Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering an amendment moved by Senator Siewert. The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 8243, as moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:50]

(The Chair—Senator Lines)

Question negatived.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda related to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are these the supplementary ones that are already listed on the website? Is that right?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

The CHAIR: Please continue, Minister.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (11) on sheet ES154 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 9, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

     The first 1 January or 1 July to occur after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Clause 2, page 3 (cell at table item 14, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

     The first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October to occur after the end of the period of 2 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(3) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 11), omit “The Secretary must take action under this Division”, substitute “This Division is about the Secretary taking action”.

(4) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (line 4), omit “must”, substitute “will usually”.

(5) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 5 to 7), omit “the participation payment must be cancelled. A participation payment must also”, substitute “be cancelled. In addition, a participation payment must”.

(6) Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (after line 13), after paragraph 42AD(a), insert:

     (aa) in the case where the participation payment is parenting payment—the person is not someone to whom paragraph 500(1)(ca) of the 1991 Act applies; and

(7) Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (after line 21), after paragraph 42AE(1)(a), insert:

     (aa) in the case where the participation payment is parenting payment—the person is not someone to whom paragraph 500(1)(ca) of the 1991 Act applies; and

(8) Schedule 15, item 1, page 197 (after line 31), after paragraph 42AE(2)(a), insert:

     (aa) in the case where the participation payment is parenting payment—the person is not someone to whom paragraph 500(1)(ca) of the 1991 Act applies; and

(9) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (after line 11), after subsection 42AF(3), insert:

  Special rule—discretion not to take action for certain failures

  (3A) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary may decide not to make a determination under either or both of those subsections for the relevant failure if it was committed under paragraph 42AC(1)(a) or subparagraph 42AC(1)(c)(i).

Note 1: Paragraph 42AC(1)(a) relates to a failure to comply with a requirement notified under subsection 63(2) or (4). Subparagraph 42AC(1)(c)(i) relates to a failure to attend, or to be punctual for, an appointment that a person is required to attend by a notice under subsection 63(2).

Note 2: The Secretary may instead cancel or suspend the participation payment under section 80 (see section 42AS).

  (3B) In deciding whether to make a decision under subsection (3A), the Secretary must have regard to any matters determined under subsection 42AR(1A) and may have regard to any other relevant matters.

(10) Schedule 15, item 1, page 209 (after line 3), after subsection 42AR(1), insert:

     (1A) The Minister may also, by legislative instrument, determine matters to which the Secretary must have regard for the purposes of subsection 42AF(3B) in making a decision under subsection 42AF(3A).

(11) Schedule 15, item 1, page 209 (line 4), omit “The Minister may also”, substitute “In addition, the Minister may”.

Today I'm moving amendments to three schedules within the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. Amendments to two of these schedules, 6 and 10, will just postpone their start dates. These schedules relate to closing widow allowance for new entrants and ensuring that new claimants of unemployment payments connect more quickly with employment services. Amendments to the start dates for these measures are necessary due to the bill not passing before the planned 1 January 2018 commencement date.

I'm also moving amendments to schedule 15, which relates to the targeted compliance framework. The amendments would prevent ParentsNext participants from receiving four-week penalties for refusing to accept or voluntarily leaving work. While these penalties are appropriate when looking for work as a condition of receiving income support, ParentsNext participants are not required to look for work as a condition of receiving payment. This is because ParentsNext is a pre-employment program rather than an employment program. It connects parents of young children to services in their local community and helps them plan and prepare for employment by the time their children start school.

The amendments also address an unintended consequence of schedule 15 of the bill, identified through the implementation design process. The new compliance framework will always apply for noncompliance with mutual obligation requirements, including failure to attend an appointment with a provider noted under section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. However, this section is also used by Centrelink to notify income support claimants and recipients of broader administrative requirements, such as providing documents to Centrelink, and should be dealt with through other mechanisms, rather than the compliance framework. This amendment will allow the most appropriate response to be used, depending on the nature of the failure.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party will be supporting these amendments. That being said, we consider them as only very, very minor improvements to the regressive things that are in schedule 15. We are moving our own amendments to schedule 15 which we hope will be successful. Indeed, if they're not successful, we will vote against schedule 15 as a whole. Therefore, I will now speak to our alternative amendments to schedule 15 so that the chamber can consider those and I will also highlight some of the issues with schedule 15.

We are very much seeking to reinstate waivers and the discretion for the departmental secretary and employment service providers when assessing demerits and financial penalties. We note that the schedule as a whole changes the compliance framework for income support recipients to mutual obligations and participation payments. We also note that, as a two-phase framework, the first phase attributes demerit points to jobseekers who fail to comply with their obligations. If a jobseeker accrues up to four demerit points within six months, the government is seeking to assess them and put them into an intensive phase. In the intensive phase, there are three escalating penalties or strikes. For the first strike the recipient loses a week's payment; for the second strike, they lose two weeks; and, for the third strike, there is a cancellation of that payment and a four-week exclusion from re-application.

In noting that we support the amendments that are before us, because they make some tweaks, I would also seek to ask some questions about the schedule as a whole. Under the current system, we see 72,000 financial penalties applied each year. Can you highlight for the chamber what, under the proposed system, that will be?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the targeted compliance framework in schedule 15, the Labor amendment introducing broader discretion to the targeted compliance framework would actually retain one of the ineffective features of the current compliance framework which allows providers to effectively ignore noncompliance when the jobseeker has no reasonable excuse. This results in inconsistent and unfair application of penalties. The National Social Security Rights Network acknowledged this in its evidence at the Senate committee hearing, stating that the new framework:

… deals with a range of problems in the existing system. They include an arbitrary levelling of penalties depending on a provider discretion …

Under the new compliance framework, providers will still exercise discretion as to whether or not they find the excuse offered by the jobseeker to be acceptable, in which case no financial penalty or demerit will be applied. The appointment will just be rebooked, as currently occurs. However, they will be unable to ignore blatant noncompliance with no excuse. DHS will also retain the discretion they currently have in relation to all decisions about applying financial penalties.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question asked what, given that change of system, the forecast number of penalties would rise to.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Penalties are expected to slightly increase under the new framework, but, in contrast to the current system, these penalties will only be served by those who persistently and deliberately do not meet their requirements. The expected number of penalties is based on jobseekers' compliance behaviour under the current system, with some conservative assumptions applied about behavioural change.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I need to check my information with you. I have it noted that, under the current system, there are 72,000 financial penalties applied each year and that, under the proposed system, that will double, not have a slight increase.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised, in relation to the figures I have in front of me, that there is only a slight increase. Under the current framework, the number of penalties applied in 2016-17 was 187,526. The targeted compliance framework penalties applied—estimates only, obviously—in 2018-19 will be 190,478, so that is a slight increase.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the change in the penalty regime, do one-week, two-week and four-week penalties still exist for loss of income?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can lose one week, you can lose two weeks and then you have a cancellation and lose four weeks under the new targeted compliance framework.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government have estimates for how many people will lose income under each of those categories?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we do. In relation to jobseekers losing one week, the estimate is 82,619. I'm talking about jobseekers now. In relation to two weeks, it is 42,152. In relation to cancelling and losing four weeks, it is 22,403. Again, that's jobseekers. That gives you the total of 82,690.

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

I do want to make a comment on the amendments, but I thought the one-week penalties were 82,690. For the two-week penalties, it's 42,154, and then it's 22,403. But then you said, 'That makes a total of,' and read out the same number as week one. That is what I heard. I may have misheard it.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you didn't. The maths here is not as it should be. You are correct, Senator Siewert. Sorry, can I provide some additional information in response? They were actually the same jobseekers; you were correct.

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

I take your point. So you're expecting, then, over half to go to a two-week exclusion and then half of them again. Yes, sorry; I take your point. While I'm on my feet, I will, first off, very clearly remind people where we're up to: the Greens oppose this bill. We think that there are many schedules in this bill that will have a detrimental impact on people struggling on income support. Having said that, we think this series of amendments makes things slightly better. So if the will of the Senate is not what the Greens want—in other words, the bill is supported—these amendments will make the provision slightly better, so we will be supporting these amendments.

The Greens also have a series of amendments to schedule 15. I'll address those when I move them. We also have a series of questions. Unfortunately, we've had a period of time now—I think it's four weeks—since we were debating this last time, and we did, I know, go over some questions. I will try not to repeat those, but I do have some more questions on the issues here which I think are probably better addressed when I go to my amendments.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, NXT recognises that, under the current system, Newstart and youth allowance recipients are breached and lose payment without warning. NXT believes that every person receiving a working-age payment from the taxpayer should be actively looking for work and/or addressing any barriers to work. However, NXT also wants to ensure that persons not engaging in the jobactive system are continually communicated with and given every possible chance, including a final chance, to engage with the system before losing payments. Will the minister detail how Newstart or youth allowance recipients will be provided with one further chance to engage with the system once all demerit points are exhausted?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question, Senator Patrick. A further demerit point will be added to the process which will give the jobseeker one more chance to comply. Jobseekers will still have two capability assessments before facing any penalties and will return to the start of the demerit phase if it is found that they were not reasonably able to meet their requirements.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will Centrelink staff be instructed to advise applicants of the provision for the collation of documentation available to vulnerable persons so that applicants are able to make a determination if they fit some of the circumstances in the legislative instrument?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise that jobseekers will undergo a capability assessment firstly by providers and secondly by Centrelink to identify any vulnerabilities.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move the government amendment on sheet JC488.

(1) Schedule 11, page 172 (line 1) to page 173 (line 2), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 11—Intent to claim provisions

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After paragraph 13(1 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

2 Paragraph 13(1 ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

3 After paragraph 13(2 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

4 Paragraph 13(2 ) ( c) Repeal the paragraph.

5 After paragraph 13(3 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the claimant is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

6 Paragraph 13(3 ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

7 After paragraph 13(3A ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

8 Paragraph 13(3A ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

9 After paragraph 14(1 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

10 Paragraph 14(1 ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

11 After paragraph 14(2 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

12 Paragraph 14(2 ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

13 After paragraph 14(3 ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the claimant is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

14 Paragraph 14(3 ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

15 After paragraph 14(3A ) ( a)

Insert:

(aa) the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

16 Paragraph 14(3A ) ( c)

Repeal the paragraph.

