Tanya Plibersek's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence | Adjournment | House debates
This year we've already had a number of very painful reminders of why, as a nation, we have to be relentless in our commitment to end domestic, family and sexual violence. We have to make sure...
This year we've already had a number of very painful reminders of why, as a nation, we have to be relentless in our commitment to end domestic, family and sexual violence. We have to make sure that every child has the opportunity to grow up safe, loved and hopeful for their future. Like so many Australians, I was shocked and heartbroken when I heard that Sophie Quinn, her unborn baby, her aunt Nerida Quinn and her friend John Harris had been killed. I'm just as devastated that Sophie and Nerida were two of at least six women who have been killed in the last two months alone. Every single death reminds us of what is at stake. That's why we will continue, as a government, to address the gaps that remain in our national effort to reinforce what works and to make sure that we adapt to the pervasiveness of family, domestic and sexual violence. We understand that the character of this violence changes over time, including as technology changes. We've made the leaving violence payment permanent so that women have the financial support they need to leave. We've invested in responses to perpetrators of violence that break that cycle of violence. We're investing more than any government before, with over $4 billion since 2022, and, of course, an additional $3.9 billion into legal services as well. But it's not just about dollars spent; we have to drive a seismic shift in our community. The Commonwealth government has a real, large and serious degree of responsibility here, and so do the states and territories, but so do all of us in our individual lives have a responsibility to shift the culture that turns a blind eye to violence—or worse, tacitly permits it. We need to take account of changes in technology, and that's why we've taken world-leading action to address the impact of harmful technology like nudify apps and undetectable stalking tools. It's why we're investing in educating young men and boys, in particular, about consent and healthy relationships. We know that there are a lot of amazing role models out there doing fantastic work. We need to make sure that more young men and boys have that influence in their lives. It's why we're investing in essential frontline services, it's why we're making sure that universities respond appropriately to the unacceptable rates of sexual assault on campus, and it's why we're making changes to the family law system, as well, to make sure that the presumption of shared responsibility is properly understood so that we continue to put the best interests of children at the very heart of any decisions in family law. This is about making sure that all of our systems work for victims of family, domestic and sexual violence. Today I was very proud to introduce a bill establishing an independent National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People. We know that there are still too many gaps for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people when it comes to starting school with developmental delays and when it comes to the way that mainstream services, like our big health and education systems, serve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. It's why we need to address the unacceptable number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children entering our out-of-home care systems and juvenile justice systems. We need to make sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids can expect all of the same good things as any child in this country: great education systems, starting school school-ready, thriving through their schooling years with a great job at the end of it, and specialist systems that work for them, too. At the moment, we know that we're letting too many children down. We have the opportunity to change that and, as a government, we are absolutely committed to doing that. Question agreed to. F ederation Chamber adjourned at 13:32
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, we have been hard at work restoring trust in Australia's social security system. This is...
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, we have been hard at work restoring trust in Australia's social security system. This is one of the critical tasks of government, because, without the trust of the Australian taxpayer and income support recipients, the social security system loses legitimacy in the eyes of the community. That was the legacy of the coalition government and of robodebt. Across consecutive budget cycles and record funding, the government has restored fairness and adequacy for many income support recipients by raising the rate of working-age and student payments to help ease cost-of-living pressures. Since we were elected, we have increased the annual single rate of JobSeeker payments by almost $4,000. This is as a result of the government's real increase to working-age and student payments of $40 per fortnight, along with regular indexation. We have increased Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates by nearly 50 per cent through real increases in 2023 and 2024 as well as indexation. We are providing more support through our changes to parenting payment single, which has expanded eligibility for the payment to around 106,000 single parents. We are expanding paid parental leave to a total of 26 weeks by the middle of this year, with superannuation now paid on top of paid parental leave. Parents who have a child today can receive almost $12,000 more through the Paid Parental Leave scheme than when we first came to government. And, from 20 January 2026, the government will increase the small debt waiver threshold to $250, to be indexed annually, with around 1.2 million small debts expected to be waived or no longer needing to be raised in 2025-26 as a result. Access to special circumstances debt waivers was also expanded for more victims of financial abuse and coercion, specifically those coerced into providing false information to the government by their abusers. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 marks another important milestone in strengthening the legal framework for Australia's social security system. It's a largely technical bill and reflects the need for social security legislation to be dynamic and to evolve with the policy intent of government and as external challenges demand. The bill also responds to priorities identified through the Legal Compliance and Remediation Program within Services Australia. Many are being resolved simply by policy or system changes in Services Australia, but other changes require legislation. Again, the robodebt era saw too many of these hidden away, put in the too-hard basket or left for someone else to fix. Minister Gallagher and I are responding to these issues as they arise and as they come to our notice. This bill gives legal clarity to long established practice and policy intent across four key areas: firstly, clarifying the commencement date of child support periods when the Child Support Registrar receives information about a parent's tax assessment; secondly, clarifying that child support eligibility is limited to those with more than 35 per cent care of a child; thirdly, allowing for urgent payments to be provided to eligible recipients outside the standard fortnightly cycle; and finally, upholding as existing arrangements for the assessment of employment income, particularly income earned by support by partners of income support recipients. The bill amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the Assessment Act, to allow a child support period to start a month later than currently provided for if a new child support assessment is made after the 15th day of the month. This ensures that parents have sufficient time to adjust to a new child support assessment before it comes into effect. Currently, where a new tax assessment is received by the Child Support Registrar after the 15th day of the month and a new child support assessment is made in that same month, the legislation requires that a new child support period commence from the start of the next month. That means in practice that parents may have as little as one day to adjust to a new child support assessment. The amendments will ensure that where a new child support assessment is made after the 15th day of a calendar month, the new child support period will begin from the first day of the second month following the assessment. The practical effect here is that, when a new assessment is made requiring a higher or lower child support payment, we ensure that parents have the following month to prepare for the change instead of potentially just one or two days. The bill also amends the Assessment Act to fix legislative anomalies that could allow parents with less than 35 per cent care of a child to be entitled to child support. It is a longstanding principle of the system that a parent or carer who has less than 35 per cent care of a child is not eligible to receive child support for that child as they do not bear a significant enough burden of the direct costs of care. In most cases, the existing legislation ensures a parent with more than 65 per cent care is not required to pay child support. This ensures parents who provide the clear majority of care have sufficient resources to financially support their children. These amendments ensure that a parent with less than 35 per cent care is not entitled to receive child support, and it validates decisions made since 2008 with that effect. These amendments are necessary as amendments made in 2008 and 2018 to child support law had the unintended consequence of technically allowing some parents with less than 35 per cent care to be eligible for child support. It was never the intention of parliament to make such a change, and these amendments correct this technicality. The amendments will also validate previous decisions which have been made on this basis to provide certainty for parents and carers, and the changes uphold the objects, principles and policy intent of the Child Support Scheme and reflect consistent practice over decades. While these two measures clarify technical legal aspects of the current operation of the Child Support Scheme, I'd like the House to note that there is much more work to be done to ensure the scheme delivers children the financial support they are owed and is safe for women at risk of violence or abuse. I expect to have more to say on further improvements to the child support system later this year. The bill also amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to strengthen the legislative basis for making urgent payments to people experiencing financial difficulties in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. Urgent payments are a longstanding and important part of the social security system, providing immediate financial assistance to vulnerable people in emergency situations. An urgent payment is not an additional payment but enables a person to receive a portion of their usual fortnightly entitlement early. Currently, a person can generally only receive two urgent payments in a 12-month period. This limit will be removed. Instead, other safeguards will be implemented to ensure people still have enough funds on their usual payment delivery day to cover their regular expenses. These safeguards will include limiting the payment amount to a maximum of between $20 and $200, and up to 50 per cent of the person's accrued entitlement (whichever is lower) after any deductions (such as Centrepay) or repayments have been accounted for. People who access a high number of urgent payments will also be offered personalised support. This could include referrals to financial counselling services or to social work services, as well as alternative payment arrangements like weekly payments and Centrepay. The government has increased funding for frontline emergency relief and financial wellbeing services by 25 per cent. These services are a lifeline when people are doing it tough. And we've expanded our No Interest Loans Scheme, with more than $48 million over five years supporting people and families on low incomes. This gives them access to safe, fair loans with no interest, no fees and no charges. Every year, around 25,000 of these loans help Australians cover essential expenses without falling into debt traps. Making sure that people who are frequently making use of urgent payments know about these services and are able to use them is an important way of helping people manage their money longer term. Finally, the bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to clarify the legal basis for the operation of employment income attribution provisions, which support the determination of a person's rate of social security payment. In particular, these amendments will clarify that these provisions apply to the employment income of a social security recipient's partner, for the purposes of income testing that recipient, and that the provisions apply at any time employment income is being assessed for the purposes of working out a recipient's rate of pension or benefit. These amendments will uphold long-established policy intent and practice. They will ensure that there is no ambiguity around how employment income, particularly partner income, should be assessed when determining a recipient's rate of payment. Together, the amendments in this bill improve the fairness and effectiveness of our social security safety net and ensure that there is legislative clarity in how the social security system supports people when they need it most. Debate adjourned.
