Bills Digest No. 31, 2017–18
PDF version [724KB]
Michael Klapdor
Social Policy Section
7
September 2017
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill and Bills
Digest
Committee consideration
Senate Community Affairs Legislation
Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Schedule 1—Enhanced residency
requirements for pensioners
Background
Current residency requirements
Short history of Age Pension
residency requirements
Short history of Disability Support
Pension residency requirements
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Federation of Ethnic Communities’
Councils of Australia
National Social Security Rights
Network
Australian Council of Social Service
Key issues and provisions
Rationale for the measure
Changes introduce a contributory
element to the social security system
Measure affects older migrants
Key provisions
Social Security Act 1991
Schedule 2—Stopping the payment of
pension supplement after 6 weeks overseas
Background
History of the pension supplement
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
National Social Security Rights
Network
Australian Council of Social Service
Key issues and provisions
Rationale for the measure
Measure reduces payment rates for
those taking long trips or who live overseas
Numbers affected
Key provisions
Table 1: payment calculators amended
by Schedule 2
Schedule 3—Taper rate for Part A rate
of Family Tax Benefit (Method 2)
Background
FTB-A income tests
Proposed change
Dropped FTB measures
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Policy position of major interest
groups
Australian Council of Social Service
National Social Security Rights
Network
Key issues and provisions
Complexity of the income test
Numbers affected
Cameos
Table 2: estimates of the impact of
the proposed taper rate on Family Tax Benefit Part A entitlements, rates and
thresholds as at July 2017
Key provisions
Schedule 4—Liquid assets test waiting
period
Background
Liquid assets
Liquid assets waiting periods
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Policy position of major interest
groups
National Social Security Rights
Network
Australian Council of Social Service
Key issues and provisions
Rationale
Numbers affected
Measure affects those with
significant savings or resources
Key provisions
Date introduced: 21
June 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Social
Services
Commencement: Schedule 1 on 1 July 2018 if Royal Assent is before that
date, otherwise the first 1 January or 1 July after Royal Assent; Schedule 2
on 1 January 2018 if Royal Assent is before that date, otherwise the first 1
January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October after Royal Assent; Schedule 3 on the
first 1 July after Royal Assent; Schedule 4 on 20 September 2018.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at September 2017.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to amend the Social Security Act
1991 (SS Act), the Veterans’
Entitlements Act 1986 (VE Act) and the A New Tax System
(Family Assistance) Act 1999 (FA Act) to:
- amend
the residency requirements for Age Pension and Disability Support Pension (DSP)
so that, in order to qualify for these payments, a new claimant from 1 July
2018 must have:
- ten
years continuous residency in Australia including at least five years during
the person’s working life (age 16 to age pension age) or
- ten
years continuous residency in Australia and the person must not have been in
receipt of an allowance or student income support payment for a period or
combined periods exceeding five years when they were aged at least sixteen
years (whether or not these periods in receipt of income support occur during
the ten qualifying residency period) or
- 15
years continuous residency in Australia.
- stop
payment of the pension supplement after six weeks of a temporary overseas
absence, or immediately for permanent departures from 1 January 2018
- tighten
the income test for Family Tax Benefit Part A for certain families with income
over the higher income free area (currently $94,316) from 1 July 2018 and
- increase
the maximum liquid assets waiting period for Newstart Allowance, Youth
Allowance, Austudy and Sickness Allowance from 13 weeks to 26 weeks from 20
September 2018.
The pension supplement measure was announced in the
2016–17 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) and was previously
included in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and
Child Care Reform) Bill 2017.[1]
This Bill was discharged from the Notice Paper in the Senate on 23 March 2017.[2]
The three other measures were announced in the 2017–18
Budget.[3]
Structure
of the Bill and Bills Digest
The Bill contains four schedules. As the measures proposed
in each schedule are distinct and unrelated, this Bills digest will provide
background and analysis to each schedule in separate sections.
Committee
consideration
Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2017. Details
of the inquiry are on the Committee’s website.[4]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
raised a concern as to the retrospective effect of Schedule 1 of the Bill. The Committee
noted that while their commencement was prospective, the effect of the
amendments was that ‘a person who may have made arrangements based on an
understanding of the existing law may have to wait a further five years to
satisfy the residency requirements for the Age Pension or DSP’.[5]
The Committee noted that it has ‘a long-standing scrutiny
concern about provisions that, while not technically retrospective, may raise
questions as to the fairness of applying a change in the law to individuals who
have arranged their long-standing affairs on the basis of the existing law’.[6]
The Committee sought the Minister for Social Service’s
advice as to why it is considered necessary to apply the amended requirements to
those who may have arranged their affairs on the basis of the existing law, and
the numbers likely to be adversely affected.[7]
The Minister provided advice to the Committee on 28 August
2017. The Minister stated:
If grandfathering arrangements were to be applied to this
measure, they would be required to operate for a significant period. Operating
parallel residency systems for the Age Pension and DSP would also be complex
from a policy and administrative perspective.[8]
The Committee stated in response to this advice: ‘The
committee does not consider that administrative complexity, of itself, is
sufficient justification for applying a change in the law to individuals who
may have arranged their long-standing affairs on the basis of the existing law’.[9]
The Committee requested that information provided by the Minister in his
response be included in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill and drew its
scrutiny concerns with the Bill to the attention of senators.[10]
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the
measures are expected to provide around $823.2 million in savings over the
forward estimates.[11]
The impact of each schedule is estimated as follows:
- $119.1
million in savings from Schedule 1—Enhanced residency requirements for
pensioners
- $150.2
million in savings from Schedule 2—Stopping the payment of pension supplement
after six weeks overseas
- $415.4
million in savings from Schedule 3—Taper rate for Part A rate of family tax
benefit (Method 2) and
- $138.5
million in savings from Schedule 4—Liquid assets test waiting period.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[12]
In regards to Schedule 1—Enhanced residency requirement
for Australian pensions, the Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights only
considers the right to social security under article 9 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[13]
However, the measure is explicitly targeted at migrants to Australia with
limited residency in Australia during working life. The Minister for Social
Services Christian Porter explains part of the rationale for this Schedule in
his second reading speech to the Bill by stating: ‘the community reasonably
expects that those choosing to migrate to Australia should be self-sufficient
to the greatest extent possible’.[14]
In targeting migrant residents, the measure would appear to engage with the
right to be free from discrimination as to national origin (under Article 2 of
the ICESCR).
