Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill

I thought I’d take what might be, in comparison, a relatively short call, but I think a couple of things need to be questioned and noted, as we’ve proceeded through this committee stage. I think it’s important to put on the record, briefly, as we look to set up the commencement and the title of this bill, that this side of the committee is, once again, concerned that we have gone through this at speed. I always say it is the prerogative of the Government, the executive, to do so, but we’ve found in the past, and particularly with social development bills, that errors have come in, which is unfortunate. I think that’s a consequence of rushing, and I do apologise but, for the last bill, we had to do an amendment to a preceding bill, which was also rushed in. It had a problem around commencement, in some of the details in clause 2 about certain parts of the bill. I think it was a social rewrite bill. There was an amendment. Its commencements—well, some; better not exaggerate—were out of whack.

So, really, in terms of commencement, we have, again, two dynamics here: one at Royal assent and then a whole lot of provisions which come into force just under a year from now, on 1 April 2020. I suppose I’m wanting to seek, if the Minister is willing, two assurances. One is that those sections that are to come into force are correct—just an assurance that it’s been double and triple checked, as I say, with the previous social development bill. One of those, let’s say, in clause 2(2)(b)—I’m never quite sure how to say it—there were errors; just to make sure that that’s completely correct. There’s obviously opposition from this side, overall, but we do ultimately want to make sure that, if this passes, the sole parents, the power of the commissioner—and I thank the Minister for clarifying that earlier for me—and abatements are done correctly.

The second question is really around commencement. It’s probably more of a theoretical question, but if, for some reason, Royal assent was not granted before 1 April 2020, what would happen? I’m absolutely sure the Government’s not quite that slow and incompetent, but if, for some reason—I’m trying to be generous, colleagues—that Royal assent was withheld to, let’s say, 2 April 2020, what happens then? Would we end up with quite a big, jolly mess?

Finally, it’s really around the title. I’ve got to—and it’s not going to be too wacky—make a certain series of points. At the moment its title, “Budget 2019 Welfare Package”, I would suggest, should really be termed “Budget 2023”. Colleagues like Alfred Ngaro and others have pointed out that, actually, a lot of the benefits—all puns intended—only appear in 2023, and if I am right, I think that’s only something like $11. Now, every dollar counts, but I think it’s just important that, perhaps, we relook at that title just to indicate that what we’re debating today, in many ways, won’t take effect until 2023.

The final thing I would note is that I think terming this a “welfare package” is highly generous. When one goes to the supermarket and gets a package, there are multiple, multiple items. In fact, a package, by and large, implies that you’re going to go to a queue other than the express lane. We are only implementing through this bill two of 42 recommendations of the Welfare Working Group—what exactly it’s been titled, I always forget. It’s not that particularly relevant. Sorry, the work of the group is relevant, not my lack of memory on it. But, fundamentally, 42 recommendations were put forward. So much has been made of this by, particularly, the Government and its support parties. I think it’s unfortunate that only two of those are coming through. Therefore, I am suggesting the title really shouldn’t be referring to a package. It’s implying more than what is there. Had we maybe done 20 or 25, then maybe we could call this a package. So perhaps we really need to call this the “Budget 2023 Two of 42 Suggestions”. We might call this—well, there’s probably a whole litany of elements we could put in there, but I won’t try the patience of the committee.

I think the message is clear: that, first and foremost, the date in the title should be changed to 2023, when a lot of the benefits are effected, and I would argue we should remove the word “Package” and actually be very explicit that only two of 42 recommendations are put in there. I acknowledge that will make it rather long, but we do seem to have a habit in this House of creating rather long titles, as per my own speech, which is a little long as well.

I think this debate has been very interesting, because, on the one hand, we’re being told we’re doing too much and, on the other hand, we’re told we’re not doing enough. So there is much that is contradictory on that side of the Chamber.

Anyway, in response to the member Simon O’Connor, can I just remind the member and the committee that the estimates in terms of how much people will benefit by indexation stretch out to April 2023, but, actually, the benefits will commence as of 1 April 2020. The difference is that it is cumulative, so it continues to benefit them. So, actually, by 2023, the increase—taking into consideration that the Consumers Price Index (CPI) adjustment would have happened as well, but this is far greater—will actually be $26 to $46 per week by 2023. That’s also inclusive of what a CPI adjustment would be, and I need to note that. It is appropriate that the date is 1 April 2020, and that is when the three provisions in here come into force. So the date is appropriate, the title is appropriate.

With respect to some of the questions we were asked around accuracy, absolutely there are mistakes made in this House with errors in terms of drafting legislation. I’m responsible for one of them. It took us 18 months to fix that particular error that was spoken of earlier, but I know there was a stand-down period one that took about 18 years to be corrected, and that was made back in 1999 or something and it was only picked up by the previous Government in about 2016. So mistakes are made in this House—I recognise that—and that one made me much more cognisant of this particular bill as well, so we have had those conversations. But I’ve been given an assurance that all of the dates that are in here are accurate and that there are no drafting errors.