Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to continue with my remarks on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. As I was saying, the coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework to ensure that payments are being received appropriately, however we have questions on how the removal of an annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will exist to prevent people from a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship.

The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment services including Centrepay. We are concerned however that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled program. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial distress rather than relieve it.

We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians are currently living. Under this Albanese government, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent. Energy costs are up by 38 per cent. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent if you can get in. Education costs are up 17 per cent, and food costs are up 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. These are fundamental costs of everyday life that all Australians use daily.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly relying on urgent payments and other emergency measures simply to get by. We know, troublingly, that in 2024-25 alone 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on Australians from its failed economic policies. Australians are hurting, and Labor has no viable plan to change that. This impact should lead to serious consideration of whether urgent payments are being used to fuel the systemic gaps in financial stability rather than serving their intended purpose as an emergency measure.

As highlighted in the government's own explanatory memorandum for this bill, urgent payments are primarily accessed by vulnerable people. Of all recipients of urgent payments, 45 per cent are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people even though only around six per cent of all income support recipients identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. With this evidence of daily struggle, it is clear that closing the gap is also becoming out of reach. This raises serious and legitimate questions about how these changes will operate in practice, particularly in vulnerable and remote communities. The government must explain what concrete measures it has implemented to prevent urgent payments from being exploited or diverted towards harmful activities, including gambling and excessive alcohol consumption, especially in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It must also explain how it will ensure that the promised support, including financial counselling and access to social work service, will be available to all Australians who need them, regardless of where they live. The coalition calls on the government to guarantee that the changes in this bill will not have a negative impact on our most vulnerable Australians, particularly those living in rural and remote communities.

Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Social Security Act to clarify how employment income is attributed when calculating a person's rate of social security payment. It expressly provides that income attribution rules may apply to the attribute employment income paid to the social security recipient or their partner for the purposes of working out the recipient's rate of pay regardless of whether the relevant payment is a social security payment or a benefit and whether the partner receives a social security payment. It also ensures that the attributed income continues to apply for the full attribution period, including where a payment is cancelled or suspended. The coalition accepts that clarity in income attribution rules is essential for both recipients and the administrators. Clear language and certainty will reduce errors, disputes and administrative complexity and help ensure the payments are calculated consistently and lawfully.

Taken together, these three schedules are designed to provide legal clarity, certainty to practices and policy intentions that have existed for some time. However, notwithstanding our decision to not oppose the bill, we will continue to scrutinise the government's approach, particularly in relation to schedule 2. Urgent payments are being used at scale because people are struggling under the weight of the economy and a government that's failing them. They are being accessed disproportionally by vulnerable Australians and are being relied upon in an economic environment where the cost of living continues to rise. The government must demonstrate that it has put in place robust safeguards to ensure that this change does not unintentionally or inadvertently increase financial stress or hardship for people who are already doing it tough. It must also demonstrate that it has effective systems in place to identify repeat use, emerging risk and patterns of vulnerability and that it is actively intervening with appropriate support, not simply processing a higher volume of advance payments.

The opposition recognises the broader intent of the legislation and the need to clarify technical aspects of the social security and child support frameworks. For that reason the opposition will not be opposing the passage of this bill. We do, however, put the government on notice: the government must follow through on its commitments. It must ensure that robust safeguards are implemented. It must ensure that financial counselling and social support services are accessible, timely and available to individuals and families who rely on them during periods of financial stress. And it must guarantee that the changes to urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage, deepen vulnerability or create new risks for the very Australians our social safety net is meant to protect.

Australian's welfare must strike the right balance between supporting vulnerable Australians and remaining sustainable, responsible and fit for purpose so it can maintain public confidence and long-term viability. That is the expectation of the coalition and that is the benchmark to which the Albanese government must be held.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to provide my support to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, we've been working to restore trust in Australia's social security system, and that trust matters. Without it, the system loses its legitimacy both for taxpayers and for recipients—and also for the broader community.

We all remember what happens when that trust breaks down. The legacy of robodebt showed us what occurs when governments ignore legality, ignore fairness and ignore the human consequences of administrative failure. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to take a very different approach. We've raised working age and student payments and increased the annual single rate of JobSeeker by almost $4,000. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by nearly 50 per cent. We've expanded parenting payments single to support around 106,000 additional single parents. We're expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks, with superannuation now included, and we are increasing the small debt waiver threshold to $250, with around 1.2 million debts expected to be waived or not raised at all. We've also expanded debt waivers for victims-survivors of financial abuse. All of this is about rebuilding a system that is fair, that is lawful and that is humane. This bill is the next step in that work.

