|
senate vote 2018-03-20#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-14 10:52:58
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Reviews
Description
<p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and the question before the chair is that the bill as amended, subject to requests, be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I need to ask the minister whether there are any calculations with respect to amendments tabled by One Nation before the Senate. One Nation has told us that they increase the amount of payments that are available under the bereavement allowance to either the equivalent of what is currently paid in a bereaved situation or more. Is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Nigel Scullion</p><p>I will have to take that particular information on notice. I don't have advice on that to hand, but I'm sure I will have it to hand shortly.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>We are seeking advice as to the extent to which those amendments reinstate and improve eligibility for those allowances, and the extent to which they reinstate payments. As we understand it, the payments have been reduced to the equivalent of the jobseeker allowance, and we want to know what the One Nation amendments increase them to.</p> <p class="speaker">Nigel Scullion</p><p>Thank you very much for that clarification. As I indicated, I should soon have the answers to what the impact of the One Nation amendment would be on those particular payments, so I'll take that on notice.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>You're aware that a bereavement allowance is a payment for people whose partner has died and is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks currently at the rate of the age pension. Is that the rate that these amendments will pay the allowance at? I might also direct this question to Senator Hanson.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I heard half the question. Would you like to repeat that, please?</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>You have some amendments before the Senate that amend the bereavement allowance, schedule 4, which you had your colleagues vote to oppose yesterday. That vote was then reinstated when you said you would support the government. Now you've put forward amendments in this place that completely contradict your support for the government on schedule 4, because they're much closer to changing the payments. What are those payments changed to in your amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>Thank you very much for your question. We opposed the amendment the Labor Party put up because it wasn't as good as the amendment we have put up. In 567FB the amount of payment is seven times better for the person. Previously it was only the Newstart payment; then there was a one-off payment two weeks later. My proposed amendment is far better for the people. No-one is going to be worse off under this. Some people are going to be better off with it. The government's costing for the bereavement was $1,040,000. It will cost a little bit more to instate this, but it is important that people in bereavement be looked after. That's why we put up this amendment. I understand you are going to support this amendment, and I'm pleased to hear that.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>You've asserted some people would be better off under this amendment. What do you mean by that statement?</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>After talking to the government with regard to this, the minister assured me no-one will be worse off and some people will be better off under the proposal I put forward, which is what I wanted to ensure. The payments they will receive will be better under this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Who exactly will be better off under this amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>The government have the costings for this. I suggest you direct your questions to them.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Senator Cash, Senator Hanson has asserted that some people will be better off under the Hanson amendment. Can you please explain to us who these people are.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>This gives me an opportunity, Chair, to advise the Senate that the government will be supporting the amendments put forward by One Nation. It's an amendment to schedule 4. Schedule 4 of the bill closes bereavement allowance and provides support to bereaved persons through a new jobseeker payment or youth allowance from 20 March 2020. This amendment changes the formula for calculating payments to those who lose a partner, to ensure that no-one will receive less in financial support under the new arrangements than they would receive under the current system. I believe they are the people that Senator Hanson is actually referring to.</p><p>The government supports this amendment, which builds upon the government amendments to support bereaved pregnant women. This amendment ensures that no bereaved person will be worse off with the cessation of the bereavement allowance. Bereavement allowance is paid at the pension rate of payment, compared to the jobseeker payment, which will be paid at the allowance rate of payment. As the bill is currently drafted, a bereaved person claiming jobseeker payment or youth allowance will receive a one-off lump sum payment, in addition to their ongoing fortnightly payment, following the death of their partner. To ensure that no bereaved person is worse off under the new jobseeker payment, this amendment will, from 20 March 2020, change the way payments are calculated for bereaved persons to ensure that there will be no difference between what a bereaved person will receive under the jobseeker payment or youth allowance and what they would receive under bereavement allowance. Again, they are the people Senator Hanson is referring to.</p><p>I need to point out that with the removal of the potential difference in amounts between jobseeker payment and bereavement allowance, the new system provides a much better arrangement for those who are bereaved. Those who lose a partner do not have to apply for another payment as they do under the current system. Instead, they will receive an exemption from any mutual obligation requirements, to support them in their time of bereavement, and will seamlessly move into job search or other mutual obligation activities once the period of exemption ends.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Minister, I seek your advice. Senator Hanson asserted that some people will be better off under these amendments. Do the amendments to schedule 4 bring the payments up to what they are under the existing arrangements? Is anyone going to be paid more than they would currently receive under the existing bereavement entitlements?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes, I understand that some will be paid more.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Who are the people that will be paid more? What kind of circumstances are you describing?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm instructed that they are those people who would be on bereavement payment for less than 14 weeks.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Can you take me through the eligibility requirements for that and how it is that this amendment makes it so? What will that payment be? How much above the existing bereavement payment will it actually be?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm advised that eligibility is through the pension income and assets tests.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>It's through the pension income and assets tests. So is the eligibility for this payment more or less stringent than for the existing payments?