National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 is part of a...
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 is part of a package of two bills which together will create the statutory office of the National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People and the commission as a statutory agency. This bill provides for the transition of the executive agency, established in January 2025, and the incumbent national commissioner to the permanent statutory agency and statutory office. Debate adjourned.
National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am honoured to bring to parliament the bill to legislate the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am honoured to bring to parliament the bill to legislate the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People. This bill delivers a permanent, independent statutory agency, led by a national commissioner, with the necessary powers to improve the lives of Indigenous children and young people today and into the future. Experts and advocates have been calling for these reforms since the 1980s. SNAICC, the peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, in their 1991 State of denial report, asked for 'legislation to recognise the unique rights of Indigenous children'. In 2019 over 70 organisations, children's commissioners and guardians came together to call for a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner to hold systems and services accountable. They described the levels of discrimination and disadvantage being faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children at the time as 'widespread, systemic and intergenerational'. Sadly, these sobering assessments have continued, but so too has the tireless advocacy to change them. Today I want to commend the countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders whose sustained work and unwavering commitment has led to this moment. I especially want to acknowledge the Safe and Supported Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leadership Group, and all the incredible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander state and territory children's commissioners, guardians and advocates for the important role they've played in developing this bill. And, of course, the voices of a group of 12 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people who shared advice on what the commissioner can do to make a difference. They highlighted: I want to thank them all for the role they've played in bringing this to fruition. This was a truly collaborative process, and I'm deeply grateful to everyone involved. I'd also like to thank Lil Gordon, an experienced public servant and effective advocate, for her service as the acting commissioner; the National Children's Commissioner, Deb Tsorbaris; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Katie Kiss; and of course, Sue-Anne Hunter, who is in the gallery with us today, who is now the permanent national commissioner of the body we're legislating today. Ms Hunter is an inspiring, highly qualified and highly respected leader. When taking up this role, she said: 'The work is urgent and the statistics are grim. But our children are not statistics, they are our future and they will be at the centre of everything we do.' I've no doubt that under her leadership, we will reach our shared goal of ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people have equal access to all of the opportunities that our nation has to offer. To reach that aim, this bill enables the national commissioner: We know that the Closing the Gap targets relating to development, child protection, safety and justice are off track. We know that there is more to do, both at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels—just as we know that to meet Closing the Gap targets, we have to deal with systemic issues. This bill gives the national commissioner powers to identify and call out persistent disadvantage demonstrated by these alarming figures. All too often, the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are not heard in the decisions that affect their lives. The measures in this bill will change that, by listening to their experiences. The national commissioner will have the power to speak directly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people, and their families on matters impacting their lives, their hopes, and their futures. This might mean sitting down with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Darebin in Naarm (in Melbourne), or in Redfern on Gadigal country (in Sydney), on Mer Island in the Torres Strait, or in Yuendumu in Warlpiri country (in the Northern Territory), acknowledging and recognising that their opinions and perspectives are fundamental for lasting change. This bill ensures the best interests of children and young people are at the centre of the commissioner's work—which will be characterised by collaboration and strengthened national coordination. Where necessary, the commissioner will work with state, territory and Commonwealth agencies to identify and recommend solutions on systemic issues. The national commissioner will make sure that governments take responsibility for how their policies impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, while working to improve outcomes for those children and young people. This bill also gives the commissioner discretion and independence to conduct inquiries into matters affecting the rights, interests, development, safety or wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people—powers that the commissioner will exercise while upholding Australia's international human rights commitments, with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. Where appropriate, ministers may request the commissioner inquire into a particular matter. The commissioner can publish reports and submit them to the minister, to be followed by tabling in parliament within 15 sitting days. Further, the bill·gives the commissioner information-gathering capabilities, including the option to require information or ask people and organisations to respond to written requests, powers that mean governments are held publicly accountable should they fail to respond to such requests for information and documentation. Children and young people need to understand their rights to be able to exercise them. This bill supports the commissioner to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people understand their rights while also ensuring that their views, needs and experiences inform our decision-making. In introducing this bill, I can't help but reflect on the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people that I've met with and been inspired by over many years. It makes me think of the young people in Redfern who wake up at 6 am three times a week to attend the Clean Slate Without Prejudice program, a program that instils a sense of pride and community through group activities and mentoring, and the amazing mentors that have grown out of that program. They're making great choices every day. They are disciplined, they're committed and, when they show up, they're learning lifelong skills. I think of Jasmine Yunupingu, who created the Girl Power Group in 2021. That saw her use her own money to cook and share a meal with victims-survivors of sexual violence, so they felt safe enough to tell their stories. Or the young Indigenous rangers that I met in Murujuga, who are protecting and managing the now World Heritage listed site and its two million petroglyphs, some of them so old that the tectonic plates of the earth have shifted and they lie on seabed floor. These rangers have shared with me the importance of learning from their elders, managing their cultural heritage and protecting their country for future generations. This has been a common story for all of the young Indigenous rangers that I've met around the country. And, of course, I think too about the young people on our youth advisory group for the Create Foundation, who are drawing on their experiences in out-of-home care to change the system for the next lot of kids. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are heirs to over 65,000 years of continuous culture. They have a right to learn their culture and language, just as they have a right to stay connected to their country, their family and their community. And, of course, they have a right to a safe home, a right to health, a right to an education that allows them to find their purpose, to find meaning and to find a job. Too often, though, government policy has damaged and disrupted their young lives. It was a Labor government that said sorry for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that created these harms. It was a Labor government that apologised for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and country. And, today, it is a Labor government that is promoting and protecting the cultural identity and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people with this bill. To get there, we'll ensure this legislated national commissioner is resourced properly. Our government is investing a total of $33½ million over the four years from 2025-26 and $8.4 million a year ongoing to support the commission's operation. This funding will ensure that the national commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to deliver on and comply with its intended statutory functions and obligations. What parents and families want for their children is the opportunity to succeed, now and into the future. When we get it right for children and young people, our entire nation benefits. Every child deserves to grow up connected to their family, community and culture. They deserve to be heard, to be protected and, of course, to be loved. They should expect that, with hard work, no job, dream or opportunity is off limits to them. This bill will drive meaningful change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people that can be sustained throughout their lives, benefiting each one of them and, of course, all of us as Australians. Debate adjourned.