This is a technical bill—not just a technical bill but an essential one. The bill makes targeted amendments across three schedules: child support, urgent payments and employment income attribution. Each of these is about aligning legislation with the longstanding policy intent, improving administration and ensuring legal certainty.

First, on child support, this bill improves the administration of child support periods and fixes unintended consequences from earlier legislative changes. It also clarifies when a new child support period begins following a new tax assessment. Where an assessment is made after the 15th of the month, the new period will begin not in the next month but, in fact, in the month after. This is a practical reform. It ensures that parents are not given just days to adjust to changes in their financial obligations, which is the difference between thriving and surviving for families in real time. Instead, they are given sufficient time to plan and manage their finances.

Just as importantly, the bill corrects an anomaly that could allow a parent with less than 35 per cent care of a child to receive child support. This was never the intention of the parliament. The child support system is based on a clear principle: that the financial responsibility reflects the level of care. Where a parent has less than 35 per cent care, they are not bearing the primary costs of raising a child and should not receive child support. This bill restores that principle across all cases and across all formulas. It does so by retrospectively applying the correction to ensure consistency since 2008 whilst preserving the validity of past decisions and maintaining certainty for families. Importantly, as set out in the statement of compatibility with human rights, these changes promote the best interests of the child and support the right of the child to an adequate standard of living by ensuring that child support is distributed fairly and appropriately.

Secondly, on urgent payments, this bill provides a clear legislative framework for urgent payments, a longstanding feature of the social security system that, until now, has not had a sufficiently explicit legal basis. Urgent payments allow people to access part of their accrued entitlement early when they are experiencing exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. This is not an additional payment. Urgent payments allow people to access part of their accrued entitlement early when they are experiencing those exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. This is their lifeline, enabling people to manage sudden costs like medical expenses, housing instability or family emergency. Within this bill, it formalises that system. It establishes clear eligibility criteria, clear limits on payment amounts and safeguards to ensure that people do not overdraw against their entitlement. It also ensures that the system can be delivered efficiently through automated processes while still providing human support where needed, particularly for those who rely on urgent payments frequently. And it sits alongside broader investment, including increased funding for emergency relief services and expansion of the No Interest Loans Scheme to ensure people have access to safe, fair financial support. These reforms promote the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living by ensuring people can access support when they need it the most.

Thirdly, on employment income attribution, this bill clarifies how employment income, including a partner's income, is assessed for the purposes of social security payments. It is about ensuring that the income test operates as intended. It makes clear that employment income attribution applies to both the recipient and their partner and that income continues to be attributed across the relevant periods, even where payments are suspended, cancelled or restarted. Again, this is not a policy shift. It is a clarification. It ensures consistency. It removes ambiguity. It strengthens the integrity of the whole system.

This bill is about responsible government and about identifying where the law does not align with policy intent and fixing it. It is about ensuring that longstanding administrative practices have a clear legal foundation, and it is about continuing the work of rebuilding trust in Australia's social security system after years of neglect and failure. This bill strengthens the fairness, clarity and effectiveness of the system. This bill also supports families. It supports vulnerable Australians, and it supports confidence in the rule of law. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I rise today to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The Greens will support the measures in this bill that align current practice with legislation, but let me be direct about what this bill represents. It's a government finally and belatedly legislating to make lawful what has for years been conducted without legal basis. That is not a routine technical fix. That is an admission of systemic unlawfulness. The question this chamber must ask is: how did we get here, and what does it tell us about the broader state of our social security system?

This bill does not exist in isolation. It is the latest entry in a long and troubling record of noncompliance with social security law, a pattern in which the major parties have, time after time, failed to administer the social security system lawfully. The Commonwealth Ombudsman could not have been more pointed in naming their most recent report Following the law is not optional. That title is not a suggestion. It is a rebuke, and it is a rebuke that has been earned.

The scale of known concerns is staggering. There are 144 identified issues of concern already on the record, and yet schedule 3 of this very bill addresses a further issue that does not even appear on that list. In this area of law, it feels as though every month brings a new revelation. The specific practices addressed in this bill are not newly discovered. Services Australia was first aware of them six years ago. Labor has chosen to act only now after the Ombudsman's report made continued inaction untenable. Let me be precise about what a six-year delay in addressing known unlawful practice means. It means that for six years the government administered parts of the social security system without a lawful basis. Practices without a legislative basis are not grey areas. They are unlawful, and the decision not to act on them in a timely way was a choice.

