Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the minor amendments to laws on social security and family assistance to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the SSAT. The SSAT is the first level of external review of decisions made by Centrelink about social security, family assistance, education or training payments. As of 1 January 2007 the tribunal is also the first level of external review of most decisions made by the Child Support Agency. By way of history, the SSAT was originally established in 1975 by the Hon. Bill Hayden to review appealed decisions made by the then Department of Social Security. It is now, as we know, a statutory body established under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to conduct merit based review of administrative decisions made under social security law, the family assistance law, child support law and a raft of other pieces of legislation.

The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 set out the powers, functions and procedures of the SSAT. The SSAT is within the portfolio of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Administrative arrangements of long standing exist between FaHCSIA and the tribunal that have allowed the tribunal to benefit from the department’s administrative infrastructure.

Those going to the SSAT are usually people whose interests are affected by a Centrelink decision or a Child Support Agency decision and who want to apply to the SSAT for a review of the decision. Centrelink appeals can be lodged at any time after a review of the original decision by the Centrelink authorised review officer. Yet before the SSAT can review a Child Support Agency decision it must first be reviewed by a CSA objections officer. Child support appeals must be lodged within 28 days of receiving an objection decision.

The SSAT generally has the power to affirm, vary or set aside a decision under review. Where it sets aside a decision, the tribunal must either substitute a new decision or send the matter back to Centrelink or CSA with directions or recommendations for further action. Centrelink decisions reviewed by the SSAT typically relate to the following bodies of law: social security law, family assistance law, the Health Insurance Act, the Child Support (Assessment) Act, the Farm Household Support Act, the Student Assistance Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. In achieving this mandate, the SSAT’s statutory objective is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and informal, and, most of all, it must be quick. People who are appealing decisions by Centrelink or the Child Support Agency should never be required to hang out for decisions that would take months on end—hence the requirement for 28 days after receiving an objection decision. Appeal applications can be lodged with the tribunal in writing, in person or by telephone, though at present Centrelink can only make written submissions.

This amendment bill, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008, will allow Centrelink to be able to make oral submissions to SSAT hearings and allow the SSAT to give oral reasons to explain affirmed decisions by Centrelink in social security and family assistance cases. This will bring these types of cases into line with child support cases, where the SSAT does not have the option to give reasons orally to the parties involved. Allowing Centrelink to make oral submissions in social security and family assistance reviews should—and I emphasise ‘should’—provide greater clarity for complicated or technical cases, and it is imperative that the parliament take its responsibility seriously and review the impact of these changes to ensure that the stated intent of making and providing greater clarity to complicated or technical cases is indeed realised. These amendments, again, should give social security and family assistance cases the same flexibility and efficient approaches which the SSAT uses in the child support system, and it is again incumbent upon the responsible minister, and indeed the parliament, to ensure that that flexibility and that efficiency in approach are realised.

This bill further extends the term of SSAT members to five years rather than the current three-year terms that members serve. This should promote better planning and decision making through greater longevity, and it is again incumbent upon the minister and the parliament to ensure that better planning and better decision making are a result and that greater longevity does reap the rewards that we hope it will reap. Change for change’s sake is always a nonsense, but change that ensures greater clarity in complicated cases, greater flexibility and efficiency in approaches by the tribunal and better decision making and better planning is, on the surface, for the best. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the goals, worthy as they are, are indeed realised.

I have said a number of times in this place that my electorate of Fadden, having grown by 31.6 per cent between the 2001 and 2006 censuses, is the fastest-growing electorate in the nation. As we all know, especially those of us with children, there are always growing pains, and where there are growing pains we need to look at them. Because of the strong growth of my electorate of Fadden, which the library estimates in 3½ years will be 19½ per cent oversubscribed in the numbers of people—

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am looking across at the member for Oxley. I gather his electorate is going backwards. The electorate of Fadden is indeed going forward at a great rate of knots, so I deal with issues of Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and the SSAT on a regular basis. Because my office is dealing with these statutory authorities and the tribunal on a regular basis, I look forward to seeing greater clarity in complicated cases; I look forward to greater flexibility and efficiency and better planning and decision making. And, with hope for what these changes will do in that regard in the future, I indeed support this bill.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 makes minor amendments to the social security and the family assistance law to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Whilst these amendments are minor in nature, I think that they are quite significant and that they will improve the way the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will operate. They will update some of the legislation that I will talk about a little bit later. The bill also makes technical amendments to several acts, primarily the social security law, to repeal references to redundant payments—and I will talk about that at length in a moment—or to repealed provisions, to correct cross-references, to correct misdescribed amendments and to address similar matters.

