Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 is an omnibus bill which implements two of the government’s budget commitments and proposes a series of new measures to crack down on social security fraud and improve information gathering between social security agencies. Labor support the budget measures contained in the bill, which will make changes to the assets test for people of pension age living in rural and regional areas and implement changes to crisis payment provisions. We also support the proposals to improve information exchange between social security agencies, as long as appropriate checks and balances are in place. However, we have some serious concerns about the process through which the government has gone about granting the proposed new search and seizure powers to Centrelink that appear in schedule 2 of the bill.

The first part of the bill, schedule 1, relates to changes to the assets test. Labor believe in a retirement income system which is secure, stable, simple and fair. In particular, we remain strongly committed to a means tested age pension system which guarantees a decent retirement income to older Australians on the basis of need. We recognise that there are problems in the existing system and in particular in the existing assets test, which disadvantage pensioners or potential pension recipients who are living on the land. Under the existing assets test, many older Australians living on farms or large rural residential blocks find themselves unable to support themselves in retirement because the value of the property their home is on excludes them from the pension. Many of these older Australians are forced to sell their land or part of their land and their family homes in order to support themselves.

Labor believe older Australians should not have to sell their family homes—where they have spent the best part of their lives—in order to support themselves in retirement. Accordingly, we support the government’s changes to the assets test, which will exempt all property on the same title as the primary residence from the assets test where there is a long-term attachment to that land and where it would be unreasonable to realise the value of the land by selling or leasing it. The government is promoting this as an equity measure to address concerns that people of pension age living on farms or on rural residential properties are unfairly excluded from receiving the age pension, whereas the properties of people living in urban areas where their properties may have substantially increased in value remain exempt by virtue of being the primary residence of the person. We believe that this is reasonable but that the government could do much more to address the disadvantage faced by older Australians under the current age pension assets test.

Perhaps the area of greatest concern to Labor in this legislation relates to the search and seizure powers in schedule 2. Fraud and social security abuse threaten the integrity of the social security system. Accordingly, Labor supports measures which will enhance the capacity of social security agencies such as Centrelink to crack down on social security fraud. However we do have concerns about how this particular bill has been used as a vehicle for inserting search and seizure powers for authorised officers in the family assistance administration act, the Social Security (Administration) Act and the Student Assistance Act. In particular we are very concerned that the government has tried to slip new powers into an otherwise non-contentious and innocuously named budget measures bill. The powers would allow authorised officers to enter and search premises and to seize material which may be relevant to an offence or offences committed against the relevant act.

According to the government these powers are necessary for Centrelink and FaCSIA to detect, investigate and prosecute serious cases of fraud and abuse committed against the various programs administered under these acts. The government argues that the proposed new powers are similar to those that other Commonwealth agencies, including Medicare, the ATO, the CSA and DIMA, already have. It may be that it turns out that these powers are necessary, but I say that we need to be convinced that they are necessary to properly crack down on social security crime. Labor believes that a Senate committee should have the opportunity to examine the proposed new powers and the case for their introduction before this legislation passes through the parliament.

For example, the bill proposes allowing searches without warrant where the occupant of the premises consents to entry. But the bill does not stipulate what steps should be taken to ensure that the occupant of the house has consented. I think that anyone in this place would know that consent means different things to different people. If the government turns up on the doorstep and says, ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you’, not everyone has the confidence to ask them to come back another day with proper permission even when they would like to do that. Subsequently, Labor is concerned about the potential for abuse of these powers if appropriate checks and balances are not in place. Indeed, neither the bill nor the explanatory memorandum makes any mention of an oversight regime that would be put in place to monitor the use of these powers. Certainly I would not want to see such powers abused.

There are a number of issues that warrant closer scrutiny, but this is not the time or the place to go into the level of detail that I would like to see. That is what we have Senate committees for. In the future the government really should grant adequate parliamentary opportunity to examine these sorts of measures rather than trying to slip them into an omnibus bill that does not refer to them in its title. Labor will support the passage of the bill through the House, but we do reserve our final position on schedule 2 of the bill until the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported on that part of the bill.