Education | Constituency Statements | House debates
As students, families and teachers return to school for the new school year, I want to recognise the hard work that's happening in every classroom and every staff room around Australia, from...
As students, families and teachers return to school for the new school year, I want to recognise the hard work that's happening in every classroom and every staff room around Australia, from Bourke Street Public School in my electorate all the way over to Grovelands in Perth. Education is deeply personal to me. My parents came here as refugees after the Second World War. They didn't have anything. They didn't even have much English language. Every opportunity I and my brothers have had was because of the excellent education that we received through the public education system here and the opportunities that opened up to us, and I want every single child to have those same opportunities. That's why, when the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments cut public school funding, we voted against it and we promised to fix it, and indeed I'm proud that we have. Our government is continuing the historic work of ensuring that every public school is fully funded, with investment tied to evidence based reforms. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will deliver substantial Commonwealth investment over the coming decade, lifting student outcomes and closing the equity gaps that hold too many children back. That means literacy and numeracy checks in year 1, targeted interventions like small-group and catch-up tutoring, stronger mental health programs, and support for teacher development and retention. We've taken world-leading action to tackle online harms via our social media ban for children under the age of 16 and introduced restrictions on predatory technologies like nudify apps and undetectable stalking tools. These reforms put children's safety first, and they follow bans on phones in schools during school hours, which teachers and parents—and kids—will tell you mean that more kids are playing and talking to each other in the playground and fewer of them are scrolling at lunchtime. We know that too many parents are worried about bullying and too many children are still being harmed by bullying, and that's why we've asked schools to act faster. The Anti-Bullying Rapid Review will push schools to respond within two days to a complaint or an incident of bullying. Teachers and parents have also told us that they need the right tools and training, so we're investing $10 million into antibullying resources. This year also marks extraordinary progress in early childhood education, backed by a $5 billion investment. Australian children are now eligible for three days of subsidised early education and care—an extra 100,000 families in which parents will be returning to work and supporting those children. There are also pay increases of up to 15 per cent for early education workers. We've got free TAFE and university debt relief as well. So, in every area of education, we're making sure that Australians have the opportunities to get a great start in life.
Paid Parental Leave Scheme | Questions without Notice | House debates
Thanks so much to the member for Holt for her question. I know she is a huge supporter of paid parental leave, and it was lovely to see Baby Ilija yesterday. He is growing up so quickly. Before...
Thanks so much to the member for Holt for her question. I know she is a huge supporter of paid parental leave, and it was lovely to see Baby Ilija yesterday. He is growing up so quickly. Before the Rudd and Gillard governments, Australia was one of the very few developed nations that had no paid parental leave scheme. Labor started paid parental leave, and we are expanding it. And from 1 July this year, we will expand it again. Families will get the benefits of a full six months of paid parental leave. Under this Prime Minister, people who are receiving paid parental leave are already $12,000 better off—just since 2022. We have almost doubled paid parental leave since coming to government, and 180,000 families are benefiting from our changes. Our changes mean: more time—the full six months; more money; higher payments, and also superannuation, on paid parental leave; more flexibility, so more time for mum and dad to take off together; and more people eligible as well. And, of course, when they go back to work, mums and dads get cheaper child care as well, saving thousands. Of course those opposite have not been clear on paid parental leave—not ever. It was in fact former Treasurer Joe Hockey who called mothers 'double dippers'—on Mother's Day! It was former prime minister Scott Morrison who called them 'rorters'. And when those opposite tried to introduce their own scheme, the member for Mitchell called it 'unaffordable and unsustainable and an albatross around the neck of the party'. And the member for Goldstein said to me: 'It's a very bad scheme. It's not my choice that women have children; it's genetic.' They have always been a mess on paid parental leave. And if we needed a reminder of that, we had a tragic one during the debate on Baby Priya's bill when we had the member for Canning, the member for Bowman and the member for Barker hijack the debate on Baby Priya's bill. While the Liberals and the Nationals have always been ambivalent about paid parental leave, we are absolutely clear on this side: we support new families; we support new parents; we support this investment. We are delivering. They are in disarray.
Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence | Questions without Notice | House debates
I want to thank the member for Warringah for her question. I know the members for Warringah, for Kooyong and for Mackellar have written to the Prime Minister in similar terms, and I absolutely...
I want to thank the member for Warringah for her question. I know the members for Warringah, for Kooyong and for Mackellar have written to the Prime Minister in similar terms, and I absolutely understand where they're coming from and the intent of their letter and this question. The government absolutely agrees with the urgency of the issues that the member for Warringah is raising. But the truth is—and frontline workers will tell you this—we don't need another royal commission to tell us what's happening with the deaths of women in Australia and what we need to do. In fact, frontline workers have been very clear that they don't want another report; they want the implementation of the work that we're doing right now. Last year, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's annual report to parliament pointed out that we have a thousand recommendations from at least eight major royal commissions, inquiries and reviews. Most recently, we had the rapid review that the National Cabinet commissioned at the behest of the Prime Minister and the premiers. We're implementing that work right now. We've had the South Australian royal commission most recently, the NT coronial inquest, many parliamentary inquiries and the Victorian royal commission. We need to get on with the work of implementing these recommendations, and we are. Right now, there are 583 initiatives happening around the country—122 of those are Commonwealth led. They're being reported on publicly. Every family violence peak body in this country released a statement that said 'royal commissions have an important role in the Australian system, including gathering evidence when we have no other way to get to the root of a problem'. That is not the situation here. The evidence is clear. We know what needs to be done to prevent, respond to and help people heal from family violence. That's why this government has invested $4 billion in those 122 initiatives that I spoke about a minute ago. It's why we're working so closely with the states and territories, which are responsible for policing, for courts, for the justice system and for the day-to-day operation of domestic violence refuges, and it's why we're about to start the consultation on the second action plan of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. That will be a very important opportunity to say what comes next in the implementation of these recommendations. The member for Warringah and other members will have the opportunity to make contributions at that time. Frontline workers will absolutely be a part of designing that second action plan, as will victims and survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence. We agree with you, the member for Warringah and the members for Kooyong and Mackellar, about the urgency of this, and I would say that every member of parliament agrees with the urgency, but we don't need more reports. We need to focus on the actions that will make a difference.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
I think we will all remember where we were on the evening of 14 December, and I certainly will. I was at the Newtown Synagogue's Chanukah in the Park event. I want to acknowledge that Rabbi Eli...
