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

I move Greens amendment on sheet 3733:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 15 and 16), omit "an amount between $20 and $200", substitute "an amount that is equal to or greater than $20".

_____

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

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to remove the upper amount that a person can request by way of an urgent payment. This will likely lead to recipients of urgent payments requesting and receiving higher amounts of payment, increasing expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

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

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

This amendment seeks to remove the $200 upper limit on urgent payments. There were several submissions into the inquiry into this bill, including from ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia, that argued that the upper limit should be removed. The Economic Justice Australia submission says:

EJA recommends removing the upper limit on the amount a person can request as an urgent payment, which the Bill currently sets at $200.

They go on to say:

Subsection (3DD) in Item 9 of the Bill already limits how much can actually be paid, and there appears to be little utility in refusing to consider larger requests. The reasons a person may require an urgent payment are many and varied, and not limited to an arbitrary monetary value.

Minister, I'm interested in understanding how the government arrived at the $200 upper limit, particularly in circumstances where we know, as many of the submissions into the inquiry noted, that the sorts of things that people need urgent payments for are, more often than not, more than $200—things like needing to pull together a bond when someone is evicted from their rental. We're increasingly seeing people experiencing no-grounds evictions because owners want to sell their properties and make a profit. We're also seeing people have things like washing machines or fridges break down—things that are essential to their daily lives—and I challenge anyone to go and find a washing machine or a fridge on the market that's $200 or less.

I want to know why the government has put this upper limit on it, and I note too that this is in the context of people being expected to run down their savings before they can get access to income support. ACOSS has found that 40 per cent of people on income support have less than $500 in savings, so I'm keen to understand why the government is placing a $200 limit on urgent payment requests (a) when they don't really cover the things that people generally need urgent payments for and (b) in circumstances where ACOSS, Economic Justice Australia, the Antipoverty Centre and other advocates and submitters have suggested that that should be the case.

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

The government won't be supporting Senator Allman-Payne's amendment, and I can deal with her question in response to the amendment. This bill doesn't seek to change the upper limit for urgent payment requests. That has been in place for some time now. This bill is around ensuring the legal authority to provide urgent payments. This bill hasn't sought to change the limits. I accept Senator Allman-Payne has a different view about the adequacy of those limits, but this bill is not about that. This is about ensuring the lawful payment of urgent payments.

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

Thank you for that response, Minister, and I note that you said that this has been in place for some time. We have seen, particularly in recent months and certainly over the last couple of years, that costs for everything are going through the roof. Rents are out of control. People are getting smashed at the supermarket. We're now seeing people not being able to afford fuel. Does the government accept that it needs to take action on increasing these amounts because the current political context and the economic context demands that people actually need more?

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

The government will always consider the adequacy of payments in every budget and every budget update that we do. We have done that since coming to government. I would point out to Senator Allman-Payne that we have increased the rate of JobSeeker by more than $4,300 per year to $817.50 per fortnight for singles. We've also delivered record increases to Commonwealth rent assistance—a 25 per cent increase in that. We have frozen PBS scripts at $7.70 for people on concession or on pensions, JobSeeker and youth allowance.

So I accept that we need to continue to engage and consider cost-of-living responses to the economic circumstances that we face, but this bill does not seek to do that. This is around the methodical response to issues around legal authority that Minister Plibersek and I have been working through in a careful and considered way. I accept the Greens have a view about adequacy of payments, but that is not what this bill is about, so I would just bring it back to what we're trying to do here, which is to actually ensure that urgent payments are provided in a lawful way.

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

Minister, I think your answer goes to the biggest issue that we have in relation to social security, which is that, yes, this system continues to operate unlawfully. At the last few estimates, neither the minister nor the department has been able to assure me or the other senators asking questions or the public that the system is actually operating lawfully in its entirety. I take your point that this bill seeks to address some of the unlawfulness of the system, but surely, given the government has a social security bill before the parliament, this is an opportunity to address the adequacy of payments.

Whilst I note your statement that the government has increased payments somewhat, I really want to place on the record again that it is nowhere near what your own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has recommended for consecutive years. People in this country are still living well below the poverty line. One in six children are living in poverty. Women are not able to escape family and domestic violence because they are subjected to a partner income test, which we just had an amendment for in the second reading and you voted down. Is it the government's position that income support payments right now, in the current context, are adequate?