I now turn to schedule 3 of the bill, which relates to crisis payments. I have to say that I personally am very pleased that the crisis payment is being made available to victims of domestic or family violence who are suffering severe financial hardship and who have remained in their own homes after the breakdown of a relationship. This is something that the people who work in the field of domestic violence have been campaigning for for a number of years now, and it is to their credit that this measure has been included in this legislation. I want people in this place and in the wider community to know that this is due to the excellent work of people in the domestic violence sector who have lobbied long and hard to have this provision changed.

The crisis payment has existed for some time to assist people in financial crisis. The usual case was that it would be made available to people who have left the family home because of domestic violence. Many members of parliament will know the usual scenario through the experiences of their constituents—and unfortunately it is an experience that is all too common to many Australians—so they would understand that a woman, usually but not always, and children may be forced to leave home, sometimes in the middle of the night, sometimes wearing their pyjamas and carrying very little with them. In such circumstances a crisis payment was made available until the person leaving the family home could make better financial arrangements.

For people who remained in the family home, when perhaps the perpetrator of violence was taken away by police or an apprehended violence order was obtained that prevented him or her, usually him, returning to the family home, the situation was often also one of financial difficulty. Of course, living in the family home is a great advantage and obviously much less disruptive for any children in the case. But, for example, if a woman remained in the family home but had no access to the family bank account, because it was in her husband’s name, and needed money to change locks—because she genuinely feared that her husband would be back with a shotgun—to pay for the kids’ bus fares to school the next day and to buy the bread and milk, that crisis payment was not available. This bill puts into effect the commitment made in the budget that this crisis payment would now be available to people leaving the family home and to people remaining in the family home who need this sort of assistance.

It is obviously preferable for victims of domestic violence, particularly when there are children in the case, to remain in the family home. Anyone can imagine what a distressing period it is for children to see the breakdown of their parents’ relationship, particularly when there is violence involved. Perhaps they have been witnessing violence for months or years, and the added trauma of leaving the family home, leaving behind their clothes, toys and familiar environment—perhaps having to move away from their school, friends, neighbours and grandparents to unfamiliar surroundings—really makes an incredibly traumatic situation almost unbearable. We should be doing whatever we can to make it possible for victims of domestic violence to remain in the family home, and this crisis payment will improve that situation.

A pilot program in the Bega Valley called ‘Stay home and have the violence leave’ allows police, courts and support services in the Bega Valley to help victims of domestic violence—usually women and their children—to stay safely in their own homes while offenders leave. There are similar pilots in other states and territories. In most cases, these have successfully led to a reduction in repeat violence and a much less traumatic experience for the victims of domestic violence. That approach makes particular sense in an environment where funding for emergency accommodation and long-term affordable housing is very low indeed and does not nearly meet the needs of Australians who are forced to leave their homes because of violence, and I will speak more in a minute about the lack of affordable housing and emergency accommodation.

The crisis payment is something that we welcome and support. It is, unfortunately, one of the few positive steps that I have seen from the government in relation to domestic violence. There is a great deal of fanfare about the ‘Australia says no to violence against women’ advertising campaign. Frankly, I have been incredibly disturbed by this advertising campaign. Its message is weak and contradictory. For example, an advertisement in, I think, New Weekly says:

My boyfriend hits me and then he says he loves me and reckons it’s all ok.

The response in the title is:

No it’s a crime.

That is a very good message, but later in the text the advertisement goes on to say:

Violence and assault against women is always unacceptable and, of course, most men understand that.

Terrific. It then goes on to say:

Sometimes this behaviour is criminal and should be reported immediately.

