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

by leave—I move amendments (5), (6) and (9) on sheet 5655 revised 2 together:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 7), section 42D, omit “If”, substitute:

        (1)    Subject to subsection (2), if

(6)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 15), at the end of section 42(D), add:

Reconnection and hardship provisions

        (2)    If the Secretary determines that a person commits more than 2 no show no pay failures within the same instalment period, the Secretary may determine that the person’s penalty amount is to be reduced or waived if:

             (a)    the person begins to comply with a no show no pay requirement imposed on the person; or

             (b)    the Secretary determines that:

                   (i)    the person does not have the capacity to undertake any no show no pay requirement; and

                  (ii)    the deduction of the penalty amount would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

Note:   For in severe financial hardship see subsection 14A(7) of the 1991 Act.

        (3)    If the Secretary determines that a person commits a no show no pay failure, then the Secretary may require the person to comply with a requirement (the no show no pay failure requirement).

(9)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 42H(4), insert:

     (4A)    The Secretary may end a person’s reconnection failure period if the Secretary determines that:

             (a)    the person does not have the capacity to undertake the reconnection requirement; and

             (b)    the deduction of the penalty amount would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

These amendments relate to issues around hardship provisions and working off the penalties. These amendments do two things: firstly, they include hardship provisions for no-show, no-pay and reconnection penalties. Secondly, they make provision for people to be able to work off no-show, no-pay penalties.

One of our concerns with the bill is that there is nothing in the bill to stop people from having continuous no-show, no-pay penalties or reconnection penalties. There may be circumstances where a person will miss a whole training course, for example, and potentially lose half their payment. In these circumstances, we believe there should be an ability for Centrelink to not impose a penalty if it would cause financial hardship.

We also believe that, given that the focus of the government’s policy is on re-engagement—and I very quickly touched on this in one of my questions before—there should be an option for people to be able to work off no-show-no-pay penalties. There are such provisions in the act in other areas—for example, relating to serious failures. This also touches on the issue of different compliance regimes and different penalties. We are seeking to make the bill fairer with these hardship provisions. I still think the intent of the legislation is retained but it does mean, in circumstances where people are caught up in those particular circumstances I articulated, that hardship provisions are able to be implemented.