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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3499 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 7 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 validates things done" in section 1112.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 13 to 16), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 does not validate any income averaging" in section 1112.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) to page 14 (line 25), Division 2 to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (line 32), omit paragraph 1117D(12)(a).

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 18 (line 28), omit subsection 1117E(9).

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (line 8), omit subsection 1117F(11).

The Greens have real concerns about the retrospective validation of income apportionment. We understand this is not the first time that Minister Plibersek has retrospectively made lawful things that were unlawful. She did something similar when she was previously the minister. We have a concern that the retrospective validation of income apportionment will impact people's rights—in particular, the ability for individuals to challenge convictions arising from this unlawful method—and it represents a bad precedent for future legislation.

In relation to this particular part of the bill, the government has been unable to provide clarity regarding support for individuals who've been subject to a conviction as result of income apportionment. In his submission to the inquiry on this bill, Dr Rudge notes:

Indeed the implications of a person accepting the resolution payment are of great concern. It does not appear clear to me whether the person forfeits their rights to appeal the income apportioned debt or to appeal any criminal conviction that may have arisen in respect of the income apportioned debt. This should be clarified and no such forfeiture should be the consequence of the resolution payment scheme created by this Bill.

My question to the minister is: why is retrospectivity necessary, and would it undermine the resolution scheme—and, if so, how would it do that?