This bill, as the previous speaker noted, will allow Centrelink to make oral submissions to SSAT hearings. I think this will improve the way the SSAT operates. It will allow Centrelink to elaborate on the reasons for their decisions. It will also ensure that we get a more balanced response. I think the SSAT plays a very important role. Any member of parliament who meets with their constituents regularly will know just how important is the ability to review and to make a merit based appeal to a statutory body that is at arm’s length from Centrelink, because invariably many of those reviews will result in the original decision being determined differently. It is important that the SSAT be able to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, because that benefits all parties. The amendments allow the SSAT to give oral reasons on a case-by-case basis. They also allow the SSAT members to be appointed for a period of up to five years. That is consistent with government policy and is a very prudent reform. All of that is in schedule 1.

In schedule 2 there are two technical amendments to the Social Security Act. The bill repeals redundant references to the disability wage supplement and to the rehabilitation allowance, which are no longer paid under the social security law. The rehabilitation allowance was phased out in 1991, when a disability reform package was introduced. At that particular time I was working in an area where a number of my clients were in receipt of the rehabilitation allowance. It was in fact identical to the disability support pension as to the benefit that was paid and as to the way that it operated. At that time a number of my clients moved to the disability support pension or remained on the rehabilitation allowance. There would be no reason why a person should still be on a rehabilitation allowance some 18 years later, because it related to a person undertaking a rehabilitation program. It was a very structured program. There could be a formal training program. There could be an on-the-job training program. The rehabilitation allowance was provided to a person specifically for that reason. Since that time people have been on Newstart. Special provisions were put in place at the time of the disability reform package being introduced in 1991. That disability reform package did benefit people with disabilities because it had a holistic approach to helping those people enter the workforce. Unfortunately, under the previous government that became very fragmented and it was very difficult for people with disabilities to actually re-enter the workforce.

One pleasing aspect is that there has been an increase in the number of people with disabilities moving into the workforce. I congratulate the government, especially the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Gillard. The government has looked at what happened back in 1991, has looked at the changes that the previous government made and has been determined to ensure that people with disabilities find employment. Given the fact that we are moving into a time of economic uncertainty, it is going to be even harder for people who have disabilities to obtain employment.

This legislation phases out that rehabilitation allowance and brings it in line with the rates of disability allowance under the current legislation, with an additional supplement. It also makes three technical amendments. It repeals redundant provisions, headings and references, repeals provisions to correct cross-references and corrects misdescribed amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, the Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Act 2007, the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act.

This legislation brings Centrelink deliberations into line with child support deliberations, where parties have the right to give oral submissions. It is a very sensible amendment, one that I am pleased to see the opposition support—unlike their decision today to oppose the economic stimulus package, which stands to benefit millions of Australians. Their decision will jeopardise the economic security of Australia and I feel that the opposition really need to revisit the decision they made today in their party room. The opposition need to look at the impact of their decision to deny Australians the package, which has been well thought out and worked through by the government. I feel that the opposition will stand condemned if the legislation does not pass through the Senate, as it will have enormous impact in Australia.

I conclude my comments in relation to this legislation by saying that I support it wholeheartedly. It brings the legislation into line, gets rid of redundant aspects of previous legislation and brings the Centrelink component when the Social Security Appeals Tribunal looks at cases into line with the child support component. The increase to the five-year term is, once again, in line with government policy.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Shortland. I do not think anyone in this House doubts that she cares about her constituents. I do note, however, that she was very quick to compliment the present minister. I have no doubt that the minister is doing her job as well as she can, but as to the member for Shortland’s comments on people with disabilities being welcomed back into the workforce being a good thing, I just point out to the House that that was part of the reforms that the previous government brought in, and it is good to see that the present government is continuing with those reforms. Whilst I take note of her advice concerning—

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland on a point of order?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the member if he could provide details of the reforms that the previous government—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is a requirement that I be asked whether I am prepared to accept a question. At this stage I am not prepared to accept a question. She has tried that one on me before, Mr Deputy Speaker!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please continue.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I take note of her advice to the opposition about our opposition to the make-up of the stimulus package, I can assure her that I fully support the action taken by our coalition in opposition and will argue the merits of our position quite strongly and vociferously.

