|
senate vote 2018-03-19#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-21 08:23:10
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Keep schedules unchanged
Description
<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (8), (17) to (31) and (33) to (38) on sheet 8236 revised together.</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table item 13), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(4) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 14), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(5) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 15), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(6) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 16), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(7) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 17), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(8) Clause 2, page 4 (table items 20 and 21), omit the table items.</p><p class="italic">(17) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 11), omit "The Secretary must take action", substitute "The Secretary may take action".</p><p class="italic">(18) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 26), omit "The participation payment must be cancelled", substitute "The participation payment may be cancelled".</p><p class="italic">(19) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 4 to 7), omit "the person's participation payment must be reduced by either 50% or 100% for a period (in addition to not being payable) or the participation payment must be cancelled. A participation payment must also", substitute "the person's participation payment may be reduced by either 50% or 100% for a period (in addition to not being payable) or the participation payment may be cancelled. A participation payment may also".</p><p class="italic">(20) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 11 and 12), omit "no participation payments are payable", substitute "participation payments may not be payable".</p><p class="italic">(21) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (line 15), omit "participation payment must be cancelled", substitute "participation payment may be cancelled".</p><p class="italic">(22) Schedule 15, item 1, page 198 (line 12), omit "the Secretary must", substitute "the Secretary may".</p><p class="italic">(23) Schedule 15, item 1, page 198 (line 27), omit "the Secretary must", substitute "the Secretary may".</p><p class="italic">(24) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (line 7), omit "payments will not be payable", substitute "payments may not be payable".</p><p class="italic">(25) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (lines 27 and 28), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".</p><p class="italic">(26) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (line 33), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".</p><p class="italic">(27) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (line 1), omit "payments will not be payable", substitute "payments may not be payable".</p><p class="italic">(28) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (line 25), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".</p><p class="italic">(29) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (line 27), omit "payments will not be payable", substitute "payments may not be payable".</p><p class="italic">(30) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (lines 33 and 34), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".</p><p class="italic">(31) Schedule 15, item 1, page 201 (line 3), omit "or must not".</p><p class="italic">(33) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 3), omit "The Secretary must impose", substitute "The Secretary may impose".</p><p class="italic">(34) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 7), omit "The", substitute "If the Secretary imposes a reconnection requirement on a person, the".</p><p class="italic">(35) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 12), omit "The Secretary must determine", substitute "The Secretary may determine".</p><p class="italic">(36) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 23), omit "must, or must not", substitute "may, or may not".</p><p class="italic">(37) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 26), omit "the Secretary must make", substitute "the Secretary may make".</p><p class="italic">(38) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 28), omit "the Secretary must make", substitute "the Secretary may make".</p><p>We also oppose schedules (3), (4), (9) to (14) and (17) in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 3, page 71 (line 1) to page 91 (line 34), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 4, page 92 (line 1) to page 116 (line 25), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(11) Schedule 9, page 166 (line 1) to page 168 (line 3), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(12) Schedule 10, page 169 (line 1) to page 171 (line 27), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(13) Schedule 11, page 172 (line 1) to page 173 (line 2), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(14) Schedule 12, page 174 (line 1) to page 188 (line 9), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(15) Schedule 13, page 189 (line 1) to page 191 (line 24), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(16) Schedule 14, page 192 (line 1) to page 193 (line 4), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(32) Schedule 15, item 1, page 201 (lines 14 to 19), subsection 42AI(3) to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(39) Schedule 17, page 230 (line 1) to page 245 (line 31), to be opposed.</p><p>These amendments go to the substantive parts of this bill and the core reasons that Labor are opposed to it.</p><p>Schedule 3 provides for the cessation of the wife pension. This is not something that Labor support. We note that, of the 7,750 recipients, there are many who would transfer under this provision to the age pension and the carers payment and would be no worse off. Indeed, it makes sense to simplify payments. But I have to say that we are not prepared to see many other vulnerable women on the wife pension go backwards in their access to income support. There are 3,100 women who will be worse off and 2,900 women transferring onto a jobseeker payment. This is not a new area of social security; this has been closed to new applicants since 1995. So you have 2,900 women who will have been out of the workforce for more than 20 years who will be transferred onto a jobseeker payment. This is a pretty extraordinary thing to do to women who have had very little, if any, exposure to the workforce.</p><p>We are also very concerned about the 200 women living overseas who will no longer be able to access any income support other than the support that their spouse is eligible for. We can see that, overnight, they would be $670 worse off a fortnight. This is an incredibly perilous situation to put them into. We have here a group of low-income women who will be left with nothing to live on other than their partner's pension, many of them having been out of the workforce for a great many years. As I said before, they will have been receiving the wife pension for a minimum of 22 years.