17 After section 14

Insert:

14A Determination for purposes of sections 13 and 14

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a class of persons for the purposes of paragraphs 13(1) (aa), (2) (aa), (3) (aa) and (3A) (aa) and 14(1) (aa), (2) (aa), (3) (aa) and (3A) (aa).

18 Application provision

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to contacts to the Department made on or after the commencement of this item.

Under this amendment the current intent-to-claim provisions will be retained so as to only apply to claimants who are in vulnerable circumstances. The amendment includes an instrument-making power to allow a legislative instrument to define a vulnerable claimant for the purposes of the intent-to-claim provisions. For all other claimants the date of the claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department. Vulnerable claimants will be those who have a genuine difficulty in collating their documentation. These difficulties will include but not be limited to being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement.

Amendment (1) omits schedule 11, 'Removal of intent to claim provisions', and substitutes new schedule 11, 'Intent to claim provisions'. New schedule 11 retains and amends the current intent-to-claim provisions in the social security law. As I've stated, these provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances, being a person who is included in the class of persons determined by the minister in a legislative instrument—and I've outline examples of that. This amendment will also remove the requirement for the secretary to give a person a written notice acknowledging the Department of Human Services has been contacted in relation to the making of a claim for a social security payment or concession card.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister advise how the information in this legislative instrument will be made easily available and accessible for prospective and relevant Centrelink recipients?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Patrick. I understand your question was in relation to how the information in the legislative instrument will be made easily available and accessible for prospective and relevant Centrelink recipients. I am advised that information will be readily available through a range of human services documentation relating to the claim process and the DSS website.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will Centrelink staff be instructed to advise applicants of the provisions for the collation of documents available to vulnerable persons so that applicants are able to make a determination of whether they fit one or some of the circumstances?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that Human Services staff will provide the appropriate advice to relevant applicants.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that a saving of $68 million over the forward estimates is being projected with this schedule. Is the minister able to advise whether this amount is reduced? By what measure do the inclusions of vulnerable persons in this legislative instrument affect that?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise that this amount is not reduced. The policy for this measure always included provisions to support vulnerable claimants, so the saving remains at the $68 million.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has spoken to the amendments just circulated to schedule 11, noting that they specify that vulnerable people will still be able to have their payments backdated to the day they contact Centrelink and that they would be defined by legislative instrument. We note that your circulated EM shows that the class of people could include people experiencing homelessness, people experiencing domestic violence and humanitarian entrants. So we can see that the government's made some efforts in this regard, but we very firmly believe that these amendments do not go far enough in fixing the problems in schedule 11, so we oppose the amendments and continue to oppose schedule 11.

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

The Greens, as I've articulated, don't support these amendments and don't support the bill or this schedule. We have deep concern that it will impact on vulnerable people, of course, but, more broadly, on people who are on income support or trying to access income support, as I articulated in my second reading contribution. The supplementary EM to these amendments says:

However, it is acknowledged that there may be occasions when a person in vulnerable circumstances may not be able to lodge a claim or provide the required documentation in a timely manner. Accordingly, although the deemed claim provisions will no longer apply to claimants generally, these amendments will ensure that sections 13 and 14 will continue to apply to a vulnerable claimant, being a person included in a class of persons determined by the Minister by legislative instrument.

Again, it is by legislative instrument; it's not something that we get to comment on in this place other than, potentially, by voting yes or no. I'm deeply concerned that it won't include the sorts of vulnerable people that I support and hear from on a regular basis in my office. For example, Aboriginal people living in a remote community may not be able to access their documentation or it may take weeks and weeks to get their documentation, as we heard about in the Northern Territory when we were up there for the CDP inquiry last year.

This amendment goes some way, but it does not address the broader issues created by this schedule, where we think a lot of Australians won't get access to income support when they need it. I remember being here when we were debating the provisions around people needing to access income support urgently and the further impositions that this government put on people having to prove that they're fleeing family crisis situations and family violence. When we were debating that, it was very clear that the hurdle had gone much higher. I'm concerned that this is a continued approach by government to keep ratcheting up that hurdle so that social security, which is a right, is being made harder and harder to access. These amendments don't address those fundamental issues that are raised by this schedule. So we will be opposing these amendments and, as people know, we oppose this schedule.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister commit to the legislative instrument becoming active at the commencement of this bill becoming law so that no prospective Centrelink applicants to which the schedule applies are penalised with a lag in time between the primary and subordinate legislation?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is the government's intention.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the rationale for this change? Does the government think it will encourage claimants to submit their forms faster? What is the purpose of removing provisions that allow people to have their claims backdated?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the rationale, the 'intent to claim' provisions were introduced at a time when claim forms were mailed to claimants, completed by the claimants and then returned by mail to the Department of Human Services. With the advent of technology that allows people to gather and submit documentation quickly and easily, this level of assistance is no longer necessary or appropriate. These provisions allowed leniency for claimants by effectively backdating their entitlement to payment to the date they initially contacted the Department of Human Services and indicated their intention to claim. The purpose of removing these provisions is to encourage claimants to take greater personal responsibility for understanding their payment entitlements and to submit claims in a timely fashion. But, as I have already stated, there are protections that will apply to vulnerable claimants.

Claimants in vulnerable circumstances who have a genuine difficulty in providing documents with the claim will be able to complete the claim and provide the required documents after completing and lodging the claim. I've gone through the examples of vulnerable circumstances. They include crisis situations where the claimant is homeless, affected by a major disaster, affected by family and domestic violence, is a recent humanitarian entrant to Australia or has recently been released from prison or psychiatric confinement. Vulnerable circumstances may also relate to situations where the claimant is a younger person applying on the basis that it is unreasonable to live at home, is caring for someone with a terminal illness, is aged under 18 and in the care of another person, is blind, has a partner with a residential aged-care assessment or an assessment is in progress or has a partner and they are illness separated. DHS will be able to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a claimant is in vulnerable circumstances and unable to provide documents with the claim.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do the amendments address people who will have difficulty in accessing documentation who aren't specifically vulnerable but might be made vulnerable by virtue of the fact that they don't have timely access to a payment? For example, there are people who have to access identity documents from overseas or take time drilling down their Australian citizenship documentation. If you become unexpectedly unemployed and you're not used to accessing this documentation, it may take you some weeks to gather that documentation before you're able to apply.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the examples of vulnerable circumstances, one of the examples I gave was 'is a recent humanitarian entrant to Australia'. But the point of your question goes to the reason why DHS is actually getting discretion. It is so that they will be able to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a claimant is in vulnerable circumstances and unable to provide documents with the claim. The example you've given would fall directly into the determination on a case-by-case basis.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, how will we have confidence that, in every case where someone needs that discretion, it will be granted?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, that is the whole point of DHS having the discretion; they will be able to determine on a case-by-case basis.

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

In an Aboriginal community where there is no Centrelink office or there's only an agent, if somebody goes to the agent, is that classed as the date of lodgement or is it when the department gets that form? These are real-life examples of where Aboriginal people have not got their documentation. What then counts as the lodgement date? Is it when they first go to the agent or is it actually when the process gets to the department?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am instructed that it is when the agent registers it with the department.

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

In these communities, the agents, as I recall, in some instances don't work five days a week or for a full day. In those circumstances, is it guaranteed that the agent gets the application in on the same day?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that, in relation to your question, it will be the date that the person has provided the documentation to the agent and they can prove that they provided the documentation to the agent on a particular day.

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

Sorry, I'm talking about if they haven't got the documentation but have put the application in. Very often they don't have passports; they don't have up-to-date photos. There's been a whole range of issues raised over the years. When you said 'the documentation', did you mean that giving the application itself to the agent will count?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Siewert. I'm not exactly sure we're on the same page, so if I provide you with some information hopefully you can then tell me whether or not we are both on the same page. For example, what will happen to claimants that are waiting for documentation from a third party? All claimants also have additional time—up to 14 days—to supply some third-party documents from the time they lodge their claims. Examples of these documents include medical reports when applying for disability support pension or evidence of parental income when applying for youth allowance. In relation to documents or information generally considered to be outside a claimant's control, these could be obtaining medical evidence through a report to be completed by a treating doctor or specialist, business or private trust details, or parental income. Documents or information generally considered to be within a claimant's control include: tax file number, savings account balances, employment separation certificates or proof of identity.

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

Thank you for that. That's where I think the confusion was. When you said 'documents' and the point they are given to the agent, I was still talking about the issues around the applications because I thought we had established the date for the application is when the agent sends it to the Department of Human Services or when the department gets it.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My instructions are it is the date that the agent says they sent it to the department.

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

I followed that up with: is that always the same day? And then you were talking about how for the documents they get 14 days. So the date for when the documents are provided, is that the date they provide them to the agent? Is that a correct understanding?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed by the department the answer to the question is yes.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment on sheet JC488 moved by the minister be agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 18:36 to 19:30

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (8), (17) to (31) and (33) to (38) on sheet 8236 revised together.

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item.

(3) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table item 13), omit the table item.

(4) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 14), omit the table item.

(5) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 15), omit the table item.

(6) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 16), omit the table item.

(7) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 17), omit the table item.

(8) Clause 2, page 4 (table items 20 and 21), omit the table items.

(17) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 11), omit "The Secretary must take action", substitute "The Secretary may take action".

(18) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 26), omit "The participation payment must be cancelled", substitute "The participation payment may be cancelled".

(19) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 4 to 7), omit "the person's participation payment must be reduced by either 50% or 100% for a period (in addition to not being payable) or the participation payment must be cancelled. A participation payment must also", substitute "the person's participation payment may be reduced by either 50% or 100% for a period (in addition to not being payable) or the participation payment may be cancelled. A participation payment may also".

(20) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 11 and 12), omit "no participation payments are payable", substitute "participation payments may not be payable".