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

The point I'm making is that this bill is not about increasing social security payments. I have said the way the government deals with that and consideration about that is through the budget process. This is not an appropriations bill, and it hasn't been brought to the chamber in that way. This has been about working through some of the legal and other compliance issues that have been raised with me as a minister and with Minister Plibersek and responding to that in the most urgent and timely way that we are in a position to, and we will continue to do so. I accept the legitimate debate that the Greens have and that we engage in and that we consider as part of our budget processes. But this is not the bill that seeks to do that. It's around ensuring legal authority, and this is urgent and serious, because we want to make sure that those urgent payments can continue to be made.

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

Minister, you say that this is urgent and serious, and yet the department knew about this unlawfulness. I know it keeps being framed as inconsistency with the law or being unaligned to the legislative framework. Let's be clear: it is unlawfulness. The department has known about this for six years. You have been in government for four. If it is so urgent and serious, why has it taken four years to bring this bill before the parliament?

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

Well, when I took on this portfolio and issues around legal compliance were raised with me, I asked Services Australia—and Minister Plibersek did the same on her appointment as Minister for Social Services—for all of the issues that were being raised and were continuing to be raised—you know, it's not just a point-in-time piece of work—to be brought forward and addressed, including issues that required legislation, issues that required a procedural response and issues that required further clarification. We have done that piece of work, and this is the result of that—bringing it forward in the way that you see. So I'm certainly standing here saying that we are dealing with this in an urgent way. I can't answer for the previous government; I can only answer for the time that I have been responsible, and I've brought this to the Senate at the earliest opportunity when I've been in a position to do so.

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

In the interests of time, rather than having to have divisions and then people leaving and coming back, I might move my other amendments and ask a couple of questions around those, and then everything can be taken together.

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

You will require leave to move them en bloc.

Leave granted.

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

Yes, noting that you may wish to put the question separately. But I just want to move another amendment. I move the amendment on sheet 3734, in relation to indexation of urgent payments and the upper limit:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 14 (after line 29), after section 43A, insert:

43B Indexation of urgent payment request upper limit

(1) On the first 1 July to occur after the commencement of this section and each later 1 July (an indexation day), the amount of $200 mentioned in paragraph 43(3DB)(a) (the indexable amount) is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula:

The indexable amount immediately before the indexation day x Indexation factor for the indexation day

(2) The amount worked out under subsection (1) is to be rounded to the nearest whole dollar (rounding 50 cents upwards).

Indexation factor

(3) The indexation factor for an indexation day is the number worked out using the following formula:

Index number for the reference quarter / Index number for the base quarter

where:

base quarter means the last March quarter before the reference quarter.

index number, for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter.

March quarter means a period of 3 months starting on 1 January.

reference quarter means the last March quarter before the indexation day.

(4) The indexation factor is to be worked out to 3 decimal places (rounding up if the fourth decimal place is 5 or more).

Changes to CPI index reference period and publication of substituted index numbers

(5) Amounts are to be worked out under this section:

(a) using only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index; and

(b) disregarding index numbers published in substitution for previously published index numbers (except where the substitution is to transition to a new index reference period).

Publication of indexable amount

(6) The Minister must, by notifiable instrument, publish the replacement indexable amount as soon as practicable after the indexation day. However, a failure by the Minister to do so does not invalidate the indexation.

Minister, the reason that I'm moving this amendment is that if my previous amendment that I have moved fails—that is, if the government does not accept there should be an upper limit—then, consistent with advocates, including Economic Justice Australia, it's the Greens' position that that upper should be indexed. I note that Economic Justice Australia said in their submission:

… the Bill does not contemplate indexation of this limit. If an upper limit must be placed on requests, that limit should be indexed to account for inflation.

We've already heard the Treasurer say that we are looking at very high inflation, so I would suggest that this is quite urgent. Without making this change, further legislative work will be needed when $200 is no longer relevant. Given the extent of legislative change that is going to be required just to make the social security law lawful across the board—I've already spoken about the fact that there are 144 items outstanding—my submission to you is that this would save legislative work going forward. So my question is: if the government insists on having an upper limit of $200, do you accept that, at the very least, that limit should be indexed to keep pace with inflation?

