Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3487, moved by Senator Allman-Payne.

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

I believe that, when we got interrupted by the hard marker in the last committee stage, the question that I had asked the minister was: How long will people have to wait? What is the timeline for the introduction of the six-year limit on debt recovery?

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

I can't give a timeframe. I'm sorry, Senator Allman-Payne. But work will be undertaken by the Minister for Social Services, and once that is finalised, if there are any further amendments that are required, it would have to come here via legislation. I would say that we are trying to do a lot in the social security space, including on debt reform, which is contained in this bill—the first big stages of that—which is, I think, a serious and genuine attempt by the government to address some of these problems that have been longstanding.

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

If it suits the convenience of the chamber, I would propose that I ask questions on some other amendments that I will foreshadow I'll be moving so that we can consider each of those amendments as a block towards the end of the questions.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure.

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

In that case, I want to foreshadow that I'll also be moving an amendment on sheet 3490. This relates to the timeframe for which the resolution scheme will apply. At the moment, the resolution scheme in the bill limits eligibility for debts impacted from 2003 onwards. However, in November 2024, officials from the Department of Social Services advised the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the unlawful use of income apportionment predates 2003 amendments, and it actually dates back to at least 1991. So my question to the minister is: why is the government refusing to provide compensation for those impacted prior to 2003?

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

The changes that have since been found to be unlawful were made in September 2003. It's clear from this date that income apportionment was unlawful for most payment types. Prior to 2003, the use of income apportionment and its legal status is less clear, so the scheme is open to debts accrued after 2003.

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

Minister, many Labor senators in their second reading speeches in relation to this bill promised that this bill was a bill of fairness and dignity. Does the government believe that it's fair to prevent the 1.6 million people with debts impacted by income apportionment between 1 July 1991 to 19 September 2003 from accessing resolution payments?

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

The view of the government is that, prior to those changes being made in September 2003, the legal status of the application or the use of income apportionment is less clear. I should say that decisions from pre-2003 can also still be reviewed. If a decision affected by income apportionment is reviewed in the future, it will be reviewed in line with the method in this bill.

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

I foreshadow that I'll be moving an amendment on sheet 3498 which relates to the duration of the resolution scheme. Minister, when we spoke with advocates such as Economic Justice Australia, they raised significant concerns that the timeframe for the scheme being only 12 months is insufficient. They talked about the fact that this scheme will overlap with compensation arrangements for robodebt and that for many people this will potentially cause confusion. They've also talked about the fact that, because somebody who accesses a resolution payment is waiving future liability or their future claims, they will require legal advice in relation to this. Therefore, they have indicated that limiting the scheme to only one year means that many people will potentially not be able to access it, and that they—despite the fact that there's been talk of additional funding—will not necessarily have the capacity to advise the number of people that will require legal advice.

Minister, given that unlawful income apportionment took place over decades, why is the government limiting access to the scheme to one year? I note that this is in circumstances where the department is still able to raise debts back to whenever. We're not introducing a six-year limit on debt recovery. We have a scheme that has gone on over decades unlawfully, and yet, for people to get a resolution payment, we're saying that you have to get it in 12 months or you miss out. Minister, why are you limiting the scheme to only 12 months?

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

The government's view on this—and we will be opposing this amendment, Senator Allman-Payne, when you move it—is that the extension of the scheme for another two years would come at significant administrative costs, and those costs are not insubstantial.

We are going to support ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia financially. Both will be given $400,000 each to ensure that the messages about the scheme and people's eligibility for it is widely disseminated. Services Australia will also write to everyone affected by income-apportionment-related debt recovery pauses to notify them that their debt activity is recommencing and let them know about the resolution of the scheme and the system that we're putting in place.

