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

I too rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This bill changes the way employment income is reported and assessed for the purposes of determining income support payments—and of course it can't be taken in isolation from the fact that we are still going through the current robodebt debacle. So, in principle, something that actually has the potential to improve this situation should be looked at favourably, but it also needs to be looked at to ensure that it doesn't result in any further debacles involving vulnerable Australians who are trying to access our income support system.

The bill introduces new employment income attribution rules, and from 1 July this year income support recipients will report the gross income that has been paid to them by their employer. This represents a significant departure from the current model, where income support recipients have to estimate the amount of income they have earned—and anybody who has had to do that knows what a nightmare it can be. These measures will affect 1.2 million income support recipients who report earnings. This includes recipients of Newstart allowance—which, as we know, tends to be the jobseeker payment—single and partnered parenting payment, Abstudy, Austudy, youth allowance, single benefit, age pension, carer payment and the disability support pension.

From September this year, income support recipients will progressively have their Single Touch Payroll data prefilled when they report employment income to Services Australia. A person's employer and gross pay details will be prefilled through the Single Touch Payroll data. Income support recipients will then need to review, confirm or edit—and that's really important, and I'll come back to it—the prefilled information. By July 2021, all employers will be required to undertake Single Touch Payroll reporting except for those with one to four employees. In other words, Single Touch Payroll and the prefilling of forms for people will be rolled out over 12 months—another really important point that may confuse people.

This is a significant change to our social security system. Our social safety net looks after some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It is critical that we get these changes right and avoid the mistakes of the robodebt debacle. We have a responsibility in this place to ensure this bill does not cause unintended harm. The measure to simplify income reporting has broad in-principle support from the social services sector, but they have concerns which were expressed in the short inquiry that we had into this bill, and the Greens share these concerns. As I said, we support, in principle, the objectives of this bill, but we want to resolve a number of issues identified through the committee inquiry process, and I'm circulating a suite of amendments to address the issues I'm about to articulate.

This measure was part of the 2019-20 budget. Despite having had eight months to work on this legislation, there has been an incredibly limited consultation phase and a short time frame provided for stakeholders to consider the bill. I am concerned that the time frames for this bill are being driven by the associated savings, which the government claims to be about $2.1 billion over four years, instead of a genuine need to make reporting easier for income support recipients. That concern is specifically about the time line driving this.

There are some technical elements of this bill that are unclear and need to be clarified. I will be circulating an amendment to insert a definition of 'employment period' into the bill. As it currently reads, it is unclear whether 'employment period' refers to the number of days in a person's pay cycle period or the period during which a person worked. This could lead to a person misreporting their employment period and being penalised for using the wrong period. The amendment seeks to clarify this by explaining that 'employment period' means the period of time over which the employment income was earned. This issue was raised in the submissions to the Senate inquiry, and Victoria Legal Aid had strong concerns about the period of payment and how it would be used to assess income. They say:

it is not clear what is meant by the "particular period to which the employment income relates". It could be the pay cycle period … or the period during which the person worked.

This means that people could be confused about how they report their employment period when reporting to Centrelink. This amendment seeks to clarify what is meant by 'employment period' so that people can report their income correctly—and we know what happens if people mistakenly report their income. It's a clarification that won't change any provision in the bill, and it won't change the way income is calculated or assessed.

There is another clause in the legislation that provides the secretary with discretion to attribute employment income that does not have a corresponding time frame—for example, a Christmas bonus. They can appoint that over a certain period. There are currently no guidelines or limitations on how the secretary should exercise their discretion, which we find concerning. The way income is assessed has consequences for how people manage their budgets and for eligibility, of course, for income support payments. Whether the secretary attributes a bonus for two or 52 weeks has real-life implications for income support recipients. This is why I am circulating another amendment that will require the secretary to consider the nature of the person's work or employment, any hardship that may be caused and whether the work was undertaken when the person was receiving income support.

The success of this bill largely rests on the quality of its implementation and rollout. Given the complicated nature of these changes, that, I think, is self-evident. This includes the phases of user testing, communication and supports provided to income support recipients. Let's start with user testing. During the bill inquiry, we heard evidence that a small-scale focus group of 10 people has been conducted in Brisbane. Services Australia has also been working on co-designing a letter about the changes to 600,000 customers of Services Australia. However, ACOSS, Anglicare and other stakeholders highlighted the need for more urgent, widespread and comprehensive user testing. We know that people receiving income support payments often had complex employment situations and experience additional vulnerabilities. I'm not convinced that there has been, or will be, a process that has captured all of these requirements by the user-testing process undertaken by Services Australia. I urge the minister and the department to ensure that the government urgently undertakes comprehensive user testing on a large and diverse range of cohorts. User testing must capture people of different ages, abilities, literacy levels and geographical locations; people with different access to technology; First Nations peoples; and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It is also recommended that the government undertake user testing with social security law experts, who would to be able to identify issues with the new reporting rules.