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights raised
concerns with the proposed changes to the residency requirements for Australian
pensioners in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The Committee considers that the proposal
constitutes a limitation on the right to social security and the right to an
adequate standard of living, which was not acknowledged or justified in the
Bill’s Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights.[15]
Accordingly, the Committee sought the advice of the Minister on this matter,
including advice on whether the proposal is aimed at achieving a legitimate
objective for the purposes of human rights law and whether the resulting limitation
on human rights is a reasonable and proportionate measure to achieve that
objective.[16]
The Committee also questioned the compatibility of the measure with the right
to equality and non‑discrimination, on the basis that it ‘may have a
disproportionate negative effect on particular groups’.[17]
Noting that this issue was not addressed in the Statement of Compatibility, the
Committee also sought the Minister’s advice on this issue.[18]
At the time of writing, a response from the Minister had
not been received but not published.[19]
Schedule
1—Enhanced residency requirements for pensioners
Schedule 1 will amend the residency requirements for Age
Pension and Disability Support Pension (DSP) so that, in order to qualify for
these payments, a new claimant from 1 July 2018 must have:
- ten
years continuous residency in Australia including at least five years during
the person’s working life (age 16 to age pension age) or
- ten
years continuous residency in Australia and the person must not have been in
receipt of an allowance or student income support payment for a period or
combined periods exceeding five years when they were aged at least sixteen
years (whether or not these periods in receipt of income support occur during
the ten year qualifying residency period) or
- 15
years continuous residency in Australia.
The measure will extend the current residency requirements
by five years for those without five years working life residency or for those
who have been in receipt of allowance or student payment for more than five
years during their working life.
The proposed changes are expected to provide savings of
$119.1 million over five years and will primarily affect older migrants to
Australia.[20]
Background
The Australian social security system differs from most
other developed countries (except for New Zealand) in that payments are
flat-rate and paid from general government revenue.[21]
Qualification requirements primarily rest on Australian residency and means
testing—with the specific category and rate of payment dependent on other
factors such as age, disability or family circumstances. Most other developed
countries have in place contributory social insurance systems for the provision
of unemployment benefits, sickness and disability benefits and for retirement
pensions. Eligibility for and rates of payment are linked to the length of time
and amount of contributions paid into the scheme (often paid through specific
payroll taxes) and to previous earnings. In these countries, only a minimal
level of social assistance is offered to those in need of income support who
are not covered by the social insurance schemes.
The design of Australia’s social security system is
focused on protection against poverty while other developed countries’ systems
are focused on income maintenance across a person’s life-cycle (with poverty
relief an additional objective).[22]
As the Australian system is not based around contributions, the residency
requirements play an important role in determining who is eligible for
assistance.
Current
residency requirements
One of the current qualification requirements for Age
Pension and DSP is for at least ten continuous years of Australian residency,
or for multiple periods exceeding ten years with at least one period of five years
duration or more.[23]
There is an exemption from this requirement for refugees or former refugees who
reside in Australia and, for DSP, for those who are Australian residents at the
time their disability arises.
To be an Australian resident a person must reside in
Australia and be an Australian citizen, the holder of a permanent visa or a New
Zealander with a Special Category Visa who was in Australia on, just before, or
just after 26 February 2001.[24]
Short
history of Age Pension residency requirements
When the Age Pension was introduced in 1909, the residency
requirement was for 20 years continuous residence (with absences of up to one
tenth of total residency allowed).[25]
This was amended in 1952 so those with 18 years of
residence could be deemed to have been resident during occasional absences
totalling two years (plus six months for each year of residence exceeding 18
years).[26]
This requirement was further reduced in 1962 to ten years
continuous residence or, when continuous residence was at least five years, the
ten year requirement was reduced by all periods of residence totalling in
excess of ten years.[27]
Most of the current requirements were introduced in 1985.[28]
However, in 1987, the requirements were changed to exclude temporary residents
and prohibited non-citizens.[29]
Refugees applying for pensions were made exempt from
length of residence requirements from 1995.[30]
Short
history of Disability Support Pension residency requirements
When DSP (known as the Invalid Pension prior to 1991) was
introduced in 1910, the residency requirement was for five years continuous
residence (absences up to one tenth of the total residency period were
allowed).[31]
A claimant was required to have become permanently incapacitated while in
Australia.
In 1912, those who were blind or those permanently
incapacitated as a result of a birth defect and who were brought to Australia
before the age of three years old could be considered eligible for DSP.[32]
In 1923, those not born in Australia, who were blind or were permanently
incapacitated as result of a birth defect, and who arrived after turning three
years old, could become eligible for DSP after 20 years continuous residence in
Australia.[33]
From 1947 eligibility was broadened so that incapacity or blindness that occurred during temporary absence
from Australia did not disqualify a claimant. Any incapacity that had occurred
outside of Australia did not disqualify a claimant if they arrived in Australia
before the age of three years or had resided
continuously in Australia for 20 years.[34]
In 1952, residence requirements were
eased so that where a claimant had resided in Australia for periods totaling 18
years they could be deemed to have been resident during occasional absences
totaling two years plus six months for each year of residence in excess of 18
years.[35]
In 1962, the residence requirements were modified
so that permanent incapacity or blindness which occurred outside of Australia
did not disqualify a person from eligibility for DSP if continuous residence at any time exceeded
ten years.[36] Where continuous residence was at least five years, the ten‐year continuous residency requirement was reduced
by all periods
of residence totalling in excess of ten years.
In 1974, people, who became permanently incapacitated for
work in Australia, no longer had to satisfy a period of residence requirement.[37]
In 1985, the current residency requirements were introduced for those who
were not incapacitated while an Australian resident. A claimant
had to have been resident
for ten years at least five of which had to be for a continuous period.[38] In 1987, the
requirements were changed to exclude temporary residents and prohibited
non‐citizens.[39]
Refugees applying for pensions were made exempt from
length of residence requirements from 1995.[40]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
The position of non-government parties or independents on
this measure was not clear at the time of writing.
Position of
major interest groups
Federation
of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia
The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of
Australia (FECCA) has criticised the proposed changes stating that the measures
‘will have a disproportionate impact on Australia’s migrant communities’.[41]
FECCA’s statement in response to the Budget said: ‘FECCA believes that migrant Australians
should not be punished in their older age or because they require support for
living with a disability’.[42]
National
Social Security Rights Network
The National Social Security Rights Network (NSSRN) is
opposed to the measure:
It affects relatively few people. However, in the NSSRN’s
view, there is no justification for tightening the residence requirements for
age pension and DSP. The measure would achieve a small saving, but is likely to
cause severe financial hardship to some very vulnerable elderly Australians.
