Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kicking off on Part 3, if I may—Subpart 1 of this bill—I’ll speak, hopefully, at least loud enough that all can hear me that wish to, however many or few in the Chamber that may be. So in clause 90, talking about what the part sets out, clearly there are a couple of different things: MSD, which is no doubt defined elsewhere as the Ministry of Social Development, and, of course, beneficiaries and their partners. Set out, then, is the set of consequences for failure to comply with the obligations under this part. To a large extent, these are similar in the tone as other parts of the legislation, but the specific obligations that are set out are worth noting in themselves. So it is at Subpart 2 that we see the ministry’s obligations, and, in particular, steps to make people who are affected aware of their obligations.

A question that I would like the Minister to provide some guidance on, please, relates to the wording of clause 92, namely that “MSD must take reasonable and appropriate steps to make a person to whom an obligation under this Part applies—(a) aware of that obligation;” and so forth. I’ll cover those specific requirements in a moment, but, first, it seems to me that where the legislation talks about “an obligation”, it might be more helpful if it talks about “obligations” if more than one does apply, and perhaps just as a matter of drafting if it were to have said “at least one obligation”, that might be the clearest possible way of defining that.

The term “reasonable and appropriate steps” I can’t find as having been defined in the legislation. Perhaps it would be the case that if the proverbial push came to the colloquial shove, it might be obvious enough what those reasonable and appropriate steps were in any given case, but some further clarity on that could be useful to those who are reading this legislation as diligently as the members of this committee are no doubt reading it now—in some cases, for the first time. So the awareness of the obligation—or, as I say, obligations—is the first of those three parts that the MSD is needing to make a person aware of.

The second is an awareness of the consequences of failure to comply with the obligation, and, in particular, the sanctions that might be imposed under Part 5. It seems unclear whether the awareness that’s required of MSD has any particular form. Is there envisaged, for example, that there will be a pamphlet setting out the consequence of a failure to comply? That might be helpful, I think, in any practical circumstance. Now, I don’t suggest that the staff of MSD be micromanaged to the point where the legislation would need to set out what kind of reasonable steps would need to be taken and what the consequences of failure might be. However, it might be a useful mechanism in the legislation if it were to point to the existence of regulations that could then be created, which, in turn, would spell out what those consequences of failure might be. I suppose, while we’re at it, we might say that these are consequences of failure that could be reasonably contemplated, as opposed to all possible consequences of which there might be very many—indeed, possibly an infinite number.

Finally, of course, is an awareness of the person’s rights under various sections of the Act to review and appeal the decisions relating to the obligation. The requirement that a person who’s affected by the obligations in this legislation be aware of such appeal rights, I think, is only meaningful to the extent that they will be aware of what it is that would be involved in an appeal. So not only to be aware of the fact that such right exists but also how they might be exercised seems to me something that would be really helpful if it could be spelt out, if not in the legislation itself, then perhaps by way of guidance from the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni—indeed, the sponsor of the legislation—as I am sure she has something in mind that would be helpful to place on record so that if further clarification is needed in the future, then it can be gained as readily as simply reading Hansard and her remarks therein.

In terms of overseas absence rules in clause 93, moving on—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do intend to take the maximum number of calls in this opportunity in Part 3. There were questions I specifically asked the Minister in Part 2 that there wasn’t a reply to, so I am hopeful that the Minister in the chair will answer specific questions in this part. She’s shaking her head, which isn’t particularly encouraging. As I’ve said in the earlier parts of this debate, there is no opportunity for scrutiny outside the Chamber for this particular piece of legislation and for the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has tabled, so I do hope that the Minister takes this seriously, as this is the only opportunity for scrutiny.

What I wanted to raise was that in Part 3 of this legislation, there are, similar to Part 2, multiple subparts. I want to just ask about a couple of them. Subpart 1, in clause 91, is, basically, talking about what the obligations are and then what the responding sanctions are. We’ll talk more about the sanctions in a later part of the debate, but I’m interested specifically in Subpart 3, which is around beneficiaries’ obligations.

The part that I’m looking for, that I’m surprised that the Minister hasn’t included in this, is around people with disabilities. I want to speak quite clearly about particularly those who have children with disabilities, who have lifelong permanent disabilities, and the obligation, on an annual basis, that they have to file paperwork and medical certificates to confirm that, yes, they are still permanently disabled. I would’ve thought that that would’ve been a simple change that the Minister could’ve taken on, given her significant discussions around improving support for people with disabilities.

So I’ve been looking to see the change that has been included in Part 3 around beneficiaries’ obligations, because that is an obligation that I would’ve thought, for all of the Minister’s words around improving the welfare system, would’ve been the first on the list—

I apologise to the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill without amendment and progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.