Parmar ParmjeetSOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION REWRITE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 24 May.Part 3 Obligations (continued)Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Chair for this opportunity. Very quickly I would to recap that I was talking to my amendment which is to insert new subclause (3) in clause 120. This is about newborn enrolment with general practitioners. My amendment is seeking to improve health and social outcomes for infants and children by requiring that newborns are enrolled with a general practitioner of the family's choice before they are six weeks old.As the committee would have realised this amendment is actually based on my member's bill which the Government is not supporting. So through this amendment I'm giving another opportunity to this Government—which keeps talking big on doing more for children—to show that actually they want to match their words. So this is their second opportunity. This is because in clause 120 Health care enrolment and compliance with core health checks" we see that people who are on a benefit have to take reasonable steps to ensure that each dependent child is enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. Also in that clause we also see that "(2) A person to whom this section applies must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a dependent child under the age of 5 years is up to date with core checks under—(a) the programme that immediately before 15 July 2013 was known as Well Child; or (b) any similar established programme in its place."The issue here is that when people are on a benefit they are provided with all the support and encouragement and they are provided with help to get their newborns enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. But when a person is not on a benefit that kind of support is not available. So to me it's a matter of consistency. Hon Member: So it's compulsory?Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: It's a matter of consistency—when people on a benefit get all that support all that encouragement then other people should also have that kind of encouragement and support available to them.We know that all new mums don't maintain an Outlook diary to remember when to take the newborn for their health check-up. So we want to see that there is a proactive system for everybody not just for families that are on a benefit. I'm sure those new mums will really appreciate getting a call from their nominated general practitioners saying "We have received a pre-enrolment request on behalf of your newborn so could you come to the clinic to complete the enrolment process." I'm sure new parents and new mums will definitely appreciate that because it's very easy to miss appointments in those early days when the family is settling in with a newborn. So it's all about providing support and also because it is in line with what's already in this legislation it makes sense that we see that not only people on a benefit but other people also have a similar kind of support available to them. We also know that if people are on a benefit and they are not complying with this—that is after all the encouragement all the support all the help that they are provided—then there can be consequences. These consequences can be in terms of sanctions. This could be their welfare payment—benefit payment. So that emphasises the importance of getting their children enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. Why can't we have a similar kind of importance put on children that are born to parents that are not dependent on a benefit? So that is what my amendment highlights. I would like to actually ask the Minister to address the committee and tell us if the Minister is deciding not to accept my amendment—this is their second opportunity to prove that they are really wanting to do more for newborns they are really wanting to do more for children. If the reason given is "Because this is just a rewrite bill we are not going to make any policy changes." then I will say this has been such a waste of time. It has been a waste of time of this House a waste of time of the select committee process and a waste of time for all the submitters because while we are rewriting this bill—and I fully understand the rewrite was required because it became so disjointed with so many amendments in this bill and in this part as well—we want to make sure that we are efficiently using the House's time. Something that is so crucial so important—why can't it be extended to all parents? It will be a very easy amendment. So that's why I want to move my amendment which is to see that all newborns are enrolled with general practitioners.In my previous call I have already described how this amendment or this enrolment process would work. It's really important to see that the newborn's family gets to choose the general practitioner. So that is part of this amendment as well. So they decide which general practitioner they want to see for their newborn. Then it's about getting a call from that general practitioner to ensure that the newborn actually is enrolled and is connected to all the services that children of people that are on benefit can be connected to—and as I said before clause 120(2) is connecting them to Well Child or any similar programme established in its place.So it's a matter of equity. This service should be available to all parents irrespective of their dependence or independence in terms of their income. I truly believe that all newborns deserve to be looked after and connected to these various services that are available free of charge. It's not only for newborns but new mums also get a lot of services through the Well Child programme which are—[Bell rung]"