Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) At the end of the motion, add, 'but, in respect of:

(a) the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bill 2014, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 4 September 2014;

(b) the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 and the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 26 August 2014; and

(c) the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 and the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 4 September 2014.'

It will come as no surprise to anyone in the chamber that we are seeking an amendment. It relates specifically to reporting dates for a series of committees that come directly out of the budget. I have been lucky enough to have

been in the chamber and heard some of the discussion we had on the previous bills. We heard justifications from both Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Colbeck about the distinct need for effective consideration of important pieces of legislation that will have an impact on many people in our community.

The bills for which we ask for amendments to reporting dates come specifically under that heading. They are pieces of legislation which will have significant impacts on members of our community—particularly the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 and its related bill, and the two massive social services and other legislation amendment bills—and which come directly from the budget.

If these bills, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bill 2014, are so important—and we expect to hear from the government that they are absolutely critical pieces of legislation—the bills should have been introduced immediately after the budget was announced, because they are cause for significant changes impacting on a wide range of people. Those people have come to us. As well as coming to us, they have gone to the media and talked to their local representatives about their concerns for themselves, their families and their communities around the introduction of these budget changes—some of which have introduction dates of 1 July 2014.

These are budget changes, the impact and justification of which need to be widely considered, which were announced last month and are intended to be introduced from 1 July 2014. We know the government has a position on the budget, which they have articulated at considerable length in this place. We accept that as the motivation for the changes. What we need to know is what the impact of these changes will be. In terms of the social services and other legislation amendment bills we are already on record, through the estimates process, asking at length for details of the processes and how these changes will operate. There are significant changes to the family payment and to indexation on the income-free asset and value limits for working-age allowances. These are really intricate changes to existing processes which will have an impact—and not just by themselves, because a number of these changes will have a cumulative effect on people in our community who are already quite vulnerable.

What we have not seen at any stage is a strategic explanation of what it will mean to an individual in our community who is impacted by a range of these changes. We have asked. We have asked through Senate estimates and in this place: if you are a carer, if you are in a single-parent family, if you work in a disability workshop, what will be the change to your situation that comes out of the legislation that has been put before us?

There is an expectation, in the last week of sitting of this Senate, that we will have extraordinarily short committee hearings to look at what the changes will mean and to hear what people in the community want to say and ask about these changes. We are aware that by asking for longer consideration and a chance to have committees meet and consider these processes, there will need to be an amendment to introduction dates. We are aware of that, but that is an issue the government should have considered when they brought them in without giving us the legislation for consideration straight after the budget.

The government knows that. They understand the way this place works. They must have processes in place to look at what the impact would be with a changed introduction date. All those things are completely within the ownership of the government. It is within the capability of the government and the departments to work it out. What we say is that these bills need a longer chance for consideration for exactly the same reasons we heard strongly argued by members of the government earlier. We move the amendment as circulated in the chamber.