Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate, the bill has good intentions and in general and in principle the coalition are not opposed to these intentions. However, we do have some concerns about what the point is in introducing obligations where there is no effective penalty attached to them. Two of my amendments, which have been circulated in the chamber, go to this very fact. They deal with schedule 1 items 8 and 9, which is where some parenting payment overpayments are not considered debts to the Commonwealth. By way of brief explanation and so as not to delay the Senate longer than we need to: where someone has been paid on the basis that a person has qualified for parenting payment and then that person fails to meet one or more of the participation requirements, therefore being deemed ineligible, they have received funding or money inappropriately—to anyone who rationally considers that particularly issue—yet the Commonwealth is saying that they have no debt obligation.

I can understand at one level that there must be some concern about attaching a debt to an individual who may already be in difficult financial circumstances, particularly where children are involved. If there is simply an obligation for someone to sign up to a plan and then not fulfil any commitment to that plan, however, I really feel that is more about tokenism than anything else. I would seek your response to my concerns in that area.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is mindful in this case, as I said in my summing-up contribution, to getting the balance right. Acknowledging some of the concerns raised by Senator Siewert, the government's intention is that the penalty provisions be utilised only as an absolute last resort and would indeed apply to only a very small element of the target population. This is what colours the government's mind when looking at the amendments proposed by the opposition. We certainly understand the point and highlight that compliance measures in relation to all income support arrangements are important but, on this occasion and with this particular targeted group, we think the provisions as they stand strike that right balance. In that respect, suggestions that this program is about token measures can, I think, be addressed simply by looking at all that has gone into the measures to ensure that these very young, vulnerable families—young women in particular—receive support, as I indicated, to highlight that being a teenager and having a young child is not the end of your education. This is a significant mind shift for many young girls contemplating a future along with a pregnancy.

Whilst we have been very concerned to ensure that the balance is right and that penalties are absolutely a last possible resort—and, Senator Bernardi, I am not sure if we are dealing with all of your amendments at the moment or a particular grouping of them—the government's view is that the balance in this bill is the best we can address for a targeted trial type arrangement, although we certainly will be mindful of the issues that you have raised when we are looking at how effectively that trial has worked.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify, Senator Bernardi, are you moving any of your amendments at this stage or are you into general questions?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am into general questions but they are going to my amendments, though I have not formally moved them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Particularly (3) and (4)?

Particularly amendments (3) and (4), which are about the debt due to the Commonwealth.

Minister, you spoke about the penalties for noncompliance. At one level, as it says in the bill's explanatory memorandum, 'parents who fail to attend appointments/workshops with Centrelink without a reasonable excuse' and who do not 'attend a rescheduled appointment/workshop' can have their income support payments suspended. I think that is under clause 17 of the bill. If they then fulfil their obligation they get those released with full back pay. That is for individuals. But those who come under the second clause of this bill, about families, do not, from my reading of this, have any penalties whatsoever attached to them. If they fail to comply with a plan, which is their only obligation, the only penalty attached is that they may be required to go more frequently to interviews where there is further noting that they have failed to comply with the plan. That is not really a penalty in any meaningful sense. At one part of this, a teenage mother—and I presume it applies just to teenage mothers, which may beg another question in a moment—can lose their payments until they comply, but when it is in regard to a family they may not. Indeed, there is no penalty attached to it once they have done their plan. Is my reading of this correct and, if not, could you please tell me what the penalties are if someone creates a plan and then fails to comply with it under the two different scenarios?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your reading of the bill is correct. However, it moves away from the intent of the bill, which is to target this specific audience and to focus more on generating opportunities rather than on pursuing penalties. If we, for instance, look at the opposition's amendments (3) and (4), which relate to debt accumulation of the parenting payment and supplements, not family payments, in that context the measure is about helping parents improve their lives and those of their children. Teen parents are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, and we believe we have already achieved the balance of creating opportunities requiring responsibility through the suspension model. Anything beyond that is too harsh and contrary to the policy intent.

