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

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:29): I've listened to those contributions. The government will not be supporting this contingent motion from Senator Pocock, and I will run through a little bit about why that is.

We do believe it is important to deal with this issue as part of this legislation. I note there were assertions that we had tried to sneak it in or do it post committee inquiry. That isn't the case.

The original bill, without schedule 5, had proceeded in the usual way. The government received advice around the need to seek a power like this once that piece of legislation had been considered by a committee. I note that this was moved a couple of weeks ago.

There have been briefings offered. There was a crossbench briefing, and I think Senator Thorpe and the opposition also had a specific briefing on schedule 5. Others would have been provided if others had sought it.

There was a genuine willingness to provide as much time or information as we could to explain why we believe this particular power—although very rarely used, I imagine—is required as part of a suite of responses to some of the issues in the social security legislative space. Senator Thorpe: It's not true. Senator GALLAGHER: It's not incorrect.

That is correct. Senator Thorpe interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: Senator Thorpe, I listened to you in complete silence. Even though I disagree with a lot of what you said, I listened to you.

I think it's appropriate that I should be allowed to respond. In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised around the use of this type of power, I will deal with a couple of issues. This can only be used if an individual has committed a serious violent or sexual offence and is on the run; they should not receive payment from the government in certain circumstances, and there are caveats on even that.

So, when the assertion is that this would apply to millions of Australians, that is not correct. It would apply to those who have committed a serious violent or sexual offence and are on the run. When they are no longer on the run—that is, when it is known where they are, and they are in touch with the authorities—that entitlement to that payment continues.

So it is specifically for a period of time under very, very strict and specific purposes. This idea that it's going to affect millions of Australians, entire populations of families and people who rely on income support, is completely incorrect. I don't accept at all the assertion from others that this government does anything other than treat people who are on income support respectfully.

Indeed, we have increased payments since coming to government, in excess of probably any other government in this time. We have increased single parenting payment. We have increased JobSeeker.

There has been significant indexation to all of the pensions. Senator Allman-Payne interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: If I could just speak, please. It is going to be a very, very long bill.

Senator Allman-Payne: It is! Senator GALLAGHER: Yes. It will be longer if you keep yelling at me.

Commonwealth rent assistance—again, no other government has increased Commonwealth rent assistance in the order that this government has. So I completely reject any assertion from those down at that end of the chamber that this government doesn't treat people on income support respectfully. That is absolutely what we do.

It's not only delivered through the income support system; it's through all the other work that we're doing—the work Minister Plibersek is leading in community services and social services, and the work that Senator McCarthy is doing on closing the gap. This is one limited power to be provided in those very specific circumstances. I understand you all want to ensure that people are worried that it has more broad application, but it doesn't.

I think concerns were raised around children and the impact on children, and the way that schedule 5 is drafted means that, yes, they have to take advice from Services Australia on the impact. Under administrative law, they have to consider that advice. So the assertions that they don't have to take that into account are simply incorrect as well.

They actually have to not only get the advice but consider that in any decision that they make take about removing access to a payment. Those concerns that were raised, again, that we're going to leave children without income support are simply incorrect as well. In addition to this, the Minister for Social Services has written to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to advise them that, following a decision to issue a benefit restriction notice, they will be notified and provided with information that informed the decision, including the advice prepared by Services Australia.

She has also invited the Ombudsman to report on the use of the measure as part of their public annual report, noting the measure is intended to be used rarely. She has also undertaken to consult with the Ombudsman in the development of guidance and procedures to assist in the administration of the measure. I have the letter here if people are interested in me tabling that letter that has been provided, and I think it was sent last week.

I'm happy to table that. Sorry, I haven't shown it to people, so if people want to have a look at it before I table it, that's fine. They are further commitments from the government about transparency and reporting of the use of benefit restriction notices, which I think should address some of the concerns that people have raised this morning.

In order for a benefit restriction notice to be put in place—I'll repeat this again because it is a very specific subset of individuals—there must be an outstanding arrest warrant, and they are a threat to the community. This is not going to have broad, widespread application, because that situation does not occur in any widespread way. If people are concerned about the use of the power, I think the commitments that the Minister for Social Services has given should address some of those concerns.

The minister wrote that the minister will report when that power has been used and provide the information that informed the decision, including the advice from Services Australia. The minister also asked the Ombudsman to consider reporting on the use of the measure as part of their annual report, and consulted with the Ombudsman in the development of guidance and procedures to assist in the administration of the measure.

This is a power that is needed. It is a power that would be very rarely used, but we believe, with the processes that will be put in place to manage that use of the power, it is one that is required under our social security legislative system. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Hodgins-May ): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock for an instruction to the Committee of the Whole to divide the bill be agreed to.