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

I move Greens amendment on sheet 3733:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 15 and 16), omit "an amount between $20 and $200", substitute "an amount that is equal to or greater than $20".

_____

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to remove the upper amount that a person can request by way of an urgent payment. This will likely lead to recipients of urgent payments requesting and receiving higher amounts of payment, increasing expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

This amendment seeks to remove the $200 upper limit on urgent payments. There were several submissions into the inquiry into this bill, including from ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia, that argued that the upper limit should be removed. The Economic Justice Australia submission says:

EJA recommends removing the upper limit on the amount a person can request as an urgent payment, which the Bill currently sets at $200.

They go on to say:

Subsection (3DD) in Item 9 of the Bill already limits how much can actually be paid, and there appears to be little utility in refusing to consider larger requests. The reasons a person may require an urgent payment are many and varied, and not limited to an arbitrary monetary value.

Minister, I'm interested in understanding how the government arrived at the $200 upper limit, particularly in circumstances where we know, as many of the submissions into the inquiry noted, that the sorts of things that people need urgent payments for are, more often than not, more than $200—things like needing to pull together a bond when someone is evicted from their rental. We're increasingly seeing people experiencing no-grounds evictions because owners want to sell their properties and make a profit. We're also seeing people have things like washing machines or fridges break down—things that are essential to their daily lives—and I challenge anyone to go and find a washing machine or a fridge on the market that's $200 or less.

I want to know why the government has put this upper limit on it, and I note too that this is in the context of people being expected to run down their savings before they can get access to income support. ACOSS has found that 40 per cent of people on income support have less than $500 in savings, so I'm keen to understand why the government is placing a $200 limit on urgent payment requests (a) when they don't really cover the things that people generally need urgent payments for and (b) in circumstances where ACOSS, Economic Justice Australia, the Antipoverty Centre and other advocates and submitters have suggested that that should be the case.