(21) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (line 15), omit "participation payment must be cancelled", substitute "participation payment may be cancelled".

(22) Schedule 15, item 1, page 198 (line 12), omit "the Secretary must", substitute "the Secretary may".

(23) Schedule 15, item 1, page 198 (line 27), omit "the Secretary must", substitute "the Secretary may".

(24) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (line 7), omit "payments will not be payable", substitute "payments may not be payable".

(25) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (lines 27 and 28), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".

(26) Schedule 15, item 1, page 199 (line 33), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".

(27) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (line 1), omit "payments will not be payable", substitute "payments may not be payable".

(28) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (line 25), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".

(29) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (line 27), omit "payments will not be payable", substitute "payments may not be payable".

(30) Schedule 15, item 1, page 200 (lines 33 and 34), omit "the Secretary must determine", substitute "the Secretary may determine".

(31) Schedule 15, item 1, page 201 (line 3), omit "or must not".

(33) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 3), omit "The Secretary must impose", substitute "The Secretary may impose".

(34) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 7), omit "The", substitute "If the Secretary imposes a reconnection requirement on a person, the".

(35) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 12), omit "The Secretary must determine", substitute "The Secretary may determine".

(36) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 23), omit "must, or must not", substitute "may, or may not".

(37) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 26), omit "the Secretary must make", substitute "the Secretary may make".

(38) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 28), omit "the Secretary must make", substitute "the Secretary may make".

We also oppose schedules (3), (4), (9) to (14) and (17) in the following terms:

(9) Schedule 3, page 71 (line 1) to page 91 (line 34), to be opposed.

(10) Schedule 4, page 92 (line 1) to page 116 (line 25), to be opposed.

(11) Schedule 9, page 166 (line 1) to page 168 (line 3), to be opposed.

(12) Schedule 10, page 169 (line 1) to page 171 (line 27), to be opposed.

(13) Schedule 11, page 172 (line 1) to page 173 (line 2), to be opposed.

(14) Schedule 12, page 174 (line 1) to page 188 (line 9), to be opposed.

(15) Schedule 13, page 189 (line 1) to page 191 (line 24), to be opposed.

(16) Schedule 14, page 192 (line 1) to page 193 (line 4), to be opposed.

(32) Schedule 15, item 1, page 201 (lines 14 to 19), subsection 42AI(3) to be opposed.

(39) Schedule 17, page 230 (line 1) to page 245 (line 31), to be opposed.

These amendments go to the substantive parts of this bill and the core reasons that Labor are opposed to it.

Schedule 3 provides for the cessation of the wife pension. This is not something that Labor support. We note that, of the 7,750 recipients, there are many who would transfer under this provision to the age pension and the carers payment and would be no worse off. Indeed, it makes sense to simplify payments. But I have to say that we are not prepared to see many other vulnerable women on the wife pension go backwards in their access to income support. There are 3,100 women who will be worse off and 2,900 women transferring onto a jobseeker payment. This is not a new area of social security; this has been closed to new applicants since 1995. So you have 2,900 women who will have been out of the workforce for more than 20 years who will be transferred onto a jobseeker payment. This is a pretty extraordinary thing to do to women who have had very little, if any, exposure to the workforce.

We are also very concerned about the 200 women living overseas who will no longer be able to access any income support other than the support that their spouse is eligible for. We can see that, overnight, they would be $670 worse off a fortnight. This is an incredibly perilous situation to put them into. We have here a group of low-income women who will be left with nothing to live on other than their partner's pension, many of them having been out of the workforce for a great many years. As I said before, they will have been receiving the wife pension for a minimum of 22 years.

It seems reasonable to us, in the opposition, that this group of women should be grandfathered, to avoid them facing such a significant financial crisis, the kind of crisis that comes with not only deep economic cost but also a great sense of personal distress. There are a reasonably small number of women affected; therefore, there would be a reasonably minimal cost of grandfathering them. It is indeed a cruel and unnecessary cut. In moving these amendments, I ask the government: when putting this schedule 3 forward, did you consider grandfathering the 200 low-income women who will be forced to live on nothing from 20 March 2020, and what would that have cost?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the first instance, I'll just speak to the amendments that you've moved and then I'll address the question. I acknowledge Labor's support for the schedules that establish the new jobseeker payment, which will be the main working-age payment, and their support for the schedules that streamline the Department of Human Services' collection of tax file numbers and the alignment of social security and disability discrimination law.

The government does not support the amendments proposed by the opposition, moved by Senator Pratt. The government has paid attention to the views of interested parties and the opposition and has proposed and supported a range of amendments to this bill in both the House and the Senate which will ensure the ongoing sustainability of the welfare system.

In relation to the cessation of the wife pension and the bereavement allowance, schedules 3 and 4, the government does not support the amendments proposed by Labor to schedules 3 and 4 which would have the effect of continuing the wife pension and the bereavement allowance into the future. Ceasing these payments is an important part of building a simpler system that provides more encouragement and support for people transitioning to work. The amendment proposed by the government will provide an additional payment to newly bereaved pregnant women, to ensure that no bereaved pregnant women will be disadvantaged by the cessation of the bereavement allowance.

In relation to the amendments to schedule 9, it is disappointing that Labor is not supporting schedule 9, which is designed to increase the chances of older unemployed people finding work. A recent OECD report found there is an unmet activation potential in Australia's labour market and recommended increasing participation requirements for several cohorts, including older Australians. Unemployed people aged 55 to 59 have many productive years ahead of them. This measure, complemented by new and existing assistance, will help mature-age jobseekers gain skills and find work.

In relation to schedule 10, it is again disappointing that Labor is not supporting this schedule, which changes the start date for some participation payments. We know that more than one-third of jobseekers take longer than two days to connect with their jobactive or Transition to Work provider. This measure is all about ensuring that jobseekers are connecting as quickly as they can to the services that are there to help them find a job and move off welfare.

In relation to schedules 12 to 14, the bill also includes important measures that will better encourage jobseekers with substance abuse issues to pursue treatment to address their issues so that they can find work and ultimately become self-reliant. The changes to reasonable excuse provisions are needed because it is not consistent with community expectations that jobseekers are able to repeatedly avoid their requirements due to drug and alcohol misuse while refusing to participate in treatment, despite being able to. The changes to exemptions for mutual obligation requirements will also support jobseekers with substance abuse issues to remain connected to their employment services provider and engage in suitable activities to address their barriers.

The Labor amendments to remove these changes to reasonable excuse and exemptions would simply ensure that vulnerable jobseekers with substance abuse issues are left alone to struggle with their substance abuse, rather than being supported to overcome their issues. While the government is amending the bill to remove the drug-testing trial, the government remains committed to this measure and believes that randomised drug testing can be an effective way of identifying welfare recipients for whom mandated treatment could be successful.

In relation to schedule 15, the targeted compliance framework, the Labor amendment introducing broader discretion to the targeted compliance framework would retain one of the ineffective features of the current compliance framework which allow providers to effectively ignore noncompliance, even where the jobseeker has no reasonable excuse. This results in inconsistent and unfair application of penalties. The National Social Security Rights Network acknowledged this in its evidence at the Senate committee hearing, stating that the new framework deals with a range of problems in the existing system. They include an arbitrary levelling of penalties, depending on provider discretion. Under the new compliance framework, providers will still exercise discretion as to whether or not they find the excuse offered by the jobseeker to be acceptable, in which case no financial penalty or demerit will be applied. The appointment will just be rebooked, as currently occurs. However, they will be unable to ignore blatant noncompliance with no excuse. DHS will also retain the discretion they currently have in relation to all decisions about applying financial penalties.

In relation to schedule 17, 'Information management', the opposition's amendment would also remove the ability to streamline the process of referrals for welfare fraud prosecution, which is central to combating welfare fraud and maintaining the integrity of the social security system. On that basis, the government will not be supporting any of the Labor amendments.

