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

The Greens won't be moving amendment (3) on sheet 8882, but I will just clarify some of the issues around the period of employment. I will just remind people about some of the issues that we had about that particular matter. We had concerns around the fact that, as it reads, it's unclear whether 'employment period' refers to the number of days in a person's pay cycle or the period during which a person worked, and this could lead to people misreporting their employment period and being penalised for using the wrong period. The reason why we were trying to move the amendment was to better explain what 'employment period' actually means. I did listen carefully to the point that the minister was making in terms of when the income was earned and the point about the amount, so what we're seeking therefore is that, as the minister touched on before, the pay period will be addressed in the Social security guide. I'm seeking a commitment that the guide will outline what the term 'employment period' means for people who work weekly, monthly or in work of an unpredictable nature, with irregular hours. We're also seeking that the guide will provide working examples or scenarios of how 'employment period' should be interpreted for people working weekly, monthly or with irregular hours—in other words, point it out but also provide worked examples, because we are very concerned this is going to be confusing. We think it's important to clarify this so that people know what 'employment period' means and what they need to provide to Centrelink when they are reporting their employment income. We're concerned that confusion around what is meant by 'employment period' could cause people to provide the wrong period and misreport their income. That's why we want to make sure that both the explanation and case examples are there, because that often helps people interpret it. Can the minister guarantee that that will be in the guide?