Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

We must never forget that every dollar spent on social security is a dollar that is earned by someone else. It means that every measure, every amendment and every program cost must therefore be justified. It must be fair, sustainable and targeted to assist those in genuine need while preserving the integrity and future of the system itself. We also carry responsibility for future generations. The choices we make today about the structure and sustainability of our welfare system will determine the burden and opportunity inherited by Australians tomorrow.

Income support should deliver a strong and sustainable safety net and encourage a path to employment for those who can work. Employment is the single most effective way to improve living standards for individuals and families. That conviction has long shaped our approach to social policy and continues to guide our priorities in opposition. These priorities are especially important in the midst of an enduring cost-of-living crisis driven by Labor's economic mismanagement at a time when households across Australia are struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages, and when the new working poor must decide between heating or cooling and eating.

When in government, the coalition demonstrated disciplined and responsible economic management. We were able to deliver the largest permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment at that time, ensuring that there was a safety net for those in need. In April 2021 the coalition increased working-age payment rates, including JobSeeker, by $50 a fortnight. We also permanently increased the income-free area to $150 per fortnight, giving job seekers greater flexibility and incentive to take on work as they re-entered the workforce. During the height of the pandemic—one of the greatest economic and social challenges of our generation—the coalition government provided $32 billion in emergency payments to help Australians get through. This is the record of a coalition government that understood the balance between compassion and responsibility, between helping those who need help with targeted and timely responses and ensuring that the system remains fair to those who fund it.

This bill's schedules amend a number of acts, including A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. These amendments in this bill have significant consequences for how social security payments are administered and how debts and undetermined debts are treated. The bill includes provisions providing clarity to income apportionment, a practice introduced under Labor. The bill seeks to do several things. It sets out preliminary and definitional matters as well as income apportionment method statements. It validates income apportionment as a method of apportioning employment income in relation to entitlement periods before 7 December 2020. It also clarifies the lawful methods of apportioning employment income when determining debts or rates of payment for periods before that date. It expands the instances in which the special circumstances waiver may be applied to waive debts incurred under the relevant acts. It increases the threshold for waiving a small debt of $250 and provides for that threshold to be indexed annually to the consumer price index. It provides a one-off waiver for the Commonwealth's right to recover small, undetermined debts worth less than $250 that are currently recorded in Services Australia's systems but are yet to be raised.

Another significant measure is the establishment of the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme. This scheme will provide resolution payments to people whose debts were affected by income apportionment between 20 September 2003 and 6 December 2020. The bill gives the minister power to determine matters relating to the scheme through legislative instrument and it provides for a new special appropriation to fund these resolution payments. Additionally, now the legislation allows for the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police to issue a notice to the Minister for Social Services requiring the cessation of certain payments as well as concession cards in circumstances where a person is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious violent or sexual offence. Taxpayers should not fuel the means for people to evade the law.

While these measures are important, they are not without concern. The first issue relates to the process by which this legislation has been developed. It appears that income apportionment measures have been informed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's own-motion investigation and its recommendations, yet we're informed that there was no direct consultation with the Ombudsman in the development of the legislation. A reasonable person would think that, if the measures stem from the Ombudsman's own findings, it would be reasonable to expect from the government that they have engaged directly with that office to ensure the legislation aligns with those recommendations. You would think so, but, no, not for this government.

Second, the timing of this bill raises serious questions. The government has waited until the tail end of the sitting calendar to bring this legislation forward. As a result, scrutiny has been rushed, with only a single day allocated for Senate committee examination. That Senate inquiry heard almost exclusively from social service advocacy groups and not-for-profit organisations. This narrow consultation raises legitimate concerns about how many voices the government actually listened to when preparing this bill.

The Ombudsman, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, highlighted a serious omission—namely, that the issue of remediation for individuals who have been criminally convicted in relation to debts that were invalidly calculated using income apportionment is not addressed in the bill. That is not a minor point. It goes to the heart of fairness, accountability and justice. If the government acknowledges that income apportionment was used unlawfully for years then the question of how that impacts those who face prosecution or conviction as a result should not be left unanswered.