Senator Pratt, in relation to your question concerning the cessation of the wife pension, you may be aware that Senator Cameron and I discussed this at the last hearing of this bill in December of last year. In relation to the questions that you've asked, I am advised that, no—the government did not consider grandfathering these women and has not costed grandfathering them, as it would create additional complexity, which would be contrary to the intent of the welfare reform bill. Most wife pension recipients living overseas will experience an estimated average loss of $457.10 per fortnight, as the majority of these women currently receive a part-rate of payment due to insufficient Australian working-life residency and/or income and assets. These recipients have access to other income sources besides their wife pension payments, such as foreign pensions and investment income.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pratt, could I just clarify that you're moving all amendments on sheet 8236? Is leave granted for those amendments to be moved together?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon. I need to work out, in consultation with my Greens colleagues, whether we need to separate out schedule 15 now, but I think we also deal with that later. I don't think it affects us now. It affects us later on. Yes, that's fine; we don't need to do it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay, so we can remove schedule 15 for now and separate the questions.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in relation to schedule 3—and I know you answered some of this when responding to Senator Pratt—can you outline how many people will be affected by the cessation of this payment?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. I am advised that approximately 7,750 wife pension recipients will be transferred to another payment or no longer eligible. In terms of a breakdown, 2,250 recipients will be automatically transferred to the age pension, 2,400 recipients will be automatically transferred to the carer payment, 2,900 recipients will be automatically transferred to the new jobseeker payment at the same rate of payment and up to 200 wife pension recipients living overseas will no longer be eligible for any Australian government payment, as I've just addressed in responding to Senator Pratt's question.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will participants receive any loss of income by transferring to the age pension?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that those transferring to the age pension and carer payment will transfer at the same rate of payment. Those transferring to the jobseeker payment will have their payment rate frozen until the jobseeker payment rate equals or exceeds it. Most wife pension recipients will receive an average of $457.10 per fortnight compared to $669.60, the maximum rate, as they receive a part rate of payment due to insufficient Australian working life residency and/or income and assets.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you did interlay some of those answers, so thank you, Minister. In relation to schedule 4, what are the savings and/or expense of the schedule over the forward estimates with this extra financial assistance now available under the amendment to recognise a person who is pregnant at the time their partner dies?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the amendment reduced the original save from $1.04 million to $1 million.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that any Newstart or youth allowance recipient who experiences a bereavement has the ability to seek from their jobactive provider a reduction or waiver period from job activity requirements, following the loss of a family member or partner? How would this be done—for example, a certificate from a family GP or something like that?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise that, yes, people can seek an exemption and no specific documentation is required. What they'll need to do is just be able to provide simple proof of their relationship to the deceased to Human Services.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schedule 4 was initially intended to provide a saving of $1.04 million over the forward estimates. Can the minister advise what the amended projected savings are now over the forward estimates?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I am advised that the amendment reduced the original save from $1.04 million to $1 million.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you please advise how many Centrelink recipients are expected to be affected each year by the cessation of this payment?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I'm advised that approximately 960 people annually, from 20 March 2020, who would have otherwise have claimed bereavement allowance will be able to claim support through the jobseeker payment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moving to schedule 9, can the minister please advise how many people will be affected by this change in the activity test?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could confirm this is in relation to the relief of the activity test—volunteering? I am advised that as at 31 December 2017, 1,099 jobseekers who had been registered with employment services for less than 12 months were fully meeting their requirements through voluntary and/or paid work and thus could potentially be affected by this change.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How has the government addressed the concerns of the volunteering sector? What are the government's projected numbers of participants that will be affected by this change?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will actually be a very, very minimal impact on the volunteering sector. As I said, it is estimated that there will be only 1,099 people who could potentially be affected. The volunteering sector as a whole across Australia, according to ABS data in 2014, consists of 5.8 million volunteers.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again, Minister. In areas of high unemployment and low expectation of older jobseekers finding employment, I understand that jobactive providers have the discretion to reduce job activity requirements for Newstart participants. Can the minister advise how this information will be conveyed to relevant Newstart recipients? For example, will the information be clear and available on the MyGov or Centrelink websites advising recipients they can seek to have their job activity or volunteering ratios changed in certain circumstances?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised jobseekers will be advised by their employment service provider. In the process of agreeing their employment plan, their requirements may be tailored to their circumstances, including taking into account the local labour market context. The department will ensure that appropriate guidance for jobseekers is available on the jobactive website.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you detail what modelling evidence is available to show that undertaking a blend of job activity and volunteering increases employment prospects for this age cohort of Newstart recipients?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am again advised that numerous studies and research undertaken by the OECD have shown that requirements to undertake job searches and paid work improves employment results for mature-aged workers.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the chamber about the amendments that we have put forward and in seeking also to ask the government some further questions, I want to highlight to the chamber what our amendments do. We are proposing to oppose the cessation of the wife pension in schedule 3, oppose the cessation of the bereavement allowance in schedule 4, and oppose changes to the activity test for 55- to 59-year-olds in schedule 9 as well as changes to the start date for some participation payments in schedule 10 and removal of the intention to claim in schedule 11.

The government's removed the drug-testing trial. We also are seeking the removal of exemptions due to drug or alcohol dependency in schedule 13 and changes to reasonable excuse and information management in schedule 14. As I started discussing earlier in the evening, we are looking to amend schedule 15 so that there is further discretion to the targeted compliance work in schedule 15. Why are we moving necessary amendments? Well, as I have highlighted, we are particularly concerned about the cessation of bereavement allowance in schedule 4. We believe it's a cruel and unnecessary cut for people who are facing perhaps the most difficult and worst circumstances in their lives. We know that the allowance is a short-term payment for a person whose partner has died. It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension. So putting a person on a jobseeker payment is a very cruel thing to do, and I do not understand the logic of the government.

I understand and, indeed, we haven't opposed the idea that payments could be streamlined, combined and put together. But the idea that people in bereavement are jobseekers is a complete nonsense. You could, for example, be a casual employee who actively works all of the time but doesn't have access to any kind of leave payments. You're quite able to go back to work after your period of bereavement, but you still actually require income support for that time of bereavement, so it is a nonsense to put someone on a jobseeker payment. They should be entitled to a proper bereavement payment in lieu of income that they would otherwise have had.

It's extraordinary to me that the government would seek to do this, for example, to a pregnant woman who had a working spouse who died. She, too, is put on a jobseeker payment when there really is no expectation that she will be able to find work during the course of her pregnancy. It seems extraordinary to me that this is what the government is seeking to do. It is unbelievable that someone would be put in this situation, so I want to ask the government what its rationale is for cutting short-term income support to people who have lost their partners. I can see this only as a cash grab to reduce people's entitlements and people's payments. I understand you want to streamline jobseeker payments, and we're not averse to that, but the idea that people in bereavement should be categorised as jobseekers when essentially they are not—it is a period of bereavement that they're seeking payment for—is extraordinary.

I also want to highlight the start day for participation payments in schedule 10. Again, we're opposed to this schedule. We know that, at the moment, a person can receive payment from the date they make their claim or from the first day after the end of any waiting period that they have to serve. But what the government is seeking to do here is to punish people further by pushing the start date back to when the person first has their interview with their job service provider. Now, again, I can see this only as a cash grab by government at the expense of low-income Australians who may have lost employment and need to work through issues in their life so that they can, indeed, go to their jobactive job service provider.

But what you're seeking to do here is cut $198 million over the forward estimates. It means that people will need to wait longer for income support at a time when they're trying to find employment. Now, I know the government has said it wants to get people connected as soon as possible so that they can find a job. Well, the simple fact is that leaving people without income support does great detriment to their capacity to find work. Your appointment with your job service provider is but a very small piece of that puzzle. A primary and very important part of the puzzle is, frankly, being able to afford the bus fare to get to your job service provider. That is impossible if the start date for a person's participation payments is being pushed. So, again, we've got questions here about how long people will have to wait on average to receive income support as a result of this measure. What is the estimated upper limit and average wait time?

We also want to discuss with the government tonight the removal of schedule 13, which includes the exemptions for drug and alcohol dependence. This measure has been very firmly criticised by a range of providers who work with drug and alcohol dependent people. We're concerned about the way in which the schedule would prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the person's situation is wholly or predominantly attributable to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness, injury or special circumstances, such as eviction, associated with this misuse. We understand the significance of the concerns raised by health and welfare groups saying that the changes fail to recognise the incredibly complex nature of substance abuse as essentially a health condition.

The changes negate a doctor's medical opinion in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. We're concerned that this relates not just to acute episodes of substance misuse but also to the secondary health problems associated with that use. For example, someone receiving treatment in hospital for cirrhosis of the liver associated with alcohol use will no longer be able to access a medically recommended temporary exemption, as far as we can tell from these measures. Someone injured while intoxicated would no longer be able to access a temporary exemption. Recipients would be expected to satisfy mutual obligation requirements. A jobseeker's obligation or plan would take into account the jobseeker engaging in drug or alcohol treatment. So what the government are effectively asking people to do here is engage in drug and alcohol treatment so their obligations can reflect those circumstances because, if they don't, they cannot use that as an excuse to meet the normal obligations of a jobseeker. We are concerned about the way in which this is going to push vulnerable people into crisis, homelessness and crime.

I also want to highlight in schedule 13 the special categories of exemptions that may arise because we're opposed to these changes and are moving amendments to remove them. Income support recipients can receive an exemption from mutual obligation requirements if they're unable to meet them, but the current legislation's exemptions from the mutual obligation requirements can only be granted for a special period of up to 13 weeks. We have here the special categories of exemptions that may arise, including major disruption to the jobseeker's home or a major personal crisis, including homelessness. We're seeing changes that are proposed by the government in this bill that mean that, when jobseekers are unable to meet their obligations due to drug or alcohol dependency or due to crisis circumstances that are related to that dependency, they will no longer be able to receive an exemption. This is an extraordinary thing to do to people, whether it's because of substance abuse or because someone receives a significant injury as a result of alcohol misuse on a Saturday night that means they can't go to work and need to take six months off. These aren't necessarily people who are significantly drug and alcohol dependent. We know that this can be quite common behaviour on a Saturday night.

I also want to highlight to the chamber this evening our concerns around schedule 14, which is included in the same group of our amendments. Jobseekers can be penalised for a range of participation failures currently—this we understand—including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements, and, if they refuse it, their substance use disorder can cause them not to comply with jobseeker requirements a second time—and, indeed, you are putting forward that their payments will be suspended.

We are very concerned, as experts are, that this does not in any way help people overcome addiction but instead will push them into crisis, poverty and homelessness. We see that the implementation of this schedule is expected to cost money over the forward estimates, but we are very concerned, frankly, about the money that will come out of the pockets of vulnerable people. As experts have warned, it is of no help to people overcoming addiction to remove their payments. Does the government believe this measure will increase homelessness or crime for people who have substance use issues? Why has the government ignored the advice of health experts?

As I've highlighted, I've got a range of questions for government on all of these different schedules, so I might just step back to schedule 10, where I raised our concerns about the start date for participant payments, and ask the government what their expectations are around how many people will have to wait longer to receive income support as a result of this measure and how long they will have to wait. What is the estimated upper limit and average wait time?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of what the measure will actually do, from 1 July 2018 jobseekers who are subject to RapidConnect will generally be paid their income support from the day they first attend a meeting with their jobactive or Transition to Work provider rather than from the date their claim was made or deemed to have been made. These changes are designed to ensure jobseekers connect with employment services as quickly as possible and are accessing the programs that are available to help them find a job.

In terms of why the changes themselves are actually needed, more than one-third of jobseekers take longer than two days to connect with their jobactive or Transition to Work provider, and almost 10 per cent take longer than five days to attend their initial appointment. These delays are inconsistent with community expectations that those on income support are making all reasonable efforts to connect with employment services and find work as quickly as possible.