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Under the jobseeker payment, the answer is yes, because it is an allowance.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I'm sorry; you might need to explain that to me a little more. Our understanding, from looking at this amendment, is that while some people will be better off they'll only be better off relative to the schedule as you amended it, not better off compared to the bereavement payments as they are currently paid—is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes, that's basically what I said when I was responding to your questions on Senator Hanson; yes, it's the amount paid that means they are better off.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>They are better off in relation to the schedule as it stands in the bill before us, but not in relation to the payments as they are currently paid if someone is bereaved today?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Do you mean people who would be eligible, or people who would be paid?</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I'm asking in terms of the amount paid, not about the eligibility.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Those people are better off.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I'm still a bit unclear. I've heard that some of the people who are now under the new schedule as amended will be better off—</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes. When we say 'better off'—and I think that is where there is confusion—they will now receive the amount they would have received had they been on the bereavement allowance.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Thank you. That is what I wanted to clarify. So there are some people who will be better off and there are some people who will be the same as if they were on the bereavement allowance. Does this affect the changed eligibility criteria?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>No. This amendment does not affect eligibility.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>In terms of what is currently paid in the bereavement allowances, what are the circumstances of people who will be paid at a higher rate under this amendment than they otherwise would have been paid under the existing arrangements? By 'existing arrangements' I do not mean the schedule before us; I mean the bereavement allowances as they are currently paid.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I am instructed that, in terms of the way you have phrased the question, the answer is that no-one will be worse off.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Senator Hanson asserted that people will be better off. I want to know who will be better off. We are talking about relative to the arrangements before this parliament has legislated. No-one is better off under this amendment; it is only relative to what the government had brought to this place?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I think that is where the confusion is occurring. The comments that Senator Hanson has made are in relation to the amendment that has already been agreed to by the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Senator Hanson, for formality, would you like to move your amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I don't have a copy of that here on my desk.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We will get one to you. We will keep the questions going, so don't leave the chamber yet. Senator Pratt.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>While Senator Hanson prepares to move her amendment, I want to clarify something with the government. The assertion that this amendment will make people better off is based on their being better off in relation to the schedule that is proposed in this bill, not compared to the existing arrangements for bereavement payments?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In regard to the existing bereavement payments, they are no worse off.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I do now understand that. And, as I understand it, the eligibility for these payments is not changed by this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The answer to that question is yes, as I think I've now stated on several occasions.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I have a question for Senator Hanson, when she's ready, but we might give her the opportunity to move her amendments. I might continue asking questions of the government while Senator Hanson prepares herself. As I understand it, the eligibility for this payment is more stringent, because it's moved from the pensions asset test to the job seeker allowance assets test. Is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm instructed that the figure that relates to your question is that 960 people who would otherwise have claimed bereavement allowance will be able to claim job seeker payment and be no worse off.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>That is not the question. My question is about the eligibility for the job seeker payment in bereavement circumstances. The assets-and-income test for that used to be the assets-and-income test equivalent to the age pension, but that is now changing to the income-and-assets test for the job seeker allowance. Is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>So, Minister, when you say that no-one will be worse off, they will have the same income, but only if they are eligible to receive that income and the eligibility for a bereavement allowance or the new equivalent of it, job seeker allowance, under bereavement circumstances is now more stringent?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Do you have any idea of how many people lose their eligibility for this payment?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I am instructed that it is 30 persons per year.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>When you say 30 persons per year, that is in fact 30 persons per year who will be worse off because they're no longer eligible for this payment?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm instructed that they will actually have more assets and income than is required for them to be eligible for the allowance.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>So those people will be above the income and assets test to receive a bereavement payment?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes, in the same way that they would be—the answer is yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>How then can the government or One Nation make the claim that nobody will be worse off under this bill in relation to bereavement entitlements?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-20.289.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert), which means it failed.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Senator Siewert [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-20.289.1):
- > *This would amend item 1 of schedule 15 and provides for a review. I'm aware of the government's comments on review in 18 months of the legislation, and I want to come back to that, but this would be a quite detailed process. In relation to the compliance focused amendments of schedule 15, as you can see, there's a detailed outline of an independent review of the participation payment obligations compliance framework. That's one part of the amendment. The second part relates to independent annual reviews of the participation payment obligations compliance framework. Again, it goes into quite a bit of detail about how that independent review would be undertaken.*
-
-
|