It is likely that this measure will result in more elderly
migrants over age pension age relying on the poverty level special benefit
payment for extended periods, rather than age pension. This includes some
elderly victims of violence, abuse and neglect.[43]
The NSSRN noted that the existing residency requirements
result in elderly migrants relying on Special Benefit, particularly migrants
who have arrived in Australia under the contributory parent visa scheme.[44]
Under this scheme, migrants must have an assurer ‘who guarantees to provide
financial support or repay any recoverable social security payments made to the
migrant during their first 10 years of Australia residence’ (the assurance of
support scheme).[45]
The NSSRN is concerned that some elderly migrants who need
to access income support as a result of violence, neglect or abuse by their
assurer or another family member will only be able to access lower rate Special
Benefit rather than a pension payment. It notes that under the assurance of
support scheme, any Special Benefit paid to these migrants can be recovered
from the assurer. The NSSRN has recommended that victims of violence, abuse and
neglect should be exempt from the residency requirements and that the assurance
of support scheme be extended so that pensions can be recoverable amounts under
the scheme.[46]
Australian
Council of Social Service
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has
stated that it is opposed to the measure ‘because it will deny appropriate
income support to people in need’.[47]
Key issues
and provisions
Rationale
for the measure
In explaining the rationale for the measure, Minister for
Social Services Christian Porter compared Australia’s residency requirements
with those for contributory pension schemes in other developed countries:
Currently, to qualify for the age pension or DSP, a person
must be an Australian resident for a total of 10 years, with at least five of
those years being continuous. However, there is no requirement for those 10
years to be during a person's working life—that is, between 16 years of age and
age pension age—or for a person to demonstrate any level self-sufficiency
during that time.
The current residency requirements are generous when compared
to the qualifying contribution periods required to receive a pension in other
countries. A number of OECD countries require greater than 10-years
contributions in order to receive even a part pension.[48]
The Minister stated Australia’s social security system is
based on the principles of need and residency and argued that the measures will
‘reinforce and strengthen the residence connection’.[49]
He also stated that ‘the community reasonably expects that those choosing to
migrate to Australia should be self-sufficient to the greatest extent
possible’.[50]
Changes
introduce a contributory element to the social security system
The Minister’s rationale aligns working life residency
with the contribution periods used to determine qualification for and rates of
pensions in overseas schemes. As noted above, these social insurance schemes
are very different to Australia’s social security system.
Social insurance schemes are funded—at least partly—by
direct contributions usually collected through specific payroll taxes.
Australia’s social security system is funded from general government revenue.
While Australia had a period where a component of income tax was known as the
‘social services contribution’, eligibility for social security payments was
never dependent on a person having paid income tax and there was no direct link
between the revenue from this contribution and social security expenditure.[51]
As a system designed to act as a safety net and focused on poverty alleviation,
it would be ineffective to link contributions to government revenue with
eligibility for payments as some individuals will never be able to contribute
or will contribute very little. This could arise for a range of reasons
including disability, illness, carer responsibilities or other barriers to
earning income.
The residency requirements could be viewed as implicitly
requiring some sort of contribution to Australia in order to qualify for
pension payments—as most migrants will contribute to government revenue during
their residency period (on top of visa fees and taxes other than income tax). In
fact, this was the reason cited by Robert Menzies in 1961 in announcing the
policy to reduce the Age Pension residency requirement from 20 years to 10
years:
The great stream of migration since the War, so valuable to
Australia, has produced its own problems. One of them has been that it is felt
by elderly migrants, who have worked and paid taxes in Australia for long
periods failing short of 20 years, that it is unreasonable that they should not
qualify for age pension. We have examined this matter. We attach great
importance to family migration, since it helps assimilation in the new country.
We will legislate to reduce the 20 years period to 10.[52]
However, despite the suggestion that migrants will have
worked and paid taxes, there was no requirement for migrants to have actually
done so in order to qualify for the pension.
The proposed changes indicate a significant shift in the
principles underlying Australia’s social security system, despite only
affecting a small number of people. By setting a lower residency requirement
for those with residence in Australia during their working life and those without
long periods of income support receipt compared to those who do not fit these
criteria, the measure adds an explicit link between working or paying income
tax and qualification for a pension payment.
Measure affects older migrants
The Government estimates that around 2,390 pension
claimants will be affected by the change each year—2,300 will be delayed from
claiming a pension due to the new requirement to have at least five years of the
ten-year continuous residence requirement as a resident during the person’s
working life (aged 16 to pension age), and an estimated 90 people a year on
parent or partner visas who have been in receipt of an income support payment
for longer than five years will have to wait an additional five years before
claiming an Age Pension.[53]
While some expatriate Australians who have not spent much
of their working life in Australia may be affected, the majority of those
affected are likely to be older migrants who move to Australia late in their
lives and will have to wait a longer time before they are able to access the
Age Pension.
Some younger migrants whose disability occurred prior to
moving to Australia may have to wait longer before they can access DSP,
particularly if they have had periods in receipt of another payment such as
Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance (which can generally be accessed by migrants
after serving a two-year Newly Arrived Residents Waiting Period).
Key provisions
Social
Security Act 1991
The Age Pension qualification requirements are set out in
section 43 of the SS Act. Paragraph 43(1)(a) provides that one criterion
for qualification, where the person has reached pension age, is that they have
ten years qualifying Australian residence (other criteria are that the person
has a qualifying residence exemption, or that the person was previously in
receipt of one of a number of specified payments prior to reaching pension
age). Qualifying Australian residence is defined at section 7.
Item 1 substitutes paragraph 43(1)(a) so
that the criterion refers to the person meeting the residency requirements set
out by proposed section 43A (inserted by item 4). New section 43A
sets out the proposed new qualifying residency requirements for the Age
Pension.
The new requirements are that a person must have been an
Australian resident for a continuous period of at least 15 years; unless they satisfy
proposed subsections 43A(2) or (3) in which case the requirement is for
a period of at least ten years. Proposed subsections 43A(2) and (3) provide the
criteria for needing only a period of ten years continuous residency:
- 43A(2)—if
at least five years of the residency period was during a period where the
person was aged at least sixteen but before they reach pension age (currently
65 years and six months)
- 43A(3)—if,
for a period that exceeds five years, or for two or more periods that in
aggregate exceed five years (whether or not these periods are during the
qualifying continuous residency period), the person:
- was
not receiving a payment of Austudy Payment, AUSTUDY Allowance, Newstart
Allowance (or previous payments the Job Search Allowance or Unemployment
Benefit), Youth Allowance or a Youth Training Allowance, or Special Benefit
(under the current SS Act or the previous Social Security Act 1947)
- was
aged at least 16 years during the period or periods and
- was
an Australian resident during the period or periods.
Proposed subsection 43A(4) provides that periods
when an assurance of support is in for force for an individual and they are
receiving one of the payments listed above are not to be considered periods
where a person was receiving a payment (for the purposes of subsection 43A(3)).
Section 94 of the SS Act sets outs the
qualification requirements for DSP. Item 6 substitutes subparagraph 94(1)(e)(ii)
(which sets the requirement for ten years qualifying Australian residence or a
qualifying residence exemption) with new subparagraphs 94(e)(ii) and (iia).
These new subparagraphs require a person to either meet the qualifying
residency requirements set out at proposed section 95A (inserted by item 10)
or have a qualifying residency exemption.
The residency requirements set out in proposed section 95A
are the same as those in proposed subsection 43A (set out above).