Coming back to the matter before us, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 makes a number of amendments to the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. My role as a member of parliament, as with other members of parliament, involves regularly dealing with constituents who approach my office with Centrelink or Child Support Agency decisions with which they do not agree. I frequently refer them to the SSAT and encourage them to exercise their rights of review and appeal. Indeed, a member of my staff is a former SSAT member and reminds me that the tribunal offers a mechanism of external review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Certainly for a number of my constituents their appeals to the tribunal have resulted in outcomes to their satisfaction. I have admiration for Centrelink staff and fully understand that in implementing complex government income support policies—more so of late—they encounter frustrated clients. These are the same clients who frequently contact my office to vent their frustration at the inequities of the Rudd government’s income support policies. I might also take this opportunity to thank my front office staff, who also deal professionally and empathically with unhappy and sometimes very angry constituents.

The economic stimulus bonus is one of those issues that has caused some angst amongst my constituents. While I welcomed it in December for the more than 30,000 people in my electorate who received a bonus, the reality is that the benefit for many was short lived. Once the bonus was spent, pensioners and families still struggled to pay the increased costs of living, such as the electricity bill. Many of them will be facing quite a huge increase in their electricity bill in view of the 48-degree temperatures we have experienced in large parts of my electorate. That bill will no doubt be a big one. They still struggle with the increased costs of a weekly basket of food and medicines and fuel—increased charges that pensioners, veterans and families face every day.

I will take this opportunity to point out a flaw in the administration of the economic stimulus bonus payment that has come to my attention. Under the Howard government, if a person qualified for an income support payment on budget day when the bonuses were announced, they qualified for the bonus. Not so under Labor. In order to receive the bonus in December a person had to be eligible some two months earlier, on 14 October 2008. Take the case of a 50-year-old constituent in my electorate. On 17 October 2008 the constituent and his wife, also in her 50s, were awarded custody of their three young grandchildren by the court. They have asked me not to use their names, because of concern for these children, and I think we can all understand that. At a time when they are of an age to contemplate a quieter life or even retirement, this couple took on the care of three very young children, the youngest of whom is only three years of age.

The constituent and his wife receive family tax benefit for their grandchildren but were denied the bonus. They were not paid the $3,000 economic stimulus bonus because they were not in receipt of family payments on 14 October. They missed out by three days. In December the bonus was paid to the children’s mother because the children were in her care on 14 October, notwithstanding that in December she had not had to care for her children for two months, and further notwithstanding that the courts have determined she was not fit to care for the children.

The bonus did not reach the children, and it certainly did not reach my constituent who was looking after the children. I understand there has to be a line in the sand, and a start date is the essence of any law. The Rudd government should have made provision for those who came onto allowances in the intervening period—between when the bonus was announced and when it was paid. It is patently unfair to the couple, who now have to provide beds, clothing, toys, school fees and uniforms for their grandchildren, as well as the two months of looking after the children. I give notice to the minister that I will be seeking her intercession for an ex gratia payment equal to the bonus for my constituent.

A further constituent approached me about a similar outcome. Mr Peter Olsen, living in an isolated rural area, has been a long-term recipient of a disability support pension following diagnosis of a serious and potentially terminal condition. Mr Olsen received a one-off offer of temporary employment for a few weeks. After medical advice he undertook this employment and when it ended he went back onto the disability support pension but because he was working for those first few weeks he received no payment of pension on the test date of 14 October 2008. This also means that Mr Olsen received no bonus, despite being back on disability support pension a few weeks later—certainly in December when the bonus was paid. Notwithstanding that he received a pension payment for 13 October, he missed out on the bonus by one day. What is particularly irksome to Mr Olsen is that at no time was he advised that he would not be receiving the bonus. At the very least it might have been prudent for the Rudd government to make clear to Mr Olsen and other pensioners in this unusual situation that they should not count on receiving that bonus, which as long-term social security recipients, they had understandably been expecting. Regrettably, Mr Olsen has precommitted the bonus funds and finds himself in financial difficulties. I seek the minister’s discretion in this case.

