|
senate vote 2018-03-21#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-14 10:23:43
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Existing wife pension
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. The question is that the bill as amended, and subject to requests, be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-21.14.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Senator Siewert [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-21.14.1):
- > *We've had substantial discussion also around schedule 3 and there's already been rejection of our attempts to oppose schedule 3. Raised at the time of that debate were concerns around the women whose overseas portability of a wife pension will be affected, and this seeks to address this particular issue so that that group of around 200 women will not be affected by these changes. So this is to try to make this particular amendment to the changes to the income support system a bit fairer for those who are affected by the changes in this bill. It relates specifically to the overseas portability of the wife pension.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(4) Schedule 3, item 98, page 85 (lines 24 to 26), omit the item, substitute:*
- >
- >> *(3) Subitem (3A) applies to a woman if, before the commencement of this item:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the woman was receiving wife pension; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) Division 2 of Part 4.2 of the Social Security Act 1991 applied in relation to the payment of wife pension to the woman.*
- >>
- >> *(3A) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule, Parts 2.4 and 4.2 of the Social Security Act 1991, as in force immediately before the commencement of this item, and any other provision of that Act necessary to give effect to those Parts, continue to apply on and after that commencement in relation to the woman as if the amendments made by this Schedule had not been made.*
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Just to recap briefly, yesterday the group of amendments we started on was the group on sheet 8254. If senators in the chamber recall, we had just dealt with item (30), which related to schedule 15, which related to the compliance regime. We separated that out because the Labor Party requested that we deal with it separately. I now seek leave to move the rest of the amendments on sheet 8254—that is, items (16) and (17) and items (20) to (23), which relate to schedules 1 and 2 and schedules 5 to 8.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>The Greens oppose schedules 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(16) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 1) to page 54 (line 9), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(17) Schedule 2, page 55 (line 1) to page 70 (line 6), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(20) Schedule 5, page 117 (line 1) to page 140 (line 12), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(21) Schedule 6, page 141 (line 1) to page 152 (line 33), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(22) Schedule 7, page 153 (line 1) to page 164 (line 16), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic">(23) Schedule 8, page 165 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.</p><p>These schedules are: the schedule to create the jobseeker payment; the schedule for the cessation of widow B pension, which is schedule 2; schedule 5, which relates to the cessation of sickness allowance; schedule 6, which is for the cessation of widow allowance; schedule 7, which is for the cessation of partner allowance; and schedule 8, which is the schedule on the minister's rules.</p><p>We're seeking to move amendments to the schedules which relate to the jobseeker payment because we're concerned that a lot of these allowances are important allowances and are not actually about jobseeker payments. If you recall, we had a substantive discussion yesterday around the bereavement allowance, which isn't always about jobseeking. So we have concerns around all of those schedules. I raised all of these issues during my contribution in the second reading debate, and again when we've been discussing various schedules of this bill during this debate.</p><p>I do have a question for the minister around schedule 6. We've asked a lot of questions already. I'm not going to be asking a lot on these schedules, because we have dealt with some of them already. I want to ask about the widow allowance. How many women who will be on the jobseeker payment immediately before 1 January 2022, and who would have been eligible for widow allowance before 1 January 2018, won't be eligible for the age pension as they won't meet the residency requirements?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Thank you, Senator Siewert. In relation to schedule 6, widow allowance, I'll just take you through the information that I have. As you are aware, if the bill goes through it will be closed to new entrants from 1 July 2018 because of the changes in relation to the bill. So people who would have otherwise claimed widow allowance will be exempt from mutual obligation activities if they satisfy the criteria that currently apply to widow allowance—that is, they were born on or before 1 July 1955, ceased to be a member of a couple since turning 40, have no recent workforce experience and are not a member of a couple.</p><p>Over the forward estimates, the total population of people who will be on Newstart allowance, so the jobseeker payments that we're now referring to in this schedule, from March 2020 who would otherwise have been granted widow allowance is estimated as 4,818 over five years, so to 2021-22. Existing widow allowance recipients will be unaffected by the closure, remaining on the payment until they reach the age pension age, and then they will transfer to the age pension. From 1 January 2022, widow allowance will cease and around 400 recipients who are over age pension age but who do not meet the age pension residence qualification rules would be transferred to the age pension under one-off transition arrangements.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Thank you for that information. So are those 400 currently receiving the widow allowance?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Have you done a calculation then of how many—oh, it's closed already. That's all right; it's closed already. We're only talking—400 women are very important, but that's the group that you've calculated are going to be affected?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>Senator Siewert, if you can hold on for one moment, I'm just going to get clarification for you. So in relation to the 400 recipients, they are people who, as of 1 January 2022 when the widow allowance will actually cease, will be over the pension age but do not meet the age pension residence qualification rules. They will be transferred to the age pension under the one-off transition arrangement.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>So are you saying that in the future, when we get to 2022, that whole group, basically, will transfer in a one-off transfer to the age pension if they're over the age pension age?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In relation to that 400, yes.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Siewert to schedules 1, 2 and 5 to 8 stand as printed.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Can I just have it noted that the Greens were the only people that voted no.</p><p>The CHAIR: Yes, certainly.