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

The Australian Greens oppose schedule 1 in the following terms, noting that it is the same as the opposition's amendment:

  (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 13), to be opposed.

The opposition and the Greens have the same amendment about special benefit and we have both signalled that we do not support schedule 1.

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

As it is the same amendment, as long as that segment comes out of it, we do not care who owns the amendment.

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

Just to be clear on this, this is the schedule that I spoke about during my second reading contribution, which is why I am not going to revisit the issues. This is about the income maintenance period, and I articulated why people are so concerned about that and the adverse impact on people if they cannot access this as a last resort safety net payment.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The Australian Greens oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 3, page 9 (line 1) to page 10 (line 22), to be opposed.

As I articulated in my second reading contribution, the Greens do not support schedule 3, which we think unfairly impacts on students. Again, I indicated during my second reading contribution that the National Union of Students had concerns about this particular amendment. It impacts on students who need to take a different number of subjects and apparently different courses. My colleague Senator Simms very clearly articulated his concerns about the impact that this may have on students. Greens amendment (2) takes out schedule 3, which changes the requirements for study for social security payments.