I would be really interested to know when it is not criminal to hit or assault someone. I would like to know when that is not criminal. The ad goes on to say:

Women who have suffered it should never feel it is their fault—

of course—

instead they should seek help and advice. It could be from friends or parents, it could be by talking to an experienced counsellor on the new confidential helpline or it could be by visiting this website.

Or it could be by telling the police. I think this advertisement, by having this sort of text in it and by going on to say ‘It’s a serious social problem,’ once again reinforces the notion that, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you should be getting counselling. Whereas I, and I believe the majority of people, think that domestic violence is a crime and that it should be reported to the police. As a crime, it should be dealt with by the government and by all its instrumentalities in the most serious way. It is not a counselling issue. It is not a problem that I am worried about and I need to speak to a counsellor about; it is something that we as a society need to say quite clearly is a crime and should be dealt with in such a way.

The crisis payment change is welcomed, particularly given the report prepared last year by the Women’s Services Network, which was shelved by the government for over a year and then very quietly released onto the Department of Family and Community Services website. It was hidden so well that you really needed to have a degree in computer technology to know where to look for it. The report was called Women’s refuges, shelters, outreach and support services in Australia. It said that there were a number of key flaws in the government’s policy in relation to emergency accommodation where there has been domestic violence. Some of the main concerns included insufficient funding for emergency accommodation, with one in two women—half; 50 per cent—and two out of three children being turned away from refuges when seeking emergency accommodation.

Children who accompany their mothers to a refuge are not treated as separate clients of that refuge and so there is no separate funding for those children. If a woman turns up to a refuge with five children, the refuge receives funding to care for one person, the woman. No funding is received for those children as separate clients of the refuge. As I said, about half the women and two-thirds of children are turned away from emergency accommodation. This situation is particularly bad in rural and remote areas, where the majority of women and children seeking this sort of help are Indigenous.

Just over a week ago, the Treasurer delivered the 2005-06 financial budget outcome and reported a cash surplus of $15.8 billion. I am happy that there is such a terrific surplus. That is good. It is well worth aiming for. But we as a society have to ask ourselves: who is paying the price for that? I think that a society that turns 50 per cent of desperate women and two-thirds of desperate children away from emergency accommodation needs to examine its priorities a little more closely.

The extension of the crisis payment to victims of domestic violence who remain in the family home after the perpetrator of the violence has left or has been removed by the police recognises that this violence may trigger a financial crisis even when the victim is able to remain in his or her own home. That is well and truly welcomed. It is a great win for the people who have campaigned for this change for many years. I hope that it indicates a better general approach from the government on the serious issue of domestic violence.

I turn now to schedule 4 of the bill, which relates to changes to social security legislation to enhance information sharing between agencies in order to improve compliance with social security law. Labor supports any measures that are aimed at improving compliance and improving the accuracy of social security payments. Any member of parliament would know how frustrating it is to have constituents knocking on the door describing quite simple errors that seem to happen over and over again, despite what we believe to be the constituents’ best efforts to give accurate information to Centrelink. We think that any exchanges of information should be implemented in consultation with the federal Privacy Commissioner.

We also note that Centrelink is currently not required to inform people when their carers payment is about to be cut off, and we believe that Centrelink should be required to do so. Labor is not convinced that the government’s projected savings from this measure, of $131.8 million, will be realised. We know that it is quite difficult to do projections in this sort of area, but previous projections have been notoriously unreliable.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we support most of the measures contained in this bill. We certainly support making the pension assets test fairer for older Australians living on farms and large rural residential properties. We certainly support making the crisis payment available to more victims of domestic violence. And we support improved information exchange between social security agencies, as long as the appropriate checks and balances are in place. We recognise the need for Centrelink to have sufficient powers to properly detect, investigate and prosecute social security fraud. However, we believe the new search and seizure powers proposed by the bill need more scrutiny. Accordingly, we will be reserving our position on schedule 2 of the bill until after the inquiry into these provisions by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has taken place.

See this speech in context