Further, the bill leaves many operational details unresolved. It is not clear how the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme will interact with the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration, the longstanding framework for compensating individuals adversely affected by administrative errors. Much, it seems, is being left to legislative instruments, meaning that critical decisions about the design and implementation of the scheme will be made outside the direct scrutiny of the parliament. That is deeply concerning.

Due to the absence of these essential details in the primary legislation, parliament's capacity to properly scrutinise the resolution scheme has been restricted by this Labor government—the same one that said it would govern with transparency. Once the delegated legislation is tabled, we will, of course, examine it.

The government itself has belatedly recognised the flaws in its own work and been forced to amend its legislation with over 12 pages of amendments in the House of Representatives alone. This is yet more evidence that the bill was brought before parliament half-baked, without the necessary scrutiny or consultation and rushed through the legislative process. A responsible government would have taken the time to get this right. Instead, what we have seen is a series of reactive amendments and last-minute fixes. A feature of this government is to be focused on political expediency, it seems, rather than on good governance.

Through its amendments to the bill in the House of Representatives, the government included an entire additional schedule. The public should know that there was no opportunity for these last-minute amendments to be scrutinised through the committee process. While we agree with the intent of the measures in schedule 5, the committee process is important to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the legislation is fit for purpose. It is entirely inappropriate that the amendments weren't put to scrutiny in the committee process.

It was a coalition government that first announced it would crack down on offenders and criminals with outstanding warrants by withholding welfare payments. Under the measures announced by the then coalition government, the Commonwealth could suspend or cancel the welfare payments of individuals who had outstanding state and territory arrest warrants for indictable criminal offences. It was a commonsense measure that was scrapped by the Albanese government in its first budget, as a result of its spending audit. Now it is actually seeking to reintroduce it. The minister described this measure last week as 'commonsense' and 'in line with community expectations'. Why was this measure not viewed by this government as commonsense and in line with community expectations in October 2022 when they actually scrapped it? What has changed? Why was this schedule not included in the original legislation?

I'm going to turn now to the special circumstances waiver. There are also unresolved questions about how the waiver will operate in practice because this bill provides little detail about the measures, procedures and thresholds that will guide Services Australia in deciding whether such circumstances exist. Without clear criteria, there is a real risk of inconsistent decision-making and unequal treatment of applicants. How will staff be supported to make informed and compassionate decisions? These are not academic questions; they go to the heart of how the law will affect real people.

Minister Plibersek, in her second reading speech, said that existing safeguards would be strengthened to prevent manipulation of the waiver system. There is still little detail provided on what these strengthened safeguards will look like or how they will operate in practice to prevent misuse or manipulation of the social security safety net.

The coalition will continue to engage constructively where possible. We acknowledge that this bill contains a number of technical amendments seeking to address long-standing administrative challenges within the social security system. However, we will also continue to hold the government to account for the way in which these measures are developed and implemented. The Australian people are entitled to transparency, accountability and assurance that their parliament is performing its role diligently. While the coalition will support this bill in the Senate today, we remain concerned about the absence of key operational details on the income apportionment resolution scheme within the primary legislation. The coalition will closely scrutinise and consider the legislative instrument establishing the resolution scheme once it is tabled. We expect the government to clearly explain how the scheme will operate in practice, how fairness will be upheld and how the integrity of the social security framework will be maintained.

Every dollar spent through the social security system is a dollar earned by a hardworking Australian. It is our responsibility—in fact, it's our duty—to ensure that those dollars are spent wisely and with the integrity required so that they strengthen, not weaken, the foundations of our social security safety net, and that any instances of fraud and misuse are dealt with appropriately. Above all, our task in this place—in this parliament—is to ensure that Australia's welfare system continues to support those in genuine need. It must provide meaningful pathways to independence and remain sustainable for generations to come. That's what we need to ensure for the social security system. This is the coalition's enduring commitment to fairness, responsible governance and the integrity of Australia's social security system.