Apart from those anomalies I support the legislation, as does the opposition. We think it is important legislation and that is why we support it in full.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. As the member for Shortland said, this bill will make a few technical amendments to social security law and family assistance law to improve the efficacy of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the SSAT. It does it by way of schedule. Schedule 2 makes some technical amendments to repeal redundant references to the disability wage supplement and the rehabilitation allowance, which are no longer paid under our social security legislation. The disability wage supplement was rolled over and put into the disability support pension in 1997. Schedule 3 makes very technical amendments to repeal redundant provisions and cross-referencing in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Act, Native Title Amendment Act and various pieces of social security legislation.

It is schedule 1 that I really want to talk about today. It makes a number of amendments to improve the operation of the SSAT, allowing Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT in its hearings, and allowing the SSAT to give oral reasons on what are often known colloquially as affirmed cases. It will allow the SSAT members to be appointed for a term of five years, and that is consistent with a whole range of other tribunals and bodies.

It is important to note that as federal members of parliament we probably deal with matters of social security and child support and family law more than any other issues. People also need to understand how and why decisions are made which affect them in their daily lives, whether it is in the case of various types of social security payments made to them, payment of child support or how the family law situation and system interposes upon their lives. About 4½ million Australians receive an income support payment and about 1.6 million parents are in the child support system, which is governed by the Child Support (Assessment) Act and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act. The federal government makes transfer payments in the income support system, in terms of social security, of about $70 billion each year. That is a huge sum of money. About $2.8 billion is assessed to be paid in child support cases each year, and if every parent who was supposed to pay child support did pay it, then it would be a lot more.

Given the size of the numbers we are talking about and the amount of dollars we are talking about, it is important that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal operates efficiently and effectively because it affects the daily lives of Australians, particularly people in my electorate, including in Ipswich and the rural areas in Oxley. The SSAT is the first level for external reviews of decisions made by the Child Support Agency and by Centrelink that deal with issues of social security payments, family assistance and education and training support. The objects in terms of statute governing the SSAT are that the mechanism of review is to be fair, just, economical, informal and quick. But that said, a lot of the indicia of a court system can be seen in the SSAT. The SSAT was originally established by the then member for Oxley, the former Governor-General, and a very prominent member of Ipswich, Bill Hayden. He established that the purpose of it was to review appeal decisions made by what was then known as the Department of Social Security. It took a Labor government to do that, and Bill is to be commended for the work he did in that regard, as well as other reforms such as Medibank that he brought in during his tenure.

The statutory body, as I said, is governed by the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and it hears cases. People who have been affected by the decisions of Centrelink or the CSA have a right to apply to the SSAT for a review of that decision. In my previous life as a lawyer, I operated in these areas regularly. Centrelink appeals are lodged after review by the Centrelink authorised review officer of that original decision. It is the same thing under the child support legislation, where a CSA objection officer also hears a review from a departure order which is being sought as a result of an administrative decision made by the Child Support Agency upon application by someone seeking child support. Twenty-eight days is the time to lodge the objection and it costs nothing to appeal to the SSAT, which is important. The SSAT usually conducts hearings face-to-face; people are usually in the same room. The hearings from Centrelink and from the CSA are hearings de novo. In other words, they are not appeals on matters of law, they are not appeals on matters where irrelevant considerations were taken into account or, for example, where material fact was left out. So they are not legalistic, if you know what I mean; it is really to review the whole thing yet again. That is why it is important for people in Australia to ensure that they know that the SSAT hears these things and hears them in a way which is fair and just.

The CSA, the Child Support Agency, is entitled to make oral submissions. It needs to seek leave of the SSAT to do that, but it is entitled to make oral submissions rather than, in the circumstances, in the very legalistic way of giving a brief. The applicant in those sorts of proceedings is entitled to make submissions as well, as is the respondent—and there is scope, usually, for cross-examination. So the SSAT is run in a courtroom like manner. It is also entitled to compel people to appear before it. So we are talking about a body that has tremendous powers and that the average Australian can deal with as a result of decisions made in terms of child support and Centrelink payments.