I also highlight, though, that there are safeguards that are being put in place. Jobactive and Transition to Work providers are contractually required to have appointments available for jobseekers to attend within two business days. Where there is no appointment available for a jobseeker to attend within two business days, their income support would generally commence from the date their claim was made.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I have some further questions in relation to schedule 13. Why does the government feel it's appropriate to override a doctor's ability to say that someone is not fit to meet mutual obligation activity? Is this a safe thing for the government to do?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just by way of background: what is the proposed change, in summary? Jobseekers will no longer be able to be exempted from their mutual obligation or participation requirements where they have an illness or other circumstances affecting their ability to meet their mutual obligation requirements which is primarily attributable to drug or alcohol abuse. The measure reflects that people with substance abuse issues that prevent them from looking for work or undertaking other activities should be taking active steps to address their issues, including through appropriate treatment, rather than being exempt from the requirements.

What the government has also done is provide additional support for those who would otherwise be granted an exemption. We're investing $28.8 million in this measure to provide employment services to those no longer eligible for an exemption. This will support these jobseekers with drug and alcohol abuse issues to remain actively engaged in appropriate activities to address their barriers to work. For the very first time, through a related measure, all jobseekers with substance misuse issues will be able to undertake appropriate treatment as part of their job plan to meet their mutual obligation requirements.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask now about changes to reasonable excuses. I note that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, along with other stakeholders, raised significant concerns about this schedule, particularly that there's no limit in the primary legislation on the matters that could be included in the legislative instrument setting out what must not be considered a reasonable excuse for participation failure. The committee was concerned that the matters that the secretary would be bound not to consider could be made so broad as to undermine the reasonable-excuse provisions as set out in the act. Is that indeed the government's real intention here—to undermine the entire principle of reasonable excuse?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer to your question, Senator Pratt, is absolutely not. But, in relation to the broader answer to your question, the alternative would be to use the primary legislation itself to specify the circumstances in which drug or alcohol dependency must or must not be taken into account. This would require the inclusion of an inappropriate level of detail in the primary legislation. Also, using a legislative instrument is preferable because it provides greater flexibility should any refinement to the policy be required. You'd also be aware that the instrument itself is disallowable, so this ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight through the disallowance process. This will ensure that the instrument does not include matters beyond the government's declared policy intent.

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

The Greens will be supporting these amendments. These are in fact the same amendments that the Greens also have on the running sheet. In my second reading contribution, I made a contribution about all these issues, but that was some time ago now.

Schedule 3 relates to the cessation of the wife pension. There's a deep concern around those women who are currently living overseas who are not anticipated to transition to an income support payment and should continue to receive a payment in line with schedule 2 of this bill. That's what we think should happen. That grandfathers widow B pension recipients from changes to the applicable portability rules. We don't see why that shouldn't apply to the women who are caught up by this provision. We think it basically shows the mean-spiritedness of the government but also just how keen they are to punish people who have to rely on income support.

With schedule 4, I've also made clear the Greens position on bereavement allowance. And we believe that people are being disadvantaged by the change to 'job' made in bringing in the jobseeker payment.

On schedule 9, which relates to older working Australians, I will say that a number of organisations made comments to the Senate inquiry into this bill about the impact this particular measure would have on them. In fact, we got evidence about regional organisations and the impact it would have on volunteering in regional organisations. I accept that the government did make a few amendments. At the time, we did note that we thought that was a slight improvement. Nevertheless, a number of older Australians are going to be caught up here. And, particularly into the future, we know that a large number of those long-term income support recipients are those over the age of 45. I think I've said in this place before, while they say that the new 30 is 20, in fact, you go the other way; the new 45 is actually around 55 or 60, the way that older jobseekers are being treated in the job market. To think that you can be unable to get a job or be discriminated against when you're over the age of 45—that is in fact what's happening—let alone when you get to the age of 55. This is going to be a growing area, and I can hear the minister already saying, 'And that's why we need this.' No; in fact, that's why this will hurt more and more people.

We are deeply concerned about the impact of that schedule, just as we are deeply concerned about schedule 10, as I have articulated previously, and the start date for some participation payments. We have deep concern about the impact that will have. Again, it's a mean-spirited approach that's more about saving money than the welfare of income support recipients. We just had a discussion about schedule 11 and the removal of the 'intent to pay' provisions. Again, there were some changes made by the government. In fact, we don't support the replacement of the schedule with the amendments that the government brought in tonight. We still don't support this approach. We don't think it's the way we should be treating people who, as I said earlier, have a right to social security in this country.

Schedules 13 and 14 relate to the government's obsession with demonising people who have addictions. Addictions are a health issue. They can't be dealt with through the income support system. We have heard endlessly from experts on addiction that you need to treat this as a health issue, and you can't tackle it through the income support system. This will hurt very vulnerable people who have an addiction. It is not the way that we should be treating people who have drug or alcohol dependency or, in fact, a crisis relating to it. And before I hear those opposite say, 'You're just being soft on those who have a drug or alcohol dependency, and you don't care,' yes, we do care, which is why we oppose these two schedules. They will hurt people, not help people, with drug and alcohol dependency. This is not the way to address it. We agree that we need to help people with a drug and alcohol dependency and addiction. Yes, we absolutely do. I'll say it again: we do care. We do need to help people who have drug and alcohol dependency and/or addiction, but this is not the way to do it, which is why we oppose schedules 13 and 14. They're related. Schedule 13 removes the temporary exemptions from mutual obligation requirements for income support recipients with drug and alcohol dependency. Schedule 14 relates to reasonable excuses. Again, this is not the way you address helping those with drug and alcohol dependency. It's a multifaceted problem, it is a health problem and we do need to address those underlying causes. This will very quickly see people with drug and alcohol addiction fall off income support. There's not a doubt in my mind that that's what will happen. What happens to those people who end up out of the system with no means of support? If they do have accommodation, they'll lose connection with that and become homeless, amongst a whole range of other issues. This is a health issue and should be treated as such.

We also have an amendment to oppose schedule 17 as it relates to information management. This schedule contains provisions which repeal the privilege against self-incrimination, subject to immunity, in relation to the use of information or documents. We believe this is a significant change and it should not be dealt with as part of this bill so we will be supporting the ALP amendments. While we have a large number of amendments to schedule 15, this amendment doesn't clash with our other amendments to schedule 15, and we indicate our support for that as well. They're the same as Greens amendments, so we will be supporting them.

These schedules will have significant impact on those that will be affected by them, and we don't think this is the way we should be treating income support recipients. We think there are alternative ways to deal with a number of issues the government has brought up. While we're not necessarily opposed to the overall creation of a jobseeker payment, we are deeply concerned with the measures to put that particular payment in place, which is why we oppose schedules 3 and 4 here. We oppose some of the other schedules, which I'll come to later, which are not included in this particular set of amendments.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the chair puts our amendments, I did just want to speak very briefly to schedule 9 of the bill—the one that relates to mutual obligation requirements for people aged 55 to 59. In doing so, I want to express my dismay at both versions—this current version and the previous version in schedule 9—that the government put forward. We know that people in this age bracket are currently required to do 30 hours of activity per fortnight to meet their mutual obligation requirements. Importantly, this requirement can be fulfilled by doing 30 hours of volunteering. I want to say in my own capacity as the shadow assistant minister for families and communities, who would therefore have responsibility for volunteering, how important this is, particularly the contribution of people in this age cohort. Of the volunteers in Australia, we have 278,000 or more who are aged 55 to 59. I want to commend Volunteering Australia for pursuing this issue relentlessly; indeed, they have secured some amendments. Nevertheless, we don't believe they go far enough. When you look at the dignity and self-worth that people get out of volunteering their time for that 30 hours a fortnight, it is of immense benefit to the community, and it's also immensely important, given the very tight employment market, for people in this age cohort. I think we saw something like one job for every six jobseekers in this kind of space, which means we really should be encouraging people into meaningful activity that supports the community, supports their wellbeing, supports their mental health and is not a futile quest for jobs that aren't there. Clearly, people can and should be able to seek work and receive all the support they need to do that, but it is simply unreasonable of the government to be putting aside the 30 hours of activity per fortnight in volunteering in order to split that so that people can do 15 hours volunteering and 15 hours looking for work. The simple fact is that will be too difficult for many people. They'll say, 'I'll have to quit my jobseeking, first and foremost,' and that will impact on their wellbeing as well as the community activities that won't be supported.

I acknowledge the importance of the campaign and the work done by Volunteering Australia, but I simply put on the record tonight that we are still moving in our amendments to remove that schedule because we don't believe it goes far enough.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to schedule 13, in relation to the removal of exemptions for drug and alcohol testing. On 2 February 2018, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP, Minister for Social Services, wrote to NXT and committed to funding of an additional $40 million to address addiction. After consultation with addiction specialists, NXT believes that a total of $20 million for additional funding over a three-year period for addiction should be made available for the exclusive purpose of supporting GPs and other relevant allied health professionals, such as nurse practitioners, mental health social workers and psychologists, in regional and remote Australia to access professional development and specialist skills in addiction medicine. Will the minister confirm that this funding will be available from July 2018 for a period of three years?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government confirms that this funding will be provided for professional development of GPs and frontline services in treating drug and alcohol abuse over a three-year period.

Rex Patrick (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey conducted in 2016 by the federal government's Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the South Australian outback and the south-east of South Australia have amongst the highest usage of illicit drugs in South Australia and Australia. Therefore, will the minister confirm that the remaining additional funding of $20 million for addressing the use of methamphetamine, also known as ice, will be allocated to rehabilitation facilities in no more than four locations in South Australia, with a minimum of two locations in regional South Australia, including one of those locations adding to or creating new services in the Fleurieu region of South Australia, an area of high methamphetamine use in South Australia?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that the funding for this will be provided to areas that are identified as being in need of support for drug rehabilitation in South Australia.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedules 3, 4 and 9 to 14; subsection 42AI(3) in item 1 of schedule 15; and schedule 17 stand as printed.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, there is a second part to Labor's amendments that require a vote. Are you proposing to put that question, or will I proceed?

The CHAIR: My understanding is that they are yet to be moved.

I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (35) on sheet 8393 together.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do need to put the question on our amendments (1) to (8), (17) to (31) and (33) to (38) on sheet 8236 revised.