I'm sure, and I know this from working with Services Australia, that they do try to be as flexible as they can within the parameters that have been set for the policy. But I'm sure that in the situation that someone's disadvantaged by income apportionment—not everybody was, so let's be clear about that. We think it's about a third that might have had a negative debt raised, and that will certainly be the focus of the scheme. We think one year provides the right time for that. We're expecting the scheme to commence in January 2026, and all applications made within that one year—it's not that it's all got to be resolved—so January 2026 to January 2027 is the appropriate amount of time.

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

Minister, the fact that some people, due to income apportionment, would have paid a debt that was less than what was owed is often referred to in giving the reasons for why this scheme needs to be limited. But sampling has shown that at least two-thirds of people actually paid more than was required. That was the evidence we heard in the inquiry.

The second point I want to make is about this idea that it's going to be at significant administrative cost. Why it is that every single time we talk about welfare and income support, we're always prioritising cost to the government over the cost to people who are subject to unlawful practices? We know that some people have paid thousands more than they should have and that has catastrophic impacts on people, and it's unlawful. So why is it that the government continually uses the excuse that it's a cost to government when it is people on income support, the most vulnerable people in our communities, who continually pay the price for government and department unlawful conduct?

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

My response to that is—and ministers did have detailed discussions about this—we would prefer that the money available that we have provided under both debt reform and the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme went to people and wasn't chewed up in administrative and other costs. Part of this is wiping the debts, which is a cost to the government. It is a cost to the budget, even though I accept it has an individual impact. We have to account for the costs because it's required under the rules around how we put budgets together. We have looked at this. I want more of it to go there, just like in robodebt. I wanted more to go there than went to some of the legal processes around robodebt. That's what the government is trying to do here. We want to minimise administrative and running costs and maximise repayments to individuals.

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

But Minister, isn't it the case that rather than tackle the hard things like making one in three big corporations who pay no tax, pay tax—rather than having the courage to stand up to them and make them pay their fair share so that there's more money in the bucket to pay the people who have unlawfully made overpayments, and as I said, there are people who paid thousands more than they should have—the resolution scheme caps at $600. Why is the government always taking the easy out and making the most vulnerable in our country either get less compensation or pay more, rather than tackling the hard stuff? Why don't you tax the one in three big corporations who aren't paying any so that you've more in the tin, to make sure that everybody gets the help and the compensation they deserve?

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

I take that as a comment. This is a constant area of discussion we have across this chamber. They're unrelated. This is about a scheme that stopped in 2020, and the government is trying to make it right through the passage of this bill, through setting up a resolution scheme and through the small debt waivers. We are trying to make a difference to exactly the people you are talking about.

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

Minister, I don't accept that it's unrelated, because, when budgetary constraints are put forward as reasons, then it's legitimate to ask the question: why don't you seek the money elsewhere? But, given that, I'll move on. I also want to foreshadow that I'm going to be moving amendments on sheet 3486, which seeks to increase the threshold for debt waivers from $250 to $440. The reason for this amendment is because, as ACOSS and other stakeholders have submitted, had CPI indexation of the $200 threshold been in place when it was introduced, it would be over $440 now. Minister, why has the government only increased the debt waiver to $250 when, as ACOSS and others have said, CPI increases would mean that, if you were going to keep up with inflation, it would be at $440 now?

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

We have a disagreement with the Greens on this one. Your amendment would increase the small debt waiver to $440 rather than $250. From the government's point of view, this would result in many cost-effective debts not being recovered, and it would significantly increase the overall costs of the bill to the budget. The existing small debt waiver thresholds are $50 and $200, depending on payment type and whether the person is currently receiving a payment. The $50 and $200 thresholds were set in the 1990s and reflected what the parliament considered to be cost effective at that time, so they haven't been adjusted since. By setting the new threshold at $250, the government believes we can get the balance right, recognising people generally engage with the social security system in good faith and ensuring good, responsible fiscal management to the budget overall. The new threshold of $250 reflects a more up-to-date understanding of what is cost effective to recover and simplifies the existing two-threshold systems. Of course, at this part of the bill, the debt reform and waivers do come with a forward estimates impact of $166.7 million. Importantly, the new amount will be indexed against the CPI each year to maintain its relative value.