In addition to simply supplying the information it already has, the CSA has the capacity to comply with requests made under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act. In other words, the SSAT can exercise powers to compel the CSA to make submissions and comply in terms of the provision of information. This whole process is to ensure that we speedily get through the legal technicalities, get past the legal forms, the rules of evidence et cetera and that a proper consideration or review takes place. It is extremely important that we ensure that the way in which these tribunal hearings are conducted is fair.

Currently, the secretary of FaHCSIA, the secretary of DEEWR or the Centrelink Chief Executive Officer may only make written submissions to the CSA but not oral submissions. That has resulted in a number of adjournments. If you have ever been involved in these types of processes, you can see how adjourning the matter would really irritate people—and that happens whether it is the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court or a body dealing with child support reviews. Nothing irritates the average Australian more than going to a tribunal or court and finding they have to go away again because some legal technicality has not been complied with.

This measure brings the SSAT operations under social security and family assistance, in line with the kind of SSAT operations under the child support jurisdiction. It increases the flexibility and efficiency of the SSAT by providing Centrelink with the option of making oral submissions. That is a very important improvement in the operation of the SSAT. It will help in fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure that it is quick, economical, just and equitable, and informal in the way in which it operates. The more we ensure that these proceedings are less adversarial, the better for the average Australian.

Another change will be on affirmed cases. The SSAT hears decisions of the child support review officer, the objection officer, and Centrelink hears the initial review of the objection. Currently, in cases that deal with social security, they have to give out written reasons. Where decisions are made that simply affirm the decision that was made in the first instance or on review, why shouldn’t they be able to give those decisions orally, and not be subject to the legal technicalities of providing written reasons? A party has the right to request that, and in those circumstances written reasons will be provided. This reduces the time it takes to make decisions, because nothing takes longer in our legal system than the people who preside over tribunals adjourning the case to provide written reasons. Sometimes, months if not years go by before decisions are made by judges and magistrates, and that irritates litigants so much. So the idea of oral submissions or reasons being given in cases where the decision made in the first instance is affirmed is a very significant reform for those people who interface with the SSAT.

The final reform deals with the terms of appointment to the SSAT. It extends the maximum period of appointment from three years to five years, which is in line with many other bodies. So what we are talking about here is increasing the transparency of the merit based selection involved in appointing statutory office holders to the SSAT. It will ensure that they are appointed for a period of a duration which allows them to get across the jurisdiction and get across how they can operate.

I sometimes wonder whether three years is simply too short. We see that in a lot of appointments. Five years allows people to get across the jurisdiction much better when they are presiding, and other agencies appoint on that basis through this parliament and through ministerial decisions.

This is an important reform that we are dealing with today. It might sound technical, it might sound unsexy and it might sound like it is not the sort of legislation that people will go home and read about, but it deals with people’s everyday lives—and the people in my constituency of Blair deal with the SSAT, Centrelink and the Child Support Agency every day. This is a great piece of reformist legislation. It is typical of what Labor governments can do when they talk about law reform. It is typical of what Labor governments can do to help those who are in need, those who face the rigours of legal proceedings, those who face the bureaucratic rigours of big governments. What we are doing here is helping the average Australian to improve their chances in court proceedings and streamlining our legal procedures. That is a great reform, it is a great initiative, and I commend the minister and the government for introducing it.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. In Cowan, just as in all the other electorates, matters arise where the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is required to re-examine the decisions made by officers of Centrelink or the Child Support Agency. It is essential that these often emotional matters be resolved quickly and transparently. The SSAT clearly appreciates the importance of these points because its aims include providing a review that is ‘fair, just, economical, informal and quick’. That is all very important, but the specific aim of this bill is to amend a number of items of legislation that will enable the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to work better, including granting Centrelink the ability to make oral submissions to the SSAT or speak at hearings. It will also allow the SSAT to state its affirmation of cases orally and enable appointment of members to the SSAT for five-year terms.

It is my intention today not to mention or comment unnecessarily on every other act that this bill will amend but rather to speak on the substantive measures and their relevance to the electorate of Cowan, so I will state right from the start that it is my intention to speak only on the substantive measures involving oral submissions and periods of appointment. With regard to the first aspect of the bill, the interaction of Centrelink with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, this bill will enable Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT whereas previously only a written submission was possible. This is an important improvement if you want to deliver transparency and fairness, because so often the context of individual cases is difficult to express in written words. An appellant would be better able to seek fairness in an SSAT decision if a Centrelink officer was able to speak and then clarify any additional points during a review. This would also bring Centrelink into line with the Child Support Agency, which is allowed to appear at hearings when required.