The CHAIR: It's my intention to put this question and then to clarify to the Senate what happened on the previous vote. The question now is that opposition amendments (1) to (8), (17) to (31), and (33) to (38) on sheet 8236 revised be agreed to.

The CHAIR: I'm going to clarify the amendment that was voted on prior to the one that we just amended. You will recall that that vote was tied, so that meant that it didn't stand as printed. What now stand are amendments (9) to (16), (32) and (39) on sheet 8236 revised.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that you called the outcome for the government even though the vote was 31-31, I believe. We don't believe that 31-31 is a reflection of the true will of the chamber. Two senators were absent, namely Senators Georgiou and Burston, who are now here. I would ask for the vote to be recommitted, consistent with the convention, and for Senators Georgiou and Burston to be given an opportunity to explain why they missed the division.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the case there is a convention around recommittal. The expectation would be that there would be an explanation to the chamber as to the reasons for nonattendance and an indication as to voting positions such that the will of the chamber would have been different had the senators actually been present, so we await that.

Brian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was inadvertently detained. I would have voted on the government's side on these amendments and I apologise to the Senate for that delay. I just missed the doors when they were locked.

Peter Georgiou (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry I missed the vote. I was in the bathroom after dinner. By the time I got out and came down here, I was locked out. I'll be voting with the government.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's one important issue that needs to be addressed in this consideration, given we are relying—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave or what?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on! You're seeking a recommittal and you're going to jack up about—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he's not in his seat.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Abetz, you might like to return to your seat if you want to interject in that fashion.

The CHAIR: Through the chair, thank you.

If we are going to rely on convention in relation to these issues, there is one issue that should also be addressed at this time, and that is the concern that senators sought to pair on the floor of the chamber to address the problems associated with two senators not being present for this vote. I think the difficulty with the pairing conventions needs to be highlighted as well. You cannot seek a pair on the floor by virtue of a senator being absent through misadventure. We've heard some explanations. I'm not sure the misadventures on this occasion equate anywhere near the misadventures that I've heard about in my 20 years in this place, but we need to address the issue that pairing is not an option to deal with matters of this type.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There clearly was a level of confusion, including a call by the chair that this was actually a vote that was carried in favour of the government. So I think that the best course of action is to clarify the true will of the Senate. In relation to the pairing arrangement, Senator Hanson was in the chamber and, as the leader of the One Nation party in the Senate, was able to give an indication of the intentions of Senators Burston and Georgiou and how they—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pairing arrangements work in all directions in this chamber.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't do that on the floor, Mathias, and you know that.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you: over the 11 years that I've been here there has been a precedent for this happening in all directions, and there was a clear indication from the leader of the One Nation party, Senator Hanson, as to the intention. In any event, I think it is very clear that the vote as it was recorded does not reflect the will of the Senate and it ought to be addressed, consistent with the usual conventions.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want to have a long discussion about pairing arrangements. I will just note that it is much better to deal with these matters in the usual fashion—with notice and discussion between parties—than it is to deal with an inadvertent attendance. In this context, the appropriate course of action is the one that the Leader of the Government has taken, which is to seek a recommittal, which the opposition, in the circumstances, will be supporting.

The CHAIR: So the question is that the vote be recommitted.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: The question is that schedules 3, 4 and 9 to 14; subsection 42AI(3) in item 1 of schedule 15; and schedule 17 stand as printed.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (2) to (13) and (15) to (35) on sheet 8393 together:

(2) Schedule 13, item 3, page 189 (lines 29 and 30), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(3) Schedule 13, item 4, page 190 (line 5), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(4) Schedule 13, item 5, page 190 (line 9), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(5) Schedule 13, item 6, page 190 (lines 14 and 15), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(6) Schedule 13, item 7, page 190 (lines 20 and 21), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant, a new apprentice or undertaking full-time study".

(7) Schedule 13, item 8, page 190 (lines 26 and 27), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant, a new apprentice or undertaking full-time study".

(8) Schedule 13, item 9, page 191 (line 3), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

2 (9) Schedule 13, item 10, page 191 (lines 8 and 9), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(10) Schedule 13, item 11, page 191 (line 14), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(11) Schedule 13, item 12, page 191 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", unless the person is a declared program participant".

(12) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (lines 7 and 8), omit ": persons other than declared program participants".

(13) Schedule 15, item 1, page 194 (line 12), omit "(other than declared program participants)".

(15) Schedule 15, item 2, page 210 (line 4), omit "Divisions 3AA and 3A", substitute "Division 3AA".

(16) Schedule 15, items 3 and 4, page 210 (lines 6 to 21), omit the items, substitute:

3 Subsection 23(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of compliance penalty period )

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) any of the following periods during which a participation payment (within the meaning of the Administration Act) is not payable to the person:

  (i) a payment suspension period (within the meaning of that Act);

  (ii) an unemployment preclusion period (within the meaning of that Act);

  (iii)a post-cancellation non-payment period (within the meaning of that Act); or

(17) Schedule 15, item 5, page 210 (lines 22 to 24), omit the item.

(18) Schedule 15, items 6 to 12, page 210 (line 25) to page 212 (line 18), omit the items, substitute:

6 Section 549G (note)

Omit "3A", substitute "3AA".

7 Section 550E (note)

Omit "3A", substitute "3AA".

8 Paragraph 729(2 ) ( bd)

Omit all the words after "payable", substitute:

because of the operation of any of the following provisions of the Administration Act:

  (i) subsection 42AL(1) (payment suspension periods);

  (ii) subsection 42AO(1) (unemployment preclusion periods);

  (iii) subsection 42AP(5) (post-cancellation non-payment periods); and

9 Subparagraphs 729(2 ) ( d ) ( i) and (ii)

Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute:

  (i) subsection 42AL(1) of the Administration Act (payment suspension periods);

  (ii) subsection 42AO(1) of that Act (unemployment preclusion periods); (iia) subsection 42AP(5) of that Act (post-cancellation non-payment periods);

10 Subparagraph 729(2 ) ( dc ) ( iii)

Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:

  (iii) subsection 42AL(1) of the Administration Act (payment suspension periods); or

  (iv) subsection 42AO(1) of that Act (unemployment preclusion periods); or

  (v) subsection 42AP(5) of that Act (post-cancellation non-payment periods); or (viii) section 81 of that Act; and

11 Subparagraphs 1046(2 ) ( b ) ( i) and (ii)

Omit "42P(1) or 42S(1) or section 81", substitute "42AL(1), 42AO(1), 42AP(5), or section 81,".

12 Subparagraphs 1046(2B ) ( b ) ( i), (ii) and (iia)

Omit "42P(1) or 42S(1) or section 81", substitute "42AL(1), 42AO(1), 42AP(5), or section 81,".

(19) Schedule 15, items 13 to 15, page 212 (line 20) to page 214 (line 6), omit the items, substitute:

13 Division 3A of Part 3

Repeal the Division.

(20 ) Schedule 15, item 18, page 214 (line 15), omit "for persons who are not declared program participants".

(21) Schedule 15, items 19 to 21, page 214 (lines 16 to 24), omit the items.

(22) Schedule 15, item 25, page 215 (lines 8 and 9), omit ": persons other than declared program participants".

(23) Schedule 15, item 27, page 215 (lines 16 and 17), omit ": persons other than declared program participants".

(24) Schedule 15, item 28, page 215 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute:

28 Paragraph 192(daa)

Omit "3A", substitute "3AA".

(25) Schedule 15, item 32, page 216 (lines 18 to 25), omit all the words from and including "subject is" to the end of subclause 5(1B) of Schedule 2, substitute:

subject is:

(a) a payment suspension period; or

(b) an unemployment preclusion period; or

(c) a post-cancellation non-payment period.

(26) Schedule 15, item 35, page 217 (lines 10 and 11), omit ": persons other than declared program participants".

(27) Schedule 15, item 35, page 217 (line 16), omit ", being a declared program participant,".

(28) Schedule 15, item 35, page 217 (line 17), omit "failure; or", substitute "failure; and".

(29) Schedule 15, item 35, page 217 (lines 18 to 22), omit subparagraph 5A(c) (iv) of Schedule 2.

(30) Schedule 15, item 37, page 218 (lines 2 to 4), omit all the words from and including "serious

failure" to the end of subclause 5A(2) of Schedule 2, substitute "serious failure period.".

(31) Schedule 15, item 39, page 219 (lines 6 and 7), omit "by a person who is not a declared program participant".

(32) Schedule 15, item 40, page 219 (lines 10 to 14), omit subitem (1).

(33) Schedule 15, heading to subitem 40(2), page 219 (lines 15 and 16), omit the heading.

(34) Schedule 15, item 40, page 219 (line 18), omit "who is not a declared program participant".

(35) Schedule 15, item 40, page 219 (line 25), omit "who is not a declared program participant".

I also oppose schedules 13 and 15 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 13, items 1 and 2, page 189 (lines 5 to 24), to be opposed.

(14) Schedule 15, item 1, page 195 (lines 18 to 20), section 42AB to be opposed.

The government is removing drug and alcohol abuse as an excuse for noncompliance with welfare rules. However, the government is allowing this excuse to continue for certain recipients of apprenticeship and student payments and for recipients of payments under the Community Development Program. The great majority of welfare recipients under the Community Development Program are Aboriginal, so the government is of the view that Aboriginal Australians, unlike other Australians, should be allowed to drink themselves to death while remaining on welfare. Why? Is alcohol and drug abuse good for Aborigines but bad for other Australians? Do Aborigines have an inalienable right to alcohol and drug abuse as a sacred natural tenet that other Australians do not?

I think not. I think this is more about political correctness. Political correctness requires that welfare for Aborigines doesn't change until self-appointed Aboriginal leaders unanimously agree to changes. Those with expertise in living well, getting a job and becoming prosperous have no say and neither do taxpayers in general. Political correctness also requires that, when we see Aboriginal welfare recipients abusing drugs and alcohol, the appropriate response is hand-wringing and self-flagellation. In contrast, when we see other welfare recipients abusing drugs and alcohol, we can be clear-headed enough to consider responses that put obligations on the welfare recipients, rather than treat them all like hopeless cases.