The application provisions for Schedule 1 of the Bill
state that the amendments apply in relation to claims for the Age Pension or
DSP made on or after commencement or for claims made before commencement where
the person does not qualify for the relevant pension before commencement. The
amendments do not apply to a person who was in receipt of the Age Pension or
DSP prior to commencement if they later made a claim for the same payment. That
is, those already in receipt of the Age Pension or DSP prior to commencement
will not be subject to the proposed new requirements if they lose eligibility
for the payment and then make a new claim at a later date.
Schedule 2—Stopping
the payment of pension supplement after 6 weeks overseas
Schedule 2 will limit the portability of the pension
supplement so it can only be received during temporary absences overseas for a
maximum of six weeks. The measure was announced in the 2016–17 MYEFO and was
previously included in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus
Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017.[54]
Background
The pension supplement is payment provided in addition to
certain income support payments including the Age Pension, Veterans’ Service
Pension, Carer Payment and DSP.[55]
People who leave Australia temporarily for fewer than six
weeks typically continue to receive the same rate of pension supplement during
their travel period.[56]
Currently, those who leave Australia permanently or for more than six weeks and
remain eligible for their qualifying payment (such as the Age Pension) receive
a reduced rated of pension supplement, known as the basic amount.
The annual pension supplement rate for singles is $1,713.40
(basic amount $598.00) and for members of a couple is $1,292.20 (basic amount
$491.40).[57]
Parenting Payment (Single) recipients under Age Pension age receive the pension
supplement basic amount. The pension supplement is paid fortnightly, or a
recipient can elect to receive a reduced fortnightly rate and a quarterly payment
of the ‘minimum pension supplement amount’.[58]
The pension supplement is subject to the pension income
and assets test but the minimum pension supplement amount is the last component
of the pension rate to be reduced when the income test is applied. The minimum
pension supplement amount remains payable if any pension supplement is payable
after the application of the income and assets test.
History of
the pension supplement
The current pension supplement was created as part of a
major pension reform in 2009 from a combination of existing supplements and
allowances and an additional increase.[59]
These included the GST pension supplement, which had been introduced in 2000 to
compensate for the reduced purchasing power of the pension, and ‘was structured
as a supplement so as to ensure that the value of the compensation for the GST
was always preserved as an amount additional to the pension rate’.[60]
Other payments bundled together in the pension supplement were:
- the
Utilities Allowance, introduced in 2004 as a twice yearly payment to assist
with utility bills
- the
Telephone Allowance, introduced in 1992 as a payment for pensioners with a
telephone account and
- the
Pharmaceutical Allowance, introduced in 1990 to compensate pensioners for
reduced entitlements to free pharmaceuticals.[61]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
The Australian Labor Party has previously stated its
opposition to the measure.[62]
Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services Jenny Macklin described the
measure as ‘stripping pensioners of the pension supplement’ and part of a
broader sweep of pension ‘cuts’.[63]
The Australian Greens, in their dissenting report to the
Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the previous Bill, stated that
they were opposed to the measure.[64]
Position of
major interest groups
National
Social Security Rights Network
The NSSRN has previously stated that it was opposed to
this measure. In its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
inquiry into the previous Bill the NSSRN stated:
The rules concerning payment of income support overseas
(known as portability) have been progressively tightened over a number of
years, especially since 2004. We consider that the rules already place great
weight on the principle of residence and this further tightening is unjustified
because it does not give enough weight to the importance of travel overseas,
especially for the many older Australians who are migrants and have strong ties
to family and communities overseas.[65]
The NSSRN was particularly concerned that the measure
would affect those already overseas stating:
Individuals already overseas have always been protected from
the potential detrimental impact of portability changes ... [the measure] departs
from this principle unacceptably, as it applies to all pensioners whether
overseas on date of commencement or not. Many of these pensioners will have
already exercised the right they have under Australian social security law to
choose their country of retirement and this will cut their incomes even though
they may be unable to do anything about it.[66]
Australian
Council of Social Service
While ACOSS was opposed to the Bill the measure was
previously proposed in, it did not state a clear position on this particular
measure.[67]
In its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the
previous Bill, ACOSS suggested that supplements should be rolled into the base
rate of payment.[68]
Key issues
and provisions
Rationale for
the measure
The Government has stated that ‘the intent of the Pension
Supplement is to assist with specific cost of living pressures for pensioners
living in Australia’.[69]
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill notes that the pension supplement basic
amount is equivalent to the former GST supplement and argues ‘pensioners who
leave Australia permanently or who are temporarily absent from Australia for
more than six weeks are unlikely to be impacted by the Australian GST and it is
therefore not appropriate to continue to pay them the pension supplement basic
amount’.[70]
Measure
reduces payment rates for those taking long trips or who live overseas
While the pension supplement’s historical components may
have initially been for the purpose of specific costs, it has essentially become
an income supplement for certain income support recipients. The rate of the
supplement and its indexation arrangements are not directly linked to any
specific costs.
While it is arguable that those travelling or living
overseas no longer need this income supplement, many pensioners already living
overseas will have come to rely on the additional income and planned their
finances accordingly.
Numbers
affected
The Department of Social Services estimates that 175,000
pensioners will be affected by the measure in the first year and an additional
80,000 recipients each year afterwards.[71]
Key
provisions
Schedule 2 amends the SS Act and the VE Act
to stop payment of the pension supplement for those who leave Australia
permanently or who are temporarily absent from Australia for a continuous
period exceeding six weeks.
The main amendments are to the rate calculators for
various payments setting out the new residency conditions for the receipt of
the pension supplement. The amendments specify that a pension supplement amount
can be added to a person’s maximum basic rate if the person is residing in
Australia and is either:
- in
Australia or
- temporarily
absent and has been for a continuous period not exceeding six weeks.
Table 1 sets out which payment calculators are affected by
which amendment.
Table 1: payment
calculators amended by Schedule 2
Item numbers |
Amended calculator |
Pension type affected |
Amended Act |
3–6 |
Pension rate calculator A |
Age Pension, Carer Payment, Disability Support Pension and
Wife Pension |
SS Act |
8–11 |
Pension rate calculator B |
Age Pension and Disability Support Pension for permanently
blind people aged 21 and older |
13–16 |
Pension rate calculator C |
Bereavement Allowance and Widow B Pension |
18–22 |
Parenting Payment rate calculator |
Parenting Payment Single |
34–37 |
Rate calculator |
Service Pension |
VE Act |
Items 24 and 25 respectively repeal the current
method statements in the SS Act for calculating the transitional maximum
pension payment rate for single people and couples outside Australia for longer
than six weeks. These items also insert new method statements which do not
include the step of calculating and adding the pension supplement for the
person, because Schedule 2 renders them ineligible for the pension supplement. Items 29 and
30 similarly amend method statements in the VE Act.
The application provision at item 26 provides for
the amendments to the SS Act to apply in relation to temporary or
permanent absences from Australia that begin before, on or after the day of
commencement. This means that those living overseas or those who leave
Australia temporarily prior to commencement (and remain overseas for longer
than six weeks) will lose the pension supplement. Item 38 is an
identical application provision for the amendments to the VE Act.
