Additional Comments - Australian Greens

Acknowledgments

1.1The Australian Greens wish to thank those who have contributed to this inquiry. In particular, we acknowledge advocates highlighting widespread legal noncompliance in government social services policy and decision-making. We also thank those that continue to call for an end to the policy of partner-income testing and work to elevate the stories of how the test continues to harm individuals.

Support for positive measures

1.2The Greens support the measures in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026 (the bill) that will align current practice with legislation.

1.3This includes Schedule 1 which clarifies that caregivers with less than 35 per cent care of the child are not entitled to receive child support. And Schedule 2 which establishes the legislative basis for urgent payments.

Key areas of concern

1.4The Greens hold several concerns regarding this bill that have also been raised in several submissions to the inquiry. These include:

significant delays between the identification of unlawful practices and the introduction of legislation;

placing an upper limit on urgent payments;

the continued use of the partner-income test; and

the failure to implement recommendations.

Significant delays between the identification of unlawful practices and the introduction of legislation

1.5The ‘misalignment’ in practice and legislative basis addressed in Schedule 1 was highlighted in the January 2026, Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman report, Following the law is not optional: An investigation into the actions of Services Australia and the Department of Social Services to address an ongoing issue of non-compliance with the law. This report states that Services Australia identified this practice as lacking a legislative basis in 2019. The Department of Social Services was notified of this in February 2020.

1.6The Greens believe that a six-year delay in acting to address known unlawful practices is insufficient.

1.7There is a significant double standard demonstrated by the Government and departments responsible for social services and the standard those receiving payments are held to. Whilst these departments are able to spend years with practices known to be unlawful, recipients are putatively and swiftly punished through the Targeted Compliance Framework.

1.8Additionally, it is of concern that the issues addressed in Schedule 3 were not identified in Services Australia’s ‘Legal Compliance and Remediation Program’. This program has identified 144 issues of concern, including a number that require legislative change. The lack of identification of Schedule 3 in this raises concerns that there are a greater number of issues that have not yet been identified through the program.

Placing an upper limit on urgent payments

1.9The Greens recommend removing the upper limit on urgent payments in Schedule 2. As Economic Justice Australia stated in their submission:

EJA recommends removing the upper limit on the amount a person can request as an urgent payment, which the Bill currently sets at $200. Subsection (3DD) in Item 9 of the Bill already limits how much can actually be paid, and there appears to be little utility in refusing to consider larger requests. The reasons a person may require an urgent payment are many and varied, and not limited to an arbitrary monetary value.[1]

Further, the Bill does not contemplate indexation of this limit. If an upper limit must be placed on requests, that limit should be indexed to account for inflation. Without making this change, further legislative work will be needed when $200 is no longer a relevant figure.[2]

Partner-income testing

1.10A number of submissions call on the Government to end the practice of partner-income testing payments. There is a significant body of research and numerous examples of people’s lived experience that demonstrate the harms caused by the continued use of the partner-income test. The Antipoverty Centre’s submission stated:

These barriers to accessing social security payments force adults to be dependent on others in their life, removing their agency, placing strain on relationships and in some cases creating the conditions for violence.[3]

1.11Similarly, the Working with Women Alliance, stated that the partner-income test is:

...an archaic policy instrument that exacerbates household economic and gender inequality. Tying an individual’s social security entitlements to their partner’s income, is counter to the broader national conversation about women’s economic security and a risk factor for domestic and family violence and financial abuse.[4]

1.12The Greens support these calls to end the use of the partner-income test.

Failure to implement recommendations

1.13This bill highlights the lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of both the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

1.14The rates of social security payments continue to be significantly below the poverty line. This is despite consecutive years of the Government’s own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee recommending that the rate of welfare payments be increased. The 2025 report states:

…JobSeeker Payment and related non-pension payments for working-age Australians remain seriously inadequate relative to all accepted poverty measures…this places us in the lower rungs of OECD nations in terms of the adequacy of our employment payments.[5]

1.15The impact of this continued policy choice results in the high number of urgent payments.

1.16This is likewise noted in ACOSS’s submission that states:

It is no surprise that over 400,000 urgent payments were made in the last financial year, given people typically do not have savings to meet unexpected costs…JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment and related supports remain below all measures of adequacy. If these payments provided enough to cover people’s costs, there would be a reduced need for urgent payments.[6]

1.17The Greens also note that there are several outstanding recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme that have not yet been implemented. Most relevant to this Bill is Recommendation 17.1, that outlines the need for the Commonwealth to:

…introduce a consistent legal framework in which automation in government services can operate.[7]

1.18Other outstanding recommendations include:

reinstating the 6-year limit on recovery of debts;

establishing a duty of care for the Department of Social Services that prioritises the needs of social security recipients while administering the law; and

better protections for people experiencing hardship from receiving compliance notices.

1.19The continued inaction from the Government to implement these recommendations is a significant failure, and risks allowing the continuation of significant harms.

Conclusion

1.20The Greens support the measures in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2026 that will align legislation with historical and current practices in social services.

1.21However, we continue to hold concerns in relation to the significant delays between the identification of unlawful practices and the introduction of legislation, the inclusion of an upper limit for urgent payments, the use of the partner-income test and the failure of the Government to implement recommendations of committees and the Royal Commission into Robodebt.

Senator Penny Allman-Payne

Deputy Chair

Greens Senator for Queensland

Footnotes

[1]Economic Justice Australia, Submission 3, p. 2.

[2]Economic Justice Australia, Submission 3, p. 2.

[3]Antipoverty Centre, Submission 6, p. 2.

[4]Working with Women Alliance, Submission 7, p. 7.

[5]Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee 2025 Report to Government, p. 49.

[6]ACOSS, Submission 8, p. 2.

[7]Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, p. xvi.