|
senate vote 2018-03-19#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-14 11:39:11
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Financial hardship
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question now is that Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments (2) to (13) and (15) to (35) on sheet 8393 be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (9)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.270.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means they failed.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Senator Siewert [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.270.1):
- > *These amendments relate to schedule 15, the schedule we've been talking a lot about tonight, which provides for the new compliance regime. The amendments specifically relate to financial hardship. As I articulated in this place in my previous amendments to the bill but also during the debate on other amendments that we've already dealt with, we are deeply concerned about the financial impact this schedule will have on the people who are going to be subject to the new compliance regime.*
<p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 8245 revised together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 15, item 1, page 203 (before line 2), before subsection 42AL(1), insert:</p><p class="italic">42AKA Determination about mutual obligation, work refusal and unemployment failures and severe financial hardship</p><p class="italic">If the Secretary determines that a person commits a mutual obligation failure, a work refusal failure or an unemployment failure, the Secretary must also determine that this section applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person does not have the capacity to undertake any reconnection requirement; and</p><p class="italic">(b) serving the payment suspension period, the reduction period, the unemployment preclusion period or the post-cancellation non-payment period, or having the participation payment cancelled, would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 15, item 1, page 203 (line 5), after "for a period", insert "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 15, item 1, page 203 (after line 32), after section 42AL, insert:</p><p class="italic">42ALA Ending payment suspension periods</p><p class="italic">  (1) For the purposes of paragraph 42AL(3) (b), the Secretary may end a person's payment suspension period if the Secretary determines that:</p><p class="italic">  (a) the person does not have the capacity to undertake any reconnection requirement; and</p><p class="italic">  (b) serving the payment suspension period would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.</p><p class="italic">  (2) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (1) on request or on his or her own initiative.</p><p class="italic">  (3) This section does not limit paragraph 42AL(3) (b).</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 6), at the end of subsection 42AM(1), add "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 30), at the end of subsection 42AN(1), add:</p><p class="italic">; and (c) the Secretary has determined that section 42AKA applies.</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 15, item 1, page 205 (line 25), after "for a participation payment", insert "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 15, item 1, page 206 (line 15), at the end of subsection 42AP(1), add "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 15, item 1, page 207 (line 23), after subsection 42AP(5), insert:</p><p class="italic">  (5A) If the Secretary determines that the post-cancellation non-payment period should end on an earlier day, the post-cancellation non-payment period ends immediately before that earlier day.</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (after line 3), after section 42AP, insert:</p><p class="italic">42APA Ending post-cancellation non-payment periods</p><p class="italic">  (1) For the purposes of subsection 42AP(5A), the Secretary may end a person's post-cancellation non-payment period if the Secretary determines that serving the post-cancellation non-payment period would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.</p><p class="italic">  (2) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (1) on request or on his or her own initiative.</p><p class="italic">  (3) This section does not limit subsection 42AP(5A).</p><p>These amendments relate to schedule 15, the schedule we've been talking a lot about tonight, which provides for the new compliance regime. The amendments specifically relate to financial hardship. As I articulated in this place in my previous amendments to the bill but also during the debate on other amendments that we've already dealt with, we are deeply concerned about the financial impact this schedule will have on the people who are going to be subject to the new compliance regime.</p><p>I also remind the chamber, since it was a while ago when we first started this debate, that we agree that the compliance regime needs to be fixed. It needs to be amended. However, this is being done—and we had a second reading amendment about this—without a full review of the current compliance regime. As I'm sure you know—through you, Chair—that amendment was successful.</p><p>These specific amendments relate to financial hardship. For example, we're seeking to amend item 1 of the schedule to insert, before section 42AL(1):</p><p class="italic">42AKA Determination about mutual obligation, work refusal and unemployment failures and severe financial hardship</p><p class="italic">If the Secretary determines that a person commits a mutual obligation failure, a work refusal failure or an unemployment failure, the Secretary must also determine that this section applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person does not have the capacity to undertake any reconnection requirement; and</p><p class="italic">(b) serving the payment suspension period, the reduction period, the unemployment preclusion period or the post-cancellation non-payment period, or having the participation payment cancelled, would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.</p><p>The other amendments are along similar lines in dealing with this issue of financial hardship, because we're deeply concerned that this issue will not be taken into consideration and in fact the employment provider will not take into account a person's wellbeing and financial vulnerability. So I've moved these amendments. I urge the chamber to support these amendments, because we are deeply concerned about the impact that these changes are going to have on participants.