|
representatives vote 2023-03-28#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-04-07 08:07:45
|
Title
Bills — Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail
Description
<p class="speaker">Stephen Bates</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on the sheet revised 27 March 2023, as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (before table item 1), insert:</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "The whole of this Act", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2".</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</p><p class="italic">(4) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</p><p class="italic">(5) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 3 — Cessation of income management</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</i></p><p class="italic">1 After Part 3D</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">Part 3E — Ceasing to be subject to income management</p><p class="italic">124PT Definitions</p><p class="italic">In this Part:</p><p class="italic"><i>subject to the enhanced income management regime </i>has the same meaning as in Part 3AA.</p><p class="italic"><i>subject to</i> <i> the income management regime </i>has the same meaning as in Part 3B.</p><p class="italic">124PU Ceasing to be subject to the enhanced income management regime</p><p class="italic">(1) A person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.</p><p class="italic">(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).</p><p class="italic">(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.</p><p class="italic">(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.</p><p class="italic">124PV Ceasing to be subject to the income management regime</p><p class="italic">(1) A person who is subject to the income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.</p><p class="italic">(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).</p><p class="italic">(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.</p><p class="italic">(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.</p><p class="italic">124PW This Part has effect despite other provisions etc.</p><p class="italic">This Part has effect despite anything in:</p><p class="italic">(a) any other provision of this Act; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the 1991 Act; or</p><p class="italic">(c) the Family Assistance Act; or</p><p class="italic">(d) the Family Assistance Administration Act.</p><p class="italic">2 Transitional rules</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments made by this Schedule.</p><p class="italic">(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) create an offence or civil penalty;</p><p class="italic">(b) provide powers of:</p><p class="italic">(i) arrest or detention; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) entry, search or seizure;</p><p class="italic">(c) impose a tax;</p><p class="italic">(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;</p><p class="italic">(e) directly amend the text of the Act.</p><p>Amendments (1) through (5) on the sheet set out an approach to ensure that we do not have compulsory income management. Because of the limited time between the introduction of this bill and its debate we have had limited time and have drawn on the approach used in the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card. I want to thank the House drafters for their work, particularly during this short time frame.</p><p>As I set out in my second reading speech, we fundamentally oppose compulsory income management. We think it is a flawed and a failed approach. This amendment would enable people who are subject to compulsory income management to exit. That is why it is so important. It is important that we are respecting an individual's human rights and ensuring that there is free, prior and informed consent. This amendment reflects what we've heard from so many people—that compulsory income management is disempowering and harmful. It runs directly to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. This amendment would enable people who are subject to compulsory income management—either the BasicsCard or the Indue card—to request an exit. The secretary would need to respond, confirming their exit within a week. It's a simple, straightforward amendment; it will improve people's lives and it will live up to the principles that Labor espoused in opposition and before the election. I commend this amendment to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Rishworth</p><p>Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Brisbane, and also Senator Rice for her engagement on the amendments. I understand that it's a long-held view of the Greens party to oppose income management. We made a very clear election commitment that we would consult on the future of income management; we do understand that there are mixed views about it within communities. We certainly believe that it's not only an individual option for income management; we also speak with communities about community decision-making. We've had preliminary discussions on that consultation; that consultation work is currently being undertaken, and we're discussing how we would consult. So, firstly, these amendments pre-empt that work and the outcome of those discussions, noting that there are many communities that would like to opt in and have income management for themselves.</p><p>Secondly, this would have some very practical implications. These amendments would potentially have more than 24,400 income management participants able to exit without the right support services around them. Once again, as I said, that would pre-empt that community decision-making. There are also some concerns around the intent of the opt-out amendments, which could create some confusion. While it seemingly allows people to opt out of enhanced income management, in the reality of the full legislation these amendments mean that people would get placed right back in the program. So there is potentially some confusion there and it would provide a lot of uncertainty for vulnerable people.</p><p>The amendments also undermine the Family Responsibilities Commission operating in Cape York. This was a pretty significant debate. In the most recent bill, the one to abolish the cashless debit card, we recognised that the role of the Family Responsibilities Commission in the Cape York region was a self-determined process and that careful consideration needed to be given to its operation. These amendments would affect the way that referrals are done, and the Family Responsibilities Commission has outlined some concerns about that.</p><p>The amendments would also disregard and undermine the role of the states and territories, particularly around referrals to the child protection authorities—referring for the benefit of individuals and contributing to meet the priority needs of the children under their care. There is also the banned drinker register in the Northern Territory, the objectives of which are to reduce the harm to individuals, families and the wider community caused by alcohol misuse, and to reduce antisocial behaviour. These already exist in the income management legislation; the amendments would actually undermine that in the enhanced income management legislation as well as in the income management legislation.