I think we will all remember where we were on the evening of 14 December, and I certainly will. I was at the Newtown Synagogue's Chanukah in the Park event. I want to acknowledge that Rabbi Eli Feldman, who organised that event with his beautiful wife, Rebbetzin Elka Feldman, is here in the gallery with us today. I was at that Newtown Synagogue event, Chanukah in the Park, in Hollis Park in Newtown. I think one of the most lovely things that Rabbi Feldman told me that night is that the neighbours there in Newtown had wanted to have their Christmas party at the same time as Chanukah in the Park, and, in typical Australian fashion, they worked out that the neighbours would have their party a bit earlier and then go to Chanukah in the Park and the people organising Chanukah in the Park would go to the neighbourhood party first, and that celebration was combined. This is a celebration that I've attended over the years. There were children, music, doughnuts, face painting and clowning. It was a beautiful, uplifting celebration, and then something changed. The messages started coming through on the WhatsApp group through the security guards, and Elka Feldman came up to the stage and told us that there had been a security event in Bondi—that was the first message we got—and that we should hurry things along. The next message we heard was that there had been gunshots. Rabbi Feldman finished the lighting of the menorah, and we dispersed. It wasn't until I got into my car to drive home that more news started coming through about what really sounded fanciful when we first heard it. We couldn't believe the news that was coming through. Sadly, as the night progressed, it became apparent that the first disturbing reports that we'd found were only the very beginning of the horror that unfolded that night. As the minutes turned into hours, we heard about the worst of humanity—a terror attack against our Jewish community, an act of violent antisemitism, carried out at one of our nation's most cherished landmarks that horrified the world. Arthur Miller wrote that there are moments when an individual conscience is all that can keep the world from falling apart, and, as the horror unfolded, we also saw something else distinctly Australian: people doing whatever they could to help. I believe that it is within the conscience of Ahmed al-Ahmed, who put himself in harm's way to end the violence, and within the consciences of Boris and Sofia Gurman, who were fatally shot attempting to disarm one of the gunmen, and within the police officers, the off-duty lifeguards and the first responders who rushed to the scene and within ordinary people, like Jessica Rosen, who covered the bodies of children with their own bodies to protect them from the barrage of bullets, and within the thousands of Australians who donated blood or gave money or simply comforted their Jewish friends that we saw the true character of this nation. In the last few weeks, I've watched people reach out across religious, social and political divides to comfort each other and mourn together, and I've sat with Jewish families as they've searched for hope in the face of unimaginable grief. I got to apologise to the family of Leibel Lazaroff, who came from Texas to be with their young son and brother. He was catastrophically injured; his only thoughts were to protect the people around him, to staunch the blood flowing from the wounds of the person who fell next to him. I was able to stand with Rabbi Elimelech Levy as he lit Sydney's longest-standing public menorah just days after the attack. It was a ceremony I've been to before in Martin Place, in the open. Instead, this year we had to have it inside, in Sydney Town Hall. I listened as 10-year-old Matilda Britvan's friends remembered her radiant smile and infectious laugh at her funeral. Rabbi Yehoram Ulman, who only days before had buried his own son-in-law, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, read her eulogy, asking that Matilda remain not only in all of our hearts but in our deeds and in how we live our lives. I've known Matilda's family for decades, and I know what a loss they have suffered. It is within these acts that our shared humanity lives. To have the moral clarity to choose courage over hate, to defy darkness and to engage in even one mitzvah is no small feat. It's one of the key lessons of Hanukkah which, as we honour the 15 victims of Bondi, warrants reflection. The eight flames of the menorah have come to symbolise light, not fire, because the story passed down by Jewish teachers over centuries is one of renewal, not vengeance. Historian Thomas Cahill argued that it was the Jews who give us the outside and the inside of our moral world, and that most of our best words—freedom, progress, spirit, faith—are the gifts of the Jews. Another idea born of Jewish culture is the idea that love is the foundation of justice. Love as the foundation of justice is so important. How hard it is to ask that of us right now. Yet Australians will continue, in the shadow of this heartbreak, to face a choice. Will we allow one evil act to divide us, to erode our principles, or can we remain steadfast and resolute in our commitment to love? In choosing the latter, I believe we not only heal but will find a better country waiting for us on the other side. It falls on us in this chamber to embody those values because, as JFK reflected, the job of a nation's leader is not to curse the darkness but to light a candle through the darkness to a safe and sure future.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; Consideration of Senate Message | Bills | House debates
I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I want to thank the Senate for its consideration of this bill. The government supports the amendments the Senate has made. For the benefit of the House,...
I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I want to thank the Senate for its consideration of this bill. The government supports the amendments the Senate has made. For the benefit of the House, the Senate amendments give full effect to our policy intent by providing for the automatic waiving of future small debts below the new threshold of $250 before those amounts are required to be formally raised as debts by Services Australia. The amendments ensure that the small debt waiver regime provides for these waivers consistently under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. More broadly, the passage of this bill marks an important step forward in social security reform. The income apportionment resolution scheme will now be established. More than a million small debts will be waived from next March, with the new threshold indexed into the future. Special circumstances debt waivers will be available to more victims-survivors of domestic violence, particularly where there has been financial abuse and coercion, and an important ministerial power will be available for the cancellation of payments in highly prescribed circumstances. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to.
I move: That the amendments be considered immediately.
I want to thank the member for Boothby for her question. She will be leading a very important inquiry with her social policy and legal affairs committee shortly into the intersection between...
I want to thank the member for Boothby for her question. She will be leading a very important inquiry with her social policy and legal affairs committee shortly into the intersection between family, domestic and sexual violence and suicide. I thank her and the committee for that work. Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and I want to start by acknowledging every victim-survivor, every frontline worker who has assisted them and, most sadly, those who we have lost in recent years and decades. Today, the Albanese Labor government announced a 40 per cent funding boost for 1800RESPECT. This is a really important investment in a service that began under a former Labor government, during the Gillard years, with 11,000 calls in one year. Last financial year, this service had 342,000 contacts. That is a 3000 per cent increase on the first year that we established 1800RESPECT, 15 years ago. This government, the Albanese government, has invested more than any previous government in addressing family, domestic and sexual violence, including through measures like making the leaving violence payment permanent, introducing legislation to make sure our social security system isn't weaponised against survivors of family and domestic violence and funding programs that intervene earlier with men, adolescent boys and children and particularly those men who want to change their behaviour. We have invested $1.2 billion in emergency and transitional housing to help make it safe for women and children fleeing violence. We've invested a record $3.9 billion in legal services, including $800 million extra for family violence legal services. We've legislated 10 days paid domestic violence leave and we've made it illegal to sack someone because they're a victim of family or domestic violence. We've reformed the family law system to make the family law system safer, simpler and more accessible for victims of family and domestic violence. And, very importantly, we're working with the states and territories to improve responses to victims of sexual violence. It's one of the areas of crime that continues to rise in a completely unacceptable way. Of course, these investments are beginning to make a difference. We have to acknowledge success when we see it. But do we think we've done enough? Not ever. Not while there is one victim of family, domestic or sexual violence will this government rest. We'll continue to work, and I know those opposite share our belief that every single one of us has a responsibility to act.
