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 amendment (1) on sheet 8425:

( 1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit "Parts 1 and 2", substitute "Part 1".

The opposition also opposes schedule 1 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 35 (line 1) to page 39 (line 12), TO BE OPPOSED.

As I outlined in my second reading debate remarks, Labor and I understand the Greens also have concerns with the impacts of schedule 1 part 2 in this bill in relation to retrospective payments. We know that there are delicate issues to be weighed up here, in terms of who owes money to whom, but our priority is to ensure that parents, and indeed their children more specifically, aren't worse off in circumstances where accidental errors have been made in tax assessments. We believe further consideration of these issues should be given before the Senate deals with these specific matters in this legislation, which is why we are seeking this carve-out. Should the government object or we're not successful in having this carve-out then we've got specific amendments that we would move, but that is not our preferred way of dealing with these issues. We're proposing to remove part 2 of schedule 1 from the bill in order to give the Senate further time to consider these important issues. We've distributed both sets of amendments to the chamber.

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

Senator Pratt is right: as I articulated in my contribution in this morning's second reading debate, the Greens likewise have significant concerns around part 2. We have concerns around quite a bit of the legislation as it applies to child support, but in this instance we're particularly concerned to make sure that the payees—the majority of payees are, as I articulated this morning, single mothers—are not adversely affected.

We want to see more safeguards put around part 2 in particular to protect people who will be potentially adversely affected by these broader amendments. We think the best way to do it is to in fact take this particular part out. As I also indicated earlier, we understand into the future there will be more amendments coming to this legislation. The government has the opportunity to either deal with it in that piece of legislation or in fact do it separately, but we think we need time to adequately consider amendments that can have significant ramifications—particularly for the payees who are struggling on low incomes and who could become significantly financially vulnerable if a mistake is made here or if we don't get this right.

We support the broader approach of taking out part 2, but if that is unsuccessful we will then obviously enter into the discussion around the amendments that would subsequently be moved. However, given the nature of the time it has taken—these amendments have had to be developed very quickly—we would prefer taking part 2 out so that we can give the amendments serious consideration.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond with two points, if I can. Firstly, this measure will correct incorrect assessments faster. The debt already exists. It doesn't affect the debt, as I understand it. I am advised that it just means that the assessments can be corrected faster. Secondly, this measure is as a result of a bipartisan committee and its recommendations, specifically recommendation 12. The government believes that this brings fairness and equity to the system by simplifying administration. It has been three years since that committee reported, and the government sees no reason to delay implementation any longer.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 20 : 30