The period that a member of the Appeals Tribunal holds office is set out in schedule 3 part 1 clause 4 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. However, I wonder why there is the need for item 23 in this bill before the parliament today. Why is there a need to appoint a person for five years when their performance can still be judged after three years, and then a decision can be made as to whether they continue under reappointment? It is fine for the executive director to be appointed for five years, but the members should be assessed every three years and this would appear to be the more appropriate course of action. However, we will see how the appointments and the actions of members of the SSAT go in the future.

I would like to see the SSAT strongly support, where possible, the principles of what social security is truly all about. I imagine that all of us here in parliament would agree that welfare payments to the younger and able-bodied members of society are just a temporary means of support until such time as they can find employment and once again support themselves. I certainly look forward to a more consistent approach to welfare support and an end to those rare and inappropriate comments you hear when a person on Newstart starts talking about how much they ‘earn’. I think John F. Kennedy got it right in his inaugural speech when he said: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.’

I recently visited and congratulated the ladies who work down at the Uniting Church’s outreach program in Girrawheen, in Cowan. These ladies, known as the Wednesday Club, volunteer to operate the food bank and the second-hand clothing store down on Salcott Road in Girrawheen. They provide a great service to those who are struggling to make ends meet. Every eight weeks, families can attend the food bank, make a gold coin donation and pick up a hamper of food. I congratulate Maureen Le Bretton, Agnes Brunton, Carole Zielinski, Diane Alexander, Lorna Phillips and Maureen Lambert for the great work they do. They provide examples of the very best of the Australian character with the fabulous work they do under the auspices of the Uniting Church in Noranda, and it makes me proud to be their federal representative. I know that the vast majority of their clients greatly appreciate the effort that these ladies put in and respect the sentiments behind this sort of support.

Unfortunately, as with all things, there are some people who do not appreciate that support or respect the sentiments behind it. There are some that abuse this support. The forms of abuse range from somewhat rare cases of verbal abuse to those who think that, just because the surnames of husbands and wives are different in some cultures, this means that the wife can show up one week and the husband the next, just to try to maximise what they can get, knowing of course that this then takes away opportunities from others who might need that support. This is not to say that the abuse of the good graces or the intentions of the food bank is confined to one group. No, the small number of people involved in poor behaviour range across a number of different groups in the community. It may be recalled that I mentioned the need for a gold coin donation to participate in the food bank. This is a modest sum that goes some small way to offsetting the outlays that the Noranda church puts into the food bank. They receive no donations. They have to buy it all. It is therefore disappointing that, when asked for that gold coin donation, some people pull a $50 note out of their wallet and then ask for change. Other clients seem to have spent their money on purchases such as body piercings, cigarettes, flash clothes or other excesses that all demonstrate that they prioritise those matters above having good food on the table.

Again, I make the point that this is a matter of priority. As parents, as leaders, we should first be thinking about putting good food on the table for our children and supporting our families before spending money on things that are purely excesses. The tragedy is that these sorts of people take some of the capacity of the Noranda Uniting Church and other philanthropic organisations within Cowan and elsewhere away from the genuinely disadvantaged and those who are in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own. Once again, I applaud the efforts of Maureen Le Bretton, Agnes Brunton, Carole Zielinski, Diane Alexander, Lorna Phillips and Maureen Lambert from the Uniting Church in Noranda and other individuals and organisations that are committed to the support of those that struggle in this nation through no fault of their own.

It is a shame that there are some who abuse the goodwill and the systems in place to provide assistance, whether that is through the non-profit sector or through government welfare support payments. While it is a sad reality that there are and always will be those who abuse the good intentions of others, this bill is about improvements to the system, and I look forward to those improvements being implemented. While I have reservations about whether the extension of the maximum term for a member of the SSAT to five years is really going to be of benefit, I look forward to seeing the benefits of all the changes applied to the cases that affect my constituents in the electorate of Cowan.