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

I thank Senator Allman-Payne for moving that amendment and for the question. My answer is very similar to the answer on the previous amendment. This bill does not seek to change settings of the amount that can be paid through the urgent payment, including in relation to any indexation. People can currently request an urgent payment of between $20 and $200. This limit has been in place, as I said, for some time now and will remain. It's not the standard approach to index payments like the urgent payment in the social security system, unlike the ongoing payments. The formula proposed in this amendment is not the same as the indexation settings in the Social Security Act. The $200 upper limit means people still have enough funds on their usual payment delivery day to cover their regular expenses. So we will be opposing this amendment as well.

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

by leave—I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 3", substitute "Schedules 3 and 4".

(2) Page 23 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Time limit on debt recovery

Part 1 — Amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

1 Section 93B

Repeal the section, substitute:

93B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

2 Section 192A

Repeal the section, substitute:

192A Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Social Security Act 1991

3 Section 1234B

Repeal the section, substitute:

1234B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Chapter, for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt or overpayment first existed.

Student Assistance Act 1973

4 Section 42B

Repeal the section, substitute:

42B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Part 2 — Application of amendments

5 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a debt that is raised or an overpayment that is made, before, on or after this item commences.

Noting that Labor has had ample opportunity since the robodebt royal commission to implement all of the recommendations of that commission, the government is dragging its feet on re-instigating a six-year limit on debt recovery. The Greens are moving this amendment to this bill because the government needs to act on this. Across other areas of the law—commercial law et cetera—it is accepted that if you haven't chased a debt after six years, then you need to forgo it, because people need certainty.

People on income support are already under enough stress, trying to get by, without having to be worried that a department that we know regularly makes errors in payments is going to come after them years down the track for debts that they owe because the government has made an error. I would submit to the government that when you give an unlimited timeframe to a department to chase debts, there is no incentive whatsoever to get the system right if they know that they can go after people for money six, 10, 15, 20 years after the fact because they stuffed up. That means that nobody in this country who has ever relied on income support payments can be sure, at any time in the future, even when they're not using income support anymore, that the government is not going to come after them for a debt at some point.

That is a genuine fear for people who have been on income support and who continue to remain on income support. You cannot underestimate the trauma and the harm of robodebt and what that means for everyone now on income support. I have spoken to people who are running down their superannuation savings because they have either lost loved ones or been impacted by robodebt and they are too frightened to go into Centrelink and subject themselves to a system that may chase them for a debt years down the track.

Why is it that there is a different standard for people on welfare compared to other areas of the law? I have asked the minister about this, and I've been told, 'We're working on it.' Well, it's a long time since the robodebt royal commission. You have been in government for four years. This is a key recommendation of the commissioner. So my question to you is: will you support this amendment to finally implement a key recommendation of the royal commission so that people on income support and people who have used the income support system in the past can have some level of certainty? Secondly, if you're not going to support this amendment today, when are you finally going to fix this?

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

We will be opposing this amendment. As Senator Allman-Payne has outlined, we have agreed in principle to this recommendation, and we are working through it. The Minister for Social Services is leading that work to examine how an effective statute of limitations would operate. The old six-year statute of limitations was not as effective as it could have been and did not provide a meaningful limit on the recovery of historic debts. For this measure to be effective, it needs to be carefully designed and consulted on, a process the government is carrying out carefully.

I would also say that it was this government that established the robodebt royal commission, and it's this government that is implementing the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. I can assure those in this chamber that we would not in any sense ever entertain the unlawful scheme that was put forward by the former government, which actually wasn't about legitimate debt recovery; it was about pursuing Australians for debts that they didn't owe and hadn't incurred and threatening them with jail if they didn't pay up. So that's fundamentally different.

