Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill – Committee Stage – Part 1 – Video 4
Articles,  Blog

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill – Committee Stage – Part 1 – Video 4


in which this government is attempting and no doubt will do thank you mr. chinnough I called the Honorable Alfred Jodl it’s interesting that the Minister has thought of it one of his Davises that she made was that she’s only doing what the public have asked well the public asks for rocks for children’s can’t to be stayed open the public asked for partnership schools to remain open and functioning as part of schools but however the minister is seated she’s doing what the public sees I don’t think that rings true from this side of the house and I think all of those inside there in the public that are listening today maybe a little bit confused by the minister’s words mr. chair in regards to the comments that the minister made around this and the SOPs being policy neutral and her response to the fact is it the reason why we do not have her to put department of disclosure statement is because the official said that this was policy neutral so if she was claiming that the policy that there buys has said that the removal of it through there’s it’s a piece of those amendments where policy neutral then why in the second brief that you also say that because they were snuck in as being policy statements and I think the fact is there’s a bit of confusion by the minister there because as quill is it’s clearly not indicating the factor said they weren’t policy statements so why didn’t they have a disclosure statement in it as well but I want to go to the heart of what we are talking about here and it’s in part one of this bill and in particular what the minister in the current government had been saying to us is that we’ve smack the Sun in other words when we thought locate part for the principles and we look at Clause 4 and especially sub-clause C and E it says to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency mr. chair I have to say one of the interesting challenges is that it’s been called a stigma as we call the factors that we’re imposing this view and in other words some words they say it’s benefit beneficiary bashing that’s not the truth the truth is mr. chair is the fact if one looks back at Part 1 and the purpose of the Act and here’s what it says this is an act that’s over half a century olders from 1964 and and it’s Clause or purpose it declares this to help people support themselves and the dependents well not in paid employment if one turns over in part sub-clause part two is says to help people find a retain paid employment and in three to help people for whom work is not currently appropriate be sickness injury disability mr. Chia what it’s clearly stating it’s the circumstances that one at a family or an individual finds themselves in that the role of the Social Security Act and the responsibilities of the ministry is to support them but more intentionally to help them out of that circumstance and situation that’s what was intended back in the days when Joseph’s service stepped back and the government of the day put together the Social Security Act of 1964 the principle was this that the best thing for all people is work so therefore what is wrong with this clause here to help achieve the best possible outcome is there anything wrong with that statement no for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency is there anything wrong with that statement all it states is this if the intention of us is to do good why would we allow people to still be dependent on a welfare benefit no if it is our intent to do good then we should be helping support them and in what to congruent with the purpose of the Act that’s what the intention is so I take exception to the to the to the minister saying defectors these clauses were mean-spirited these causes should not be included when the intent of the clause is quite clear and it says this their image they may identify appropriate assistance support and services under the sec for those people mr. Chia I have to say to you when one thinks through this the wording of there is quite specific it’s identifying who are the people that we should be supporting how would you wrap around their support to ensure that we help them in the best possible way it’s congruent and consistent with the purpose of the Act it’s consistent in the ways of what we’re trying to do when this government stands up and proclaims the fact is that we’re here to help the people their welfare and their concerns then I cannot see how the government of the day can oppose this inclusion of this bill and mr. chair I have to say I’d like to see some more robust and rationale they would come out on the on the government side to explain the reasons why it explains the reasons why when we look at the cupboard the previous government it was under the national-led government that 85,000 children were actually bought our out of welfare dependent homes eighty-five thousand you see the thing is what will happen is this this government of the day will not see the target will not see the figure and what they will do they’ll just open up their arms because everyone loves populist politics to care and love is he will do good but the truth is the legacy they will leave behind is another generation dependent on welfare mr. chair I have to say that’s going to be the real concern servicing manners Missouri in our communities and in our country Michael Symon O’Connor very pleased to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *