|
senate vote 2018-03-21#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-14 10:11:43
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Cessation of bereavement allowance
Description
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>by leave—I move Greens amendment (6) on sheet 8243:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of leaving [schedule 4](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5927_first-reps%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5927_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-21.106.1) "*that schedule 4 stand as printed.*"
- ### What does schedule 4 do?
- Schedule 4 ends the bereavement allowance, which is paid to people whose partner has died and paid at a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension. In its place, the Government has proposed a reduced rate to replace it. According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd032#_Toc492651060), it will be about 20% less than the current rate.
<p class="italic">(6) Schedule 5, page 121 (after line 6), after item 17, insert:</p><p class="italic">17A After subsection 603C(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(1AA) If:</p><p class="italic">(a) immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the <i>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Act 2017 </i>(the <i>amending Act</i>), sickness allowance is payable to a person; and</p><p class="italic">(b) sickness allowance would continue to be payable to the person for a period if the amendments to this Act by the amending Act had not been made;</p><p class="italic">the person is not required to satisfy the activity test in respect of that period and any further periods of incapacity immediately following that period.</p><p>and I move:</p><p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 6, item 16, page 144 (after line 15), after subsection 43(1C), insert:</p><p class="italic">(1D) A woman is qualified for an age pension if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the woman was receiving jobseeker payment immediately before 1 January 2022; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the woman would qualify for widow allowance if subsection 408AA(2) was not in force; and</p><p class="italic">(c) the woman is not otherwise qualified for an age pension.</p><p>All the items are important but I'm seeking to deal with them as expeditiously as I can, given the issues.</p><p>Amendment (6) provides for recipients of sickness allowance immediately before the commencement of schedule 5 of this bill to continue to be paid sickness allowance for a period without requiring them to satisfy the activity test for that period or further periods of incapacity that immediately follow the first period. We're extremely concerned about the impact of the changes under schedule 5 on those who are currently on sickness allowance, and we seek to ameliorate that impact to a certain extent with this amendment.</p><p>Amendment (7) is framed as a request for the House of Representatives. It provides that from 1 January 2022 women who were receiving jobseeker payment immediately before that date and who would have been eligible for the widow allowance before 1 January 2018 are eligible for the age pension, even if not otherwise qualified—that is, where they don't meet the qualifying residence requirements.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The government will be opposing these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I'm extremely disappointed to hear that answer. These are issues that were raised by members of the community and also by the National Welfare Rights Network, who raised very substantial concerns, particularly about the provision for widows. I was pursuing questions about that earlier. They are also extremely concerned about the impact on recipients of sickness allowance, given that people who have an illness aren't able to work for that reason, which is why we're seeking to ameliorate some of these issues. We did seek, through amendments, to remove this schedule. That was unsuccessful, so we're trying to ameliorate some of the impacts on people who could be significantly affected by this amendment. Hence, I urge the chamber to support these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Minister, relating to the cessation of sickness allowance, how many recipients will be affected by the transition to the Newstart payment?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that approximately 8,400 existing sickness allowance recipients will continue to receive sickness allowance beyond 20 March 2020, until their current medical certificate expires.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Given the payment is the same as Newstart, how does the government project savings of $6.9 million over the forward estimates?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that the save is due to the reduction in human service costs for servicing of recipients, including checking whether a person has a job to return to.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>One of the reasons for this amendment is to cement some of the comments that the government has made about how this particular provision will work. As I've said, the item provides for recipients of sickness allowance immediately before the commencement of part 1 of schedule 5 of this bill to continue to be paid sickness allowance for a period without requiring them to satisfy the activity test for that period or further periods of incapacity that immediately follow the first period. My understanding is that government has made comments around how this particular provision will operate, so can I ask the government if my understanding is, in fact, correct? Could you confirm that? That gives us at least a record in the <i>Hansard</i> of how this provision will operate, so that there can be a degree of certainty around that transition period.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I've got some information that I'm able to provide to you that will shed light on the issue at hand. The schedule itself, as you are aware, closes the sickness allowance to new entrants on 20 March 2020, and ceases the sickness allowance altogether on 20 September 2020. Just for the benefit of <i>Hansard,</i> sickness allowance is the short-term income support payment for people aged 22 years to under pension age who have a temporary incapacity due to illness or injury and who have a job or study to return to after their recovery. It is paid at the Newstart allowance rate. It is generally granted for the length of a person's medical certificate, up to a period of 13 weeks. If payment is required after 13 weeks, a person must lodge another medical certificate. As I've stated in answer to Senator Patrick's question, around 8,400 existing sickness allowance recipients will continue to receive sickness allowance beyond 20 March 2020 until their current medical certificate expires—so their medical certificate takes them beyond the March 2020 date. Of these existing recipients, it is estimated that around 7,700 will lodge another medical certificate after 20 March 2020 and will be required to transfer to the jobseeker payment. They will be exempt from mutual obligation requirements, if they meet the incapacitated exemption rules. From 20 March 2020, new entrants who would previously have been eligible for sickness allowance will be able to claim assistance through jobseeker payment instead. The new entrants will also be exempt from mutual obligation requirements if they meet, again, the incapacitated exemption rules. That's the information I have to provide to you.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Can I just clarify: if they've gone past the March 2020 deadli ne, they're still incapacitated and t hey get their medical certificate for the next ro und but they transition into job seeker payment and they' ve got a sickness allowance, does that then match up with the same details of the in capacity requirements under job seeker payment?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes, the rate of the allowance is the same.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I obviously didn't giv e enough detail in the question. Th ey've got the medical certificate and they've been on sickness allowance, meeting those requirements. They h ave another medical certificate, but they' ve then hit that wall of the deadlines. They then transfer onto jobseeker allowance. Is that going to enable them to meet the requirements for incapacity under the job seeker payment i n that transition process ? They've got the same illness.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Thank you, Senator Siewert. The rationale at the moment is : do you have a job to go to? For t he persons that you are referring to, on 20 March 2020 there will be some who go over that date , and they'll be exempt from mutual obligation requirements if they meet the incapacitated exemption rule. That's the first cohort. Then there are those , obviously , who are new entrants , and they go straight to jobseeker payment , and they also meet the incapacitated exemption rules. In relation to those rules, it is then about incapacity as opposed to : do you have a job to go to?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Thank you for that clarification. I'm hoping this will be my last question or set of questions. In terms of temporary incapacity under the current proce ss and incapacity under the new job seeker payment , will they be the same? That's a better way of articulating what I was trying to get to earlier.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The answer to the question is yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Linda Reynolds</p><p>The question is that amendment (6) and request ( 7 ) on sheet 8243 be agreed to .</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I just want it noted that the Greens were the only people that supported those amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Linda Reynolds</p><p>Thank you , Senator Siewert . A re you seeking the call again?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p></p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 6, Part 1, page 142 (after line 11), at the end of the Part, add:</p><p class="italic">4A Subsection 729(1)</p><p class="italic">After "subsection", insert "(1A) or".</p><p class="italic">4B After subsection 729(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) The Secretary must determine that a special benefit should be granted to a person for a period if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person meets the eligibility requirements for widow allowance in Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 2.8A; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the person is not qualified for widows allowance on the basis of subsection 408AA(2); and</p><p class="italic">(c) the person is not qualified for newstart allowance; and</p><p class="italic">(d) the person is not qualified for the aged pension.</p><p class="italic">4C Paragraph 733(1 ) ( b)</p><p class="italic">Before "the value", insert "subject to subsection (1A),".</p><p class="italic">4D After subsection 733(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) If subsection 729(1A) applies to a person, whether the value of the person's assets exceeds the person's assets value limit is to be determined by reference to section 408CE (the assets test applying in relation to widow allowance).</p><p>This relates to the cessation of the widow allowance. We are seeking to make this slightly fairer . A gain, we were unsuccessful in removing this particular schedule, so we are trying to make this amendment a bit fairer for those people that are affected on the cessation of the widow allowance.</p><p>This relates to inserting a section (1A) in this schedule. It requires the secretary to determine that a special benefit should be granted to a person for a period if the person meets the eligibility requirement for widow allowance in subdivision A of division 2, Part 2.8A—another set of provisions there. It also puts in an amendment that if subsection 729(1A) applies to a person where the value of the person's assets exceeds the person's asset value limit, that is to be determined by reference to another schedule. In other words, it's relating to some of the people that are affected by the cessation of the widow allowance.</p><p>We think some of these amendments unfairly impact on people currently receiving allowances but also on people into the future. Again, we urge the Senate to support these amendments that make schedule 6 slightly fairer and make the transition process into the jobseeker payment that much fairer.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>In relation to schedule 2, can the minister outline how many people will be affected by the cessation of widow B pension?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that from March 2020 all widow B pension recipients, estimated to be approximately 320, will transfer to the age pension.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Will participants receive any loss of income by transferring to the age pension?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that there will be no change to their payment rate; no widow B pension recipients will be worse off as a result of this measure.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>In relation to schedule 6, can the minister outline how many people will be affected by the cessation of the widow allowance in 2022?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that existing recipients will receive widow allowance until 1 January 2022, when the remaining recipients will be transferred to the age pension. Approximately 420 recipients who were granted widow allowance after reaching age pension age but who do not meet residential qualifications will be transferred to the age pension under transitional arrangements.</p><p>Women who receive Newstart allowance or jobseeker payment who reach age pension age and who do not meet the age pension residency requirements will be required to claim special benefit instead. This will affect 24 people in 2018-19, 68 in 2019-20, 87 in 2019-21 and one in 2021-22.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Will participants receive any loss of income by transferring to the age pension?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>No.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>My question is in terms of this provision and further explanation about why we're trying to move this provision. These amendments to schedule 6 are provisions for women who are over the age pension age, who would have been eligible for the widow allowance if it continued to be open for recipients after 1 January 2018, who are ineligible for Newstart due to their age and ineligible for the age pension due to the residency requirements. We're putting in provisions whereby they would automatically then go onto a special benefit payment with the same means test as the current widow allowance so that their cohort is not worse off than they would otherwise have been. That's why we are seeking to ameliorate some of the provisions of the creation of the jobseeker payment, which rolls a whole lot of allowances into the jobseeker payment. That's the reason for this particular amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Linda Reynolds</p><p>The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1), to schedule 6 at the end of part 1, on sheet 8250 be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|