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

by leave–I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3497 together:

(1) Schedule 5, item 10, page 40 (line 21), at the end of subsection 38MA(3), add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the AFP Minister is informed under paragraph (4)(b).

(2) Schedule 5, page 41 (after line 3), after item 12, insert:

12A At the end of subsection 38N(2)

Add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the ASIO Minister is informed under paragraph (3)(b).

(3) Schedule 5, item 38, page 45 (line 30), at the end of subsection 57GIA(4), add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the AFP Minister is informed under paragraph (5)(b).

(4) Schedule 5, page 46 (after line 10), after item 40, insert:

40A At the end of subsection 57GJ(3)

Add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the ASIO Minister is informed under paragraph (4)(b).

(5) Schedule 5, item 63, page 50 (line 19), at the end of subsection 278BA(3), add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the AFP Minister is informed under paragraph (4)(b).

(6) Schedule 5, page 50 (after line 31), after item 65, insert:

65A At the end of subsection 278C(2)

Add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the ASIO Minister is informed under paragraph (3)(b).

These amendments reflect something fairly basic, that the minister should actually read the advice they have sought from Services Australia before they make a decision about whether to cut someone's social security. This matter is just too important to leave to chance. What's at stake is the welfare of that person's children and dependents. The government will argue that there is a principle in administrative law that the minister take into account all relevant considerations before it makes a decision. In this case, they will argue that since the minister requests information about a person's dependents, they would have to consider it before a decision is made.

But how is that going to be enforced? There is literally no avenue for a merits review in this bill. A person cannot ask for a merits review. They can't make an application to the ART. The only recourse would be to take the Commonwealth to the Federal Court if a person feels the minister does not take into account all relevant considerations before the decision to strip that person of their social security benefits. I think we can probably all agree that someone on income support will not be taking the Commonwealth to the Federal Court on behalf of their dependents.

It's better that we just outline the relevant considerations in this schedule so that we can be assured that when the minister exercises this power, then we know they have not only requested information but they have also read it and considered it. And even if this amendment were accepted, I would still have significant reservations about the entirety of the schedule. For one, Services Australia may not know about a person's dependents. We heard from Senator Thorpe yesterday that in First Nations communities, where this new power will no doubt be used, 'dependents' covers a broad range of relationships. The range of dependents is just not going to be known by Services Australia, and I think it's unreasonable to expect officers of the agency to be aware of all the dependents of someone.

I maintain that schedule 5, the schedule that was drafted between the end of the inquiry and this bill passing through the House, should actually go to an inquiry. But I ask the government to nonetheless accept this very basic safeguard and ensure that the minister cannot make a decision that could potentially put the welfare of children at risk without having considered information from Services Australia.

Minister, can I please take you to something you said yesterday. You said that once a person is no longer on the run, that once they are caught and issues are resolved, that the person's payment resumes. Can you point me to this clause in the bill? All I can see is that the payment is cancelled—not suspended, cancelled—and I understand there is a big difference between suspension and cancellation. That is according to advice provided to me by Economic Justice Australia. Please can you clarify for the Senate what the situation is: whether the affected person would, following cancellation, have to reapply for the payment they were on, or is it that the payment is just restored, as you say?