I want to thank the member for Holt for her question and welcome her back with Baby Ilia. Congratulations. I know that she is a big supporter of paid parental leave. It's hard to imagine that,...
I want to thank the member for Holt for her question and welcome her back with Baby Ilia. Congratulations. I know that she is a big supporter of paid parental leave. It's hard to imagine that, before the Rudd and Gillard governments, Australia was one of the very few developed countries that didn't have a paid parental leave scheme. It was Labor that first introduced the scheme, and it's this Labor government that has expanded it. In fact, under this Prime Minister, Australians receiving paid parental leave are about $12,000 better off. In fact, we've almost doubled the paid parental leave entitlement, and about 180,000 families are benefiting every year. Those families are getting more time—an extra two weeks this year and an extra two weeks next year. They're getting more money, with higher payments, and paid parental leave will be getting superannuation for the first time. So, in retirement, those people will be $4½ thousand dollars better off. They're getting more flexibility, with parents able to take more time off together, and more people are eligible than ever before. Of course, when those parents get back to work, they also benefit from cheaper child care—thousands of dollars off the cost of child care. But, of course, those opposite have always been deeply divided on paid parental leave, from the days of Treasurer Hockey calling mums getting their paid parental leave 'double dippers' and the former prime minister Scott Morrison calling them 'rorters'—'double dippers,' by the way, was on Mother's Day, in a stunning act of timing!—to, more recently, the member for Goldstein saying to me: 'PPL is a very bad scheme. It's not my choice that women have children—it's genetic.' Of course, if that's not enough, we've had the members for New England, Bowman, Barker and Canning try and hijack the debate on Baby Priya's bill. To her credit, the Leader of the Opposition properly supported that bill and, indeed, it should have been above politics. Instead, we had these blokes trying to hijack the debate, implying that women would get pregnant and have a late-term abortion to receive an entitlement to paid parental leave. While the Liberals and Nationals continue to be divided on paid parental leave, on this side of the House we are absolutely clear: we support families, we support new mums, we support those families with their beautiful new babies and, if a family has that terrible tragedy of stillbirth, we will support them too.
Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence; Reference to Federation Chamber | Statements on Significant Matters | House debates
I move: That further statements on the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report to Parliament be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to.
AIDS Council of New South Wales | Constituency Statements | House debates
Forty years ago, in the midst of a health crisis, a group of volunteers came together to fight for their lives and the lives of others. It was the beginning of ACON, the AIDS Council of NSW,...
Forty years ago, in the midst of a health crisis, a group of volunteers came together to fight for their lives and the lives of others. It was the beginning of ACON, the AIDS Council of NSW, formed in 1985 under the banner Fighting for Our Lives. From that meeting at the New South Wales Teachers Federation hall grew a movement that would defined Australia's HIV responsible decades to come. Back then HIV was devastating our community. There was fear, stigma and silence, but ACON spoke up. They educated, they cared and they campaigned. They saved lives. Within two years, ACON of opened its first office in Surrey Hills and established branches in the Hunter, Illawarra and Northern Rivers to reach regional communities. From organising the Make AZT Available rally to helping draft Australians first national AIDS strategy, ACON made sure the community had a voice on the table, while, on the ground, volunteers distributed safe-sex packs from Oxford Street bars and established one of the first community-run counselling services for people living with HIV. Through the 1990s, as antiretroviral therapies offered hope for the first time, ACON adapted its services to support people living longer with HIV and to address new health challenges: mental health, addiction and community safety. The launch of the Ending HIV campaign in 2013 and ACON's leadership on PrEP rapid testing and U=U—that's undetectable equals untransmissible—were campaigns I was proud to back, and they've brought us within reach of eliminating HIV transmissions entirely in Australia, something I am convinced that we can achieve as a nation. Over the years, ACON's had lots of great programs: Fun & Esteem, one of the world's first peer education initiatives for gay men; Pride in Diversity; and Pride in Sport; the Red Ribbon Appeal in 2008. All of these were organised and pursued by incredible volunteers, like the late Betty Hounslow, and those volunteers from 1985 who met fear with courage. As health minister, I was proud to support the efforts of ACON. I know that this parliament has long recognised that inclusive health policy saves lives. I say to the current leadership of ACON, under the absolutely marvellous Michael Woodhouse, that I know that ACON will continue to be a voice for compassion and courage in our community and will continue to deliver, because it's pride, not prejudice, that will guide our future.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; Third Reading | Bills | House debates
by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I present a replacement explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (2) to (25) as circulated together....
I present a replacement explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (2) to (25) as circulated together. Leave granted. I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 3 and 4", substitute "Schedules 3, 4 and 5". (2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 16), after "act", insert ", failure". (3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 22), after "act", insert ", failure". (4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 27), after "act", insert ", failure". (5) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (line 28), after "act", insert ", failure". (6) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 12), after "act", insert ", failure". (7) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 18), after "act", insert ", failure". (8) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 22), after "act", insert ", failure". (9) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (line 24), after "act", insert ", failure". (10) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 3), after "act", insert ", failure". (11) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 9), after "act", insert ", failure". (12) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 15), after "act", insert ", failure". (13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 17), after "act", insert ", failure". (14) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 29), after "act", insert ", failure". (15) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 35), after "act", insert ", failure". (16) Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (line 2), after "act", insert ", failure". (17) Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (line 4), after "act", insert ", failure". (18) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (line 11), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". (19) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (after line 13), at the end of section 99, add: Note 2: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person. (20) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (line 21), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". (21) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (after line 23), at the end of section 197, add: Note 2: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person. (22) Schedule 2, item 11, page 27 (after line 19), at the end of section 1237AAA, add: Note 3: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person. (23) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (line 8), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". (24) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (after line 10), at the end of section 43D, add: Note 2: If the Secretary suspects that there may have been fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to a debt waived under this section, the waiver does not prevent the Secretary from taking further appropriate action against the debtor or any other person. (25) Page 37 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 5 — Benefit restriction notices Part 1 — Social Security Act amendments Social Security Act 1991 1 Subsection 23(1) Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. benefit restriction notice means a notice under section 38MA or 38N. senior AFP member has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code. 2 Subsection 23(1) (definition of Home Affairs Minister ) Repeal the definition. 3 Subsection 23(1) (definition of security notice ) Repeal the definition. 4 Part 1.3B (heading) Omit "on security grounds". 5 Section 38L Repeal the section, substitute: 38L Simplified outline of this Part Persons may lose social security payments or concession cards if they: (a) are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence; or (b) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country. 6 Section 38M (heading) Omit "on security grounds". 