If I go to the other proposed amendments (1), (2) and (5), relating to exemptions, I indicate that the trial is designed to assist vulnerable teenage parents. We will be providing new services, opportunities and responsibilities to boost educational attainment, job readiness, child wellbeing and the functioning of families with young children in some of the most disadvantaged locations in the country. We want everyone, especially the most vulnerable, to benefit from this assistance. Vulnerability in individual circumstances will be taken into account in the development of participation plans. The likelihood of teen parents falling into this category is relatively minimal. That said, the broader compliance issues remain important for the government and, through this trial, we will be monitoring the issues that you have raised.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I hear your words and I understand you have accepted some advice in respect of this but I have grave concerns that they are platitudes; they are just about implementing a pilot program that is going to be neither effective nor efficient.

That brings me to another question in respect of the suspension of income support payments where parents fail to attend appointments with Centrelink without a reasonable excuse or fail to sign an employment pathway form. I understand that, as part of this, when parents comply with the employment pathway plan after having had a failure they get full repayment of their benefits. But let us imagine a scenario in which a parent fails to comply for a period of weeks and thus has no income support coming through. Has the government considered the impact it would have on the child who is in the care of the parent if possibly the only form of income for supporting and sustaining the child were suspended?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has taken into account the impact of any financial penalties on the wellbeing of the child. These participation plans have been designed to ensure that the child's interests are paramount. Family tax benefit is not affected by these measures, and that ensures that payments directly targeted at family members will continue. It is the income support component that is targeted on this occasion. It needs to be remembered that the whole objective of participation plans is to provide wraparound support for these very vulnerable families. To the extent that some families might continue to breach participation plans, the support and resources of the community associated with those plans will be drawn upon. The removal of income support is meant to be a very last resort. Presumably we would be looking at situations that may involve child protection or other arrangements, if we are talking about family circumstances of the nature Senator Bernardi mentions.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe that this is neither a strong enough incentive for people to do the right thing nor a disincentive to stop them doing the wrong thing. To facilitate the government's guillotine, I will now indicate that the opposition formally opposes items 8 and 9 of schedule 1, as set out at amendments (3) and (4), as circulated, in the following terms:

(3)   Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 8 to 21), TO BE OPPOSED.

(4)   Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 22) to page 5 (line 9), TO BE OPPOSED.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have several questions of the minister and I will also indicate the Greens' position on our amendments. Before moving them I wish to ask the government a few questions on some issues I articulated in my second reading contribution. What happens to participants if they move out of a trial area?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If people are within a trial area and under participation arrangements and they move out of that trial area, their program will continue. There will be flexible Centrelink services to ensure that occurs—except if they move to a remote location.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say there will be flexible services available. Does that mean when they go to their nearest Centrelink office they will have access to case management and the whole process we have been talking about?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The case management in those types of circumstances will not be quite the same as it is in a trial area, but Centrelink is developing remote arrangements to ensure that they have the appropriately qualified staff delivering post-management services. That may be over the phone or it may be online. These arrangements are still being developed to ensure that if people move out of the pilot areas case management support continues.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do have some concerns about that. As I understand it, extra funding is being made available for these support services in the trial areas. If a number of people move out of the trial areas, there will be a group of people subject to these provisions that are not getting the support this process intends and they may suffer adverse consequences. I touched on appeals. Will people subject to these provisions be able to appeal suspension of payments through the usual appeal processes?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is the case.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also raised the issue of specialised training for Centrelink staff. This relates not only to Centrelink staff in the trial areas but also to Centrelink staff outside the trial areas who may be dealing with some of the people who are the subject of this process.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I can indicate a response to some elements of your question, but you may need to be a bit more specific about the nature of the training when we get to that point. The people working within the pilot locations will receive specialist training. That training is not being rolled out across the board, as I am sure you will appreciate. However, those who will be responsible—for want of a better expression—in a centralised way for the people who move out of the area will also receive specialised training and will be dealing with the other caseworkers who have been working with the families in the pilot area as well.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I probably misinterpreted the response earlier. People who move out of the trial areas will be dealing with more a centralised team, rather than the specific people in their local Centrelink centre?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator. The response to that is yes, but they will be dealing with both the workers in their new local Centrelink area and also this centralised, flexible arrangement to ensure that the benefits of the participation plan and arrangements continue if they move out of one of the pilot areas.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I take it from that that there will be some sort of centralised process established under these provisions? Under the funding that is made available for this process, there will be some sort of centralised team that will be taking on the responsibilities that you just articulated but also coordinating the whole process?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, in the national office there will be a centralised team of people who are trained in the participation plan and arrangements but also dealing with that coordination function.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for the responses. I indicate that the Greens will not be supporting amendments (3) and (4), which are around items 8 and 9. We agree with and support the government's argument about that. As we opposed this bill in the first place, we certainly would not be seeking to support measures that would further penalise parents and take away any hope of accessing any income should the worst come to the worst under the these provisions. So we will not be supporting the removal of items 8 and 9. However, we are more persuaded, I will say now, by the other amendments that the opposition have indicated that they may be moving.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to let the chamber know, in respect of amendments (3) and (4): as the Greens have indicated their position I will not be calling for a division on these, so we can do that on the voices, if you like.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that items 8 and 9 in schedule 1, relating to amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7182, stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Briefly, I would like to address the other amendments that we have proposed, which are in effect giving the secretary the flexibility to determine noncompliance and to consider extenuating circumstances in that respect. The Greens have indicated—for which I am grateful—that they are amenable to these amendments. I hope that that will be the case because the amendments simply bring this bill into line with the Social Security Act, whereby, for an individual who is deemed to be noncompliant and may indeed suffer a penalty—notwithstanding the fact that I am saying that some of the penalties are not that significant—the secretary should be able to consider their personal circumstances in making a determination. This is a flexible approach. It is entirely consistent with other legislation that has been through this chamber. I think it is an important initiative to ensure that this pilot can work as effectively as it possibly can, notwithstanding our concerns. With that—I am looking once again for that wonderful wording, and I will try to recreate it—the opposition opposes items 5, 6 and 22 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 26 to 30), TO BE OPPOSED.