In conclusion, I look forward to this bill providing a more effective appeals system and I look forward to the best use of social security assistance for Australians—and that assistance should only be taken up by those who are really in need of it.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. This is a good bill. It makes a number of needed amendments and draws into line things that are widely supported and acknowledged across the parliament and the community as things that would make the current system work a lot better. The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the current social security and family assistance laws in relation to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the SSAT. While the system that we have in place could work better, it currently performs well. There are always opportunities for problems to arise and for incorrect decisions to be made. Sometimes, better systems need to be put into place. But it is good that we actually have an appeals mechanism so that people can appeal decisions that are not in their favour.

The original Social Security Appeals Tribunal legislation was introduced by a former member for Oxley, the Hon. Bill Hayden, so it would be remiss of me not to mention him in my comments today. It was Bill Hayden who reviewed the appealed decisions made by the then Department of Social Security. Putting in place the SSAT system was a great move forward in ensuring that decisions made in the bureaucratic process are the right decisions and that people have the opportunity to seek more information and to challenge decisions or better understand why decisions are in fact correct. The SSAT has since become a statutory body. Under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 it conducts merit reviews of administrative decisions made under social security law, family assistance law, child support law and various other pieces of legislation.

The amendments in this bill will allow the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to give oral reasons on affirmed social security and family assistance cases. It will review cases that affirm the decision made by Centrelink and it will bring those jurisdictions more closely into line with child support and how those systems work. It is important that that change is brought forward and used. In the discussions we have with our constituents, often cases arise where there is miscommunication or misunderstanding or somehow people just do not quite comprehend what is going on around them. Sometimes that cold letter informing people of a decision by a department does not meet people’s expectations. It is certainly a harsh method. I can understand that that is necessary—obviously, these things need to be clearly spelt out—but giving an oral submission and sitting down with people and discussing these things will enable them to better understand what the decisions are, how those decisions come about and how the system works. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I support it very much.

As in the child support sphere, the oral decision arrangements will be subject to the right of the parties to request written reasons if they prefer. I think that needs to be there also as a backup system to confirm what people have heard orally. What has been explained to them can also be provided in writing. The SSAT amendments to allow Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT also mimic the child support arrangements, which will bring in continuity and similar arrangements across a whole range of those legislative areas and the departments and services that people access. That is very important in getting people to understand how they work. Often the people who access one of those areas will automatically have access to all the other areas as well. I think it is important to cut down the complexity of the systems that are in place by making them uniform across the different departments.

Centrelink will now be able to ask the SSAT for permission to make oral submissions to it, and the SSAT will be able to order Centrelink to make oral submissions as well. This will increase the flexibility and efficiency of the SSAT and it will help to avoid costly and inefficient adjournments. I think it is a sensible way forward. It is obviously supported by everyone in this place. It is something that I am happy to be a part of. The new power will generally be used in complex cases where further explanation may clarify a complicated or technical matter and assist the SSAT to reach a preferable decision. The amendments to allow SSAT members to be appointed for a term of up to five years, in place of the currently allowed term of up to three years, will also bring the SSAT in line with government policy that appointments of statutory office holders are generally to be made for a period of five years for reasons of stability, efficiency and good governance.

The remaining amendments in the bill are purely technical in nature. They do not raise any substantive issues or matters, but they do tidy up the legislation by repealing redundant references, correcting cross-references and addressing similar matters. All in all, I am more than happy to be part of a government that makes these changes and tries to address some of the issues by making people’s lives a bit easier. Any appeals they make about departmental and government decisions will be easier to understand, and I think that is a step in the right direction. I fully support the bill.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. In the present world situation, with millions of people going to the wall financially, it has become a lot more fashionable, even on the conservative side of politics, to speak about mercy, or what Shakespeare called ‘that twice blessed gift to the unfortunate, those on whom the shafts of fate have unfairly fallen in a time’—like now—‘of strife’. This bill amends, broadens and makes more merciful legislation first passed a generation ago in another era of strife, 1975, following the actions of Bill Hayden, a great Australian, a great Labor leader and a great Governor-General, when he was the Minister for Social Security. It set up the SSAT, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, whose purpose was to help the unfortunate, the people with disabilities, the elderly, single parents and their suffering children, to keep a roof over their heads, adequate food on the table and blankets on the beds when the basic things could be threatened by bureaucratic errors and injustice in the Department of Social Security, which was then in charge of their lives.