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

I'm also foreshadowing that I'm going to move an amendment on sheet 3489. This amendment seeks to remove the phrases 'knowingly' and 'justified' in relation to the debt waivers for debts caused by instances of domestic violence and financial coercion. This is off the back of advice received from Economic Justice Australia and other advocates. They have significant concerns about the inclusion, particularly, of the phrase 'justified in the circumstances'. To take from Economic Justice Australia's submission in relation to this bill, they say:

The concept of an action being "justified" is not common within the social security law, so there is very little Our concern is that this will, in time and with relevant jurisprudence, become an additional hurdle for victim-survivors attempting to access waiver in circumstances of family and domestic violence, contrary to the intention of these reforms.

Economic Justice Australia recommends repealing paragraph A from each of the special circumstances waiver provisions. They say:

… repealing paragraph (a) would not likely lead to debts being waived in circumstances of fraud or other dishonesty. While waiver may be a legally available option in those circumstances, a decision maker would still be required to weigh the circumstances as a whole, and a finding of fraud is likely to significantly weigh against the exercise of a waiver. Guidance to this effect could be provided in policy documents, including the Social Security Guide.

In their submission to the Senate inquiry, Economic Justice Australia gave case studies of where the inclusion of these phrases, 'knowingly' and 'justified' could in fact lead to adverse outcomes for people experiencing family and domestic violence.

So my question to the minister is this: given that Economic Justice Australia, single-parent advocates and others have highlighted their serious concerns about this aspect of those debt waiver provisions, will the government agree to this amendment to make sure that there are no potential adverse outcomes for women seeking debt waivers who are experiencing family and domestic violence?

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

The government won't be supporting this amendment. The amendment would remove the requirement for decision-makers to consider the circumstances that gave rise to the debt when applying the special circumstances waiver. It would allow debts to be waived under the special circumstances waiver, even in the cases of clear fraud, and protecting against fraud is a longstanding feature of the special circumstances waiver. Parliament has never intended for the special circumstances waiver to be available where a person sets out to mislead or defraud the government, and removing the false statement requirement from the special circumstances waiver would allow future decision-makers to apply the waiver in this way. It is important that the provision is clear in its intent that this should not happen. The government believes the bill, as drafted, balances the need for decision-makers to have greater flexibility in applying the waiver in complex circumstances like the ones that you talk about, Senator Allman-Payne, like financial abuse and coercion, while recognising the need to prevent debt waivers from being exploited.

In relation to the use of the language 'justified in the circumstances' in the bill and why that has been used, the government believes that the test of 'justified' is more appropriate in the context of this legislation, as the decision around the waiver should be based on the subjective experiences of the individual—particularly in circumstances that you outline, Senator Allman-Payne. It matches the subjective test of whether special circumstances exist, and the interpretation of 'justified', for the purposes of the special circumstances waiver, will be supported by detail in the explanatory memorandum, the guides to social policy law and, as you say, Services Australia's operational guidance.

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

I'm seeking the guidance of the chamber and the chair. Would it suit the chamber for me to just go through and move each of the Greens' further amendments, so that the chair can then put each question?

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do still have a question before the chair, which is on the amendments that you moved, (1) and (2) on sheet 3487, so it might be best if we deal with that one first, and then, if you want to seek the chamber's approval to move other ones subsequent to that, either separately or together, we can do that. There being no further contributions on the current question before the chair, I will put that question. The question before the chair is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3487, moved by Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3489 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (lines 6 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

1 Paragraph 101(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (lines 2 to 25), omit the item, substitute:

2 Paragraph 199(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 23 (line 27) to page 24 (line 19), omit the item, substitute:

3 Paragraph 1237AAD(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 21) to page 25 (line 7), omit the item, substitute:

4 Paragraph 43F(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3489 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3486 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (line 13), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(2) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (line 27), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(3) Schedule 2, item 11, page 28 (line 3), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(4) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (line 21), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(5) Schedule 2, item 14, page 29 (line 5), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3486 be agreed to.