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 1 to 5), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 5 to 8), TO BE OPPOSED.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in my earlier remarks, it is the government's view that we have the balance around these things as best appropriate in the circumstances of this being a trial. We would indeed acknowledge some of the issues that Senator Bernardi has raised, but we would use the trial as an opportunity to see how matters proceed. That being said, we will of course accept the will of the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so that I am absolutely clear about what the Greens are not supporting and about our position: we are of a mind at this stage to support these amendments. We believe they maintain the secretary's discretion to be able to:

… make a determination under this section in relation to the person if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is the principal carer of one or more children, and that:

(a) the person is a registered and active foster carer; or

(b) the person is a home educator of that child, or one or more of those children; or

(c) the person is a distance educator of that child, or one or more of those children; or

(d) under a family law order that the person is complying with, a child, of whom the person is a relative (other than a parent), is to live with the person.

And then section 502D(3A), as I understand it—the other one—applies too: the secretary may make a determination under this section in relation to the person if the secretary is satisfied that the person is the principal carer for four or more children. I have questions of both Senator Bernardi, as the opposition is moving these amendments, and the government. Why does the government think it is appropriate that the secretary not have the power to make such a determination? These are very important categories, and I would have thought it would have been appropriate to exempt them. I must admit I am supporting this although we are not supporting the bill. If this bill goes through, as it is indicated to be highly likely to, we believe these exemptions should be kept in place. I ask Senator Bernardi whether it is your intention, by moving these amendments, to keep in place those exemptions for those particular categories? Am I correct in that understanding?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to answer questions from Senator Siewert. If only I were on the other side of the chamber—that would be even more satisfying. Yes, you are correct that that is our intention.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that one of the concerns of the government in this matter is to keep the terms of the trial as broad as possible. For instance, families having four children is not, in the government's view, a reason for them to be exempted from the trial. We wanted to use this trial as an opportunity to look at what might be a reasonable basis for exemptions or arrangements on an ongoing basis. Leaving this capacity or authority with the secretary was not the government's view of how to proceed on a trial basis but rather that the government review the application of these circumstances and look at future program arrangements to deal with any of the inflexibilities or problems that might need to be managed in the future.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to admit that the government's explanation does not fill me with joy, so we will be supporting these amendments. I think it is important that this power of determination remain with the secretary for these particular groups of people, so we will be supporting these amendments.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that items 5, 6 and 22 in schedule 1 relating to amendments (1), (2) and (5) on sheet 7182 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.