Garrett David: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13132] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will try to make a speech that agrees at least in part with all sides of the debate which is no easy thing; I will see how long it takes before the shouting starts. 
Firstly it is certainly a myth that vast hordes of solo mothers—as the old term used to be; I do not really like the word “beneficiaries”—are out there rorting the system and having a wonderful old time. That is a myth. It is certainly a myth that the lifestyle enjoyed by beneficiaries on the domestic purposes benefit—or indeed on any other benefit—is luxurious. That is a myth. Equally it is a myth that no one chooses—or as Ms Sepuloni conceded only a few choose—that lifestyle. 
As the two previous speakers have used anecdotes in their speeches I will use one in mine. In the last 3 weeks or so I ran across an acquaintance whom I had not seen for more than 10 years. I wrote about this in a column that I write elsewhere. The woman was heavily pregnant and I remarked upon that and we went off and had a coffee. I ascertained that this was a planned and welcomed pregnancy that had cost money because it was an in vitro job. 
When I casually asked what the plans were for raising the child my acquaintance who is not an unintelligent woman and not a young woman said that of course she would be applying for the domestic purposes benefit. I asked what she meant by “of course”. I asked whether she understood that that money comes from the rest of the taxpayers and I quoted the late great journalist Frank Haden. He said on many occasions that the “Gummint” as he called it has no money; the “Gummint” uses ours. My acquaintance purported not to understand what I meant. She said that it was her right to raise children on the domestic purposes benefit paid for by the Government. I tried again and explained that the Government has no money; it uses mine it uses Ms King’s and it uses every other worker’s money. At that unfortunately the coffee turned rather frosty. In response to that column I have received several emails from people whom I do not know who have cited similar cases so to say that those kinds of cases are almost unknown or extremely rare is sadly not true. 
The other thing as I said at the beginning of my speech is that it is not a luxurious lifestyle but that is part of the problem. We have created a society where it is seen as acceptable and perhaps not too bad to be on the domestic purposes benefit. The result is impoverished children impoverished mothers and great difficulty with regard to the societal problems that have been addressed by members on the other side of the Chamber. 
I agree with the Labour Party that the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is almost laughable with regard to the loopholes that it has created. The Labour members would not call them loopholes but whatever those members call them those exemptions can be claimed so as to avoid the consequences of the bill. We need to create a society that reaffirms the old cliché that welfare is a hand up and not a handout. It is not to be considered a lifestyle option. It is not a good idea to plan for it. 
One of the correspondents I have heard from over the past few days said that she was astounded that at the careers evening at her daughter’s school—an upper decile school—it was considered an acceptable career option to be a solo mother. That is appalling. It is appalling on a whole pile of levels. It is appalling for the taxpayer but mostly it is appalling for the child. Imagine saying— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Where’s the bloke in all this? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Well Ms Sepuloni insisted on talking about women. We will talk about parents; it does not matter—we will say a solo parent. Imagine creating a system as we have where a viable career option is to be a solo parent. What a disgraceful situation we have got ourselves into. 
This bill goes nowhere near far enough. I was sitting listening to the Minister for Social Development and Employment speaking and thinking that as a lawyer I could drive a truck through all those exemptions. It will not be hard for people to find their way out of working. We need a far more fundamental attitudinal change and this bill does not achieve that.