Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting this amendment. The amendment would remove the requirement for decision-makers to consider the circumstances that gave rise to the debt when applying the special circumstances waiver. It would allow debts to be waived under the special circumstances waiver, even in the cases of clear fraud, and protecting against fraud is a longstanding feature of the special circumstances waiver. Parliament has never intended for the special circumstances waiver to be available where a person sets out to mislead or defraud the government, and removing the false statement requirement from the special circumstances waiver would allow future decision-makers to apply the waiver in this way. It is important that the provision is clear in its intent that this should not happen. The government believes the bill, as drafted, balances the need for decision-makers to have greater flexibility in applying the waiver in complex circumstances like the ones that you talk about, Senator Allman-Payne, like financial abuse and coercion, while recognising the need to prevent debt waivers from being exploited.

In relation to the use of the language 'justified in the circumstances' in the bill and why that has been used, the government believes that the test of 'justified' is more appropriate in the context of this legislation, as the decision around the waiver should be based on the subjective experiences of the individual—particularly in circumstances that you outline, Senator Allman-Payne. It matches the subjective test of whether special circumstances exist, and the interpretation of 'justified', for the purposes of the special circumstances waiver, will be supported by detail in the explanatory memorandum, the guides to social policy law and, as you say, Services Australia's operational guidance.