</p><p>Can I just take this opportunity to let the chamber know the order I intend to move our amendments. I had a conversation with Senator Birmingham and also Senator Pratt yesterday but I thought that it was fair to let the chamber know. I next intend to move amendments relating to schedule 3, which is on sheet 8243. I then intend to seek leave to move amendments relating to schedule 5 with amendments to schedule 6 on sheet 8243. I will then move further amendments relating to schedule 6 at the end of part 1, which is on sheet 8250. I'll seek leave to move items (1) to (3) together on schedule 13 on sheet 8315. And then I intend to move amendments on sheet 8243 that relate to schedule 4 but I'm not going to move the amendment relating to clause 2, because that has already been dealt with previously by vote on an ALP amendment. Is that okay with everybody?</p><p>The CHAIR: I think it's as clear as mud! We shall proceed.</p><p>I move amendments to schedule 3, item 98, on sheet 8243 that relate to overseas portability of the wife pension:</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 3, item 98, page 85 (lines 24 to 26), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) Subitem (3A) applies to a woman if, before the commencement of this item:</p><p class="italic">(a) the woman was receiving wife pension; and</p><p class="italic">(b) Division 2 of Part 4.2 of the <i>Social Security Act 1991</i> applied in relation to the payment of wife pension to the woman.</p><p class="italic">(3A) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule, Parts 2.4 and 4.2 of the <i>Social Security Act 1991</i>, as in force immediately before the commencement of this item, and any other provision of that Act necessary to give effect to those Parts, continue to apply on and after that commencement in relation to the woman as if the amendments made by this Schedule had not been made.</p><p>We've had substantial discussion also around schedule 3 and there's already been rejection of our attempts to oppose schedule 3. Raised at the time of that debate were concerns around the women whose overseas portability of a wife pension will be affected, and this seeks to address this particular issue so that that group of around 200 women will not be affected by these changes. So this is to try to make this particular amendment to the changes to the income support system a bit fairer for those who are affected by the changes in this bill. It relates specifically to the overseas portability of the wife pension.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Labor is supporting these amendments by the Greens. We made our own attempt to prevent changes to the wife pension yesterday and the day before. Indeed, I take this opportunity to call on One Nation to do the right thing. They've sought to move amendments in relation to bereavement payments but if they truly believe in standing up for people who will be adversely affected by the changes in this legislation, they now have yet another opportunity to come forward and do the right thing.</p><p>We do not want to see the women affected by these changes become worse off. We need to remember the fact that people on this payment have been on this payment since 1995. They've been out of the workforce since 1995 and it is extraordinary that we would expect these women to have a reduction in their payments—to be put down to the jobseeker payment would have an extremely negative impact on their household incomes. Labor supports the Greens amendments and, indeed, calls on One Nation to support them.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The government will not be supporting these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Shocked and surprised! I want to confirm that there are 200 recipients currently living overseas who are not anticipated to transfer to income support payments under this schedule.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>That is correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Why was it not considered important to grandfather this group of people, as others have been grandfathered, either through the bill itself or through amendments that have been made?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm instructed that the government did not consider grandfathering these women, as it would create additional complexity which would be contrary to the intent of the welfare reform bill. As you'd be aware, these 200 recipients who are affected have access to other income sources besides their wife pension payments, such as foreign pensions and investment income.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>It begs the question: why then did you grandfather the others? I'm not complaining that others have been grandfathered; I want that clearly on the record. But the fact is that others have been grandfathered, which does make additional complexity. We went through some of that complexity yesterday in the discussions under the bereavement payment. Why was this considered too complex when there are other complex arrangements in place?</p><p>Also, have you calculated the dollar impact on these women's incomes of losing access to this payment?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I'm instructed that, because these women are actually living overseas, the complexity is due to a number of international agreements that Australia is party to, and it would very much add to or create additional complexity to the system which we're streamlining. It would actually be contrary to the intent of the welfare reform bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I just want to put it on the record that there is complexity in a lot of the other areas we're talking about—it's 200 women. Could you tell me whether you did look into the impact it would have on women? I heard your answer in terms of foreign pensions and things, but those pensions and payments to these women are calculated on the fact that there's a proportionality there. In terms of the payments, have you calculated the impact of the loss of income on these women? Also do you know whether pensions from other countries will increase for those that receive them if they lose this payment, or if they are just directly losing a payment? If so, what impact is that likely to have on their income?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In relation to the 200 recipients who are living overseas—the ones who will be no longer eligible for Australian government payments—this equates to a loss, I'm advised, of up to $669.60 per fortnight. In relation to the costings, that has not been undertaken because each international agreement is actually different and, again, it would create additional complexity which would be contrary to the intent of the welfare reform bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Did you say $660 per fortnight?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>It's up to $669.60 per fortnight, but the estimated average loss is approximately $457.10. So that's probably the better cost in terms of the average: $457.10 per fortnight.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>That's a substantial amount of money that people will be losing. I'll just put on the record that I'm deeply concerned about the welfare of those people or those women. We don't know whether all of them have pensions from other countries. Do we know how many have pensions from other countries?</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In relation to that question, I am advised that—I think I've previously stated this—the understanding is that these recipients do have access to other income sources besides their wife pension payments, such as foreign pensions and investment income.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>But we don't know, and we don't know if those foreign pensions will in fact increase once those people lose access to an average of $457 a fortnight and up to $669 a fortnight. That is a substantial income if you're living on a small amount of money.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.</p> -
-
|