The government's exception that allows Aboriginal welfare recipients to drink themselves to death while remaining on welfare is racism. It is the prejudice of low expectations. Items 1 to 11 of my amendments remove the exception so that no welfare recipients can use drug and alcohol abuse as an excuse for noncompliance with welfare rules. I understand that some senators support the removal of drug and alcohol abuse as an excuse for noncompliance, while others do not. I urge both groups of senators to support my amendments. Either all welfare recipients should be allowed to use drug and alcohol abuse as an excuse, or none should.

The remainder of my amendments relate to the government's new penalty regime. This new regime will apply to all welfare recipients except recipients of payments under the Community Development Program. My amendments would remove this exception so that all welfare recipients are subject to the same penalty regime for noncompliance with welfare rules. The new penalty regime involves more frequent suspension of payments, more frequent loss of payments and less discretion for bureaucrats to waive these rules. Whether or not you support these tougher penalties, I urge senators to support my amendments. Either all welfare recipients should face the tough new penalty regime, or none should. I commend my amendments to the chamber.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Leyonhjelm, for moving those amendments. The government will be opposing them. The government recognises that more can be done to build on the success of the Community Development Program. A tailored approach is required in remote Australia to respond to the unique challenges in remote communities, including weaker labour markets, fewer job opportunities and often difficult social conditions. Furthermore, access to the alcohol and drug services that would be required to complement the changes to drug and alcohol exemptions needs to be assessed and improved before it is introduced into remote areas.

The government is consulting on what a new remote employment and participation framework should look like. Discussions with communities, providers and other stakeholders has been underway over the last nine months, with a formal discussion paper released in 2017. It is important that any changes to CDP are considered through this separate process, looking at the model as a whole and continuing to focus on engaging with remote jobseekers and supporting them into jobs. Therefore, CDP is excluded from the following changes included in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017: the new targeted compliance framework, the tightening of exemptions and the tightening of reasonable excuses for noncompliance due to drug or alcohol misuse. The CDP will operate under existing arrangements until a new model is implemented.

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

I'm just indicating that the Greens won't be supporting these amendments. Those on CDP have a hard enough time at the moment, as it is, without forcing more compliance regime measures on them. The program needs urgent reform. We saw the latest list of penalties applied to those in remote communities. So my advice to Senator Leyonhjelm would be: join us in calling on the government to change CDP. That is a completely separate program for Aboriginal people that is disproportionately impacting on a section of our community and causing huge detrimental impacts. So, no, we won't be supporting these amendments that have the potential to cause even further harm to those people who are stuck on CDP.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor opposition do not support these amendments either. Therefore, we will be voting yes to ensure that these amendments don't get up.

The CHAIR: The question is that items 1 and 2 on schedule 13 and section 42AB in item 1 of schedule 15 stand as printed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments (2) to (13) and (15) to (35) on sheet 8393 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 8245 revised together:

(1) Schedule 15, item 1, page 203 (before line 2), before subsection 42AL(1), insert:

42AKA Determination about mutual obligation, work refusal and unemployment failures and severe financial hardship

If the Secretary determines that a person commits a mutual obligation failure, a work refusal failure or an unemployment failure, the Secretary must also determine that this section applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that:

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

(b) serving the payment suspension period, the reduction period, the unemployment preclusion period or the post-cancellation non-payment period, or having the participation payment cancelled, would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

(2) Schedule 15, item 1, page 203 (line 5), after "for a period", insert "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".

(3) Schedule 15, item 1, page 203 (after line 32), after section 42AL, insert:

42ALA Ending payment suspension periods

  (1) For the purposes of paragraph 42AL(3) (b), the Secretary may end a person's payment suspension period if the Secretary determines that:

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

  (b) serving the payment suspension period would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

  (2) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (1) on request or on his or her own initiative.

  (3) This section does not limit paragraph 42AL(3) (b).

(4) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 6), at the end of subsection 42AM(1), add "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".

(5) Schedule 15, item 1, page 204 (line 30), at the end of subsection 42AN(1), add:

; and (c) the Secretary has determined that section 42AKA applies.

(6) Schedule 15, item 1, page 205 (line 25), after "for a participation payment", insert "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".

(7) Schedule 15, item 1, page 206 (line 15), at the end of subsection 42AP(1), add "and has determined that section 42AKA applies".

(8) Schedule 15, item 1, page 207 (line 23), after subsection 42AP(5), insert:

  (5A) If the Secretary determines that the post-cancellation non-payment period should end on an earlier day, the post-cancellation non-payment period ends immediately before that earlier day.

(9) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (after line 3), after section 42AP, insert:

42APA Ending post-cancellation non-payment periods

  (1) For the purposes of subsection 42AP(5A), the Secretary may end a person's post-cancellation non-payment period if the Secretary determines that serving the post-cancellation non-payment period would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

  (2) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (1) on request or on his or her own initiative.

  (3) This section does not limit subsection 42AP(5A).

These amendments relate to schedule 15, the schedule we've been talking a lot about tonight, which provides for the new compliance regime. The amendments specifically relate to financial hardship. As I articulated in this place in my previous amendments to the bill but also during the debate on other amendments that we've already dealt with, we are deeply concerned about the financial impact this schedule will have on the people who are going to be subject to the new compliance regime.

I also remind the chamber, since it was a while ago when we first started this debate, that we agree that the compliance regime needs to be fixed. It needs to be amended. However, this is being done—and we had a second reading amendment about this—without a full review of the current compliance regime. As I'm sure you know—through you, Chair—that amendment was successful.

These specific amendments relate to financial hardship. For example, we're seeking to amend item 1 of the schedule to insert, before section 42AL(1):

42AKA Determination about mutual obligation, work refusal and unemployment failures and severe financial hardship

If the Secretary determines that a person commits a mutual obligation failure, a work refusal failure or an unemployment failure, the Secretary must also determine that this section applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that:

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

(b) serving the payment suspension period, the reduction period, the unemployment preclusion period or the post-cancellation non-payment period, or having the participation payment cancelled, would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

The other amendments are along similar lines in dealing with this issue of financial hardship, because we're deeply concerned that this issue will not be taken into consideration and in fact the employment provider will not take into account a person's wellbeing and financial vulnerability. So I've moved these amendments. I urge the chamber to support these amendments, because we are deeply concerned about the impact that these changes are going to have on participants.

And I do have a couple of questions. We did ask a lot of questions, as the minister articulated, in the previous debate on this, just before Christmas, but I do have a couple of additional questions. I'll try not to traverse the same ground.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing these amendments. This is unnecessary and would weaken the deterrence effect of penalties for those persistently non-compliant jobseekers who are deliberately not meeting their requirements while on payment, despite being fully capable. This would effectively be reproducing waivers, which are a significant problem with the current compliance framework and one of the key reasons why we're proposing a new framework.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party will be supporting the Greens amendments. We also tried to amend schedule 15 for similar reasons. We think that the Greens amendments improve the schedule.

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

What I want to ask a question about is this. How are we going to ensure that DHS will ensure—sorry, not 'we' collectively—that, particularly—

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Siewert. Could senators who want to have conversations please move outside. I'm having trouble hearing Senator Siewert, and I'm sure others who want to hear what she's saying are also having trouble.

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

Yes, it is impacting on my ability to think straight. Sorry, and thank you for that. Okay, there's the first process of the three points, and then we've got, as you get to the fourth point, a demerit point and then five, six and seven. By and large, as I understand the legislation, the employment provider will be dealing with the first three points and the application of that. What I'm keen to know, because there'll be little involvement of DHS before that, is: how are we ensuring that there is consistency across how those points are provided?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are correct, Senator Siewert; there is phase 1, which is the jobactive part of the compliance framework, and then there's phase 2, where you're handed over to DHS. In relation to the demerits phase 1, it is set out quite clearly what a demerit event actually is, so there is consistency in applying the demerit point or points.

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

You're relying on the way it's set out to ensure that it's being applied consistently and that they're taking into account all the appropriate information? How will that be checked to ensure it is in fact happening?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that there are exemptions for people with exceptional circumstances, and, if a jobseeker does reach the penalty phase and again fails to meet their requirements, no penalty will be applied if they have a reasonable excuse for their failure. As is currently the case, all financial penalty decisions will be made by the Department of Human Services, not by providers. Jobseekers will continue to be able to appeal against financial penalties, first to a Centrelink-authorised review officer and then, if they continue to dispute, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

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

That's how I understood it in terms of DHS becoming involved for that second phase. I've got concerns about that too, but it's more the first phase in terms of the consistency and ensuring DHS's involvement. In that phase of the first three demerit points, which are from the employment provider, can people go to DHS and access those appeal provisions that you just articulated?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be guidelines to ensure that the jobactive providers know exactly what they're doing, but they will also be required to undertake training. They will not be allowed to issue a demerit point if they have not undertaken the relevant training.

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

Is that all officers from all employment providers, or is it the employment providers themselves? When providers get new people in, will they all be required to undertake that training?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

What's the time frame for DHS checking and reviewing that the process is being applied consistently? And then there's the issue of the appeals process for those first three points.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(As I've stated, there will be national jobactive guidelines, there will be performance monitoring by the department and you can appeal suspensions to DHS.

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

I understood the suspensions, which are the first, second and third demerit points, but they can't therefore appeal the first three demerit points?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't appeal the demerits, no.

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

You can only appeal the suspensions once they have occurred?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

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

You articulated earlier that there would be reviews. What will the review period be—yearly, six-monthly?

