Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Hansard source

I move Labor's amendment (1) on sheet 8889:

(1) Schedule 1, item 37, page 10 (after line 32), at the end of subsection 1073BA(2), add:

Note 1: When determining the period, the Secretary might take in to consideration the following:

(a) the nature of the person's remunerative work;

(b) the nature of the person's employment income;

(c) the person's financial interests;

(d) any financial hardship which may be caused to the person;

(e) whether the employment income relates to remunerative work that was undertaken at a time when the person was not receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit.

Note 2: The period determined by the Secretary should be fair and reasonably beneficial, taking into account the financial interests of the person receiving the social security pension or social security benefit.

There is a slight amendment to the text of the substantive amendment, which I understand has the concurrence of the minister. I thank the minister for that indication.

During the inquiry into this bill, a number of stakeholders raised issues with the lack of clarity around how irregular income would be treated. Concerns were that the bill could be implemented in a way that could leave people worse off if the government deliberately averaged income to minimise social security payments. The government said that this will not be the case, and we take the minister at her word. However, the amendment will insert an interpretive note to make it clear into the future. If a case ends up before the AAT, the note will help clarify the matter in terms of the commitment and intention. We have chosen an interpretive note over a substantive amendment to the bill because this area of law is incredibly complex and we realise some flexibility in implementation is necessary.

This amendment is designed to ensure that income is averaged in a way that is fair and that the reasonable financial interest of the social security recipients is reasonable. For example, if a person was a victim of a wage theft which occurred when they were employed and that is back paid when they are on a benefit, that payment should not be used to reduce the person's current benefit. Or, if a person is paid on a four to six week cycle but only actually worked in one week of the cycle, this will ensure the income is not averaged across a longer period in such a way as to unfairly reduce the income support that person would receive over time.