously they needed a roof over their heads and we've heard about the beautiful home that was built in order to provide that roof but also to provide a home a place where people could feel safe. That's what we need today: a place where people can feel safe or a place where they can be supported in their straitened circumstances. We see that the people who might need help—and what they need help with—may have changed over time and we've seen that reflected in the change from the preamble to the purpose in clause 5. What we do know is that the original intent of supporting those in straitened times hasn't changed. So I think there is a really interesting history lesson. It's really good for those of us in this House who are constantly trying to do our best to support the most vulnerable in our community to be constantly checking whether we are actually considering the people that we need to consider. I think it's a really interesting lesson. I'm looking forward to seeing this go through the rest of the process. It's an important piece of work to make sure that they can continue to do this really important work for their community. And it's because of that that I commend this bill to the House."