</p><p>And I do have a couple of questions. We did ask a lot of questions, as the minister articulated, in the previous debate on this, just before Christmas, but I do have a couple of additional questions. I'll try not to traverse the same ground.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The government will be opposing these amendments. This is unnecessary and would weaken the deterrence effect of penalties for those persistently non-compliant jobseekers who are deliberately not meeting their requirements while on payment, despite being fully capable. This would effectively be reproducing waivers, which are a significant problem with the current compliance framework and one of the key reasons why we're proposing a new framework.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>The Labor Party will be supporting the Greens amendments. We also tried to amend schedule 15 for similar reasons. We think that the Greens amendments improve the schedule.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>What I want to ask a question about is this. How are we going to ensure that DHS will ensure—sorry, not 'we' collectively—that, particularly—</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>Order, Senator Siewert. Could senators who want to have conversations please move outside. I'm having trouble hearing Senator Siewert, and I'm sure others who want to hear what she's saying are also having trouble.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Yes, it is impacting on my ability to think straight. Sorry, and thank you for that. Okay, there's the first process of the three points, and then we've got, as you get to the fourth point, a demerit point and then five, six and seven. By and large, as I understand the legislation, the employment provider will be dealing with the first three points and the application of that. What I'm keen to know, because there'll be little involvement of DHS before that, is: how are we ensuring that there is consistency across how those points are provided?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>You are correct, Senator Siewert; there is phase 1, which is the jobactive part of the compliance framework, and then there's phase 2, where you're handed over to DHS. In relation to the demerits phase 1, it is set out quite clearly what a demerit event actually is, so there is consistency in applying the demerit point or points.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>You're relying on the way it's set out to ensure that it's being applied consistently and that they're taking into account all the appropriate information? How will that be checked to ensure it is in fact happening?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I am advised that there are exemptions for people with exceptional circumstances, and, if a jobseeker does reach the penalty phase and again fails to meet their requirements, no penalty will be applied if they have a reasonable excuse for their failure. As is currently the case, all financial penalty decisions will be made by the Department of Human Services, not by providers. Jobseekers will continue to be able to appeal against financial penalties, first to a Centrelink-authorised review officer and then, if they continue to dispute, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>That's how I understood it in terms of DHS becoming involved for that second phase. I've got concerns about that too, but it's more the first phase in terms of the consistency and ensuring DHS's involvement. In that phase of the first three demerit points, which are from the employment provider, can people go to DHS and access those appeal provisions that you just articulated?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>There will be guidelines to ensure that the jobactive providers know exactly what they're doing, but they will also be required to undertake training. They will not be allowed to issue a demerit point if they have not undertaken the relevant training.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Is that all officers from all employment providers, or is it the employment providers themselves? When providers get new people in, will they all be required to undertake that training?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>What's the time frame for DHS checking and reviewing that the process is being applied consistently? And then there's the issue of the appeals process for those first three points.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>(As I've stated, there will be national jobactive guidelines, there will be performance monitoring by the department and you can appeal suspensions to DHS.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I understood the suspensions, which are the first, second and third demerit points, but they can't therefore appeal the first three demerit points?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>You can't appeal the demerits, no.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>You can only appeal the suspensions once they have occurred?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>You articulated earlier that there would be reviews. What will the review period be—yearly, six-monthly?</p><p>In terms of the consistency and fairness of the approach that's been taken by employment providers, particularly in the early phase when this is being implemented, how often will those reviews be undertaken? This is a significant change. I have to put it on the record that I get lots of complaints about employment providers—as you'll be aware, since I raise it quite frequently during estimates—and so there needs to be confidence that employment providers are applying this very different system appropriately, fairly and consistently.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p> ) ( ): Senator Siewert, as with any of the programs run by the department, they have a process of continual monitoring, but you'll also be aware that the government has already committed to a review of the targeted compliance framework 18 months after its commencement. This review would of course look at the effectiveness of the framework and any unintended effects, taking into account the views of relevant experts and stakeholder groups. Further, a core role of the Public Service is the continued evaluation, as I've stated, of the programs and policies which they are responsible for implementing as well as staying informed about various stakeholder views. So there is the continuous evaluation and monitoring of the program.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 8245 revised be agreed to.</p> -
-
|