|
senate vote 2018-03-20#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-14 11:13:39
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Additional requirements; cap
Description
<p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and the amendments moved by Senator Siewert on sheet 8288. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8288 be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.290.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### What does this amendment do?
- Senator Siewert [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-19.290.1):
- > *This amendment relates to additional requirements and a cap, and I have a couple of questions relating to this issue. This amendment relates to provisions for avoiding a reduction in or cancellation of a payment by undertaking a requirement and also addresses the cap of seven weeks, during which time a participant payment can be reduced or cancelled.*
- >
- > *The eight-week compliance penalty of the old compliance regime had a very significant impact and it happened all at once. So we can appreciate what the government is trying to do in having a one-week suspension, a two-week suspension and a four-week suspension. But by the time you get to a four-week suspension from payments you've already had a three-week non-payment period. By the time you get to four, that's seven. The concern is that somebody could go through a cycle of a number of weeks of suspension. People can be almost as badly off, potentially, as they were under the old regime. We want to apply a cap to this process so it's really clear.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 15 , item 1 , page 208 (line 3) , after section 42AP , insert:*
- >
- > *42APA Secretary may require person to comply with additional requirements*
- >
- >> *(1) The Secretary may require a person to comply with a requirement during a period in respect of which:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the person’s participation payment is to be cancelled; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) instalments of the person’s participation payment are to be reduced.*
- >>
- >> *(2) Despite any other provision of this Subdivision, if the person complies with the requirement at any time during the period:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the person’s participation payment is not cancelled during that period; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) an instalment of the person’s participation payment is not reduced during that period.*
- >>
- >> *(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules specifying the requirements, or the kinds of requirements, that the Secretary may make if:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) a person’s participation payment is cancelled; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) instalments of a person’s participation payment are reduced by 50%; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) instalments of a person’s participation payment are reduced by 100%.*
- >>
- >> *(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the rules may specify different requirements, or different kinds of requirements, in respect of each of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (3)(a), (b) and (c).*
- >
- > *42APB Cap on periods during which payments may be cancelled or instalments reduced*
- >
- >> *A person’s participation payment must not be cancelled and instalments of the person’s participation payment must not be reduced in any continuous 6 month period if, for at least 7 weeks of that period, the person’s participation payment has been cancelled or instalments of that payment have been reduced.*
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>When the adjournment was proposed last night, we were just in the middle of a question and answer process, and I had at that stage said this was my last question, but unfortunately the adjournment was proposed before it could be answered, and I was a bit premature, because depending on the answer I actually may wish to ask another question specifically on that.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Not having been in the chair, I wasn't aware of that, Senator Siewert.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>No, of course.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So debate can continue.</p><p>I was asking about the appeals process for the one-week penalty, the two-week penalty and the four-week penalty. You will recall that we had had significant discussion around when people could appeal, and I was asking what happens with those penalties in terms of income support.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Thank you, Senator Siewert, for restating the question. Under the new compliance framework, while jobseekers are able to appeal any financial penalty, they will not receive payment pending the outcome of the appeal or payment pending review. However, jobseekers will be paid back pay if their appeal is successful. Under the current compliance framework, in practice, payment pending review is only available for eight-week serious failure penalties and unemployment non-payment periods, which will no longer exist under the new framework. Payment pending review is currently not available for the majority of penalty types.</p><p>Before a jobseeker faces any financial penalty under the new framework, they will have missed a minimum of five requirements in six months without reasonable excuse, or will have refused work and therefore be demonstrably capable of obtaining work. The jobseeker's capabilities will also generally have been assessed twice, by both their provider and Human Services, before any penalties are applied. These arrangements are intended to ensure that only those jobseekers who are fully capable of meeting their requirements, but deliberately choose not to, will lose payment. The intention is to provide such jobseekers with a strong incentive to change their behaviour or find work. Allowing payment pending review for such jobseekers would significantly undermine this incentive effect.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>The issue here, as I articulated yesterday, is that we still may have vulnerable jobseekers who get to this point if they haven't disclosed. In effect, what we've got is people being able to access the first appeals process, the departmental appeals process and then the AAT. For a start, we know the AAT takes quite a long period of time—certainly more than the four weeks. Well, it's seven weeks, but the maximum one-time suspension is four weeks, and it certainly takes longer than that.</p><p>I've got a couple of questions. What is the time it takes for the departmental review? Following that, if somebody has appealed and they do their four weeks—say it's the four-week one—what happens if they're still under appeal? Do they still go back? If they are still appealing—say it's an AAT or departmental one, but it's more likely AAT because they take longer—do they go back to the start of the process? What happens if they are still under appeal? Is that clear? So they've appealed and they've actually done their four weeks off income support—you've just said they would not be receiving income support. Do they then go back to the start, as everybody else does? What happens there?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Senator Siewert, I'm advised they go back to where they were in the intensive compliance phase.</p><p>I've also managed to get you some additional information in terms of another question you were asking about last night, which was around what happens if a jobseeker is already in the penalty phase and they develop issues affecting their capacity to comply, or they reveal previously undisclosed issues. If a jobseeker had no issues when they underwent their compliance assessment, but their circumstances change while they're in the penalty phase, they will remain in the penalty phase but will have their requirements adjusted, if necessary, to ensure that they can meet them. They do not return to the demerits phase because they were capable of meeting the requirements when they incurred their demerits and underwent their capability assessment. However, if the jobseeker does fail to meet a requirement, Centrelink will not apply a penalty if the jobseeker's barriers provide a reasonable excuse for failure. Also, providers would continue to monitor jobseeker requirements and take personal circumstances into account following any further noncompliance. If a jobseeker reveals a previously undisclosed barrier whilst in the penalty phase, and it results in the retrospective application of an activity test exemption, any demerit incurred within the exemption period will be removed and they will return to the demerits phase. I hope that gives you a little bit more in terms of what we were discussing last night.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>How long does it take for the departmental appeal process if they're in the penalty phase or in the suspension phase?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Given that there are a number of amendments, can I take that one on notice and provide you with information when we return after question time? I assume we will be coming back after question time.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Sorry, I realise I asked that question last night. I think I should rephrase it to say 'the last group of questions', because the minister's answers have led to other queries. Can we just go back to the point that you made when I was asking what happens when someone has appealed? You said that if they've done their compliance of four weeks, their suspension for four weeks, they go back to the intensive phase, not to the—</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Correct, they go back to—</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Their slate isn't wiped?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes. I will reconfirm: they go back to the beginning of the intensive phase, yes. Not the jobactive provider side, the intensive phase.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I may have misunderstood an answer that you gave last night. So anybody who finishes that goes back to that intensive phase?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Two circumstances: yes, in relation to the question you have just asked; however, what we were also talking about last night was if you then have a three-month period in which there is no noncompliance then you reset; you start again.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Will that process also apply to somebody who has appealed? For an AAT process, that's actually going to be a long time frame. That's not having a go at the AAT; I know they have a heavy case load.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>That is correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>So where it's subsequently found that their appeal, for example, is successful, then basically what will happen is that they will get back pay?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>That is correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I want to ask questions in relation to schedule 17, with respect to information management. We've expressed our strong opposition to this schedule. We've expressed our concern that the schedule limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which we see as a basic and substantive common law right. We're concerned that your changes to this schedule provide—</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Senator, I'm loath to interrupt you, but is your contribution here relevant to this particular amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>No, but we have varied around each particular set of amendments.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We should deal with each amendment. Have we completed the debate in relation to it?</p><p>Yes, I would be happy to vote on that now.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8288, moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|