Yes, a recommendation came out of the robodebt royal commission, which we will respond to, but the policy failure of robodebt didn't have anything to do with the statute of limitations. It had something to do with an unlawful policy where the government of a country pursued its own citizens for debts they didn't owe and hounded them and their families to the most tragic of outcomes for some. It caused enduring grief and loss for too many Australians. This is something the minister is working through. It does have budget implications. I know the Greens don't have to worry about that. That's fine. But we have to respond to that and think that through, and that's the work that both Minister Plibersek and I will continue to do.

I also want to put on the record that I object to the comment made by Senator Allman-Payne. I think she called it a 'department that constantly gets payments wrong'. It was roughly that language. I don't accept that. If you looked at the work that's done in Services Australia and the Department of Social Services and you saw the amount of payments going out, the responsiveness and the level of work that goes in at the coalface to support vulnerable and low-income Australians who rely on payments to support them, I don't think you would come in here and make a claim like that. Yes, there are issues that we have to respond to in relation to legal compliance, but I strongly support Services Australia in the work that they do every day to make sure that people who rely on Services Australia get the best advice and access to the payments that they're entitled to and that they deserve.

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

Just to be clear—I am not criticising the work of people in offices dealing with people on income support. What I am criticising is a department and a system that is not 100 per cent lawful, and the government cannot assure people on income support that it is. That is a problem.

Secondly, it is not actually people in Centrelink who are the ones cutting off people from their payments; it's people sitting in job service provider offices, private offices—people who are not being overseen by the government to the level that they should be. It is a government responsibility to decide whether someone's payment gets cut off, and the government has continued the practice of the coalition to outsource that decision-making. That is a problem.

Finally, again, I am continually amazed at the level of understanding that the government has when errors are made by the department when absolutely none of that is shown to people on income support when they make errors. They are the ones who are at risk of losing housing, of not being able to eat and of not being able to get their kids what they need to go to school. Cutting off someone's payment, even if it's temporarily suspended, is catastrophic. There is such a difference between how we treat the department when they make an error and how we treat people on income support, who you refuse to get above the poverty line. Honestly, do not keep repeating the line that no-one should be left behind when you repeatedly leave behind people on income support.

Don't lecture the Greens about having to make hard budget decisions. Maybe have one less submarine, which you're never going to get. We are shovelling billions of dollars out the door to the US, to an essentially fascist regime that bombs anybody any time they feel like it, come hell or high water, regardless of international law. You are giving over $360 billion to them, and it is not making us safer. Yet you say to people on income support: 'Maybe next budget. Maybe the one after that. Maybe the one after that.' Well, if you are not going to do it, again, don't lie to people. Do not go out there and say, 'We're not leaving anyone behind,' because you are. Frankly, I don't know how people making those decisions can sleep at night. You talk to me about me needing to talk to people at Services Australia. Well, go and talk to the people who are trying to get by on poverty payments when inflation is going up, fuel is going up, food is going up, rent is going up. There's hardly a rental in the country that they can afford. So don't stand here and tell me that I don't know, or the Greens don't know, how to balance a budget. What we know is that we need to look after Australians. We need to look after the most vulnerable, and no-one is buying the argument that $360 billion of submarines and AUKUS make us safer.

While the planet cooks, you continue to shove money out the door to fossil fuel companies, telling us that you're acting on climate, while propping up fossil fuel companies. Maybe give some of that money to people on income support. The hypocrisy of it: we are giving gas away for free, but we can't help people on income support to live above the poverty line. If you do not like me yelling about it, too bad. Do something.

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

Senator Allman-Payne, I'd ask you to address your comments through the chair.

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

My apologies. Through the chair, when is the government going to lift people on income support out of poverty?

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

At risk of taking a fact checker to what Senator Allman-Payne has just shouted at the chamber—I mean, there are microphones in place for the purposes of ensuring that everybody can hear what you say—the reality is the Greens have never had to balance a budget, Senator Allman-Payne. I don't know what is factually untrue about that. Nothing. You haven't.

I accept it's the Greens political party's position to diminish national security and defence of the country—that is the position you bring into this chamber on a daily basis. We have a different view. We think it is the Australian government's responsibility to keep its citizens safe and ensure appropriate resourcing for national security and defence purposes. I accept you disagree with that as a priority, and I accept that if you were putting a budget together you would make different budget decisions, but you have never had to make those choices. Senator Allman-Payne you have never, ever had to make them. You have never had to make them, so you dance in here, in the fairyland that the Greens political party lives in, failing to understand—

Senator Shoebridge interjecting—

 I can't hear Senator Shoebridge, but I know he continuously interjects.

