|
senate vote 2018-03-19#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-21 09:03:02
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Intent to claim provisions
Description
<p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda related to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Are these the supplementary ones that are already listed on the website? Is that right?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes.</p><p>The CHAIR: Please continue, Minister.</p><p>by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (11) on sheet ES154 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 9, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:</p><p class="italic">     The first 1 January or 1 July to occur after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 2, page 3 (cell at table item 14, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:</p><p class="italic">     The first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October to occur after the end of the period of 2 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 11), omit “The Secretary must take action under this Division”, substitute “This Division is about the Secretary taking action”.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (line 4), omit “must”, substitute “will usually”.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 5 to 7), omit “the participation payment must be cancelled. A participation payment must also”, substitute “be cancelled. In addition, a participation payment must”.</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (after line 13), after paragraph 42AD(a), insert:</p><p class="italic">     (aa) in the case where the participation payment is parenting payment—the person is not someone to whom paragraph 500(1)(ca) of the 1991 Act applies; and</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (after line 21), after paragraph 42AE(1)(a), insert:</p><p class="italic">     (aa) in the case where the participation payment is parenting payment—the person is not someone to whom paragraph 500(1)(ca) of the 1991 Act applies; and</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (after line 31), after paragraph 42AE(2)(a), insert:</p><p class="italic">     (aa) in the case where the participation payment is parenting payment—the person is not someone to whom paragraph 500(1)(ca) of the 1991 Act applies; and</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (after line 11), after subsection 42AF(3), insert:</p><p class="italic">  <i>Special rule—discretion not to take action for certain failures</i></p><p class="italic">  (3A) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary may decide not to make a determination under either or both of those subsections for the relevant failure if it was committed under paragraph 42AC(1)(a) or subparagraph 42AC(1)(c)(i).</p><p class="italic">Note 1: Paragraph 42AC(1)(a) relates to a failure to comply with a requirement notified under subsection 63(2) or (4). Subparagraph 42AC(1)(c)(i) relates to a failure to attend, or to be punctual for, an appointment that a person is required to attend by a notice under subsection 63(2).</p><p class="italic">Note 2: The Secretary may instead cancel or suspend the participation payment under section 80 (see section 42AS).</p><p class="italic">  (3B) In deciding whether to make a decision under subsection (3A), the Secretary must have regard to any matters determined under subsection 42AR(1A) and may have regard to any other relevant matters.</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 15, item 1, page 209 (after line 3), after subsection 42AR(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">     (1A) The Minister may also, by legislative instrument, determine matters to which the Secretary must have regard for the purposes of subsection 42AF(3B) in making a decision under subsection 42AF(3A).</p><p class="italic">(11) Schedule 15, item 1, page 209 (line 4), omit “The Minister may also”, substitute “In addition, the Minister may”.</p><p>Today I'm moving amendments to three schedules within the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. Amendments to two of these schedules, 6 and 10, will just postpone their start dates. These schedules relate to closing widow allowance for new entrants and ensuring that new claimants of unemployment payments connect more quickly with employment services. Amendments to the start dates for these measures are necessary due to the bill not passing before the planned 1 January 2018 commencement date.</p><p>I'm also moving amendments to schedule 15, which relates to the targeted compliance framework. The amendments would prevent ParentsNext participants from receiving four-week penalties for refusing to accept or voluntarily leaving work. While these penalties are appropriate when looking for work as a condition of receiving income support, ParentsNext participants are not required to look for work as a condition of receiving payment. This is because ParentsNext is a pre-employment program rather than an employment program. It connects parents of young children to services in their local community and helps them plan and prepare for employment by the time their children start school.</p><p>The amendments also address an unintended consequence of schedule 15 of the bill, identified through the implementation design process. The new compliance framework will always apply for noncompliance with mutual obligation requirements, including failure to attend an appointment with a provider noted under section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. However, this section is also used by Centrelink to notify income support claimants and recipients of broader administrative requirements, such as providing documents to Centrelink, and should be dealt with through other mechanisms, rather than the compliance framework. This amendment will allow the most appropriate response to be used, depending on the nature of the failure.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>The Labor Party will be supporting these amendments. That being said, we consider them as only very, very minor improvements to the regressive things that are in schedule 15. We are moving our own amendments to schedule 15 which we hope will be successful. Indeed, if they're not successful, we will vote against schedule 15 as a whole. Therefore, I will now speak to our alternative amendments to schedule 15 so that the chamber can consider those and I will also highlight some of the issues with schedule 15.</p><p>We are very much seeking to reinstate waivers and the discretion for the departmental secretary and employment service providers when assessing demerits and financial penalties. We note that the schedule as a whole changes the compliance framework for income support recipients to mutual obligations and participation payments. We also note that, as a two-phase framework, the first phase attributes demerit points to jobseekers who fail to comply with their obligations. If a jobseeker accrues up to four demerit points within six months, the government is seeking to assess them and put them into an intensive phase. In the intensive phase, there are three escalating penalties or strikes. For the first strike the recipient loses a week's payment; for the second strike, they lose two weeks; and, for the third strike, there is a cancellation of that payment and a four-week exclusion from re-application.</p><p>In noting that we support the amendments that are before us, because they make some tweaks, I would also seek to ask some questions about the schedule as a whole. Under the current system, we see 72,000 financial penalties applied each year. Can you highlight for the chamber what, under the proposed system, that will be?