7 Subsection 38 M( 1) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 8 Subsection 38 M( 1) (note) Repeal the note, substitute: Note: A benefit restriction notice is a notice under section 38MA or 38N. 9 Subsections 38 M( 2) to (4) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 10 After section 38M Insert: 38MA Benefit restriction notice from AFP Minister (1) The AFP Minister may give the Minister a written notice requiring that this Part apply in relation to a specified person if: (a) the person is the subject of an arrest warrant issued in Australia in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code); and (b) the person has not been arrested under the warrant; and (c) a cancellation request for the person has been made as mentioned in subsection (2). Cancellation requests (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a cancellation request has been made for the person if a request to cancel the person's social security payments or concession card (however expressed) has been made, in writing: (a) by a senior AFP member or a member of a State or Territory police force whose rank is equivalent to the rank of a senior AFP member; and (b) to any of the following: (i) the AFP Minister; (ii) the Minister; (iii) the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997; (iv) the Department; (v) the Human Services Department. Considerations for giving a notice (3) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must have regard to the following: (a) the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the person is not arrested under the warrant; (b) the likely effect of the operation of section 38M on the person's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants. (4) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must: (a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (3)(b); and (b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice. (5) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had. 11 Section 38N (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 38N Benefit restriction notice from ASIO Minister 12 Section 38N Omit "Home Affairs" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASIO". 13 Section 38P Omit "Home Affairs", substitute "ASIO". 14 Section 38R (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 15 Section 38R Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 16 Section 38S (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 17 Section 38S Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 18 Section 38SA (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 19 Section 38SA Omit "the Home Affairs Minister must consider whether to revoke a security notice", substitute "the Minister who gave a benefit restriction notice must consider whether to revoke the benefit restriction notice". 20 Paragraph 38SA(b) Omit "the Home Affairs", substitute "that". 21 Section 38T (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 22 Subsection 38 T( 1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) If the AFP Minister or the ASIO Minister has given a benefit restriction notice, that Minister may, by written notice given to the Minister, revoke the benefit restriction notice. 23 Paragraph 38T(4)(b) Omit "Home Affairs Minister revokes the security notice", substitute "AFP Minister or ASIO Minister revokes the benefit restriction notice". 24 Application The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to arrest warrants issued before, on or after the commencement of this item. 25 Transitional A security notice that was: (a) given under section 38N of the Social Security Act 1991 (as in force before the commencement of this item); and (b) in force immediately before that commencement; continues in force (and may be dealt with) at and after that commencement as if it were a benefit restriction notice given under that section as amended by this Part. Part 2 — Family Assistance Act amendments A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 26 Subsection 3(1) Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. benefit restriction notice means a notice under section 57GIA or 57GJ. senior AFP member has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code. 27 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Home Affairs Minister ) Repeal the definition. 28 Subsection 3(1) (definition of security notice ) Repeal the definition. 29 Division 7 of Part 3 (heading) Omit "on security grounds". 30 Section 57GH Repeal the section, substitute: 57GH Simplified outline of this Division Individuals may lose family assistance if they: (a) are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence; or (b) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country. 31 Section 57GI (heading) Omit "on security grounds". 32 Subsection 57 GI( 1) (heading) Omit "Security notice", substitute "Benefit restriction notice". 33 Subsection 57 GI( 1) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 34 Section 57GI (note 1) Repeal the note, substitute: Note 1: A benefit restriction notice is a notice under section 57GIA or 57GJ. 35 Subsections 57 GI( 2) to (4) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 36 Subsection 57 GI( 7) (heading) Omit "Security notice", substitute "Benefit restriction notice". 37 Paragraph 57GI(7)(a) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 38 After section 57GI Insert: 57GIA Benefit restriction notice from AFP Minister (1) The AFP Minister may give the Minister a written notice requiring that this Division apply in relation to a specified individual if: (a) the individual is the subject of an arrest warrant issued in Australia in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code); and (b) the individual has not been arrested under the warrant; and (c) a cancellation request for the individual has been made as mentioned in subsection (2). Cancellation requests (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a cancellation request has been made for the individual if a request to cancel the individual's family assistance (however expressed) has been made, in writing: (a) by a senior AFP member or a member of a State or Territory police force whose rank is equivalent to the rank of a senior AFP member; and (b) to any of the following: (i) the AFP Minister; (ii) the Minister; (iii) the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997; (iv) the Department; (v) the Human Services Department. Notice may recommend payments to payment nominee (3) A notice under this section may recommend that payments of family assistance of the individual, to the extent set out in the notice, be paid to a payment nominee of the individual under Part 8B of the Family Assistance Administration Act. Considerations for giving a notice (4) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must have regard to the following: (a) the extent to which the individual is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the individual is not arrested under the warrant; (b) the likely effect of the operation of section 57GI on the individual's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants. (5) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must: (a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (4)(b); and (b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice. (6) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had. 39 Section 57GJ (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 57GJ Benefit restriction notice from ASIO Minister 40 Section 57GJ Omit "Home Affairs" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASIO". 41 Section 57GK Omit "Home Affairs", substitute "ASIO". 42 Section 57GM (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 43 Sections 57GM Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 44 Section 57GN (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 45 Sections 57GN Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 46 Section 57GNA (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 47 Section 57GNA Omit "the Home Affairs Minister must consider whether to revoke a security notice", substitute "the Minister who gave a benefit restriction notice must consider whether to revoke the benefit restriction notice". 48 Paragraph 57GNA(b) Omit "the Home Affairs", substitute "that". 49 Section 57GO (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 50 Subsection 57 GO( 1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) If the AFP Minister or the ASIO Minister has given a benefit restriction notice, that Minister may, by written notice given to the Minister, revoke the benefit restriction notice. 51 Paragraph 57GO(4)(b) Omit "Home Affairs Minister revokes the security notice", substitute "AFP Minister or ASIO Minister revokes the benefit restriction notice". 52 Application The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to arrest warrants issued before, on or after the commencement of this item. 53 Transitional A security notice that was: (a) given under section 57GJ of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (as in force before the commencement of this item); and (b) in force immediately before that commencement; continues in force (and may be dealt with) at and after that commencement as if it were a benefit restriction notice given under that section as amended by this Part. Part 3 — Paid Parental Leave Act amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 54 Section 6 Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. benefit restriction notice means a notice under section 278BA or 278C. senior AFP member has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code. 55 Section 6 (definition of Home Affairs Minister ) Repeal the definition. 56 Section 6 (definition of security notice ) Repeal the definition. 57 Division 5 of Part 6-1 (heading) Omit "on security grounds". 58 Section 278A Repeal the section, substitute: 278A Simplified outline of this Division Persons may lose parental leave pay if they: (a) are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence; or (b) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country. 59 Section 278B (heading) Omit "on security grounds". 60 Subsection 278 B( 1) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 61 Subsection 278 B( 1) (note) Repeal the note, substitute: Note: A benefit restriction notice is a notice under section 278BA or 278C. 62 Subsections 278 B( 3) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 63 After section 278B Insert: 278BA Benefit restriction notice from AFP Minister (1) The AFP Minister may give the Minister a written notice requiring that this Division apply in relation to a specified person if: (a) the person is the subject of an arrest warrant issued in Australia in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence (within the meaning of Division 395 of the Criminal Code); and (b) the person has not been arrested under the warrant; and (c) a cancellation request for the person has been made as mentioned in subsection (2). Cancellation requests (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a cancellation request has been made for the person if a request to cancel the person's parental leave pay (however expressed) has been made, in writing: (a) by a senior AFP member or a member of a State or Territory police force whose rank is equivalent to the rank of a senior AFP member; and (b) to any of the following: (i) the AFP Minister; (ii) the Minister; (iii) the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997; (iv) the Department; (v) the Human Services Department. Considerations for giving a notice (3) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must have regard to the following: (a) the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the person is not arrested under the warrant; (b) the likely effect of the operation of section 278B on the person's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants. (4) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must: (a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (3)(b); and (b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice. (5) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had. 64 Section 278C (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 278C Benefit restriction notice from ASIO Minister 65 Section 278C Omit "Home Affairs" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASIO". 