Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before us is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

Question negatived.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my fault—I wasn't following what the matter was that was before the house. Can you just advise what the previous vote was on?

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question that I just put to the chamber was that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to. There were no voices for the ayes.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my fault for not paying attention. I didn't understand that my colleague's second reading amendment was before the chamber. Could I ask that the question be recommitted? It may be that my colleague might seek leave to speak to it.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I will put the question again. The question before us is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

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

I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the bill to:

(a) incorporate Schedule 5 in a separate bill; and

(b) add to that bill enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement, and a provision giving effect to the amending schedule.

I gave notice of this motion on 3 November, and it is listed on page 17 of the Notice Paper. I move this motion to split schedule 5 into a new bill, with the intention that we will send it to an inquiry for examination. There has been no scrutiny of schedule 5, which introduces an extremely punitive and highly controversial new power for the police minister to cancel someone's social security payments. And, no, we're not talking about jobseeker; we're talking about paid parental leave and single-parenting payments.

These changes warrant some very serious scrutiny, and I want to read out some of the concerns that have been sent to us by the Law Council of Australia. They say:

We are concerned that this measure would deny individuals subject to an arrest warrant the right to presumption of innocence. An arrest warrant is not a statement of guilt, but merely an order that a person appears in court. That person should not be subjected to punitive action unless they have first been found guilty of an offence.

This is really concerning. This is yet another example of a government treating people receiving social security like criminals. Apparently, it's no longer important for the courts to determine guilt. Now we have the government making that decision by itself and stripping people of life-sustaining money before they have been put before a judge, and this should concern everyone in the community.

The Law Council of Australia's letter also says:

Schedule 5 may create further inequity and unintended consequences within our justice system with significant community impacts. The measure only affects people who are already living with poverty and removal of social security payments will detrimentally impact their livelihood and access to housing. This measure could even make individuals more likely to commit crimes (or further crimes) to support themselves. This, combined with the potential of accused persons accessing benefits at shops or ATMs to provide police with evidence of that person's whereabouts, raises the question of whether it is rationally connected to its stated purpose of achieving community safety.

Not only does it flip the presumption of innocence, but it may actually achieve the opposite of what the government is seeking. It may actually stop police from finding people, and it could force desperate people into committing crime to feed themselves and their families. So, in fact, this could be detrimental to community safety. And that's not me saying this, it's the Law Council of Australia! Why not let us investigate that? Why are we pushing this through the Senate with no scrutiny?

One more quote, and I think this is particularly important. The Law Council says:

The unintended consequences of the Bill will disproportionately impact marginalised groups including First Nations people and people with disability. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee documented at length concerns that police responses to domestic violence in First Nations communities can involve misidentifying First Nations women as perpetrators, rather than victim-survivors. This results in action being mistakenly taken against people who are in the most need of protection. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability documented similar concerns for people with disability, particularly First Nations women with disability. This underlines the risks of removing social security based on arrest warrants being issued, rather than a process of facts being tested before a court of law where a guilty verdict is reached.

And this is not just the view of the Law Council. This is the view of First Nations women's groups and disability representative organisations across the country, who are asking this Senate not to pass this schedule today but to send it to an inquiry for further examination. Here is what People with Disability Australia had to say in a public statement:

Stopping a person's payment before any court process has occurred risks leaving people without income, housing or essentials, and undermines the presumption of innocence that underpins our justice system.

The Disability Royal Commission demonstrated that people with disability disproportionately experience high rates of contact with the criminal justice system, reflecting the broader criminalisation of disability and the lack of appropriate social, health and community supports. Commissioners also documented the significant barriers that our communities face when dealing with police, courts, and other parts of the justice system. These findings show that even within a system designed to uphold due process, people with disability are often denied justice when their rights and needs are not properly understood or accommodated.

We are also deeply concerned that communities traditionally over-policed and disadvantaged, including First Nations people with disability, would be at heightened risk under this amendment.

Given such injustices already occur for our communities under judicial oversight, the risks are far greater in an administrative system where decisions can be made quickly, without due process, evidence, legal representation, or advocacy.

This amendment was introduced without public consultation or adequate scrutiny. Changes that affect millions of Australians should be transparent and informed by those most impacted.