In terms of the consistency and fairness of the approach that's been taken by employment providers, particularly in the early phase when this is being implemented, how often will those reviews be undertaken? This is a significant change. I have to put it on the record that I get lots of complaints about employment providers—as you'll be aware, since I raise it quite frequently during estimates—and so there needs to be confidence that employment providers are applying this very different system appropriately, fairly and consistently.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): Senator Siewert, as with any of the programs run by the department, they have a process of continual monitoring, but you'll also be aware that the government has already committed to a review of the targeted compliance framework 18 months after its commencement. This review would of course look at the effectiveness of the framework and any unintended effects, taking into account the views of relevant experts and stakeholder groups. Further, a core role of the Public Service is the continued evaluation, as I've stated, of the programs and policies which they are responsible for implementing as well as staying informed about various stakeholder views. So there is the continuous evaluation and monitoring of the program.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 8245 revised be agreed to.

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

I am still trying to fix schedule 15, so I move amendment (1) on sheet 8288:

(1) Schedule 15, item 1, page 208 (line 3), after section 42AP, insert:

42APA Secretary may require person to comply with additional requirements

  (1) The Secretary may require a person to comply with a requirement during a period in respect of which:

     (a) the person’s participation payment is to be cancelled; or

     (b) instalments of the person’s participation payment are to be reduced.

  (2) Despite any other provision of this Subdivision, if the person complies with the requirement at any time during the period:

     (a) the person’s participation payment is not cancelled during that period; and

     (b) an instalment of the person’s participation payment is not reduced during that period.

  (3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules specifying the requirements, or the kinds of requirements, that the Secretary may make if:

     (a) a person’s participation payment is cancelled; or

     (b) instalments of a person’s participation payment are reduced by 50%; or

     (c) instalments of a person’s participation payment are reduced by 100%.

  (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the rules may specify different requirements, or different kinds of requirements, in respect of each of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (3)(a), (b) and (c).

42APB Cap on periods during which payments may be cancelled or instalments reduced

A person’s participation payment must not be cancelled and instalments of the person’s participation payment must not be reduced in any continuous 6 month period if, for at least 7 weeks of that period, the person’s participation payment has been cancelled or instalments of that payment have been reduced.

This amendment relates to additional requirements and a cap, and I have a couple of questions relating to this issue. This amendment relates to provisions for avoiding a reduction in or cancellation of a payment by undertaking a requirement and also addresses the cap of seven weeks, during which time a participant payment can be reduced or cancelled.

The eight-week compliance penalty of the old compliance regime had a very significant impact and it happened all at once. So we can appreciate what the government is trying to do in having a one-week suspension, a two-week suspension and a four-week suspension. But by the time you get to a four-week suspension from payments you've already had a three-week non-payment period. By the time you get to four, that's seven. The concern is that somebody could go through a cycle of a number of weeks of suspension. People can be almost as badly off, potentially, as they were under the old regime. We want to apply a cap to this process so it's really clear.

I want to ask the government: what is the process for ensuring that people don't get into this trap? This is supposed to be about improving the system. If you don't think this is going the work, how are you going to ensure that people don't end up suffering multiple periods of a lot of time off income support?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The targeted compliance framework has actually been designed so that jobseekers will have a strong incentive to meet their requirements before they face any penalty. That's the whole purpose of the new compliance framework. The system is designed so that jobseekers do not enter the intensive compliance phase—the penalty phase—unless they are able but unwilling to meet their requirements. And I think that 'unless they are able but unwilling to meet their requirements' is a really important part of it.

A jobseeker who repeatedly fails to comply with agreed requirements and gets their first strike in the penalty phase will lose one week of income support payment, which, as you know, is half of their fortnight's payment. If that jobseeker has further requirements during that fortnight, they may incur a further penalty if they do not meet those requirements. Jobseekers who face a two-week penalty or are cancelled from payment for four weeks will not have obligations and will not face further penalty during this period, as they are not receiving payment during that period. If they wish to remain engaged with employment services, they are able to do this, and they can volunteer for servicing.

Jobseekers in the penalty phase who then meet their requirements for three months return all the way back to the personal responsibility phase with zero demerits—so, totally reset—providing further incentive for persistently non-compliant jobseekers to reform their behaviour. It is quite literally about reforming your behaviour.

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

I do understand what the government is trying to do here. The problem—and ACOSS pointed this out during the Senate inquiry—is that it is not necessarily as clear-cut as people wilfully not meeting their requirements. It's just not that clear-cut, and in their submission they said:

The proposed system relies very heavily on drawing a clear distinction between people who are willing to comply but face difficulties, and people who wilfully and repeatedly avoid activities requirements. Our … experience … has taught us that distinctions are in fact more blurred, people's circumstances do change, and many vulnerabilities go unreported. Discretion to tailor responses to non-compliance is essential to ensure that any compliance system remains humane.

That was from ACOSS's submission to the inquiry into the bill. I've had the experience of meeting and talking to a lot of people who have in fact suffered penalties from the current system. It is true that it's not so clear-cut either that you deliberately don't do something or that in fact you've made that clear-cut decision, 'Well, I'm just not going to comply.' There are really blurred areas here, and the system as it stands at the moment doesn't really account for or deal with those. As you said, they'll go back to zero and, because it's not all that clear-cut, they could start racking up those demerit points again and be in the same cycle and off income support again, and it could happen relatively quickly. This is an attempt to ensure that doesn't happen. What are you doing to ensure that it doesn't happen?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the new framework, jobseekers with circumstances affecting their ability to meet their requirements will benefit from more robust assessments of their circumstances and capabilities to ensure that the requirements that they have to meet are actually appropriate to that particular individual. There will also be mandated assessments, generally, as you know, when a jobseeker incurs both a third and fourth demerit. Principal carer parents and those in disability employment services are generally more compliant than most jobseekers and, as a result, will actually benefit from the arrangements and the personal responsibility phase. These jobseekers will benefit from the new tools to manage their requirements and greater flexibility in scheduling or rescheduling their appointments.

Additional safeguards are in place for vulnerable jobseekers. Vulnerable jobseekers are identified on the IT systems used by employment providers and the Department of Human Services by a vulnerability indicator, which ensures that providers and Department of Human Services staff are aware that the jobseeker's personal circumstances may impact on their capacity to meet their requirements. A vulnerability indicator does not exempt a jobseeker from their requirements or from being subject to compliance action if they do not meet them, but it must be considered when deciding whether or not an activity is actually appropriate for the particular jobseeker. Identified vulnerabilities are also carefully taken into consideration when a determination is made about whether the person has a reasonable excuse under social security law and, therefore, whether a penalty or a suspension should be applied.

In terms of jobseekers who disclose barriers of their own accord—as is currently the case, a comprehensive range of support responses will continue to apply for jobseekers who disclose barriers. Those responses may range from altering the expectation of jobseekers in light of their barriers through to assistance with emergency accommodation. Employment services providers, both Jobactive and DES, may enlist the support of allied health professionals and the Department of Human Services, which can provide assistance with access to alternative benefit payments where appropriate, referral for emergency accommodation and access to social workers. Under the new framework, earlier identification of barriers will allow better tailoring of requirements to jobseekers' circumstances and early referral for assessment for other existing support, if appropriate.

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

I've got a number of questions arising from that answer. I understood what you said earlier, in terms of the reassessment process through the first two sets of penalties, as being as they apply. If a vulnerability is established during that process, would that mean that the penalty, whether it's one week or two weeks, wouldn't apply? How will that be handled if there's a reassessment during that time? As I said, many vulnerabilities go unreported for a variety of reasons, including issues around stigma and not having the confidence that they'll be believed.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of vulnerable persons, the assessment, et cetera, is done at the third and fourth stage, as you know. If they are a vulnerable person, this will be identified, and they won't move into the next phase for that reason.

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

I understand what you've just said. I suppose I was going to the process after the first penalty is applied, not the demerit point—the actual one-week suspension and the two-week suspension. If they get to that point and vulnerabilities are eventually assessed, does that mean that they could not have their suspension applied?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that 'reasonable excuse' is able to be applied by DHS in the penalty phase.

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

Given the assessments of the third and fourth points, will there be an assessment process carried out automatically, or will somebody have to apply?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Automatically.

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

Thank you very much for those answers. It's helped to clarify things, but it doesn't go to the overarching question that I was asking in terms of a cap. It is possible that somebody could go through the whole process—have the seven weeks—and then go back to the start. They could have a cycle of those through the year. I've listened and heard all that you've said about the various interventions that can be made but, bearing all that in mind, it is possible they could have a series of suspensions going through the whole process—one, two, four, start again.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to your question is yes, but they still have to go through the demerit point phase again before they actually get to the penalty phase. You'd have all the interventions et cetera that were being looked at, particularly if they've already been through the system once. That would already be flagged on their system, and providers would be looking out for that.

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

Given all that you've said, we've had a series of these. Is there then another flag when somebody has been through, say, three cycles of this? Instead of them rolling through, is there a process that then says, 'We're having multiple failures here'? If they've been through a series of cycles, they're going to have very little income. They're going to be existing for quite a period of time on no income. How do we support people who are going through that process if there is no cap on the number of times that they can be suspended?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If, as you've stated, they've gone through the system now three times, DHS obviously will be having a very good look at them. That is actually what the system is targeting, because the people you are referring to are likely to be those who are consistently, wilfully non-compliant. If there are genuine vulnerabilities, these should be picked up along the way, hence quite literally the number of demerit points, review points et cetera and the scaling of the penalty to ensure that you are assisting those who do need assistance and you are properly targeting those who are gaming the system.

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

I don't think some of these people are gaming the system. Quite frankly, the other compliance measures are picking up anybody who is trying to defraud the system. When they get to the four-week compliance process, you said that they can voluntary opt in—and I appreciate that—but there's nothing they can do to avoid the four-week penalty, is there? It's four weeks; that's it. They can do other reengagement activities or volunteer back into their employment service provider.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, remember though that they can also appeal the penalty. If they do disagree with it—as we've been through—they can ask DHS to review any decision to apply the financial penalty. I've already taken you through it. I won't go through it again for time. But they also have that option. They can appeal the penalty themselves.

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

I will try and make this the last question on this. I do appreciate your answers, Senator Cash; thank you. The appeals process takes a while through the department and quite a long time through the AAT. Where do they sit in terms of their income support payments?

Progress reported.