Schedule
3—Taper rate for Part A rate of Family Tax Benefit (Method 2)
Schedule 3 tightens the Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB-A)
income test by adjusting an amount by which payment rates are withdrawn for
family income over what is known as the higher income free area.
The measure was announced in the 2017–18 Budget and is
expected to provide savings of $415.4 million over five years, commencing 1
July 2018.[72]
Background
Family Tax Benefit (FTB) is the main form of direct
financial assistance the Commonwealth provides to families with children. There
are two FTB payments: FTB-A and Family Tax Benefit Part B (FTB-B). Both
payments are means tested to target higher levels of assistance at lower income
families. FTB-A is available to all families who meet the care, residence and
income test requirements.[73]
Different income test requirements for FTB-B restrict the payment to single
parent families and couple families where one parent has a low income or is not
in paid employment.[74]
FTB-A income
tests
In calculating FTB-A entitlements, two different income
tests are generally applied with the one that provides the highest rate being
used.[75]
The first test (Method 1) reduces the maximum rate of FTB-A by 20 cents
for each dollar of adjusted taxable income above $52,706 (this amount is known
as the lower income free area).
The maximum fortnightly rate is currently $182.84 for each
child aged 0–12 years and $237.86 for each eligible teenager.[76]
The second test (Method 2) reduces the base rate of FTB-A
by 30 cents for each dollar above $94,316 (the higher income free area). The
fortnightly base rate is $58.66 per fortnight.
Families with income under $80,000 per annum are eligible
for the FTB-A supplement of $737.30 per annum per child. It is included in the
rate calculation process but not paid until the end of the financial year.[77]
The income test methods are applied in the following way:
- families
with income equal to, or below $52,706 receive the maximum rate of FTB-A
- families
whose income falls in the range of $52,706–$94,316 receive either the reduced
rate worked out under Method 1 or the base rate of FTB-A, whichever is
higher
- families
with income over $94,316 receive the rate worked out under Method 1 or Method
2, whichever is higher.
Under the current income test design, families with income
over $94,316 who have their rate determined using Method 1 are generally those
with three or more children.
Proposed
change
The amendments in Schedule 3 will see the Method 1 rate
adjusted, so that that the 20 cent reduction of the maximum rate will apply for
each dollar of income between $52,706 and $94,316, but each dollar of income
over $94,316 (if any) will reduce the individual’s rate by 30 cents. Families
will still receive the higher of the rates worked out using Method 1 and Method
2.
The change will be inserted into the Method 2 rate
calculator. The amendments will essentially provide for one calculation using
the modified Method 1 income test to be compared to the current Method 2 income
with the higher rate applying.
Dropped FTB
measures
Since the 2014–15 Budget, the Coalition Government has
attempted to pass a wide range of savings measures affecting the FTB program
but it has been unable to win support in the Senate for all of these. Some
measures have passed, including:
- the
tightening of the Family Tax Benefit Part B (FTB-B) income test
- removing
the FTB-A ‘per child add-on’, a component of the FTB income test which reduced
the payment withdrawal rate for those with more than one child
- closing
FTB-B to couple families with children aged 13 years or older
- closing
the FTB-A end of year supplement to families with income over $80,000 per annum
- indexation
pauses (so that income test thresholds and some payment rates do not increase
in line with inflation)
- reductions
in the level of assistance provided to large families and
- closing
off the Energy Supplement payment to new FTB recipients.[78]
In the 2017–18 Budget, the Government confirmed that it
would not proceed with any of its previously announced but unlegislated FTB
measures, including:
- the
phase out of the FTB-A and FTB-B end of year supplements—which was estimated to
save $4.7 billion over the forward estimates
- an
increase in fortnightly rates of FTB-A (as well as some related youth payment
rates)—which was estimated to cost $2.4 billion (intended to partly offset the
supplement phase-out) and
- a
reduction in FTB-B rates for single parents with a youngest child aged 13–17
and the removal of FTB-B for single parent families from 1 January in the
calendar year their youngest child turns 17 (with some older parents and
grandparent/great-grandparent carers exempt)—which was estimated to save
$787.9 million over the forward estimates.[79]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of writing, it is unclear what position
non-government parties and independents hold on this measure.
Policy
position of major interest groups
Australian
Council of Social Service
ACOSS has stated that it does not oppose the changes
proposed in this Schedule ‘as they affect households on incomes of $94,000 and
over’.[80]
National
Social Security Rights Network
The NSSRN has stated that it does not oppose the changes
proposed in this Schedule.[81]
Key issues
and provisions
Complexity
of the income test
The complexity of the FTB-A income test derives from its
origins. The FTB program was introduced as part of tax reforms that saw the
introduction of the Goods and Services Tax in 2000.[82]
The FTB program was a rationalisation of an array of different family payments
and family tax assistance arrangements. FTB-A replaced Family Allowance, Family
Tax Payment Part A and Family Tax Assistance Part A.[83]
FTB-B replaced Basic Parenting Payment, Guardian Allowance, Family Tax Payment Part
B, Family Tax Assistance Part B, Sole Parent Tax Rebate and Dependent Spouse
Tax Rebate (with children).[84]
The design of FTB-A, including the use of different income
test thresholds and different rates for children based on their ages, was
derived from its predecessors.[85]
The use of different rate calculators for different income levels, and the use
of a base rate, meant that families would continue to receive similar or higher
levels of assistance following the rationalisation. Overall, rates of family
assistance were increased and the income tests eased.[86]
The design of the FTB-A income test, while complex, means:
- low
income families and those reliant on income support payments generally receive
the maximum rate
- middle
income families with adjusted taxable income between $52,706 and $94,316
receive a reduced maximum rate but at least the base rate and
- those
with higher incomes (over $94,316) will generally receive a reduced base rate
if they are eligible for any family assistance at all.
As FTB-A is paid on a per child basis, there are some
larger families with high incomes who receive a higher rate if their
entitlement is calculated under the income test that generally applies to
middle income families (a 20 cent reduction in the maximum rate for every
dollar of family income over $52,706) than if their rate was calculated under
the income test for higher income families (30 cent reduction in the base rate
for every dollar of family income over $94,316). Step 4 of the method statement
at clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the FA Act (the Method 2 FTB-A rate
calculator) specifies that families in this situation receive whatever the
higher rate is when calculated under the two income tests.
