Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for your answer. That is the end of my general questions. I now turn to our amendments. I have questions that specifically relate to them, and for the benefit of the government and its advisers, they are around ‘reasonableness’ and ‘misconduct’. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (2), (7), (8) and (11) together.

Leave granted.

I move Greens amendments (2), (7), (8) and (11):

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 22), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 18), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 32), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 15), after subsection 42M(1), insert:

     (1A)    The Secretary may only determine that a person commits a serious failure under subsection (1) if the person has committed within a 6 month period at least:

             (a)    three connection failures; or

             (b)    six no show no pay failures.

These amendments relate to Centrelink’s discretion. This issue was discussed quite a bit during the Senate inquiry. These amendments provide for Centrelink to have discretion in applying all the penalties in the new compliance regime. The amendments achieve this by changing the word ‘must’ to ‘may’ so that Centrelink can do some of the things that the minister was just discussing in terms of the compliance assessment et cetera. We believe it is an important distinction to ensure that people’s individual circumstances can be appropriately considered before Centrelink applies a penalty.

One of the most harmful aspects of the current regime is Centrelink’s lack of discretion in breaching people for participation failures. This has been constantly identified as an issue. Centrelink has been applying penalties without the ability to take into account a person’s individual circumstances. We have always said, and I think the government also acknowledges this, that the previous system was harsh and rigid. These amendments will allow the system to be applied in a much fairer manner. I believe they are consistent with the intent of the government to get this system to work. I did discuss this issue, if people remember, some time ago in the second reading debate on the bill, and I indicated that we would be moving amendments along these lines.