Here is what makes this pattern so corrosive. The standard applied to the government's own conduct is entirely different to the standard applied to the people receiving payments. Under the targeted compliance framework, recipients face punitive and swift consequences for any perceived noncompliance—payment suspensions, financial instability and disruption to housing and food security. Hundreds of thousands of people face payment suspensions every single year, and these are not trivial consequences. For people on JobSeeker or youth allowance, a suspension can mean rent not paid, meals skipped and debts compounded. And who oversees this system? A privatised network of job service providers, many of which are, it should be noted, donors to the Labor Party.

This means that a system with almost no meaningful accountability, transparency or oversight is delivering life-altering consequences to some of the most financially vulnerable Australians while the government presiding over it cannot even assure this chamber that the system is entirely lawful. Last year, Labor was forced to pause payment cancellations after it was found that thousands had been cancelled unlawfully. The government cannot assure us of the lawfulness of the rest of the system, and yet it continues to function unchecked.

Beyond the question of lawfulness sits an even more fundamental problem. The mutual obligation system is built on a false premise. It treats unemployment as a personal failing, a result of insufficient effort, rather than a structural reality. Right now, we have the Reserve Bank raising interest rates because employment and inflation are too high. The ombudsman report addressed this directly and without equivocation. The evidence cited in that report found that the majority of the 652,300 current jobseekers are in fact unlikely to find ongoing employment, no matter how hard they try, given that current employment in Australia is so close to the natural level with respect to the inflation rate. The ombudsman observed that stigmatising unsuccessful jobseekers as people reluctant to accept employment may contribute to limited oversight of providers and a narrow administration of the program, despite the evidence. This is a punishing, costly and largely pointless system. It punishes people for an economic reality they did not create and cannot individually solve.

The Greens will be moving several amendments to this bill. Firstly, we will be moving a second reading amendment. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to:

(a) increase the rate of social security payments above the poverty line, ensuring no one is forced to live in poverty; and

(b) abolish the parental income test for Youth Allowance for those not living at home; and

(c) abolish the partner income test for all social security payments, ensuring that a partner's income will no longer be required to be considered for a social security payment for an individual".

This amendment seeks to call on the government to abolish the parental income test for youth allowance, a test that punishes young people for their parents' income and treats them as dependents long into adulthood. The second reading amendment also calls on the government to abolish the partner income test for all social security payments. Every person in this country deserves to be treated as an individual, with financial autonomy and independence, not as an appendage to their partner's income. And there is ample evidence that continuing to insist on testing people's income support against their partner's income is a not insignificant factor in preventing women from escaping situations of family and domestic violence.

We will also be moving some Committee of the Whole amendments, and they will relate to reinstating the six-year limit on debt recovery, something that is an outstanding recommendation of the robodebt royal commission. We will also be seeking to remove the arbitrary limit on the amount a person can request as an urgent payment. People need those urgent payments for things like bonds when they get evicted because their rental is being sold, or they need those payments to get a new fridge when their fridge breaks down. None of those things cost $200, and forcing people to go back day after day after day asking for $200 is not only inefficient it is punitive to those people who need that urgent money when they are subsisting on an income support payment that is below poverty levels.

Our current rates of income support, it must be noted, are not merely low. They are among the lowest in the entire OECD. There are virtually zero rental properties affordable to anyone on jobseeker or youth allowance, and Labor's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has told the government for consecutive years that rates must increase substantially and not claim indexation as a rise. The government has not acted on this to the extent that it must.

The global economic uncertainty created by the Trump administration's war of aggression will have real consequences for the Australian economy. An economic disruption of this kind always hits those on income support hardest and first. Raising the rate of payments is not just a matter of compassion; it is a matter of economic resilience. That is why I have written to the minister this week calling on Labor to pause mutual obligations and raise income support payments. Even the coalition took some of these steps during the pandemic. That was a precedent, and there is no excuse at this time of rising economic inequality.

Our social security system should be administered lawfully. That should not be a radical expectation; it is the minimum. And yet issue upon issue continues to be identified year after year, suggesting that lawfulness is treated as aspirational rather than foundational. Our social security system should support people, not punish them. We have a political and media culture that too often stigmatises and shames those who rely on income support, as though poverty is a personal failure rather than a policy outcome. The people receiving these payments are not asking for much; they're asking for a system that operates lawfully, does not keep them in poverty and treats them as individuals with autonomy and dignity. That is not a high bar. It is the bar that any decent society should clear without question. The Greens will continue to fight until that bar is cleared and until every person in this country who needs support receives it lawfully, adequately and with their dignity intact.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I rise today to speak in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition understands the integral role of Australia's Child Support Scheme. That is why, during our years in government, we strengthened and supported the scheme to ensure it delivered for some of Australia's most vulnerable: our children. The reasons families break down are complex, but it is never the fault of the child. That is why the Child Support Scheme exists: to ensure that, regardless of where or with whom they live, children affected by family breakdown are not financially disadvantaged and can be kept safe.

