|
senate vote 2022-11-22#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-12-30 16:32:53
|
Title
Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022; in Committee- Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022 - in Committee - Increasing income concessions
Description
<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>by leave—I withdraw amendment request (1) on sheet 1698.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-11-22.167.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Jonathon Duniam](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jonathon_duniam) (Liberal), which means they failed.
- ### What were the amendments?
- Senator Duniam [explained the amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-11-22.167.1):
- > *There has been a lot said about our desire to improve the capacity for pensioners and other recipients of income support to contribute to the economy and receive income without it penalising them. Currently, under subsection 1073AA of the Social Security Act 1991, pensioners are limited to earning income concessions of up to 300 bucks over an instalment period of 14 days. The amendment request we're making here is in relation to doubling that amount to $600 and enabling those recipients of the pension payment to continue to receive that without the penalty that they would otherwise be exposed to.*
<p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>by leave—I move requests (1) and (2) on sheet 1681 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</p><p class="italic">(2) Page 38 (after line 27), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 4 — Pensioner work bonus increase from 1 January 2024</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">1 Subsection 1073AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the examples, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. David's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.</p><p class="italic">David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Amy's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.</p><p class="italic">Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">2 Subsection 1073AA(4) (example)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the example, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Bill's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.</p><p class="italic">Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.</p><p class="italic">Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.</p><p class="italic">3 Subsection 1073AA(4A) (example)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$200", substitute "$500".</p><p class="italic">4 Paragraph 1073AA(4C)(a)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$300", substitute "$600".</p><p class="italic">5 Paragraph 1073AA(4C)(b) (formula)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$300", substitute "$600".</p><p class="italic">6 Subsection 1073AB(2) (example)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".</p><p class="italic">7 Application provision</p><p class="italic">The amendments of the <i>Social Security Act 1991</i> made by this Schedule apply in relation to an instalment period that starts on or after 1 January 2024.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</i></p><p class="italic">8 Subsection 46AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the examples, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. David's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.</p><p class="italic">David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in a pension period. Amy's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.</p><p class="italic">Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">9 Subsection 46AA(4) (example)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the example, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. Bill's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.</p><p class="italic">Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.</p><p class="italic">Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.</p><p class="italic">Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.</p><p class="italic">10 Subsection 46AA(4A) (example)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$200", substitute "$500".</p><p class="italic">11 Subsection 46AA(4C)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$300", substitute "$600".</p><p class="italic">12 Subsection 46AC(2) (example)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".</p><p class="italic">13 Subsection 46AD(3) (example)</p><p class="italic">Omit "$200", substitute "$500".</p><p class="italic">14 Application provision</p><p class="italic">The amendments of the <i>Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</i> made by this Schedule apply in relation to a pension period that starts on or after 1 January 2024.</p><p class="italic">15 Annual reviews of income concession amount</p><p class="italic">(1) The Social Services Minister must cause to be commenced, at least once in each calendar year beginning on or after 1 January 2024, a review of the suitability of:</p><p class="italic">(a) the income concession amount in subsection 1073AA(4C) of the <i>Social Security Act 1991</i>, as amended by this Schedule; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the income concession amount in subsection 46AA(4C) of the <i>Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</i>, as amended by this Schedule.</p><p class="italic">(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Social Services Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</p><p class="italic">(3) The Social Services Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</p><p class="italic">(4) In this item:</p><p class="italic"><i>Social Services</i> <i>Minister</i> means the Minister administering the <i>Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1991</i>.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of </i> <i>26 June 2000</i></p><p class="italic">Amendment (2)</p><p class="italic">Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the income concession amount under the work bonus scheme. The income concession amount contributes to the amount that certain recipients of a social security pension, a service pension or income support supplement can earn before their payment begins to decrease. This means that increasing the income concession amount would result in recipients receiving a higher payment.</p><p class="italic">The effect of the amendments would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the <i>Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</i> and section 199 of the <i>Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</i>.</p><p class="italic">Amendment (1)</p><p class="italic">Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).</p><p class="italic"> <i>Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</i></p><p class="italic">Amendment (2)</p><p class="italic">If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the <i>Social Security (Administration)</i><i> Act 1999</i> and section 199 of the <i>Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</i> then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</p><p class="italic">Amendment (1)</p><p class="italic">This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.</p><p>I outlined the coalition's rationale for these requests in the second reading debate, but I will quickly recap. There has been a lot said about our desire to improve the capacity for pensioners and other recipients of income support to contribute to the economy and receive income without it penalising them. Currently, under subsection 1073AA of the Social Security Act 1991, pensioners are limited to earning income concessions of up to 300 bucks over an instalment period of 14 days. The amendment request we're making here is in relation to doubling that amount to $600 and enabling those recipients of the pension payment to continue to receive that without the penalty that they would otherwise be exposed to.</p><p>Noting all of the benefits that flow from that, given the worker shortages we have across Australia, particularly in regional communities, a couple of points have been made by organisations like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They said in their prebudget submission of last December:</p><p class="italic">There is an army of older workers with the skills Australia needs who would still like to work, but don't participate in the workforce as it reduces their pension.</p><p>The same organisation, in its submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill we are debating now, stated:</p><p class="italic">Considering the deeply rooted labour market conditions, faltering productivity rates, and downgrades to domestic and international economic growth forecasts, these amendments will end long before the challenges facing businesses and the economy are solved.</p><p>That relates to the provisions the government have contained in their legislation without the further changes that the coalition is proposing now.</p><p>On that basis, I would commend the proposals before the chair to senators and seek their support.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I'm grateful to the opposition for dealing with them cognately, but they don't really stack up singly or together. They aren't affordable. They won't incentivise older Australians to take up work in the immediate term where the workplace shortages they claim to be concerned about are. After a decade of mismanagement in this area, with a trillion dollars in debt and very little to show for it, these guys want to double the incentive. That is not a serious proposition. It's not supported by anybody serious out there in industry. We can't sustain it as we go about a focused approach on sustainable budget repair.</p><p>The former government used social services as a political football and had a new minister in social services about every 12 months. They didn't take social services seriously, either. The idea that the new opposition can claim to have an interest in labour shortages, after a decade of policy failure in this area—of falling productivity, falling wages, falling capital expenditure and the remarkable achievement of an enormous reduction in temporary labour—and the idea that they'd come here today proposing to double the incentive, are pretty extraordinary. The government urges the Senate to oppose the amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>The Greens won't be supporting these amendments. We negotiated with the government to get an amendment in the House to extend the time period of this scheme until December next year. We think that that's a good period of time to have this workplace bonus in place. We're happy with a date towards the end of next year, potentially, to see whether it should be continued. But at this stage we are not supportive of moving the amendments that would extend it now.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that the request for amendments be agreed to. The amendments are requests (1) and (2) on sheet 1681 moved by Senator Duniam.</p><p></p> -
-
|