Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (18:41): I rise first of all to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator Allman-Payne and to endorse the words and the contribution that she's made to the chamber. But I also rise to oppose schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, which gives the power to cancel welfare payments for people with outstanding arrest warrants—not people who've been found guilty but simply those with outstanding arrest warrants.

There's a name for that. It's called punishment without trial, and we've been here before. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was damning.

Commissioner Holmes found that robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, that made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. Now, in a different way, this government is repeating those mistakes.

It's a different mechanism but the same callous disregard for fairness and the same assumption that welfare recipients are criminals until proven otherwise. These amendments were added after committee scrutiny finished, after the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reported and after the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights examined the bill—after scrutiny of bills, you might say.

This government has deliberately avoided parliamentary oversight for these amendments, and is it any wonder? The coalition tried this in 2018, and they couldn't get it through because at the time Labor thought it was unprincipled and wrong. But, of course, now Labor are in government they've basically become the coalition, haven't they?

In 2018 states and territories opposed it, and the government said in the 2022 budget that they would not proceed with it. So what's changed? What on earth is wrong with the Australian Labor Party?

Since 2014 there have been so-called security notice provisions that allow the minister to cancel payments for people who've had visas or passports cancelled on security grounds, essentially terrorism related cases involving ASIO. Those provisions were controversial enough at the time, but this bill massively expands that power. Now the minister can cancel payments for anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant for serious offences.

We're moving from a narrow national security power to a broad criminal law enforcement power that removes people from often-essential support for themselves and their families. This could cover potentially thousands of people with outstanding warrants. Senator Cox: It might not too.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: This isn't a 'minor technical amendment'; it's a fundamental expansion of ministerial power over welfare payments. Government senators interjecting— Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Again I say to those on the government benches who are now interjecting, trying to suggest that there's some decency or fairness in this: maybe listen to what the stakeholders— Government senators interjecting— Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Before those members on the Labor benches interject angrily to try and support this, maybe they should listen to what some of the stakeholders have said about this before you jump in to defend yet another attack on the most vulnerable from Labor.

This isn't a minor technical amendment; it's a fundamental expansion of ministerial power over welfare payments. I say again: Labor snuck it into the bill after it had gone through committee scrutiny. That is a shameful tactic from Labor.

A warrant is not a conviction. It's not even a charge, yet this bill strips people of critical supports before they've had their day in court, if they even have one, since we know, of course, many charges fall away well before that stage. On 29 October, 18 different organisations issued a joint statement calling on the government to abandon this amendment.

I repeat: 18 organisations issued a joint statement. We have Labor senators in this chamber barracking for these amendments and barracking for this attack on some of the most vulnerable people in the community. Before they jump up and do that, maybe listen to what Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, the Council of Single Mothers and their Children and many others have said.

They've raised serious critical concerns, including the impact on victims of family violence. Abusers could use this as an additional tool to harm their victims by reporting them to police to trigger a warrant. Then, suddenly, the victim loses their income, their home and their ability to care for their children on a decision made not by a court but by an AFP officer without any understanding of the family dynamics or by an ASIO officer who has no understanding of the family dynamics—not tested in court, and, often, the person charged probably wouldn't even be able to afford a lawyer.

The Council of Single Mothers and their Children warn that this could see 'too many single mothers and their children, many of them Aboriginal, misrepresented as perpetrators of violence and then effectively stripped of their payments'. Senator Cox: That's not true. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Again I hear Labor senators interjecting and saying, 'That's not true.' Say it to the Council of Single Mothers and their Children.

Say that it's not true to Anglicare Australia. Say it's not true to ACOSS. Say it's not true to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, who are telling Labor that this is unfair.

They're telling Labor that, just like so many attacks on welfare, it's going to come and hit the most vulnerable. The robodebt royal commission recommended Services Australia design its policies and processes with a primary emphasis on the recipients it's meant to serve, including avoiding language and conduct which reinforce the feelings of stigma and shame.

This bill does the opposite. It treats people as guilty and it targets the most vulnerable. This measure also breaks the fundamental principle that welfare should be based on need and clear criteria, not on ministerial discretion or politics.

This measure concentrates power in the minister's hands, with no administrative review, or, if there is review, it's legal review before the courts. We know judicial review is not available to people on welfare and even less available to people who have had their welfare taken off them by the decision of a Labor minister. We know from overseas exactly who these policies hurt.

In New Zealand, similar provisions saw 71 per cent of sanctions applied to Maori people, despite being only 36 per cent of benefit recipients. Their welfare expert advisory group has recommended removing this sanction because of its attacks on New Zealand's first peoples. In the United States, fugitive felon provisions disproportionately affect elderly and vulnerable people, often unaware of warrants being issued against them.

This part of the bill is deeply unconscionable. It should never have found its way into this bill without review. It's a betrayal of commitments Labor has made.

It's an attack on the most vulnerable and it should not pass.