On the other hand, the effectiveness of this bill hinges on how the new reporting rules are communicated to income support recipients. A key concern I have is that people will be nervous about editing their prefilled Single Touch Payroll data. It is possible that people will also assume that their prefilled data is correct and that they don't need to check it. This could lead to debts being raised against people who think they are doing the right thing. It is essential that income support recipients are provided with advice about their rights and responsibilities if they make changes to their prefilled Single Touch Payroll data, and we had a discussion about that—and about the need to be able to access information fairly well instantly when they're looking at their forms—during the Senate hearing into the bill.

During the bill inquiry, many stakeholders raised the likelihood that many income support recipients will be underpaid during the transition fortnight—there's a transition fortnight that's been identified for when people are being transferred to this new system of reporting. For example, ACOSS are concerned that people will double-count income as opposed to underreport income. Given there is no obligation for government to detect underpayments—and we have that on record from the government on a number of occasions—I am concerned that income support recipients will face additional hardship during this transition fortnight. I hope that the government will not unduly penalise any income support recipients who accidentally misreport their income during the transition period. In fact, I will be seeking, during the Committee of the Whole process, a commitment from the government about how they will look after people during the transition period.

To avoid unintended harm, the government must implement an effective communication strategy to ensure people from all backgrounds understand the changes. This includes tailored communication channels that meet people's needs, and we cannot assume everybody is digitally literate or has a strong understanding of English. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that Services Australia is getting the message. The transition calculator, frequently asked questions and video messaging will be provided online. What support options are available for those who don't report their income online? Centrelink apps are currently largely available in English, and some people find them hard to deal with. What happens to people who don't have a strong understanding of English or aren't digitally literate? This tailored communication strategy needs to start as soon as possible to ensure income support recipients have enough time to understand the changes.

Another key component of the implementation of this measure is providing appropriate support services through Services Australia. It is absolutely essential that people are able to ask Services Australia questions about the changes in person, online and on the phone. I'm worried that the closures of multiple Centrelink offices—which, I'll add here, my office is getting a large number of complaints about—will mean there won't be sufficient face-to-face support for people to understand the changes. I strongly recommend that the government consider having a dedicated Centrelink phone number, contact channels and face-to-face support for those that are affected by these changes.

As I mentioned earlier, we are concerned that this bill is being rushed through the Senate without proper consideration of the 1.2 million income support recipients who will be impacted. Stakeholders have voiced serious concerns that introducing new reporting rules in July, and then progressively rolling out the pre-filled STP data, will cause confusion for recipients. I don't have enough confidence in Services Australia to effectively communicate these two different changes in this extremely short period of time. I am concerned about whether Services Australia have the staffing, organisational or technical capacity to undertake user testing and get all those other issues addressed before the implementation on 1 July this year. This is why I've also circulated an amendment to delay the start date of this bill until 1 September 2020. So we are supporting it, but we think it needs a bit more time.

During the inquiry we heard about the importance of reviewing the operation of the bill and I addressed that in my additional comments to the inquiry. That's why I've also circulated an amendment for a review. But we don't just want the government to give us commitment; we want it in the legislation to make sure it actually happens.

I want to go specifically to the issue about robodebt, which I've spoken about extensively in this place, and articulate our concerns that this is not repeated. We understand that under this provision, if this works, future debts will be avoided and we think that's important. We think it is important that people are able to report their actual payment rather than having to continue to estimate it. But we are concerned that while we are dealing with this particular piece of legislation there are hundreds of thousands of people who still do not know what is happening with their illegal robodebts. So that's why I'm also circulating, and will move, a second reading amendment at the end of the motion to add:

but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) come clean on the robodebt disaster;

(b) provide all legal advice relating to the robodebt program to the Senate; and

(c) use the savings generated from this bill to compensate robodebt victims.

As I said, we are supporting this legislation in principle because we think it's progress for income support recipients, but we have some concerns that if we don't get this right we'll end up in a bigger mess than where we started from, which is a big mess in terms of robodebt. That's why I'll be asking a series of questions in the committee of the whole and moving amendments to improve this legislation.