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

I move:

(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 31 (line 21), omit "20 September 2003", substitute "1 July 1991".

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

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the period during which debts may relate for resolution payments under the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme. This expands eligibility for resolution payments, in turn increasing expenditure under the appropriation proposed by Schedule 4 to the bill.

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

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation proposed by Schedule 4 to the bill, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Greens request for an amendment on sheet 3490 be agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3498:

(1) Schedule 3, item 3, page 35 (after line 29), at the end of the item, add:

Limits on determination

(5) The determination must not have the effect of preventing an application under the scheme being made merely because the application is made on or after a particular day that occurs within 3 years after the commencement of this subitem.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3498 be agreed to.

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

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

I think I used the words 'eligibility for the payment' when I was talking, I think with Senator Shoebridge. An individual in this set of circumstances, once the benefit restriction notice had ended in that they were in touch with the authorities and there was no outstanding warrant, would be eligible to reapply for that payment. That's core work for Services Australia.

I will just touch on a couple of other issues that Senator Pocock touched on in moving his amendment. We won't be supporting the amendment, and that's because everything that Senator Pocock seeks, notwithstanding his general opposition to schedule 5, is covered in the bill. Before the minister makes a determination, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs must seek advice from Services Australia, and, in seeking that advice, would identify any dependants. I can't think of a situation where someone on an income support payment—that it wouldn't be known to Services Australia that there were dependants. That would be part of the eligibility to get on the payment in the first place, because dependants are a critical factor to consider about what the payment type is and the level of the payment.

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

It's not just dependants; it's whole families.

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

Can I just deal with this, Senator Thorpe. I know people are trying to make it about a population of individuals more generally. As I've said, this is a very specific set of circumstances that would trigger the benefit restriction notice. What Senator Pocock says he wants to achieve with this amendment is already provided for in the bill. Administrative law requires the home affairs minister to take all relevant considerations into account when considering the likely effect of cancellation, including on a person's dependants. This includes the advice home affairs is required to seek from Services Australia.

I also provided, the other day, that, if there was an issuing of a benefit restriction notice on a particular individual, Services Australia, through that, would of course allow payments to go to another family member in that situation if there were dependants that would be impacted by that. I would also say, if a person who is accused of a serious violent or sexual crime is evading arrest and receiving a payment for their children, there would be other ways for Services Australia—and other concerns, I imagine, from the authorities—to make sure that the children and dependants are cared for and provided for.

In relation to the merit review, when looking at it in relation to the benefit restriction notice regime, this is a decision obviously made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs as part of the executive government, not government officials. This is consistent with the seriousness of these decisions, but there is also a practical consideration to this decision. It would be hard to imagine an example where a person who is evading arrest would be able to seek a merit review of that decision without turning themselves in or the authorities becoming aware of where that person was. That is a practical consideration here. I understand that there's concern around schedule 5, but they would be the points I would raise in relation to Senator Pocock's amendment.

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

Thank you, Minister. From discussions yesterday, we learnt that schedule 5 was concocted over a few days between the committee report, which didn't get to look at anything in schedule 5, and this being introduced and swiftly passed by the other place. As you can hear, the crossbench has a lot of questions about the impact of these laws and the ability of the minister to essentially determine that someone is guilty before they are put before a court. We've heard many from the government try and say: 'Those on the crossbench are on the side of rapists and murderers. They are standing in the way of this very sensible move'—that has had no scrutiny.

You point the question at us, but we're listening to the experts. We're listening to the Law Council of Australia. We're listening to ACOSS. We're listening to Aboriginal Women's Legal Services, who have very serious concerns and questions about schedule 5. What a way to make laws—rushing something through and pointing the finger at those who dare question these provisions that have been roundly slammed by legal experts and by frontline service organisations across this country.Over 100 of them signed an open letter saying: 'Hang on. This needs more scrutiny. This is not the precedent we want to set.'

