Bill
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
passed, as at 2017-04-12. Social Services portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Social Services
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2017-03-22
- second reading — 2017-03-22
- second reading — 2017-03-22
- second reading — 2017-03-22
- committee — 2017-03-22
- third reading — 2017-03-22
- introduced — 2017-03-23
- second reading — 2017-03-23
- second reading — 2017-03-29
- second reading — 2017-03-29
- committee — 2017-03-29
- third reading — 2017-03-29
- passed — 2017-03-29
- royal assent — 2017-04-12
Divisions
- George Brandis I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance and social security, and for related purposes. Stephen Parry The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to. — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- George Brandis I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. I move that the question be now put. Stephen Parry The question is that the question be now put. — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- Stephen Parry The question now is that the motion that the bill proceed without formalities and be read a first time be agreed to. — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- Claire Moore We seem to be going through the same process we did earlier today. When I was speaking earlier, I talked about the process that the community affairs committee has had to consider the various iterations of these issues that are in front of us in this new bill. As I was saying, it is really important, and I value the fact, that governments actually listen to the evidence that is brought forward in submissions and public hearings. And it is worthy that governments take up some of the issues that have been brought in through that process. It does not always happen. But in this case, belatedly, this morning—I am not quite sure what time but it was sometime before 9.30—the government did take up one of the core recommendations that people had made during the hearing quite recently, which was to separate into two bills the proposed bill put before the committee. Consistently, submissions and evidence that came to us talked about the division that the previous bill had caused. It fact, it had divided people who would be subject to loss through this bill through budget savings. I will go through that later, and many senators will talk about the most vulnerable people subject to cuts. It set up a division between people who would be losing entitlement and losing some process through this bill. And it put that in direct contrast with the child-care package, for which the community had been waiting for many years. There was a clear division created, seemingly a conflict, which was expressed by many of our witnesses. The way the government had presented the omnibus bill, the statements by ministers, and speeches in the other place and in the media all told the community that, unless we were prepared as a parliament and a community to accept the budget cuts—some of which had been around since 2014—the child-care package would not be funded. It was clearly, 'Take it or leave it.' My understanding is that that rhetoric continued certainly until this morning's media. T — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 35, noes 31
- Doug Cameron Labor opposes schedules 1, 3 and 4 in the following terms: (4) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 21), to be opposed. (5) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 16 (line 35), to be opposed. (6) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 1 to 9), to be opposed. I have heard all of the debate tonight, and I think the debate has been very good, especially from Senator Lambie and Senator Gallagher, who have actually experienced relying on social security to help them and their families. Not too many in this place would have had to rely on that position, and that is why Labor sees social security as absolutely essential to have a decent society in this country. That is why we are opposed to this bill, because this is not the end of the cuts that this government is proposing. I am not sure if, in the negotiations that took place between One Nation, Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch, the government indicated that this was only the first tranche of cuts to social security in this country. I listened to Senator Cormann when we were discussing the bill today, and this is what he said: 'These measures have been around for so long—why are you persisting with them?' But the government is persisting with them. The government is continuing to seek to legislate, and it is true that we have worked with crossbench senators because Labor and the Greens in relation to these measures were not prepared to pursue further budget repair, even though it was necessary, given the mess Labor left behind. I do not know what you would call the fiscal and economic position that you are in at the moment, but what we are not prepared to do is simply deal with budget repair at arm's length from the implications it has for ordinary families in this country. Senator Cormann said: Today is the next instalment. Building on the progress that we made in the initial omnibus savings bill, we will be able to secure more savings today. There will be more work to do after today, but this is as far as we believe the Sena — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- No motion text available — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill — 2017-03-22, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Don't agree with bill's main idea — 2017-03-29, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 68, noes 75
- Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea — 2017-03-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 75, noes 69
- Jenny Macklin by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (7) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item. (4) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 21), omit the Schedule. (5) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 16 (line 35), omit the Schedule. (6) Schedule 4, page 17 (lines 1 to 9), omit the Schedule. (7) Title, page 1 (line 2), omit "family assistance and". As the member for Grayndler usefully pointed out, we could do these amendments one by one and we could divide on them one by one. I was actually going to do this in a minute, but now that the Leader of the House is so up on things we might as well remind them that this government wants to take $1.4 billion out of the pockets of families. That is actually what you are doing. That is actually what this bill that you have all voted for right now is all about. All of you, go out into your electorates and tell all the families—1½ million families—that you are going to take money out of their pockets. That is what you have just voted for. This detailed amendment is trying to take that out of the bill. No doubt, in a minute, you will all do the same thing again—you will all vote to keep it in the bill. You are all like lemmings. You are just going to do what you are told. You do not care what the families in your electorate actually think. Now, he has come over because he still does not know what is going on! I just say to the minister at the table that the purpose of these amendments is to take all of these cuts, which are going to hurt the poorest people in the country, out of the bill so that we do not have so many people losing so much money as a result of this government going back to the 2014 budget well and hitting very vulnerable Australians. _A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—_ Bob Katter We have no idea what the amendments are. With all due res — 2017-03-29, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 68, noes 75
- Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill — 2017-03-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 75, noes 70
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2017-03-22.
This bill would freeze or pause several payment thresholds and rates for welfare recipients.
It would let the Department of Human Services collect data automatically from income stream providers and change how long some jobseekers wait before receiving payments.
The income-free areas for working age allowances and single parenting payments would be held steady for three years from July after royal assent, while student payment thresholds would be frozen from the following January.
- Freezes income-free areas for working age allowances and single parenting payments for three years.
- Freezes income-free areas and means test thresholds for student payments for three years.
- Automates the collection of income stream data from providers by the Department of Human Services.
- Extends and simplifies the ordinary waiting period for working age payments.
- Maintains current family tax benefit rates for two years from July 2017.
Recipients of working age allowances, parenting payment single, student payments, and family tax benefit, as well as income stream providers.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act