Division
Anne Ruston I wish to continue with my remarks on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. As I was saying, the coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework to ensure that payments are being received appropriately, however we have questions on how the removal of an annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will exist to prevent people from a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship. The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment services including Centrepay. We are concerned however that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled program. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial distress rather than relieve it. We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians are currently living. Under this Albanese government, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent. Energy costs are up by 38 per cent. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent if you can get in. Education costs are up 17 per cent, and food costs are up 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. These are fundamental costs of everyday life that all Australians use daily. Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly relying on urgent payments and other emergency measures simply to get by. We know, troublingly, that in 2024-25 alone 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on
Senate, 2026-03-26. negative: ayes 12, noes 29.
Question
Anne Ruston I wish to continue with my remarks on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026. As I was saying, the coalition accepts that there must be a lawful and transparent framework to ensure that payments are being received appropriately, however we have questions on how the removal of an annual cap will operate in practice and what safeguards will exist to prevent people from a cycle of repeated urgent payment requests and ongoing financial hardship. The coalition welcomes measures such as access to financial counselling, social work services and alternative payment services including Centrepay. We are concerned however that removing the annual cap on urgent payment requests risks encouraging greater reliance on what was previously a limited and tightly controlled program. Without effective safeguards, this change may deepen financial distress rather than relieve it. We cannot consider these changes to urgent payments in isolation from the broader economic environment in which Australians are currently living. Under this Albanese government, Australians are paying more for everything. Insurance costs have increased by 39 per cent. Energy costs are up by 38 per cent. Rent is up by 22 per cent. Health costs are up by 18 per cent if you can get in. Education costs are up 17 per cent, and food costs are up 16 per cent. These are not discretionary or optional expenses. These are not luxuries. These are fundamental costs of everyday life that all Australians use daily. Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that many welfare recipients are experiencing persistent financial stress and may be increasingly relying on urgent payments and other emergency measures simply to get by. We know, troublingly, that in 2024-25 alone 440,000 social security payment recipients were granted approximately one million urgent payments. That figure alone should prompt serious reflection by the Albanese government about the impact on
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.