Finally, this one is also very important. This is from the Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT):

Under this legislation, people's benefits could be stripped away simply because they are unaware police have issued a warrant for their arrest, and without any opportunity to access legal help.

The proposed amendments will inevitably have a greater impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are grossly overrepresented at every stage of the criminal process. Cutting off people's Centrelink payments will not only impact those individuals, but put their children and families—too many of whom already live below the poverty line—at risk of homelessness and child removals.

Such a controversial proposed legislative change should be the subject of considered consultation with community and legal experts. We call on the Government to withdraw this proposal.

I'm also gravely concerned about how this bill is going to impact children in our community. We in this place have a duty to protect children, and this fundamentally endangers children. The protections for children in this bill are so thin that they practically don't exist. On current reading, the minister's department have to seek advice on whether a decision the minister makes would impact a person's dependants, but they don't actually have to consider that advice before they make a decision. They just need to have asked for the advice, and then, if that advice said that it would be extremely detrimental to a child, they don't necessarily have to do anything about it. I'm sure the government would say that of course they will, but there's nothing in this legislation that actually ensures that they have to. They simply have had to sought advice: 'Yep, sought advice—away we go.' Even if the advice comes back and says, 'There will be detrimental impact on these children,' the department can, should they wish to, still choose to cancel a payment.

The children who would be impacted by this bill are already the children who are in the most vulnerable living circumstances in the country. They are children who are living off poverty-level payments. They are likely to be children living in remote parts of the country. No matter whether someone is pursued for a serious crime, it is not fair, proportionate, reasonable or ethical to put their dependants in harm's way or to leave them without the basic necessities of life. I would urge my colleagues, before voting to speed this bill through with no scrutiny, to spare a thought for the children who will be put in difficult situations.

To the coalition: I note that in Senator Liddle's speech on the second reading of this bill there were very significant concerns raised with schedule 5, and Senator Liddle said:

It is entirely inappropriate that the amendments weren't put to scrutiny in the committee process.

I'm presenting the Senate with an opportunity to actually send this to a Senate committee, to have a look at it and to allow all of these organisations, such as the Law Council of Australia and groups working on the front line with First Nations women across the country, to actually have their say in providing feedback to the Senate ahead of a vote on this schedule. This deserves more scrutiny. I urge my colleagues to split this bill.

I want to end with something that I think is really worth repeating and thinking about, and that is the comments by Commissioner Holmes, in the robodebt royal commission, on the way that we talk about people on welfare in this country. The government may argue that it's a long bow to draw, but I think this kind of legislation actually does show that we're not serious about due process when it comes to people on welfare payments. We're willing to punish them and punish their children if we deem that they are doing the wrong thing, and this is something we need to take seriously. We need to change the way we talk about this as a country, and so I urge the Senate to support this motion to split off schedule 5 and send it to an inquiry.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame on Labor. Shame on you all, particularly Minister Plibersek, who is endangering families and who is completely disrespecting Aboriginal legal services and women's legal services. We know you fly the Aboriginal flag and think you're all deadly about it, but what you're doing is outrageous. It's conniving, it's sly and it's merry effing Christmas to anyone out there on welfare who is going to be demonised by—

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Senator Thorpe. I would note—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't swear.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's implied in that expression. We need to watch language in the chamber. Sorry to interrupt.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's how people are feeling about this piece of legislation—the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. You snuck a section in without any scrutiny. We have a letter that over a hundred organisations signed—legal services, disability services, Aboriginal services—to say, 'This is not okay.' Then you side with the opposition, who you'd expect it from, to rush this through. I'd be putting my head down in shame, too, Minister. Shame. You have not even thought about this. We know that your government continues to undermine democracy in this country. Accountability and transparency have gone completely out the window. This is not about anything else but the cops' failure to find Dezi. You think, by putting this into a bill, it's going to find Dezi. You will demonise all of those families and children just for one fella that you can't find.

This bill is the latest example of Labor quickly and silently sneaking a whole new schedule into a bill, hidden in a broader government amendment, last-minute before passing it in the House, meaning that many members did not even realise this punitive change had been included. We were all caught by surprise. You didn't think we'd read the fine print. The proposed new schedule 5 was not subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I sit on. It has bypassed the human rights committee, and we're meant to scrutinise any relevant legislation. It didn't even come to us.

