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) (10:58): I think I used the words 'eligibility for the payment' when I was talking, I think, with Senator Shoebridge. An individual in this set of circumstances, once the benefit restriction notice had ended in that they were in touch with the authorities and there was no outstanding warrant, would be eligible to reapply for that payment.

That's core work for Services Australia. I will just touch on a couple of other issues that Senator Pocock touched on in moving his amendment. We won't be supporting the amendment, and that's because everything that Senator Pocock seeks, notwithstanding his general opposition to schedule 5, is covered in the bill.

Before the minister makes a determination, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs must seek advice from Services Australia, and, in seeking that advice, would identify any dependants. I can't think of a situation where someone on an income support payment—that it wouldn't be known to Services Australia that there were dependants. That would be part of the eligibility to get on the payment in the first place, because dependants are a critical factor to consider about what the payment type is and the level of the payment.

Senator Thorpe: It's not just dependants; it's whole families. Senator GALLAGHER: Can I just deal with this, Senator Thorpe. I know people are trying to make it about a population of individuals more generally.

As I've said, this is a very specific set of circumstances that would trigger the benefit restriction notice. What Senator Pocock says he wants to achieve with this amendment is already provided for in the bill. Administrative law requires the home affairs minister to take all relevant considerations into account when considering the likely effect of cancellation, including on a person's dependants.

This includes the advice home affairs is required to seek from Services Australia. I also provided, the other day, that, if there was an issuing of a benefit restriction notice on a particular individual, Services Australia, through that, would of course allow payments to go to another family member in that situation if there were dependants that would be impacted by that.

I would also say, if a person who is accused of a serious violent or sexual crime is evading arrest and receiving a payment for their children, there would be other ways for Services Australia—and other concerns, I imagine, from the authorities—to make sure that the children and dependants are cared for and provided for. In relation to the merit review, when looking at it in relation to the benefit restriction notice regime, this is a decision obviously made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs as part of the executive government, not government officials.

This is consistent with the seriousness of these decisions, but there is also a practical consideration to this decision. It would be hard to imagine an example where a person who is evading arrest would be able to seek a merit review of that decision without turning themselves in or the authorities becoming aware of where that person was. That is a practical consideration here.

I understand that there's concern around schedule 5, but they would be the points I would raise in relation to Senator Pocock's amendment.