Pugh Maureen; Mallard TrevorMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Quite an emotive start to the debate on this third reading of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. There have been some very articulately put points made by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston and I take heed of what she says because she comes from a wealth of experience in this area. She has been here long enough to have seen the patterns over time and to have seen the policies that have worked and those that don't work and I just refer to the comment that the member across the House made about this being a hand up for people on benefit. This is a handout and what happens when you increase money is that you increase dependency.But of course we all want people to live out of poverty so I challenge the Government: why aren't they giving even more money to people on benefit if that is the answer? At the moment people who are dependent on the State for their income are going backwards. They're going backwards on the measures that the Prime Minister herself put in place. Material hardship is getting worse and as a consequence the impact on children is getting worse and their long-term outlook is looking poorer. Now we don't want our children to be locked into the benefit dependency cycle because the evidence around the world is absolutely clear that the longer people stay trapped as a dependant of the State the worse their outcomes are and it's interesting to go back to the different advisory groups that have been around advising policy development. I look at the Welfare Working Group that advised the policy that the National Government brought in in 2010 and then compare it less than 10 years later to the advice that has advised this policy direction. There is no one going to argue that people at the lowest socio-economic levels in this country need more money—absolutely. But one of the best ways that they can increase their incomes is by being in work either full-time or part-time. I have my own lived experience of that with my two children living on benefit. It wasn't until I started working part-time that I actually started to break out of that cycle. The analysis that was used when developing the existing policy was very clear about the numbers of children in this country living in a benefit-dependent home and at that stage we had one in five children who spent seven years of their childhood up to the age of 14 living in benefit-dependent homes. Now that is not only a huge burden on those families to be struggling in that way but it's also a huge burden on the State. As we heard from the Hon Louise Upston we now have 30000 more children in benefit-dependent homes in the last four years and I think that's a terrible testimony to the policy direction and the economic direction that this country is heading in. I would just like to go through some of the criteria that was in place or is still in place until this bill goes through—for people on benefit to prepare themselves to work. The first one is to be available for and take reasonable steps to get a suitable [part-time] job." The second one is to "take any offer of suitable … part-time or temporary work or work that is seasonal or subsidised" to "attend and take part in any suitable job interviews we ask you to" to "take and pass any drug test potential employers or training providers [might] require" to "attend and take part in interviews with [the Ministry of Social Development] as required" to "work with us to plan how you'll find a suitable job" or to "take part in any other activities that we refer you to such as attend any job training courses seminars work experience or work assessments … that will improve your work readiness or help you get [ready for] work".They are not onerous obligations on someone who is receiving a benefit I would argue. It is actually quite reasonable because what we want for people is for them to be able to return to the workforce because we know when they do their children's opportunities are greatly increased.I was so impressed with a submission to the select committee I read it in my second reading speech and I'd like to go back to it because I want to have it on the Hansard for Ali Haidari. He made a submission as a young person and I was so impressed with his objectivity around this. Part of his submission said in talking about this bill that "it will stop parents or a sole parent to get into the workforce as they now have an extra child that they need to look after. Especially for families who rely on the government benefit which [is simply not] enough for them to raise more kids and if they do have another kid then they do not have enough financial support or they are sitting on a government benefit which just isn't enough for them to raise more kids. That's where the child ends up in poverty because the parents cannot financially support them and they are facing hardship." So I think that pretty well sums it up from a young person looking from the outside in and I hope that Ali goes on to have a very successful and productive career.We all know that the welfare system in this country is a safety net and we need that safety net in this country but that's what it needs to remain. But we also need increased and improved employment support for those that are on benefit. So I ask the Government what is replacing those obligations for starting to think about work for the training opportunities for the work-readiness that they may have to participate in because if you remove those obligations and you remove the time frame that you have for someone on benefit to begin thinking about their future and begin thinking about re-entering the workforce then you also stop them from actively thinking about what they need to be able to provide in terms of training for themselves to get back into that workforce. So they need to be thinking about the types of work that they might want to go into and then what kind of training or additional education or even the childcare that they may require the travel expenses etc. etc. Without that obligation to think about a time limit then they don't have to think about how they retrain and re-enter the workforce.The point of the subsequent child policy was actually to reduce the risk of long-term welfare dependency. We want our children to have hope for the future. We want their parents to be actively contributing. We know that when they go to work their self-confidence increases their social interaction improves they work to a routine and so their children live with a routine and the outcome in the long term is much improved. Anyone can give a child a lolly and they will survive for a short time on a sugar rush but after the sugar rush comes the crash and that's what we want to try on this side of the House to prevent from happening.SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."