This is not an accident. Labor is trying to sneak these changes through because the proposed schedule 5 on benefit restriction notices is actually an outrageous extension of police powers into the welfare system, the tax system and the workplace. Cops have no place in those systems. These changes would allow police to advise a responsible minister to cancel a person's concession card and social security payments where an arrest warrant exists against them. This would affect payments such as pensions, JobSeeker, youth allowance, family tax benefit and parental leave pay. This last-minute is unrelated to other provisions in the bill and has been made as a kneejerk reaction to the ongoing search for Dezi Freeman.

It is a reactionary, poorly considered move from the government that will have dangerous consequences. It goes against several international human rights instruments. Shame on you, Labor. Do you care about human rights in this country, or do you just like violating them? It goes against what this country is meant to be about, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among others. How many human rights do you want to breach? What happened to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty?

This brutal measure means that social security payments can be cancelled on the assumption that someone is guilty of a serious offence before they get their day in court, but what if they're not guilty? Has your government considered what consequences this could have for someone who is innocent? Cancellation of these payments will not just have consequences for the accused; it will hurt their families, children and dependents. Especially in our case, in our communities, one wage can feed a whole family—an extended family. That means we can't afford rent, bills or food. This will lead to homelessness, poverty and child removals, but you love those because you make money from our misery.

We know how this vicious cycle ends. Instead of providing support services to those in need, Labor time and again criminalises people further and introduces harsher and harsher measures. We know who will be most affected by these changes—victims-survivors of domestic violence, children, disabled people and, of course, First Nations people in this country, particularly women. Under these powers, a woman fleeing an abuser could lose the only income keeping her and her kids safe.

The proposed changes do not afford the person under warrant access to legal advice or an appearance in court before the cancellation of the payment. These are actually standard processes with the cancellation of Centrelink payments. Minister Plibersek and the police claim these measures will help catch people, but they have provided no evidence for this—nothing. Cutting off income doesn't make someone easier to find; it makes them more desperate, and desperate people will do desperate things. It may push them to commit crimes to survive. Plibersek and the police put the broader community at risk with these measures. These changes are unacceptable. They're an unacceptable expansion of police powers. Giving police power to interfere in the social welfare system is very, very dangerous. This country is becoming more and more of a police state, and it happens one murky bill at a time.

Honestly, what you fellas are doing, Labor, is worse than what the coalition have done. I don't know if you're trying to be like them or what your go is, but you continue to breach people's human rights in this country and you should all hang your head very, very low. Even your own Ged Kearney called this out. I hear she's very upset. She didn't want this to go ahead. It shows how powerful a backbencher is these days!

Increasing police powers doesn't make our community safer. Police target us, criminalise us and kill us. We cannot let Labor get away with this sneaky, dangerous, brutal move. That is why today I will move an amendment to remove schedule 5 from this bill. A broad alliance of civic society organisations are calling for this Senate to oppose the entire bill unless schedule 5 is removed from it. I stand with them and I call on every senator in this place: if you believe in human rights, then you should stand with them also.

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

I stand to speak in support of Senator David Pocock's motion to split the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, and I want to associate myself with the comments made by Senator David Pocock and Senator Thorpe. The government has not given us a genuine explanation for why schedule 5 is warranted and why it is so urgent. If schedule 5 is so urgent that it needed to bypass a Senate inquiry and if schedule 5 is so urgent that it warranted sneaking it into a bill in the House, then let us hear the explanation for that.

As Senator Pocock and Senator Thorpe have said, there are over 100 experts who are urging the government to remove schedule 5. It breaches people's human rights. It is contrary to the rule of law. It is a piece of legislation that would make Donald Trump proud. Who would have thought that, in 2025, a Labor government would introduce legislation that so egregiously tramples on people's human rights and the rule of law? But here we are. Shame on you.