</p><p>It seems reasonable to us, in the opposition, that this group of women should be grandfathered, to avoid them facing such a significant financial crisis, the kind of crisis that comes with not only deep economic cost but also a great sense of personal distress. There are a reasonably small number of women affected; therefore, there would be a reasonably minimal cost of grandfathering them. It is indeed a cruel and unnecessary cut. In moving these amendments, I ask the government: when putting this schedule 3 forward, did you consider grandfathering the 200 low-income women who will be forced to live on nothing from 20 March 2020, and what would that have cost?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In the first instance, I'll just speak to the amendments that you've moved and then I'll address the question. I acknowledge Labor's support for the schedules that establish the new jobseeker payment, which will be the main working-age payment, and their support for the schedules that streamline the Department of Human Services' collection of tax file numbers and the alignment of social security and disability discrimination law.</p><p>The government does not support the amendments proposed by the opposition, moved by Senator Pratt. The government has paid attention to the views of interested parties and the opposition and has proposed and supported a range of amendments to this bill in both the House and the Senate which will ensure the ongoing sustainability of the welfare system.</p><p>In relation to the cessation of the wife pension and the bereavement allowance, schedules 3 and 4, the government does not support the amendments proposed by Labor to schedules 3 and 4 which would have the effect of continuing the wife pension and the bereavement allowance into the future. Ceasing these payments is an important part of building a simpler system that provides more encouragement and support for people transitioning to work. The amendment proposed by the government will provide an additional payment to newly bereaved pregnant women, to ensure that no bereaved pregnant women will be disadvantaged by the cessation of the bereavement allowance.</p><p>In relation to the amendments to schedule 9, it is disappointing that Labor is not supporting schedule 9, which is designed to increase the chances of older unemployed people finding work. A recent OECD report found there is an unmet activation potential in Australia's labour market and recommended increasing participation requirements for several cohorts, including older Australians. Unemployed people aged 55 to 59 have many productive years ahead of them. This measure, complemented by new and existing assistance, will help mature-age jobseekers gain skills and find work.</p><p>In relation to schedule 10, it is again disappointing that Labor is not supporting this schedule, which changes the start date for some participation payments. We know that more than one-third of jobseekers take longer than two days to connect with their jobactive or Transition to Work provider. This measure is all about ensuring that jobseekers are connecting as quickly as they can to the services that are there to help them find a job and move off welfare.</p><p>In relation to schedules 12 to 14, the bill also includes important measures that will better encourage jobseekers with substance abuse issues to pursue treatment to address their issues so that they can find work and ultimately become self-reliant. The changes to reasonable excuse provisions are needed because it is not consistent with community expectations that jobseekers are able to repeatedly avoid their requirements due to drug and alcohol misuse while refusing to participate in treatment, despite being able to. The changes to exemptions for mutual obligation requirements will also support jobseekers with substance abuse issues to remain connected to their employment services provider and engage in suitable activities to address their barriers.</p><p>The Labor amendments to remove these changes to reasonable excuse and exemptions would simply ensure that vulnerable jobseekers with substance abuse issues are left alone to struggle with their substance abuse, rather than being supported to overcome their issues. While the government is amending the bill to remove the drug-testing trial, the government remains committed to this measure and believes that randomised drug testing can be an effective way of identifying welfare recipients for whom mandated treatment could be successful.</p><p>In relation to schedule 15, the targeted compliance framework, the Labor amendment introducing broader discretion to the targeted compliance framework would retain one of the ineffective features of the current compliance framework which allow providers to effectively ignore noncompliance, even where 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 deals with a range of problems in the existing system. They include an arbitrary levelling of penalties, depending on provider discretion. 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>In relation to schedule 17, 'Information management', the opposition's amendment would also remove the ability to streamline the process of referrals for welfare fraud prosecution, which is central to combating welfare fraud and maintaining the integrity of the social security system. On that basis, the government will not be supporting any of the Labor amendments.</p><p>Senator Pratt, in relation to your question concerning the cessation of the wife pension, you may be aware that Senator Cameron and I discussed this at the last hearing of this bill in December of last year. In relation to the questions that you've asked, I am advised that, no—the government did not consider grandfathering these women and has not costed grandfathering them, as it would create additional complexity, which would be contrary to the intent of the welfare reform bill. Most wife pension recipients living overseas will experience an estimated average loss of $457.10 per fortnight, as the majority of these women currently receive a part-rate of payment due to insufficient Australian working-life residency and/or income and assets. These recipients have access to other income sources besides their wife pension payments, such as foreign pensions and investment income.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pratt, could I just clarify that you're moving all amendments on sheet 8236? Is leave granted for those amendments to be moved together?</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I beg your pardon. I need to work out, in consultation with my Greens colleagues, whether we need to separate out schedule 15 now, but I think we also deal with that later. I don't think it affects us now. It affects us later on. Yes, that's fine; we don't need to do it.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay, so we can remove schedule 15 for now and separate the questions.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Minister, in relation to schedule 3—and I know you answered some of this when responding to Senator Pratt—can you outline how many people will be affected by the cessation of this payment?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.252.1) that the following parts of the bill remain unchanged: schedules 3, 4 and 9 to 14; subsection 42AI(3) in item 1 of schedule 15; and schedule 17. This means the vote didn't pass. However, this vote was [later taken again](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2018-03-19/7) to allow two other senators to take part in it.
-
-
|