David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection. Effectively, the government is saying, 'We have advice, but we're not going to say because of these conventions.' You have privilege here. You could at least say, 'Yes, it's constitutional.' But it seems like the government is keen to sneak this through and evade any scrutiny. We didn't get a Senate inquiry into this. The government says, 'Well, everyone knew this was happening,' but that's not what I hear from the 100-odd groups who've signed onto that open letter.

The Law Council has put to us:

… a person may be the subject of an arrest warrant for a number of reasons, not all of which mean that person is actively evading police and which more often concern their personal circumstances.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this notion that the bill only applies to those that are actively evading arrest is not correct. What schedule 5 actually says is that it applies to a person if there is a warrant for their arrest and they haven't been arrested. So it is actually broader than what the government is saying, and, as the Law Council says:

… police may be unable to locate a person because they are away from their usual residence, suburb or town—including to attend a family gathering such as a funeral. This is not uncommon with First Nations people, noting that the extent of police efforts to locate a person before resorting to an arrest warrant may vary widely. Alternatively, the person may have inadvertently missed a court date, failed to appear, and had a warrant issued for their arrest. Cutting off a person's income is a disproportionate and punitive response to these situations.

Does the government accept the Law Council's concern that a person may be attending to personal circumstances, may not even be aware that there is a warrant for their arrest, and then have their social security cancelled?