If the case for this schedule is so urgent and important, then stump up to Senate scrutiny, split it from the bill, send it off to inquiry, and make the case for why it is justified to treat people on income support in this way. This is a government that went to two elections now saying that they didn't want to leave anybody behind, and yet they continue to punch down and disregard the rights of people on welfare in this country. We continue to see people's payments suspended unlawfully. We've had multiple instances of unlawful cancellations. In fact, this very bill is attempting to wipe away 30 years of unlawful income apportionment. It doesn't seem to matter what the department or the government does to people on income support. It doesn't matter how unlawful it is; there's always a get-out-of-jail-free card. Yet, if a person on income support misses an appointment or doesn't meet an obligation, a punitive obligation, a mutual obligation, for which there is no evidence that it helps them to get into employment, the government and the department come down on them like a ton of bricks. Yet this same government and this same department won't put up for scrutiny a schedule that is so egregiously in contravention of people's human rights and the rule of law.

It's not just the crossbench saying it. The statement from academic and legal experts says they have a number of concerns with schedule 5: it is a 'violation of the presumption of innocence and due process'; it gives 'ministerial power without procedural safeguards or independent review'; there is a 'lack of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation'; there are 'disproportionate impacts for First Nations peoples, as demonstrated in New Zealand'; it has 'disproportionate impacts for victims of violence'; it has 'incoherent federal-state arrangements without accountability'; it will make 'possible severe harm to dependents'; and 'international evidence demonstrates harm'. Is that why the government didn't want this to go to an inquiry—because there is evidence that already exists that says that this is harmful? The experts go on to say:

Existing mechanisms are adequate and current safeguards are more protective …

In other words, 'You don't need to do this.' It creates an 'unacceptable precedent'.

Is the government seriously saying that 112 academic and legal experts are wrong? Is this, as Senator Thorpe said, a quick fix for a police force that can't find one individual? And millions of Australians on income support pay the price for that. Again, shame on you.

As for the coalition, how can you get up in the House, in this chamber, and talk about concerns about process and support a bill with a schedule that has not been inquired into. This is your opportunity to stand up for fair process, to support Senator Pocock's motion to split the bill and to subject this egregious schedule 5 to the scrutiny it deserves. You can't stand up in this place and say that process needs to be followed and then waive this schedule 5 through.

I never thought I would see the day that a Labor government would pass something so egregious, but here we are again, punching down on refugees, punching down on people on income support and not looking after people who are desperate for secure housing. If you want to reduce crime in this country, lift people out of poverty, make sure that our education systems are properly funded and make sure that people have secure housing, because continuing to punch down on people on income support in the multiple ways you seem to find to do it is not making anyone safer.

Again, thank you, Senator Pocock, for moving this motion. Thank you to everyone on the crossbench who is standing against this appalling schedule 5. To the government and the coalition: if you genuinely think that this will stand up to the scrutiny it deserves then support this motion and have the courage to send schedule 5 to an inquiry to look into it and to see how lawful it actually is.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again the government has denied true, genuine consultation on important legislation. It has denied the opportunity for stakeholders and experts to review or provide feedback. The government has deliberately added schedule 5 to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 after the parliamentary committee review process. Once again the government is testing and undermining our basic rule of law. First they tried to cut our freedom of information and keep access to information away from the public and our journalists. Now they're trying to ram through legislation to deny people the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness.

Schedule 5 would give government officials the power to strip social security benefits from a person subject to an arrest warrant, even though that person hasn't even been convicted of any offence at all. As the Law Council of Australia says:

No one, even those charged with serious offences, should be subject to punitive action by the state unless they have first been found guilty of an offence by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.

Is the government really okay with stripping away Australians' ability to access justice and taking food away from families in need and away from people that haven't even been convicted?

This reform will create even more inequity and unintended consequences within the justice system, including for First Nations people. We also know that misidentification often happens in cases of domestic violence, and schedule 5 would only make this worse and punish victims for reporting—and add the risk of the government ripping away their social security benefits. Experts expect schedule 5 to not only erode our rule of law and presumption of innocence but also increase homelessness and put family and community safety at risk. Whatever happened to the Labor that stood up for the little guy, for fairness and, frankly, for the basic rule of law?

Schedule 5 should be separated from the rest of the bill and referred to a parliamentary committee for proper public scrutiny. I back Senator Pocock and his motion. The crossbench are doing the right thing for the people of Australia and for the people they represent. It's a shame that the majors aren't doing the same.

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

I've listened to those contributions. The government will not be supporting this contingent motion from Senator Pocock, and I will run through a little bit about why that is. We do believe it is important to deal with this issue as part of this legislation. I note there were assertions that we had tried to sneak it in or do it post committee inquiry. That isn't the case. The original bill, without schedule 5, had proceeded in the usual way. The government received advice around the need to seek a power like this once that piece of legislation had been considered by a committee.