This bill makes technical changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Act to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements and includes three schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to clarify and validate child support assessment arrangements. Part 1 of the schedule adjusts when a new child support period starts after updated tax information becomes available. In some cases, this delays the start by an extra month to help parents manage financial challenges. Part 2 confirms that individuals with less than 35 per cent care of a child, whether a parent or a non-parent carer, are not entitled to child support. This change will apply retrospectively from 1 July 2008, validating past decisions and leaving historic assessments unchanged. Schedule 2 amends the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to provide clearer legal authority for urgent payments for eligible recipients outside the normal fortnightly cycle. It establishes a legislative framework for administering urgent payments, abolishes the current limit of two urgent payments per year and introduces safeguards to ensure welfare recipients have sufficient funds to meet regular expenses on their usual payment day. Schedule 3 amends the Social Security Act to clarify how employment income is attributed when calculating a person's rate of payment.

These changes will make it easier for child support assessments to be made and for children to receive the financial support they need to thrive, which is why the coalition will not stand in the way of this bill. However, it must be noted that there are areas where further scrutiny of these changes is warranted. Few countries provide the strong safety net that Australian taxpayers fund. Our social services system exists to support those who need a hand. It is not a bottomless resource and should not be viewed as a long-term income prospect.

The coalition recognises that most parents do the right thing and fulfil their child support obligations. Since its introduction in 1988, the government scheme has transferred over $33 billion in child support payments. We understand how crucial this support is for children and single-parent households. That is why we support the changes in this legislation that facilitate the introduction of urgent payments. These situations are rarely linear. Circumstances change, and payments can be missed or delayed. But, when parents do not pay child support on time, it has a real and material impact on the financial security of single parents and their children. We must ensure we have a robust system that delivers assistance when it is needed, and sometimes that requires firm measures to ensure child support is paid. It is important to note that urgent payments are not additional assistance. They allow eligible recipients to access a portion of their regular fortnightly entitlements in advance in cases of exceptional and unforeseen financial hardship.

The coalition accepts that these payments must operate within a lawful and transparent framework. However, we have questions about how the removal of the annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will genuinely exist to prevent harm. Given that urgent payments merely bring forward a portion of an existing entitlement, further information is needed on the measures the government will implement to ensure recipients are not drawn into a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship. We cannot consider these changes in isolation from the broader economic challenges facing Australians. Families have experienced another interest rate rise, and global conflict in the Middle East has significantly impacted the availability and affordability of fuel and fertiliser—developments that are likely to have serious consequences for agriculture and in turn food security. Groceries, rent, insurance and other essentials of life have already increased to unmanageable levels under this government. Australians are paying more for everything: food, fuel, rent, insurance, health care, mortgage repayments and energy. These are essentials, not luxury purchases.

It is therefore hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may already be reliant on urgent payments of the kind proposed under these changes. The Albanese Labor government must put in place a framework that ensures urgent payments are assessed properly and delivered to those who genuinely need them. Given the number of Australians were doing it tough and Labor's failure to present a credible plan to address, this we must ensure urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage or become subject to misuse. The child support scheme exists to protect our most vulnerable and ensure that, despite changes in family circumstances, children can fully participate in life, receive an education and thrive wherever they live. But we must also remember that our social service safety net is funded by the sacrifice of hardworking Australian taxpayers. It must be fit for purpose and capable of meeting tomorrow's challenges.

We also have an obligation to future generations, who will bear the long-term consequences of the decisions made today. A well designed income support system must provide a robust and sustainable safety net, protecting the most vulnerable, supporting people through periods of hardship and enabling pathways to independence and self-reliance. The coalition will support the practical measures contained in this bill and recognises its broader intent. For that reason, we will not oppose its passage. However, the government must follow through on its commitment to implement robust safeguards and ensure financial accounts and social services are accessible, timely and available to individuals and families experiencing financial stress. It must also guarantee that changes to urgent payments do not entrench disadvantage, deepen vulnerability or create new risks for the very Australians our world-class social safety net is designed to protect. Our focus must be on getting more people into work and contributing to a stronger economy, not on keeping Australians dependent on welfare.

Despite these concerns, I am pleased to speak on this matter and to support my coalition colleagues in not standing in the way of this bill.

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

I commend the bill to the Senate and thank senators for their contributions.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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