At the same time, we can't even understand what sort of problem you're trying to solve here. I'm no expert in this space, but you'd think, if someone is on the run, you'd probably want them to be withdrawing money so you can see where they are. You're looking for them, but you're going to cut off their money. This makes no sense. You surely want them to be going to an ATM. I just do not understand what the Labor Party is trying to do here. These are the sorts of things you railed against in opposition and said you wouldn't touch. Now you're in government and it's full steam ahead with them.

Minister, given the very real concerns raised by stakeholders who have skin in the game, who know their stuff and who are working on the front lines or are legal experts and are worried about the precedent that this sets, will you, after this passes the Senate—because I think we're under no illusion that it won't pass—at least allow a Senate committee to look at schedule 5 and to inquire into it after its passing or at least ensure the human rights committee can look at this? We live in a country with no overarching human rights act. We know that. We know that there's a very strong case for one. But surely the Albanese Labor government is not too scared of scrutiny from a Senate committee or the human rights committee. Minister, can you commit to at least offering schedule 5 some scrutiny and allowing these stakeholders to have their say post this bill passing the Senate?

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

The issue of whether or not there's a committee inquiry is a matter for the chamber. The government won't be supporting your amendment. We think all of these issues can be examined through existing processes—for example, estimates. There is nothing to stop someone coming in and saying, 'How many times has this power been used?' and examining that question or the concerns that you and others have raised. I'm not aware of who's been pointing the finger. I certainly have not been accusing anyone who is opposing this bill of those—

An honourable senator: The minister has.

Well, I have not been, and I think the debate in here has been very civilised. I have been trying to assure those with the concerns that the government has an answer for them, and I have been very clear about the intent and use of this particular power.

Senator Pocock raises the concerns about being able to track somebody by the use of ATMs. This has been informed by AFP, of course. We take their advice in this. They are the ones who undertake and would be undertaking this, through having an outstanding warrant and looking for the people. We are taking their advice with this, and we are taking the advice of other agencies that it has been a gap identified in the social security legislation that needed to be addressed. It is an extremely rare set of circumstances that would find this power being used, because it has taken until this point for this problem to be identified. That can give you an indication that, in the history of the relevant social security legislation, it has only been identified this year that this issue needed to be addressed by legislation.

I have sought to address the majority of the concerns that have been raised here through the committee process. I accept that there are others, including the crossbench and organisations, that have concerns about it, but this is something that would be used in the most exceptional circumstances, for the reasons I have read into the Hansard: where people have been charged with violent and/or sexual offences for which, if found guilty, they would serve an imprisonment period of seven years or more. I've gone through the list of offences that would qualify for that. I accept that people are trying to make it about something it isn't, but I'm standing here today to tell you about exactly the set of circumstances in which this would apply. They are exceptional and rare, and we are acting on the advice of all of the agencies that brief us. Yes, we are listening to the concerns that are raised, which is why we have sought the involvement of those organisations in helping shape some of the guidance around the particular use of this power, as a genuine sign of goodwill that we want to work with those and address the concerns that they have raised.

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

Thank you, Minister, for that explanation; that is helpful. If it was informed by the AFP and other relevant stakeholders, could you please just explain to the Senate again why this was drafted and put into motion in the week between the committee reporting—who had never heard anything about this potential schedule 5—and it being introduced and passed in the House within a couple of days. What's up with the timing there, if this is actually something that seems to have had some sort of consultation and a recommendation from law enforcement? We know that those processes do take time. So I'm just curious. Could you explain the timing to the Senate. The committee reports on a bill that doesn't contain schedule 5; in a week, the government somehow gets schedule 5 drafted and attached to the bill; it passes the lower house; you want no further scrutiny.

