|
senate vote 2019-08-01#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-08-08 14:46:34
|
Title
Bills — Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019; in Committee- Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Serious offence
Description
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8733:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 9), omit "an offence", substitute "a serious offence".</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-08-01.31.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed.
- Senator Siewert explained the [context of this amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-31.15.1):
- > *Some of the issues that I still think are problematic are under section 124PHB(3). It says that a person wishing to exit the trial will be assessed according to the following:*
- >
- >> *(a) the person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person's affairs (including financial affairs), taking into account all of the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) the interest of any children for whom the person is responsible;*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) whether the person was convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or was serving a sentence of imprisonment for such an offence, at any time in the last 12 months …*
- >
- > *I acknowledge that this is a change from what originally went through this place, which was about whether the person 'has a likelihood of engaging in any unlawful activity'. That was totally subjective. It wasn't measurable. It was dependent on whether somebody in the community, because at this stage it was about the community panels and the community bodies, thought someone was going to carry out any unlawful activity. So I do acknowledge that that's an improvement on what was there. We do, however, have concerns that it's 'convicted of an offence' rather than 'convicted of a serious offence', so I do have an amendment to make to emphasise that it's about a serious offence.*
<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 19), after subsection 124PHB(3), insert:</p><p class="italic">(3A) For the purposes of subparagraph 124PHB(3) (a) (ii), a <i>serious offence</i> means an offence where:</p><p class="italic">(a) the offence:</p><p class="italic">  (i) involves violence against a person; or</p><p class="italic">  (ii) is a serious drug offence; or</p><p class="italic">  (iii) involves serious damage to property; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the offence is punishable by:</p><p class="italic">  (i) imprisonment for life; or</p><p class="italic">  (ii) imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than 3 years; or</p><p class="italic">  (iii) imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than 3 years.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 1 to 6), omit subsection 124PHB(8), substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Reconsideration of Secretary</i> <i>'</i> <i>s determination</i></p><p class="italic">(8) If a health or community worker:</p><p class="italic">(a) has a direct professional relationship with a person who is the subject of a determination under subsection (3); and</p><p class="italic">(b) considers that it is necessary for the person to be a trial participant for medical or safety reasons;</p><p class="italic">the worker may request the Secretary to reconsider the determination.</p><p>These relate to the issues that I raised in my speech on the second reading and in some of the questions I was asking around 'serious offence'—the offence provision and the exit criteria—to add 'serious' in front of 'offence', so that it's a serious offence that is taken into account. The other one relates to the relationship with a health and community worker. I did ask some questions about that in the chamber, where the minister articulated that there will be notes in the guidance around this issue to clarify that they will have to have a professional relationship. We think it is better off in the legislation. I appreciate that the minister made a commitment to do that, and on the form, but I do think that it's better off in the legislation. So that is what that particular amendment is about. I commend the amendment to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>I would just like to indicate to the chamber that the Labor Party will be supporting this set of amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Thank you, Senator Siewert. As an explanation of why the government won't be supporting these amendments, whilst we take Senator Siewert's point in relation to the seriousness of the offence, many of the offences that would not be captured under this particular serious criteria are the offences that are, indeed, the reason why the card was put in place in the first place. Many of these sorts of antisocial behaviours would not attract a serious offence. However, they are considered very serious in terms of the impact they're having on these communities.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8733 as moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.</p>
|