While only a relatively small number of families fall into
this category, pauses on the indexation of the higher income free area
($94,316) could have potentially increased the numbers who fall into this group
over time. The FTB-A higher income free area has been the same amount since 1
July 2008.[87]
Prior to this date, the free area was indexed annually in line with movements
in the Consumer Price Index (in order to maintain its value over time). Ongoing
indexation freezes mean that it is not due to be indexed again until 1 July
2020.[88]
Numbers
affected
The Government estimates that 24,900 families will lose
access to FTB-A and 71,800 will see a reduction in their payment rates as a
result of the measure.[89]
Media reports suggest that the average household income for those who will lose
eligibility for FTB-A is $125,490, and for those who will see a reduction it is
$107,622.[90]
Cameos
Table 2 sets out estimates of FTB-A entitlements under the
current rates and income tests, and if the proposed taper rate were to apply to
the current income tests. Note that the actual impact of the proposed taper
rate will be different due to the commencement date in July 2018 (the lower
income test threshold will be indexed to CPI on that date—other relevant rates
and thresholds are frozen).
Table 2: estimates
of the impact of the proposed taper rate on Family Tax Benefit Part A
entitlements, rates and thresholds as at July 2017
Family with three children aged 14, 15 and 16 |
Family adjusted taxable income |
Current FTB-A entitlement |
Under proposed taper rate change |
Difference |
$125,000 |
$4,145 |
$1,077 |
-$3,068 |
$110,000 |
$7,145 |
$5,577 |
-$1,568 |
$100,000 |
$9,145 |
$8,577 |
-$568 |
Family with four children aged 12, 13, 14 and 16 |
|
Family adjusted taxable income |
Current FTB-A entitlement |
Under proposed taper rate change |
Difference |
$160,000 |
$1,912 |
$0 |
-$1,912 |
$140,000 |
$5,912 |
$1,344 |
-$4,568 |
$125,000 |
$8,912 |
$5,844 |
-$3,068 |
Note: Energy Supplement not included.
Source: Parliamentary Library estimates.
Key provisions
Item 2 inserts a note into the method statement at clause
25 of Schedule 1 of the FA Act to state that step 3 is modified by
clause 25D (which is inserted by item 3). Clause 25 is part of Part 3 of
Schedule 1 which contains the Method 2 rate calculator. Steps 1 and 2 of the
method statement provide for working out what an individual’s reduced base rate
amount would be (where they have income over the higher income free area of
$94,316). Step 3 provides for then working out what the person’s FTB-A rate
would be using the Method 1 rate calculator (but disregarding any Rent
Assistance). Step 4 provides for the individual’s actual payment rate to be the
higher of the two different rates.
Item 3 inserts proposed clause 25D at the
end of Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the FA Act. The new
clause modifies the application of Step 3 of the method statement at clause 25.
The modification amends the calculation of a person’s FTB-A rate under the
Method 1 rate calculator, replacing Step 2 of the method statement at clause 3
of Schedule 1.The modified method statement applies a 20 cents in the dollar
reduction in a person’s maximum FBT-A rate for each dollar of income between
the lower and higher income free areas, added to a 30 cents in the dollar reduction
in the person’s maximum rate for each dollar of income over the higher income
free area. This modified Method 1 rate is then compared to the Method 2 rate
worked out using steps 1 and 2 of the method statement at clause 25 and the
higher of the two rates is the individuals’ actual payment rate.
Applying the modified Method 1 calculator to the first
cameo described above (three children, income of $125,000) using the current
rates and income test thresholds works as follows:
- the
family’s maximum FTB-A rate for these three children (not including the FTB-A
supplement as income is over the income limit of $80,000) before the income
test is applied would be $18,604.05
- the
20 per cent taper rate between the lower and higher income free areas will
reduce this maximum rate by $8,322.00
- the
30 per cent taper applying to the income over the higher income free area will
reduce this maximum rate by an additional $9,205.20
- this
will result in a modified Method 1 entitlement of $1,076.85.
This amount is higher than the nil rate worked out using
the Method 2 test so will be the rate used.
Schedule
4—Liquid assets test waiting period
Schedule 4 proposes to extend the maximum liquid assets
waiting period (LAWP) from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. The measure was announced in the
2017–18 Budget and commences on 20 September 2018.[91]
The Government estimates the measure will result in savings of $138.5 million
over the forward estimates.[92]
Background
A LAWP can apply to all Youth Allowance, Austudy, Newstart
Allowance and Sickness Allowance recipients whose liquid assets exceed a
certain amount.[93]
Liquid assets
The term ‘liquid assets’ refers to any cash
or readily realisable assets a person can draw on to support themselves as an
alternative to receiving income support. It includes any such assets belonging
to the person’s partner and any such assets owned by both the person and their
partner. Examples of liquid assets include:
- cash on hand (including borrowed money)
- shares and debentures, term deposits
- ten year insurance bonds
- amounts deposited or lent to banks or other financial institutions,
whether or not the amount can be withdrawn or repaid immediately (excluding
bonds or bank guarantees for the purposes of an assurance of support)
- assets given to a son or daughter (in certain circumstances)
- loans to other people
- unencumbered proceeds from the sale of a business
- money in trust funds, bank accounts including mortgage offset accounts
(not balances of mortgage redraw accounts)
- compensation payments and
- some payments made or due by a person’s previous employer.[94]
Certain assets are not considered liquid. These can
include proceeds from the sale of a person’s home (in some circumstances); draw
down loan facilities, mortgage redraw account balances or credit card limits;
the value of a person’s investment in a first home saver account; the surrender
value of a life insurance policy; National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
amounts and returns on NDIS amounts; and, superannuation and termination
payments that have been rolled over or are going to be rolled over directly
from the person’s employer.[95]
Full-time tertiary students claiming Youth Allowance or
Austudy can have their liquid assets reduced for reasonable expenditure
incurred or likely to be incurred on purchases directly related to their course
of study (including fees, text books and equipment).[96]
Liquid
assets waiting periods
Currently, if an individual’s liquid assets
exceed certain limits, then a liquid assets waiting period (LAWP) of between
one and 13 weeks can apply. They will not receive income support while serving
this LAWP as the person is expected to draw on their assets to support themselves.
The current limit, or reserve amount, of
liquid assets a single person without dependent children can hold before they
are subject to a LAWP is $5,000. For a person who is a member of a couple
and/or has a dependent child, the reserve amount is currently $10,000.[97]
The length of the LAWP, in weeks, is worked out as
follows:
- for
single person without dependent children: the value of their liquid assets
minus the reserve amount, divided by $500
- for
a person who is a member of a couple and/or has a dependent child: the value of
their liquid assets minus the reserve amount divided by $1,000.[98]
If the result of this calculation is less than one week
then no LAWP is served. If the result is less than 13 whole weeks then it will
be the whole number of weeks, with fractions rounded down to the nearest whole
week. If the result is 13 or more weeks then the LAWP is 13 weeks.[99]
The LAWP will generally commence on the day after the
individual or their partner ceases work/study or, if incapacitated, the day the
person became incapacitated.[100]
Exemptions or waivers from the LAWP are available in
certain circumstances including where the person is transferring from another
social security payment, is in severe financial hardship due to unavoidable or
reasonable expenditure, or where they have recently served a LAWP.[101]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of writing, it is unclear what position
non-government parties and independents hold on this measure.