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In terms of the targeted compliance framework in schedule 15, the Labor amendment introducing broader discretion to the targeted compliance framework would actually retain one of the ineffective features of the current compliance framework which allows providers to effectively ignore noncompliance when the jobseeker has no reasonable excuse. This results in inconsistent and unfair application of penalties. The National Social Security Rights Network acknowledged this in its evidence at the Senate committee hearing, stating that the new framework:</p><p class="italic">… deals with a range of problems in the existing system. They include an arbitrary levelling of penalties depending on a provider discretion …</p><p>Under the new compliance framework, providers will still exercise discretion as to whether or not they find the excuse offered by the jobseeker to be acceptable, in which case no financial penalty or demerit will be applied. The appointment will just be rebooked, as currently occurs. However, they will be unable to ignore blatant noncompliance with no excuse. DHS will also retain the discretion they currently have in relation to all decisions about applying financial penalties.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>My question asked what, given that change of system, the forecast number of penalties would rise to.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Penalties are expected to slightly increase under the new framework, but, in contrast to the current system, these penalties will only be served by those who persistently and deliberately do not meet their requirements. The expected number of penalties is based on jobseekers' compliance behaviour under the current system, with some conservative assumptions applied about behavioural change.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Minister, I need to check my information with you. I have it noted that, under the current system, there are 72,000 financial penalties applied each year and that, under the proposed system, that will double, not have a slight increase.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I am advised, in relation to the figures I have in front of me, that there is only a slight increase. Under the current framework, the number of penalties applied in 2016-17 was 187,526. The targeted compliance framework penalties applied—estimates only, obviously—in 2018-19 will be 190,478, so that is a slight increase.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>In terms of the change in the penalty regime, do one-week, two-week and four-week penalties still exist for loss of income?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>You can lose one week, you can lose two weeks and then you have a cancellation and lose four weeks under the new targeted compliance framework.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Does the government have estimates for how many people will lose income under each of those categories?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes, we do. In relation to jobseekers losing one week, the estimate is 82,619. I'm talking about jobseekers now. In relation to two weeks, it is 42,152. In relation to cancelling and losing four weeks, it is 22,403. Again, that's jobseekers. That gives you the total of 82,690.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I do want to make a comment on the amendments, but I thought the one-week penalties were 82,690. For the two-week penalties, it's 42,154, and then it's 22,403. But then you said, 'That makes a total of,' and read out the same number as week one. That is what I heard. I may have misheard it.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>No, you didn't. The maths here is not as it should be. You are correct, Senator Siewert. Sorry, can I provide some additional information in response? They were actually the same jobseekers; you were correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I take your point. So you're expecting, then, over half to go to a two-week exclusion and then half of them again. Yes, sorry; I take your point. While I'm on my feet, I will, first off, very clearly remind people where we're up to: the Greens oppose this bill. We think that there are many schedules in this bill that will have a detrimental impact on people struggling on income support. Having said that, we think this series of amendments makes things slightly better. So if the will of the Senate is not what the Greens want—in other words, the bill is supported—these amendments will make the provision slightly better, so we will be supporting these amendments.</p><p>The Greens also have a series of amendments to schedule 15. I'll address those when I move them. We also have a series of questions. Unfortunately, we've had a period of time now—I think it's four weeks—since we were debating this last time, and we did, I know, go over some questions. I will try not to repeat those, but I do have some more questions on the issues here which I think are probably better addressed when I go to my amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Minister, NXT recognises that, under the current system, Newstart and youth allowance recipients are breached and lose payment without warning. NXT believes that every person receiving a working-age payment from the taxpayer should be actively looking for work and/or addressing any barriers to work. However, NXT also wants to ensure that persons not engaging in the jobactive system are continually communicated with and given every possible chance, including a final chance, to engage with the system before losing payments. Will the minister detail how Newstart or youth allowance recipients will be provided with one further chance to engage with the system once all demerit points are exhausted?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Thank you for that question, Senator Patrick. A further demerit point will be added to the process which will give the jobseeker one more chance to comply. Jobseekers will still have two capability assessments before facing any penalties and will return to the start of the demerit phase if it is found that they were not reasonably able to meet their requirements.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Will Centrelink staff be instructed to advise applicants of the provision for the collation of documentation available to vulnerable persons so that applicants are able to make a determination if they fit some of the circumstances in the legislative instrument?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.191.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Labor), which means they will now be included in the bill.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.191.1):
- > *Under this amendment the current intent-to-claim provisions will be retained so as to only apply to claimants who are in vulnerable circumstances. The amendment includes an instrument-making power to allow a legislative instrument to define a vulnerable claimant for the purposes of the intent-to-claim provisions. For all other claimants the date of the claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department. Vulnerable claimants will be those who have a genuine difficulty in collating their documentation. These difficulties will include but not be limited to being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement.*
- >
- > *Amendment (1) omits schedule 11, 'Removal of intent to claim provisions', and substitutes new schedule 11, 'Intent to claim provisions'. New schedule 11 retains and amends the current intent-to-claim provisions in the social security law. As I've stated, these provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances, being a person who is included in the class of persons determined by the minister in a legislative instrument—and I've outline examples of that. This amendment will also remove the requirement for the secretary to give a person a written notice acknowledging the Department of Human Services has been contacted in relation to the making of a claim for a social security payment or concession card.*
-
-
|