66 Section 278D Omit "Home Affairs", substitute "ASIO". 67 Section 278F (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 68 Section 278F Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 69 Section 278G (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 70 Section 278G Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 71 Section 278GA (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 72 Section 278GA Omit "the Home Affairs Minister must consider whether to revoke a security notice", substitute "the Minister who gave a benefit restriction notice must consider whether to revoke the benefit restriction notice". 73 Paragraph 278GA(b) Omit "the Home Affairs", substitute "that". 74 Section 278H (heading) Omit "security notice", substitute "benefit restriction notice". 75 Subsection 278 H( 1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) If the AFP Minister or the ASIO Minister has given a benefit restriction notice, that Minister may, by written notice given to the Minister, revoke the benefit restriction notice. 76 Application The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to arrest warrants issued before, on or after the commencement of this item. 77 Transitional A security notice that was: (a) given under section 278C of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 (as in force before the commencement of this item); and (b) in force immediately before that commencement; continues in force (and may be dealt with) at and after that commencement as if it were a benefit restriction notice given under that section as amended by this Part. With this bill, the government is delivering a fairer, more efficient social security system. We heard from members of this House on Monday and again just now about the importance of these changes for people right across our country. The amendments I'm moving today make generally technical changes to provide for more effective debt administration and service delivery. They clarify the intent behind the suite of amendments provided for in schedule 2, which reform debt and waiver arrangements. The government is also proposing new schedule 5 for the bill, which provides for the use of benefit restriction notices to cease social security payments and concessions in certain circumstances relating to alleged offenders of serious violent or sexual offences who are evading arrest. In relation to schedule 2, the amendments are minor and technical in nature and are intended to remove any doubt behind the circumstances in which the broad and special circumstances waiver may apply. The changes delivered through this bill give Services Australia extended powers to waive social security debts that have been incurred because of coercion or financial abuse. The government's amendments clarify that this expanded eligibility for the waiver means that it applies in all cases of coercion or financial abuse, including failures to comply with the law. We have had significant interest in this element of the bill. We also heard some harrowing accounts in this place from members whose previous careers gave them real personal insight into the need for this provision. I want to particularly thank the members for Bonner, Barton, Maribyrnong, Curtin and Wentworth for their contributions. I want to assure all members that this text provides for the Services Australia decision-maker to be able to take a person's full situation into account and apply the waiver when coercion or abuse are present. The government's amendments also reinforce the application of compliance measures relating to the small debt waiver by clarifying that the secretary may take appropriate action where a person is seen to be manipulating the waiver or perpetrating fraud. Fraud represents a small minority of debts. We know that people generally engage with the social security system honestly and in good faith, but the small debt waiver is not for those involved in significant noncompliance or fraud. The government will continue to take appropriate action, including prosecution, in the most serious cases where individuals have illegally manipulated the waiver or committed fraud. We are also proposing a new schedule 5, which provides for the use of benefit restriction notices to ensure people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence can no longer be supported through the social security and family payment system. I have to reiterate that this is for people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence. There's currently no lawful authority to cancel a person's payments or concessions in these circumstances. We propose this new power to be used only in the most serious circumstances, and only following a thorough and considered decision-making process. But our reasoning is clear: fugitives suspected of committing serious violent or sexual offences should not be receiving taxpayer funded income support payments, and it should be possible to cancel those payments. This amendment provides for a person's payments from Services Australia or their social security concession cards to be able to be cancelled when they are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence and are evading police. The cancellation decision will also consider the extent to which an individual is likely to be a threat or danger to the community. It includes all social security payments, like jobseeker and age pension payments, family assistance payments and paid parental leave. It also applies to concession cards like the pensioner concession card and the low-income healthcare card. This change will uphold the integrity of our social security system and ensure that those who are accused of serious violent or sexual crimes and are evading police cannot benefit from it. These people are accused of serious violent or sexual crime, there is an arrest warrant for them, they are evading police and they are considered to be a potential threat to the community. These are very high barriers. The amendment will provide for a benefit restriction notice to be issued in the name of an individual while a warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence within the meaning of the Criminal Code Act 1995 is out for their arrest and they are on the run. A written request to cancel the individual's payments and/or concession card from an appropriately senior member of the Australian Federal Police or a state or territory police force will be required. Prior to the issuing of a benefit restriction notice, consideration will be given to the extent to which a person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community. Prior to the issuing of a benefit restriction notice, consideration will be given to the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community and the impact that the cancellation of the person's payments and/or concession card may have on any dependents the individual may have. The power to issue a notice will be given to the minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. That minister is currently the Minister for Home Affairs. This minister is to obtain advice from Services Australia about any dependents a person has prior to issuing a notice. These are carefully considered amendments and, should the parliament support them, will be carefully put into practice. It's common sense. It's in line with community expectations that taxpayer funded support should not go into someone's bank account if they're running from the law, accused of serious, violent or sexual offences. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.
I want to thank the member for Clark. I know that this has been a point of interest for him—he's shown a real commitment for many years—as it has been for our government. He spoke...
I want to thank the member for Clark. I know that this has been a point of interest for him—he's shown a real commitment for many years—as it has been for our government. He spoke about returning fairness and humanity to the social security system. Certainly, that is also our intention and desire. In his last comments, he spoke about raising the rate. I would remind him that since coming to government we've increased age and disability pensions by about $5,000 a year, we've increased JobSeeker—working-age payments—by about $4,000 a year, and we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by up to $1,800 a year. Those initial changes, which we made to social security in the first two budgets, were an investment of around $11½ billion in a fairer system. So there have been very substantial investments already. I want to also remind the House that it was the Albanese government that established the robodebt royal commission. We exposed a very dark chapter in Australian public administration, and we're the ones fixing it. We've agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 recommendations of the royal commission; three-quarters have already been fully completed or substantially progressed. Recommendation 18.2, relating to the statute of limitations, was agreed in principle and it's one of the recommendations that we're working on. For the measure to be effective, it needs to be carefully designed and consulted on—a process that we are carrying out thoroughly. The previous statute of limitations was actually not as effective as it could have been and didn't provide a meaningful limit on the raising and recovering of historic debts. I remind the member that increasing the small debt waiver to $250, as he supports in this bill, means that we will waive about 1.2 million undetermined debts this financial year alone. This one measure will remove more debts from the backlog than reinstating the old statute of limitations would. Measures such as these bring with them very significant budget impacts, and, as part of our consideration approach, the government have to work through each proposal to ensure that it's of the best possible benefit for the whole community. I assure the member for Clark that this work is ongoing, but we are not able to support his amendments at this time.
