Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The social security system in this country is in crisis, and, instead of confronting that crisis, this bill represents yet another attempt by the government to sweep it under the rug—to quietly tuck it away. The government will tell you that the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 is a win. They'll claim that it delivers justice for people affected by income apportionment. But it's not a win, it's not justice, and it certainly doesn't adequately address the harm caused by the government's actions. Income apportionment was used to calculate social security payments when a person's work period didn't align with their instalment period or when it wasn't clear when income was earned. This method was used from 1991 until 2020—30 years of unlawful practice.

It's yet another example in a long line of unlawful actions by successive governments in the social security system: income apportionment, robodebt and the Targeted Compliance Framework. And the pattern continues. There's now a class action seeking compensation for 20,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people forced to work longer hours and do harder labour than city workers under the Work for the Dole program. That's the second class action alleging racial discrimination in that scheme. Every few weeks there's another crisis. Just last month, 44,000 people were found to have overpaid their debts, some by more than $20,000. These are not small mistakes. Hundreds of thousands of people have been affected. In the case of income apportionment alone, over $5.5 billion in debts and more than four million individual debts may be impacted.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified serious concerns with this bill. It found that the legislation would restrict people's rights to an effective remedy as well as their rights to social security and to an adequate standard of living and health. This is not a report the Labor government can seriously claim as a victory for justice.

The Greens have major concerns about the compensation scheme attached to this bill. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Social Services outlined the following payments: for debts under $200, full repayment; for debts between $200 and $2,000, a payment of $200; for debts between $2,000 and $5,000, a payment of $400; and, for debts above $5,000, a payment of $600. The minister claimed that these rates 'reflect the size of the original debt'. But, unless your debt was under $200, that's simply untrue. The larger your debt, the less you'll be compensated for the government's unlawful conduct. Worse still, the scheme makes no allowance for the broader harms caused to mental health, people's housing stability and access to food, or the devastating impacts of wrongful prosecution.

It's been revealed that the largest debt arising from income apportionment was $151,369. Under this scheme, that person would receive a maximum of $600. That's not restitution; it's an insult. And, if you wish to claim this compensation, you must first agree to waive any future right to hold the government liable. The human rights committee rightly warned that this requirement fails to take into account the vulnerability of social security recipients and provides no safeguards to ensure people can make an informed decision.

The government is endlessly forgiving of its own law-breaking. When it's the government that acts unlawfully, they simply legislate to excuse themselves. But, when it's people on social security who fail to report a change of circumstance or can't repay an unlawful debt, the system comes down on them with full force. Payments are suspended or terminated, even for people undergoing life-saving medical treatment. Prosecution is common. This bill continues that double standard. It retrospectively validates an unlawful practice that should be strongly rejected. Dr Christopher Rudge told the inquiry:

… retrospective laws intrinsically represent an encroachment on the rights and freedoms of citizens they affect.

This bill risks preventing people from overturning criminal convictions based on unlawful debts. It perpetuates institutional injustice—the very injustice the robodebt royal commission exposed. The minister should know better. In 2011, she introduced the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011 to retrospectively validate 15,000 wrongful convictions. That law was struck down by the High Court in 2013. Yet here we are again, 14 years later, repeating history.

As if that wasn't enough, late last week the government added an entirely new schedule, one that goes even further in disregarding human rights. Under these amendments, the AFP could request the cancellation of parenting payments, paid parental leave and family tax benefit payments for anyone charged—not convicted—with a serious crime. ASIO could do the same for anyone alleged to have prejudiced national security. This crosses a line. Punishing people who have not been found guilty of a crime violates the presumption of innocence, a principle enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and multiple international covenants. These amendments were snuck in at the eleventh hour, without scrutiny by the Senate inquiry or the human rights committee. They also create a real danger for women and children, particularly survivors of family violence. The Council of Single Mothers and their Children warned that false reports already harm too many women, many of them First Nations, who are misrepresented as perpetrators or unfairly drawn into child protection systems. They urged the government to withdraw the amendment until the full consequences for children and primary carers have been assessed.

This idea isn't new. In the 2018-2019 budget the then prime minister, Scott Morrison, proposed similar powers to suspend welfare payments for people with outstanding arrest warrants. Now, Labor has decided to copy the playbook of Scott Morrison, the very architect of robodebt and the same man behind the Targeted Compliance Framework, another dodgy system Labor refuses to halt. Scott Morrison's social security policies are not the test paper Labor wants to be copying from.

Following these last-minute amendments, the Antipoverty Centre released a joint statement opposing them, signed by nearly every major community, advocacy and legal organisation consulted by the government. The signatories included the Antipoverty Centre, Anglicare Australia, Anti-Poverty Network South Australia, ACOSS, the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, Community Restorative Centre, Consumers of Mental Health WA, Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Disability Advocacy Network Australia, Economic Justice Australia, Everybody's Home, Mental Health Lived Experience Peak Queensland, NATSILS, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion, Single Mother Families Australia, Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women's Legal Centre and the Law Council of Australia. When every single expert and advocate the government consults says, 'This is wrong,' the government should listen.

There are some small bright spots in this bill. The first is the increase in the small debt waiver amount, but we make the observation that even that hasn't kept pace with inflation. Advocates and experts told us at the inquiry that if the government were to increase the waiver to keep pace with inflation since it was introduced, it would be closer to $440. The Greens also welcome the introduction of debt waivers for people affected by domestic violence or financial coercion, reforms that the Greens have long called for. But even these long-overdue changes have been cynically bundled into legislation that potentially harms women and children in other ways.

No doubt Labor and the coalition will, once again, team up to pass this bill because, on this issue, they're not that different. Both parties have a long history of perpetrating institutional injustice against people who rely on our social security system. This bill continues that legacy. It excuses government wrongdoing, it entrenches inequality, and it undermines human rights. For all these reasons, the Greens cannot support it unamended. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 3501:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) the proposed quantum of resolution payments in the bill will mean that many people impacted by unlawfully calculated debts:

(i) will receive less than the quantum of the overpayment they made to the government, and

(ii) will not be adequately compensated for the additional harm and inconvenience caused; and

(b) a more just approach would be for all affected debts to be waived".