The responsibilities of the SSAT have grown since then. It now reviews, questions and sometimes overturns decisions made under social security law, family assistance law and, since 2007, child support law. But its aim, then as now, is to rescue those who have fallen between the cracks of our society, however briefly and however unjustly. It helps those who are suffering from want, poverty, panic or homelessness because of a lack of legal advice, misinformation or errors in proper bureaucratic process. It helps those who have lost what may be the only lifeline for themselves and their families. It is there to give to those in need a system which gives not just the theoretical right but the practical power to challenge incorrect or unjust decisions made regarding eligibility for allowances, their rate, their duration or their perceived doubling up.

The SSAT strives to be fair, just, economical, informal and quick. It does not rely upon lawyers. It does not charge for an application to review a benefit. It provides reasonable travel and accommodation expenses and interpreting services to help people make their case. In 2007-08 there were over 13,000 applications lodged with the SSAT, with the number of Centrelink related applications increasing by 35 per cent to 11,596. The main reason for the increase was Centrelink rulings on the Newstart allowance and alleged participation failures, where Centrelink ruled that a receiver of the allowance had not done enough to meet their responsibility to find work.

Of the 11,000 cases, 27 per cent, or over 3,000 cases, saw the complaint upheld and Centrelink’s original decision overturned. This shows that Centrelink is a professional, humane organisation that gets it right most of the time, but it also highlights that no system is perfect and there is a need for an independent mechanism of review that is accessible to all Australians. Of course, the case details and the results are confidential, given that they deal with the personal circumstances of people.

I would like to provide an example, in summing up, of how the SSAT can work to bring about a just and fair result for someone who is doing it tough. A single parent receiving the parenting payment for looking after a son with severe autism was penalised by Centrelink, who ruled that because she was still legally married, although not living with her husband, she should never have been given the single parent pension in the first place. This left her with a sizeable debt to pay at a time when money was needed for her child with autism—a debt to be paid with money that she did not have and could not earn while she was still looking after herself and her son. The review found that Centrelink had acted incorrectly and had not found sufficient evidence to prove that the couple had remained in a relationship, that Centrelink in this case had jumped the gun. The SSAT found that the money supplied by her former husband was for the care of the child only, that there was not evidence of an ongoing relationship between them, that they were no longer living together and that Centrelink in this case had erred.

This common-sense decision delivered a fair result and saved a family and a working mother tens of thousands of dollars. Another valuable aspect of the SSAT provides feedback to Centrelink and the Child Support Agency as to how they can improve their performance in their dealings with clients. In this role, it has helped us develop a pension system that is more responsive and humane towards the vulnerable people that it aims to assist. The SSAT has been performing a valuable service on behalf of vulnerable Australians for 34 years, and this bill will help it continue that work.

In summary, several acts within the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and related portfolios are amended by this miscellaneous measures bill. The amendments are minor and technical only. The minor amendments in the bill are to the social security law and the family assistance law. These amendments are to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, including allowing oral evidence and oral decisions in certain circumstances. Oral decisions will be available where the decision of Centrelink is being affirmed. All parties retain the right to request written decisions within 28 days. Oral evidence is likely to be used in complex cases where further explanation may clear up complicated or technical matters and so help the SSAT reach the correct and preferable decision. It should also help avoid costly and inefficient adjournments. The bill also extends the term of appointments for members of the tribunal from three years to five years, in line with government policy announced by the Special Minister of State in February last year. Lastly, the bill makes technical amendments to several acts, mainly to the social security law. The technical amendments are to repeal redundant provisions, to repeal references to redundant payments or repeal provisions, to correct cross-references, to correct past amendments that failed for technical drafting reasons and to address similar matters.

In conclusion, these amendments further show the Rudd government’s unbending commitment, whatever the budget’s bottom line and whatever the outcome of the present meltdown, to a just and fair Australia where those least blessed by genetic fortune or marital fortune or the fair winds of our times, the circumstantial roulette of a life on earth which brings plenty and prosperity to some of us and privation to others, can at least have a clear, uncomplicated voice, putting their case for mercy and offering sheltering arms against the harsh winds which blow in a time of strife, such as all of us are facing now. I commend the legislation to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.