</p><p>I would like to thank Senator Rice for her engagement on this, but we are not able to support these amendments. Not only do they pre-empt the government's consultation and discussion with communities but many communities have already discussed this and want to talk about ways that their communities can be part of income management. It would also, practically, be very disruptive and difficult for many—for those 24,000 people on income management.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>INES () (): I just wish to put on the record that I am fundamentally against compulsory income management. I made that very clear in the previous parliament, and I've spoken about it many times. Indeed I voted against the previous government's cashless debit card. I do believe income management should be voluntary. I think there are cases where people wish to or choose to have income management, and that should be available to them. I'm sympathetic to these amendments, but I'm not able to support them today. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is considering these things. I have spoken to the minister, who has reassured me the intent for consultation is genuine and substantial. Again, I very much wish to see that First Nations Australians in particular have the opportunity to be consulted genuinely with integrity on this contentious work that is before us. While I thank the Greens for the work they've put into making good faith amendments on this and I thank the member for his words on this, many of which I agree with, on this occasion I cannot support these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Sukkar</p><p>Just very briefly, the opposition won't be supporting this amendment. It's very clear that the removal of compulsory income management is a disaster for affected communities. You don't need to believe the opposition. You don't need to believe a number of the members who have made outstanding contributions in this parliament to this debate; all you have to do is look at the crime statistics. We warned the government very clearly that abolishing the cashless debit card would be a disaster for those communities. It would unleash alcohol and drugs into those communities and ultimately result in misery for the most vulnerable people in already vulnerable circumstances. We saw statistics out of Ceduna that since this cashless debit card was abolished violent crimes have doubled. For anyone who doubts them, these are not the opposition's statistics; these are South Australian police statistics. We therefore cannot support the amendments.</p><p>We understand the Greens position is very clear. They don't support compulsory income management. The government doesn't support compulsory income management, irrespective of the consequences for vulnerable individuals in already vulnerable communities. Consistent with my earlier contributions to this debate, because at the heart of this bill we will see people on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory get access to the better technology, let's be frank, of the cashless debit card, which has been rebranded by this government at huge cost to taxpayers in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, we will not stand in the way of those on the BasicsCard getting access to the rebranded cashless debit card. For that reason, again, we won't be supporting this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Zoe Daniel</p><p>I also would like to put on the record that I do not support compulsory income management. I appreciate the amendments put forward by the Greens. I will not be voting for them, but I think they make several good points about the issues with what the government is putting forward here today. We've heard some powerful speeches for and against compulsory income management in this chamber this afternoon, and I would particularly point to the speeches from the member for Mayo and the member for Bass, who in effect have opposing positions on this but both gave very powerful arguments for and against compulsory income management. The member for Mayo investigated in a practical way its impact on communities, but the member for Bass also made the point that the very examples just used at the desk point to the fact that when you remove compulsory income management and you see a spike in those behaviours, it proves the point that you cannot have permanent compulsory income management, because as soon as you remove it, the problems will simply re-emerge. So it's the core of these issues that we need to be getting at rather than forcing it in a mandatory way.</p><p>I would like to make the point that I think there are some risks in this bill. I have spoken with the minister, and I thank her for the engagement on this issue. I have some concerns that improving the technology will allow easier rollout of mandatory income management, and that that could become a temptation at a future time. I accept the government's undertakings that they plan to review and potentially dismantle the system overall, and I hope that is the case; I think many of us on the crossbench will take that on trust to some degree. But I would say that there is a risk in this legislation that income management could be expanded to large swathes of the country because of the ministerial powers that are given in this bill. I think that we have to pay regard to that risk as the government goes through a process of future review.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments, moved by the honourable member for Brisbane, be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6989_amend_3d15c6a7-df81-4e2a-949f-e7a33ea3cd1d%22;rec=0) introduced by Brisbane MP [Stephen Bates](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/brisbane/stephen_bates) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Mr Bates [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-28.108.2):
- > *Amendments (1) through (5) on the sheet set out an approach to ensure that we do not have compulsory income management. Because of the limited time between the introduction of this bill and its debate we have had limited time and have drawn on the approach used in the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card...*
- >
- > *As I set out in my second reading speech, we fundamentally oppose compulsory income management. We think it is a flawed and a failed approach. This amendment would enable people who are subject to compulsory income management to exit. That is why it is so important. It is important that we are respecting an individual's human rights and ensuring that there is free, prior and informed consent. This amendment reflects what we've heard from so many people—that compulsory income management is disempowering and harmful. It runs directly to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. This amendment would enable people who are subject to compulsory income management—either the BasicsCard or the Indue card—to request an exit. The secretary would need to respond, confirming their exit within a week.*
-
-
|