I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the chance to discuss this amendment with her. The government is broadly supportive of the direction she's seeking to take, but there are a couple of...
I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the chance to discuss this amendment with her. The government is broadly supportive of the direction she's seeking to take, but there are a couple of things I need to draw to the attention of the House. We completely agree that someone who's fleeing a violent living situation should be able to focus on their safety first and apply for the crisis payment once they're able to do so. Since this crisis payment was introduced, however, the government has also, in addition, introduced the leaving violence payment, which is up to $5,000 for someone who's fleeing violence. The leaving violence payment is much more flexible than the crisis payment. I'd also note that there is already flexibility built into the application process for the crisis payment for people who've experienced family, domestic or sexual violence. For example, for a person who has left their home due to family, domestic or sexual violence, it's not that they have seven days to apply for it; they have seven days from the date they decide they cannot return to their home to submit a claim. That might be several weeks after they've left their home. In addition, Services Australia can also provide an additional 14 days to submit a claim where a person has experienced family and domestic violence. We're prepared to look at the suggestion to standardise the 14 days, but I think it's important to note that there is already flexibility and that an additional payment has been introduced since the crisis payment first became available. So we won't support the amendment but we will continue to work with the member for Wentworth on the intention that she is pursuing. Our view is similar in relation to expanding eligibility for the payment to a broader set of living arrangements—for example, those fleeing violence who are living in temporary accommodation. We're looking at this as part of future work to expand protection for victims and survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence, wherever they are, and we plan to consult further in relation to the changes. Unfortunately, our view is that this amendment, as it's currently drafted, may inadvertently offer benefits to perpetrators of violence in some situations. I know that's not the intent of the member, so we would have to be a little bit more careful in the drafting of the amendment to acknowledge the intent of the member for Wentworth. While I won't be supporting this second amendment from the member for Wentworth, I do think that we can work together to progress the intention of her amendments. Question negatived.
I move: That further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Question agreed to.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I want to thank the member for Calwell for his excellent contribution to the debate, as I thank members on both sides who have contributed to the debate. I particularly want to thank the newly...
I want to thank the member for Calwell for his excellent contribution to the debate, as I thank members on both sides who have contributed to the debate. I particularly want to thank the newly elected members who spoke about what these social security reforms will mean in their local communities. These debt reforms will make a big difference in particular to many women who have suffered or continue to suffer financial coercion and abuse. In wiping 1.2 million underdetermined debts from the backlog in 2025-26 alone, the government is also sparing many thousands of low-income Australian families the stress of being pursued for small debts. We are directing taxpayer money more efficiently to the task of helping people who need it now, focusing compliance action on large and deliberate debts, and moving our social security system a step further away from the shame of robodebt. This Labor government has shown we are willing to tackle longstanding problems and to do so fairly and in close consultation with the people who have been most affected. Since the introduction of this bill, officials from my department have continued to consult with the agencies who will administer these changes and the representatives of the people who will be most affected. In particular, I want to thank Economic Justice Australia, National Legal Aid and the Australian Council of Social Service, who have dedicated their time to advising the government on this bill. There's always more to do in making our social security system fairer, safer and easier to use. These organisations represent the experiences of so many Australians, and I believe the collaborative approach that we've brought to this legislation lays a foundation for us to achieve further reforms. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has also inquired into this bill and carried out further consultation. I really want to thank the members of the committee for their considered report and for the support offered for this bill. The committee, too, heard strong advocacy from social security recipients and their representatives. This lived experience is reflected in key parts of the legislation, particularly in the debt reform measures. The CEO of Single Mother Families Australia, Ms Terese Edwards, told the committee: For many years—in fact, decades—people who rely upon our safety net have been demonised, and when there are cuts they're usually to social security. Where there's more work for people to do, it's in the social security system. This is a cultural statement as well. This is why it is— an— administrative outcome, but … also a cultural statement, and this cannot be lost. We're hoping that this will build on the fantastic work of saying to Australians, 'If you are in need of our social security net, you can do that with respect and without feeling like you are not being believed and knowing that you will be safe to do that.' The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is an important step towards a better social security system delivering measures which will produce fairer outcomes for Australians. These measures reform the way we manage social security debts and resolve the longstanding issue of income apportionment. As I said when I introduced this bill, past governments used income apportionment in good faith with a genuinely held but incorrect understanding of the law. The Albanese government has never used income apportionment, but, with this legislation, we are resolving this historic issue in the fairest and most reasonable way possible. By validating the past use of income apportionment we spare taxpayers the cost of having government recalculate millions of debts going back decades. That would be, of course, very stressful for income support recipients who may have incurred a debt decades ago, and it would be both expensive and pointless for taxpayers. This validation also recognises the important fact that, based on Services Australia's sampling, in most cases affected by income apportionment, a debt was still owed but was miscalculated around the edges. The government's resolution scheme is carefully designed to remedy those mistakes. People with historic debts potentially affected by income apportionment will be eligible to apply for payments of up to $600. Any payment they receive will reflect the size of the debt in question and the most generous interpretation of the possible impact income apportionment had on it. I'll release additional details about the scheme soon. We will continue to work with non-government organisations to monitor people's take-up of the scheme, making sure the process is as simple as possible. I'll just repeat one assurance I've already made: no-one is obliged to participate in this scheme and no-one is prevented from exercising any legal rights to pursue a claim relating to their debt. The debt reform measures in this bill will bring material changes to many Australians under financial pressure. The bill increases the small debt waiver threshold to $250, to be indexed annually in line with the consumer price index It brings the old thresholds into a single, unified amount, and, through indexation, this amount will maintain its value relative to the broader economy. The 1.2 million undetermined debts that this will wipe from the backlog in 2025-26 alone are 1.2 million debts that Services Australia will not waste time and resources chasing. The government is strengthening compliance measures to ensure this provision is not exploited, but we know the vast majority of people engage with our social security system honestly and in good faith. The bill also expands access to the special circumstances waiver, to protect victims-survivors of financial abuse and coercion. This is a very important measure. This change provides an explicit recognition of the fact that this abuse can manifest in a victim being coerced into not meeting certain payment requirements. Decision-makers will now be able to take these circumstances into account in considering a special circumstances debt waiver. This provision addresses another point of weaponisation of the social security system, and it responds to calls from stakeholders articulated through both the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 and the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. Our implementation of this reform is of keen interest to many advocates in the family, domestic and sexual violence area and advocates for social security reform also. It does bring policy change for Services Australia, and the leadership of Services Australia has assured the parliament through the Senate committee hearings that they are ready to deliver this change across the country. Someone who has been coerced into taking on a social security debt should not be further victimised and punished by a system that should be offering her support. The Albanese Labor government believes in a strong social security system. Part of that commitment means taking on protracted policy challenges which others have put in the too-hard basket. With the passage of this legislation, our system will be stronger, fairer and more responsive to the needs of the Australian community. It's the end result of a major body of work encompassing some very, very complex and contested legal and policy matters. I want to thank the many officials who've dedicated themselves to this work, and also the Minister for Government Services for her cooperation and support. The government remains committed to implementing the remaining recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. Members should note that three-quarters of these are now implemented or well progressed, and I look forward to getting on with the rest of them. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.