Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I want to clarify the use of the term ‘counsellor’, as my understanding is that ‘qualified social worker’ is the terminology used in the amendment. This is not just a perfectly good backup amendment; it is a very good amendment in its own right. Clearly, it is one that is very hard to argue against. With all due respect, Senator Scullion, points for trying, but you have to define ‘community concern’ for us. When you talk about community concern, can the department advise you, or the government explain to us, what is meant by that? Is this based on research? Is it based on polling? Is it based on front page articles? Is it letters to your office from constituents? I don’t know—white goods manufacturers? Who is complaining? Who is concerned? Are they concerned for valid reasons, or is it because there is this sense that people have allegedly misused or abused this payment? Some of the stories that I was reading related to families misusing the payment.

I am not meaning to be facetious; I am not suggesting that this is a light-hearted matter. We are talking about taxpayer dollars; we are talking about, in this particular case, those people who may be in circumstances that require additional support and financial assistance. That is to be determined by the qualified social worker in much the same way—and I am sure Senator Siewert or Senator Bartlett can explain this better than I can, given their social-worker backgrounds and understandings—that the same people would make comparable recommendations in other circumstances when it comes to payment of emergency relief: Centrelink, social security payments et cetera. I want to know what the community concern is and, in doing so, I am wondering if the minister wants to elaborate on his answer because I cannot see an argument for this particular amendment to fail. It seems a very good compromise and one that acknowledges that there may be exceptions. It even acknowledges that the government may be right—certainly the government has got its previous changes through—and then says, ‘But hang on, there may be some cases that deserve this acknowledgement or this change or this exception.’ I do not understand why the government will not consider this; I really don’t.