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

I've answered this, to some degree. I certainly became aware of the problem, and discussions were had across government, in September, I think. I know you will try and build this up as some timetable that shows that the government was trying to avoid scrutiny, and it's just not true. We were trying to deal with an issue that had been identified, that had come to our attention.

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

Dezi Freeman—that's it!

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

I'm not referring to individuals. An issue was identified by agencies, including the AFP, Services Australia, the Department of Social Services and AGD, and there was Education, though I'm not sure when Education came into it. We sought advice and we had to make some decisions about that. And that does take time.

This issue didn't come to us on our request. We didn't dream something up and say, 'Oh, great; we're going to draft another schedule to that bill and get it in there, and try and avoid anything.' That's the proposition you're putting. That is simply incorrect—absolutely incorrect—because I was involved in many of those discussions. This is not something we sought out.

In government, you do occasionally have problems that land in your lap that you've got to respond to and deal with, and they do take time, and, when they cover a number of agencies, you go through the standard process. And that's what we've done.

It aligned, as it turns out. It was under consideration, at least, from my point of view, throughout September, but there wasn't agreement on how to deal with it until we were able to finalise that and take all the necessary advice from our agencies.

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

People should be under no illusion as to what is happening here. We've just been told that this came up in September.

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

No. I said that two days ago. I've been clear.

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

The government has told us, over the course of the debate on this bill, that this came up as an issue in September. We have had multiple weeks of either Senate sittings or time that could have been devoted to an inquiry into schedule 5 since that time. If the government realised in September, but before the original inquiry into this bill was to take place, that it needed to insert this schedule, it could have sought to send that off to an additional hearing. But that wasn't done.

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

That is not what I said. Don't verbal me!

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

The government also had the choice not to put schedule 5 in this bill and to put it in a separate bill that could have had an urgent inquiry, because that happens in this place all the time. Things come in to the parliament urgently, and, on a Friday morning after a sitting week, there's an urgent hearing, or there's a hearing at 8 am before the day starts, to inquire into something that deserves scrutiny. So the suggestion by the government that there was no time to give adequate scrutiny to schedule 5 is a furphy. It's convenient. Schedule 5 offends the rule of law. We have been told that by numerous legal experts and the Law Council of Australia. Schedule 5 infringes on people's rights. I'm sorry, but I don't think the police telling you that they need this thing is sufficient.

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

That is not what I said. Don't verbal me!

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

We got told during this debate that organisations that are critical of schedule 5 were told it was happening, and now that it is happening—and it will happen, because Labor, who loves to carry on when the Greens vote with the coalition, is about to vote with the coalition on a bill that contains provisions that offend the rule of law and trample on people's human rights, without having any inquiry or scrutiny. That is a fact. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What is the point of Labor? What are you for? You are definitely not who you used to be, and that is on full display in this bill. It is a typical example of slotting in something that is semi-good along with something that is really egregiously appalling and hoping that it'll get through.

Make no mistake: the Greens will be voting against this bill. We will stand against trampling on people's human rights and we will stand against passing laws that infringe the rule of law. I would implore the coalition to think very seriously about whether they want to support a bill that does those things and was not subject to sufficient scrutiny. I'll leave it there.

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

Schedule 5 won't find Dezi Freeman; let's face it. The cops have said: 'We're so desperate. We can't find this bloke, so let's insert this last-minute schedule to find Dezi Freeman. Forget about all the human rights of innocent people that this schedule violates. Let's just go find Dezi. We want the Labor government to put this last-minute schedule in. We don't want any scrutiny.' Scrutiny is what this Senate is meant to be for. You have a go about me breaking the rules of this place, yet the government breaks the rules by not telling us that this is even happening. I sit on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is meant to scrutinise legislation in this place to ensure that it breaches no-one's human rights. This bill breaches so many rights of people in this country—the list is so long—and the human rights committee didn't even know that this was happening, so we weren't able to scrutinise the fact that it impinges on the rights of the child, the rights of people with disability and on so other many rights.