Policy
position of major interest groups
National
Social Security Rights Network
The NSSRN has stated that it is opposed to this measure.
The NSSRN holds that the liquid assets test can undermine a person’s financial
stability:
... because it puts them in a position where they may be unable
to meet an unanticipated substantial one-off expense (e.g. car repairs) or ride
out a period of unemployment without major disruption to their lives (e.g.
moving house). It can therefore compound the effect of insecure employment for
people without job security, or with irregular or unstable working hours, who
are more likely to access income support. The greatest impact tends to be on
more vulnerable people with less capacity to access additional support when
needed such as single parents (who do not have a partner with a second income)
or new migrants with fewer ties in the community.[102]
The NSSRN also raised concerns that the provisions for
waivers/exemptions are too restrictive:
A liquid assets waiting period may be waived if someone is in
severe financial hardship, but only if they have depleted their savings through
unavoidable or reasonable expenditure. Although this may sound like a
reasonable test, in practice it is not. The main reason is that under the
current law any weekly expenditure above the poverty level newstart allowance
is deemed to be unreasonable. In effect, most of an ordinary person’s normal
expenses are deemed to be unreasonable.[103]
The NSSRN stated that the LAWP can lead to ‘arbitrary and
inequitable’ differences in treatment for social security recipients as result
of small differences in savings.[104]
The NSSRN has recommended removing the LAWP.[105]
Australian
Council of Social Service
In its response to the Budget, ACOSS did not state whether
it was opposed to the measure or not, but raised concerns regarding its impact.
ACOSS stated that ‘this will greatly disadvantage people affected. Making
individuals and families, wait six months for payment will see them exhaust
savings, make saving for a home or retirement harder and remove any buffer for
emergencies like healthcare, appliances, cars etc.’.[106]
Key issues and provisions
The proposed measure will raise the maximum number of
weeks an LAWP can last from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. The method for calculating
the LAWP will otherwise remain the same.
The new maximum LAWP would apply to those single people
without dependent children with more than $18,000 in liquid assets; and to
partnered people or single people with dependent children with more than
$36,000 in liquid assets.
Rationale
In his second reading speech on the Bill, Minister for Social
Services Christian Porter stated the measure is:
... designed to require those with greater means to support
themselves for longer before receiving a taxpayer funded payment. It ensures
that the liquid assets waiting period better reflects the current profile of
claimants and their capacity to support themselves. It also better targets
access to payment to those who have limited other means of support and are more
in need of immediate assistance.[107]
The Minister stated that in 2015–16, the average value of
liquid assets held by those serving the 13-week maximum LAWP was $63,000.[108]
Numbers
affected
The Government estimates that around 13,700 claimants will
be affected by the measure annually.[109]
Around 2,800 claimants would have their LAWP extended by 1–13 weeks and around
11,000 would see their LAWP reach the new 26 week limit. On average, the
Government estimates that affected claimants would be required to wait 11
additional weeks before they would start receiving their payment.[110]
Measure
affects those with significant savings or resources
The measure will only affect those with significant levels
of readily available financial resources. The new maximum LAWP of 26 weeks will
only apply to those with liquid assets at a level much higher than the annual
rates of the allowance payments the waiting period applies to. This is
consistent with the principles of Australia’s social security system which
encourages individuals to provide for themselves and to only seek income
support when necessary.
The measure may not be consistent with other objectives
raised by the community sector—such as individuals being able to save for a
home or retirement, or protecting themselves against insecure employment.
However, the means tested nature of Australia’s social security system means
that it is not designed to assist income recipients to secure these kinds of
objectives.
The reserve amounts will continue to allow claimants to
keep some resources on-hand for large expenses.
Key provisions
Items 1–4 replace ‘13’ with ‘26’ at paragraphs
549C(1)(a) and (b); paragraphs 575C(1)(a) and (b); subsection 598(2B); and
subsection 676(3B) of the SS Act to increase the maximum period a
LAWP can apply for. The provisions amended provide for the working out of a
LAWP for recipients of Youth Allowance, Austudy, Newstart Allowance and
Sickness Allowance, respectively.
[1]. S
Morrison (Treasurer) and M Cormann (Minister for Finance), Mid-year
economic and fiscal outlook 2016–17, p. 194; D Arthur, A Dunkley, M Klapdor
and M Thomas, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill
2017, Bills digest, 76, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2017,
p. 38.
[2]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill
2017 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[3]. Australian Government, Budget measures:
budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, pp. 147–148, 152.
[4]. Senate
Community Services Legislation Committee, ‘Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017’, Inquiry
homepage, The Senate, 2017.
[5]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 8, 2017, The Senate, 9 August 2017, p. 22.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Ibid.
[8]. C
Porter (Minister for Social Services), ‘Response to Senate Scrutiny of Bills
Committee letter of 10 August 2017’, Attachment A, 28 August 2017,
[p. 26]. See Ministerial responses attached to Senate Scrutiny of Bills
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, 10, 2017, The Senate, 6 September 2017.
[9]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny
digest, 10, 2017, The Senate, 6 September 2017, p. 78.
[10]. Ibid.,
p. 79.
[11]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill
2017, [p. 2].
[12]. Ibid.,
[p. 18].
[13]. International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, done in New York on
16 December 1966, [1976] ATS 5 (entered into force for Australia 10 March
1976).
[14]. C
Porter, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill
2017’, Debates, House of Representatives, 21 June 2017, p.
7196.
[15]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report,
7, 2017, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 8 August 2017, p. 17.
[16]. Ibid.,
p. 19.
[17]. Ibid.,
p. 20.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Correspondence
register’, Australian Parliament website, Table 2: recent correspondence
received.
[20]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 148; Federation of Ethnic
Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA), FECCA
concerned about impact of key budget measures on migrant Australians,
media release, 9 May 2017.
[21]. P
Whiteford and G Angenent, The
Australian system of social protection: an overview, Occasional paper,
6, 2nd edn, Department of Family and Community Services, 2002, p. 13.
[22]. Ibid.
[23]. Department
of Social Services (DSS), ‘3.4.1.10
qualification for age’, Guide to social security law, version 1.235,
DSS website, 1 July 2014; DSS, ‘3.6.1.12
qualification for DSP: 15 hour rule’, Guide to social security law,
version 1.235, DSS website, 15 August 2016.
[24]. DSS,
‘3.1.1.10
residence requirements’, Guide to social security law, version
1.235, DSS website, 1 July 2015.
[25]. D
Daniels, Social
security payments for the aged, people with disabilities and carers 1909 to
2010, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 21 February
2011, p. 5.
[26]. Social Services
Consolidation Act 1952.
[27]. Social Services
Act 1962.
[28]. Daniels,
op. cit., p. 8.
[29]. Social Security
and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Act 1987.