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

I'll just address those. Senators at the end of the chamber, while Senator Allman-Payne was on her feet, she was heard in silence. Interjections are disorderly, so I ask you that, if you can't sit in silence, please leave the chamber. For the respect of the person on their feet addressing the chamber, I require silence. I cannot hear her to my right, and she's sitting very, very close to me, because I can hear the interjections. Please remain silent. Minister, you have the call.

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

Thank you, Chair, and for your protection. As I have said in the previous contributions, we have increased payments, including for those on JobSeeker, including for those on parenting payments single and including for those who are in receipt of rental assistance. We have also taken a number of other steps that interact with the payment system. Our Medicare bulk-billing, for example, was targeted to people on concession cards and those under the age of 16 until we made it broadly more applicable. To make medicines cheaper for people on concession cards, they were capped at $7.70 for the next few years. These are all steps that we have taken to provide support. Energy bill relief, including an extra payment that went to those on concessions, was recognising that people on fixed and low incomes require additional cost-of-living support, and we have provided it. As I said, we will continue to look at payments, as we do every budget. They are appropriately indexed so that when there are periods of higher inflation, that is dealt with through the way we index those payments.

I don't accept the analysis put forward by Senator Allman-Payne in any way. The reality is the Greens political party don't ever have to make choices; you just have a list of demands. You are a party of protest, and you come in here and exercise that protest on the floor of the chamber. But the reality is that you don't not have to think about the broader decisions that go into making a budget.

That's fine, but I am making a different point. The point I'm making is that when we are looking at some of the changes to social security, including adequacy of payments, we don't do it by a Greens amendment on the floor of the Senate; we do it through a budget process. That's what parties of government have to do, because, at the end of the day, they have to work out how you meet competing and different priorities. Whether it be national security and defence, which I know you would ignore and think is not a priority, whether it's dealing with pressure in the education system, whether it's dealing with pressure on hospitals, whether it's dealing with pressure on payments, whether it's dealing with pressure on the energy system, across the board those are the decisions we have to make when we put a budget together.

I know you would like to make it sound that you could just stop that, triple that, end defence spending and have everyone be happy, but the reality is that that is not the world that we are living in. It might be a Greens fantasy world, but it isn't the real world. The parties of government that sit in this chamber have to deal with the real world. You can scoff, Senator Allman-Payne. You can scoff and you can ignore reality and live in Greens fairy land, but we will govern from the real world.

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

A point of order. The minister has said that I scoffed. I didn't even open my mouth. I ask that she withdraw.

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

I'm happy to withdraw. I saw something different, but I'm happy to withdraw. We will not support the amendments that have been moved by Senator Allman-Payne. They are all of a similar type, which is seeking to change the amount of the payment as opposed to providing legal certainty for the payment, which is what this bill seeks to do.

It is important that we get this bill done, and I accept that we're not going to be able to do that this week. I'm hoping that we are going to be in a position to do it next week. These are some of the first pieces of work that we are pulling together to deal with those issues of legal noncompliance which Senator Allman-Payne identified in her earlier remarks. There are a number of them, and we will continue to bring those pieces of work to the chamber in an orderly way once the government has considered them and received the advice from relevant departments.

This bill is not the avenue for the Greens political party to pursue other goals or other policy ideas. This is about ensuring legal compliance around the ability to provide urgent payments. The advice government got on urgent payments is that we needed to respond in legislation to ensure that those people Senator Allman-Payne says she is concerned about, and whom the government is similarly concerned about, are able to lawfully be provided with those urgent payments when it is appropriate. This is a series of pieces of work that will come to this chamber to deal with that. We don't support the Greens amendment or the contribution from Senator Allman-Payne.

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

To be clear—the Greens said from the outset that we support this bill, but my question was: what is the timeframe? For several years, we have been hearing that this is happening, that the government is working on it and that it is consulting. For the benefit of advocates—

Progress reported.

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

It being 1.30 pm, we will now move to two-minute statements.