Minister, you say that you know all about this schedule—more than over 100 human rights organisations, including legal services, Aboriginal legal services and the Antipoverty Centre. You're dismissing and disrespecting the expertise of over 100 organisations. Shame on you! The minister responsible for this piece of legislation goes on Sky News—she doesn't mention the 100 organisations condemning schedule 5 and she doesn't mention any other politician, but she throws me under the bus, telling Sky News that I support rapists and murderers. What a disgrace! Demonising me, singling me out, goes to show how low your minister and this government will go to get this through. That's how desperate this government is to violate people's human rights.

Minister, while you're having your little chat there in your little privileged position as a minister that can shut down people who are fighting for people's human rights, you know that this will affect Aboriginal women more than anybody. You know that when the cops rock up at our door when we are a victim of violence, the cops turn us into the perpetrator. When we go on the run to escape the violence of the cops, all of those payments will be cancelled, affecting not only our children but our whole family and our whole community. Those payments don't assist just the family; they assist a whole community. You are dismissing that.

Black women will be caught up in this. Black people will be caught up in this. Innocent people will be caught up in this, just because Dezi Freeman got away from the cops. Why should one man affect the human rights of all of us? Shame on you, Minister. Shame on the fact that you're not even following your own rules and allowing us to scrutinise schedule 5 so that it doesn't violate any more human rights. Shame on the opposition when your own senators are saying: 'We didn't know about schedule 5. This is really bad. We know how much this is going to affect innocent people out there.' Hypocrites! How hypocritical that you don't support just pulling out schedule 5 so that we can properly scrutinise it and have those 100-plus agencies speak to it? You're shutting down a community who want a say on the breach of human rights in this country.

That's what we're dealing with in this country—a Labor-Lib coalition. They only get together to hurt people in this country or cause harm to our land and water. That's why this place is an absolute disgrace. That's why I carry on. We need more independents and more minor parties to hold these two criminal groups to account.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

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

I move:

That the report be adopted.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the provisions of Schedule 5 to the bill be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 March 2026".

This amendment simply provides the Senate with the opportunity to scrutinise schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill, which, as we have learned over this week, has actually had no scrutiny from a Senate committee and no scrutiny from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Given the very serious concerns that have been raised by eminent human rights lawyers and frontline service organisations, it would be prudent for the Senate to actually say: 'The government has made the case that this is very urgent. The Senate has now passed this bill, part of which was subject to scrutiny. Schedule 5 was not. Let's at least have a look at it now as a senate.' That does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

Again, as I said earlier, we live in a country without a human rights act, without an overarching protection of people's human rights. Last term, we saw a Labor-led parliamentary inquiry in the other place recommending a human rights act. Josh Burns, now the Special Envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness, did great work on that committee. It's also in the Labor Party's platform. Yet schedule 5 of this bill, as lawyers have warned us, actually goes against people's fundamental human rights in this country and against principles of natural justice.

The government made their case as to why this bill was urgent. Fair enough. It has now passed the Senate. At least allow some scrutiny of schedule 5. At least allow a Senate committee to look at this. Labor will say: 'Well, we are transparent. We've got nothing to hide.' Yet, when they're presented with the opportunity, they often vote against scrutiny. You've got to start walking the talk on this. You can't just turn around and attack groups like the Centre for Public Integrity. We need to see a change from this government when it comes to transparency and allowing more scrutiny. So I put this amendment to colleagues.

This is something the Senate should be looking at. We are the house of review. We've heard concerns from coalition senators. We've heard concerns from the Greens and from others on the crossbench. We have the numbers to send this to a committee, and I implore you to allow the Senate to do its work and look at schedule 5 through the committee process.

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

I rise to speak in support of Senator Pocock's amendment, and I would urge the coalition, who have said in their speeches on the second reading that schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill should have had more scrutiny: this is your opportunity to get it the scrutiny it needs.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.