I note that this was moved a couple of weeks ago. There have been briefings offered. There was a crossbench briefing, and I think Senator Thorpe and the opposition also had a specific briefing on schedule 5. Others would have been provided if others had sought it. There was a genuine willingness to provide as much time or information as we could to explain why we believe this particular power, although very rarely used, I imagine, is required as part of a suite of responses to some of the issues in the social security legislative space.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not true.

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

It's not incorrect. That is correct.

Senator Thorpe, I listened to you in complete silence. Even though I disagree with a lot of what you said, I listened to you. I think it's appropriate that I should be allowed to respond.

In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised around the use of this type of power, I will deal with a couple of issues. This can only be used if an individual has committed a serious violent or sexual offence and is on the run; they should not receive payment from the government in certain circumstances, and there are caveats on even that. So when the assertion is that this would apply to millions of Australians, that is not correct. It would apply to those who have committed a serious violent or sexual offence and are on the run. When they are no longer on the run—that is, when it is known where they are, and they are in touch with the authorities—that entitlement to that payment continues. So it is specifically for a period of time under very, very strict and specific purposes. This idea that it's going to affect millions of Australians, entire populations of families and people who rely on income support, is completely incorrect.

I don't accept at all the assertion from others that this government does anything other than treat people who are on income support respectfully and indeed have increased payments since coming to government in excess of probably any other government in this time. We have increased single parenting payment. We have increased JobSeeker. There has been significant indexation to all of the pensions.

If I could just speak, please. It is going to be a very, very long bill.

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

It is!

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

Yes. It will be longer if you keep yelling at me. Commonwealth rent assistance—again, no other government has increased Commonwealth rent assistance in the order that this government has. So I completely reject any assertion from those down at that end of the chamber that this government doesn't treat people on income support respectfully. That is absolutely what we do. It's not only delivered through the income support system; it's through all the other work that we're doing, the work Minister Plibersek is leading in community services and social services, and the work that Senator McCarthy is doing on closing the gap.

This is one limited power to be provided in those very specific circumstances. I understand you all want to ensure that people are worried that it has more broad application, but it doesn't. I think concerns were raised around children and the impact on children, and the way that schedule 5 is drafted means that, yes, they have to take advice from Services Australia on the impact. Under administrative law, they have to consider that advice. So the assertions that they don't have to take that into account are simply incorrect as well. They actually have to not only get the advice but consider that in any decision that they make take about removing access to a payment. Those concerns that were raised, again, that we're going to leave children without income support are simply incorrect as well.

In addition to this, the Minister for Social Services has written to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to advise them that, following a decision to issue a benefit restriction notice, they will be notified and provided with information that informed the decision, including the advice prepared by Services Australia. She has also invited the Ombudsman to report on the use of the measure as part of their public annual report, noting the measure is intended to be used rarely. She has also undertaken to consult with the Ombudsman in the development of guidance and procedures to assist in the administration of the measure. I have the letter here if people are interested in me tabling that letter that has been provided, and I think it was sent last week. I'm happy to table that. Sorry, I haven't shown it to people, so if people want to have a look at it before I table it, that's fine.

They are further commitments from the government about transparency and reporting of the use of benefit restriction notices, which I think should address some of the concerns that people have raised this morning. In order for a benefit restriction notice to be put in place—I'll repeat this again because it is a very specific subset of individuals—there must be an outstanding arrest warrant, and they are a threat to the community. This is not going to have broad, widespread application, because that situation does not occur in any widespread way.

If people are concerned about the use of the power, I think the commitments that the Minister for Social Services has given should address some of those concerns. The minister wrote that the minister will report when that power has been used and provide the information that informed the decision, including the advice from Services Australia. The minister also asked the Ombudsman to consider reporting on the use of the measure as part of their annual report, and consulted with the Ombudsman in the development of guidance and procedures to assist in the administration of the measure. This is a power that is needed. It is a power that would be very rarely used, but we believe, with the processes that will be put in place to manage that use of the power, it is one that is required under our social security legislative system.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock for an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the bill be agreed to.