[30]. Social Security
(1994 Budget and White Paper) Amendment Act 1994.
[31]. Daniels,
op. cit., p. 11.
[32]. Invalid and
Old-age Pensions Act 1912.
[33]. Invalid and
Old‐age Pensions Act 1923.
[34]. Social Services Act
1947.
[35]. Social Services
Consolidation Act 1952.
[36]. Social Services
Act 1962.
[37]. Social Services
Act (No. 3) 1974.
[38]. Social Security
and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985.
[39]. Social Security
and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Act 1987.
[40]. Social Security
(1994 Budget and White Paper) Amendment Act 1994.
[41]. FECCA,
op. cit.
[42]. Ibid.
[43]. National
Social Security Rights Network (NSSRN), Budget
2017: residence rules for pensions, NSSRN, May 2017, p. 2.
[44]. Ibid.
[45]. Ibid.
[46]. Ibid.
[47]. Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS), ‘Budget 2017: social
security’, ACOSS website, May 2017.
[48]. Porter,
op. cit., p. 7196.
[49]. Ibid.,
p. 7197.
[50]. Ibid.
[51]. I
Scott, The
national welfare fund, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 21 May 1985.
[52]. R
Menzies (Prime Minister), Federal
election 1961: joint policy speech, speech, 15 November 1961, p. 19.
[53]. DSS, Welfare:
other measures, 2017 Budget fact sheet, DSS, May 2017, pp. 3–4.
[54]. Morrison
and Cormann, Mid-year
economic and fiscal outlook 2016–17, op. cit., p. 194; Arthur et al, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill
2017, op. cit., p. 38.
[55]. DSS,
‘3.12.1
pension supplement: qualification and payability’, Guide to social security
law, version 1.235, DSS website, 2 January 2015.
[56]. Ibid.
[57]. The
single rates also apply to each member of an eligible couple separated by
illness or imprisonment. Rates are updated on 20 March and 20 September
each year. DSS, ‘5.1.9.10
pension supplement: current rates’, Guide to social security law,
version 1.235, DSS website, 20 March 2017.
[58]. The
annual rate of the pension supplement is the same regardless of how the
recipient elects to receive the payment. DSS, ‘3.12.1 pension
supplement: qualification and payability’, op. cit.; DSS, ‘1.2.10.10
pension supplement: description’, Guide to social security law,
version 1.235, DSS website, 1 July 2013.
[59]. DSS,
‘1.2.10.10
pension supplement: description’, op. cit.
[60]. D
Daniels, L Buckmaster and P Yeend, Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget
Measures) Bill 2009, Bills digest, 179, 2008–09, Parliamentary Library,
Canberra, 2009, p. 13.
[61]. Ibid.,
pp. 12–13.
[62]. J
Macklin, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and
Child Care Reform) Bill 2017’, House of Representatives, Debates, 27
February 2017, p. 1477.
[63]. J
Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services), Liberals
are the party of pension cuts, media release, 20 December 2016.
[64]. Australian
Greens Senators, ‘Stopping
the payment of pension supplement after six weeks overseas’, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of
the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care
Reform) Bill 2017, The Senate, Canberra, March 2017, p. 50.
[65]. NSSRN,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform)
Bill 2017, 3 March 2017, p. 3.
[66]. Ibid.
[67]. ACOSS,
Submission
to Senate to Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into the provisions of the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform)
Bill 2017, 3 March 2017, p. 5.
[68]. Ibid.
[69]. Morrison
and Cormann, Mid-year
economic and fiscal outlook 2016–17, op. cit., p. 194.
[70]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill
2017, [p. 9].
[71]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 2 March 2017, p. 114.
[72]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 147; Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill
2017, [p. 2].
[73]. Department
of Human Services (DHS), ‘Family
tax benefit’, DHS website, 17 July 2017.
[74]. Ibid.
[75]. DHS,
A
guide to Australian Government payments: 1 July–19 September 2017, DHS,
Canberra, p. 3.
[76]. Ibid.,
p. 2.
[77]. Ibid.,
pp. 2–3.
[78]. See
Arthur et al, op. cit., pp. 10–13 and M Klapdor, ‘Omnibus
Bill dropped and new savings Bill introduced to fund child care package’,
FlagPost, Parliamentary Library blog, 22 March 2017.
[79]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and
Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, p. 6; and Explanatory Memorandum,
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2016, p. 2; Australian Government, Budget measures:
budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, op. cit., pp. 77–78.
[80]. ACOSS,
‘Budget 2017:
social security’, op. cit.
[81]. NSSRN,
Budget
2017: family payments, NSSRN, May 2017, p. 3.
[82]. A New Tax System
(Family Assistance) Act 1999.
[83]. D
Daniels, Social
security payments for people caring for children, 1912 to 2008: a chronology,
Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 29 January 2009, p. 18.
[84]. Ibid.,
p. 55.
[85]. H
Hodgson, ‘Mum:
it’s not fair! an analysis of transfer payments to Australian families applying
the criteria of equity and simplicity’, Australian Tax Forum,
19(3), 20 September 2004, pp. 303–304.
[86]. P
Whiteford, G Redmond and E Adamson, ‘Middle
class welfare in Australia: how has the distribution of cash benefits changed
since the 1980s?’, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 14(2),
2011, p. 88.
[87]. DSS,
‘3.1.1.60
indexation of FTB’, Family assistance guide, version 1.196, DSS
website, 3 July 2017.
[88]. Ibid.
[89]. DSS,
Welfare:
other measures, op. cit., p. 1.
[90]. R
Morton, ‘Big
family welfare cut down to size’, The Australian, 10 May 2017.
[91]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 152.
[92]. Ibid.
[93]. The
Farm Household
Support Amendment Act 2017 removed the liquid assets waiting period
provisions that previously applied to recipients of the Farm Household
Allowance.
[94]. DSS,
‘1.1.L.50
liquid assets’, Guide to social security law, version 1.235, DSS
website, 3 July 2017.
[95]. Ibid.
[96]. Ibid.
[97]. DSS,
‘3.1.2.20
liquid assets waiting period’, Guide to social security law, version
1.235, DSS website, 21 March 2016.
[98]. Ibid.
[99]. Ibid.
[100]. Ibid.
[101]. DSS,
‘3.1.2.70
exemptions from waiting periods’, Guide to social security law, version
1.235, DSS website, 3 July 2017; DSS, ‘3.1.2.20
liquid assets waiting period’, op. cit.
[102]. NSSRN,
Budget
2017: increase to the maximum liquid assets waiting period, NSSRN, June
2017, p. 2.
[103]. Ibid.
[104]. Ibid.
[105]. Ibid.
[106]. ACOSS,
‘Budget 2017:
social security’, op. cit.
[107]. Porter,
op. cit., p. 7199.
[108]. Ibid.
[109]. DSS,
Welfare
reform, 2017 Budget fact sheet, DSS, May 2017, p. 5
[110]. Ibid.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.