The Antipoverty Centre has had a very busy day, bringing together advocates to speak on the amendment to the Social Security and Other Leg. Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 which will give police the power to recommend an end to welfare payments if a person is suspected of a crime (not convicted)
This probably won’t get a lot of attention elsewhere so here it is in full:
The government’s last minute amendment enables police to advise the home affairs minister to stop a person’s Centrelink payment if there is a warrant for their arrest in relation to a serious crime. It affects people receiving any income support payment including Parenting Payment, Paid Parental Leave and Family Tax Benefit, meaning it can deprive people and children who are not accused of any crime of the money they need to live.
At the same time, the government voted against an amendment brought by Andrew Wilkie to implement a Robodebt royal commission recommendation to bring the time limit on Centrelink debt recovery into alignment with other types of debt – a recommendation the government committed to more than 2 years ago.
These draconian powers are a breach of the right to social security and the right to due process, which every person is entitled to. Police should not have any involvement in social security decisions and people accused of a crime, no matter what it is, are innocent until proven guilty. Punishment without conviction is incredibly dangerous, and offends the separation of powers between government and the judicial system.
The original bill affects millions of people and was rushed through with no meaningful opportunity for those harmed by unlawful debt collection to provide feedback. It has now been made even more undemocratic with this last minute, unpublicised addition of a completely unrelated amendment that has not undergone even the bare minimum scrutiny. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have already handed down their reports. Neither the government nor the Department of Social Services provided any information to these committees to indicate that this new police power would be inserted or was even being considered. All opportunities to scrutinise the bill and consider the implications and unintended consequences of this change have now passed.
Meanwhile the government has still not come clean about how many hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients have had their Centrelink payment unlawfully cancelled and their lives destroyed in yet another welfare administration scandal.
No one with a conscience should support this bill while this amendment remains.
Welfare rights advocate Tom Studans said: ”Serious violent crimes require a serious response. Convictions must be sound. Using the welfare system this way will not prove lawful, just, or otherwise effective. The welfare system is often used as a powerful surveillance tool for the police and security agencies that comprise Home Affairs. In Australia, punishing criminal offenders is the job of the courts.Social security law already provides for those in prison to lose their benefits—no argument has been made for broad discretionary powers to pre-empt the judicial process, as this cannot be done lawfully in Australia. Government efforts to improve women’s safety in the welfare system must focus on improving their financial position and agency in the system, and eliminating the ways offenders can use it to perpetrate their abuses—but it’s clear safety has nothing to do with these amendments.”
Antipoverty Centre spokesperson and JobSeeker recipient Jay Coonan said: “Labor can only get away with creating this terrifying expansion of powers because it’s easy to punch down on welfare recipients and use us as a political football. It is purely performative, and will only open the door to further demonise welfare recipients and justify more punishment outside the judicial system. When a warrant has been issued for a serious offence, removing a person’s Centrelink payment will not undo whatever act may have occurred.”
The Council of Single Mothers and their Children said: “Council of Single Mothers and their Children are perturbed by this proposed amendment which has the potential to cause further harm to women and children who have already been subject to family violence. We have plenty of evidence that perpetrators of such violence are often skilled at using government systems to weaponise their violence. We see this in relation to taxation, child support, and family payments where recalcitrance in not meeting their obligations can impose debt burdens on their victim. Indeed, these issues are before the Ombudsman now. Why therefore, would we risk providing additional ways for them to cause harm? False reports of child abuse and of violence already see too many single mothers and their children, many of them Aboriginal, misrepresented as perpetrators of violence or taken into child protection. We call on the government to withdraw the proposed amendments withholding social security payments or concession cards, family assistance payments, or paid parental leave payments on the grounds of an arrest for any reason, until any unintended consequences for children and their primary carers can be fully and openly assessed.”
Anti-Poverty Network South Australia Campaign Co-coordinator and Carers payment recipient Samantha Skinner said: “This amendment is another shocking example of the government weaponising the welfare system against the very people it is meant to support. Giving police the power to cut off someone’s Centrelink payment without due process is not only cruel, it’s unlawful and undemocratic. Once again, people on low incomes are being treated as second-class citizens whose rights can be ignored for political convenience. Instead of expanding punitive powers, the government should be focused on repairing the enormous harm already done to people through years of unlawful debt recovery and inadequate payments. We need a welfare system built on care and justice, not control and punishment.”
Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union President and JobSeeker recipient Avery Howard said: “Labor will continue to punish people on payments in any way possible. We need to do more to protect people who are victims of serious violent and sexual offences, but further demonising welfare recipients and using the social security system as a form of punishment is not the way. If Labor wants to tinker with the social security system, they should increase payments above the poverty line, which will serve to help victims of these crimes a whole lot more than convoluted and potentially unlawful ways to cancel people’s payments.”
Anglicare Australia Executive Director Kasy Chambers said: “This proposal is completely at odds with the principles of fairness and justice. Cutting off someone’s income before they have been found guilty of any crime is punishment without conviction. We should not have to explain why this has no place in a fair society. This is a shocking overreach of police powers into the social security system. We’ve seen too many times what happens when governments rush through changes without thinking through the consequences. Robodebt should have been warning enough. We’re calling on the government to withdraw these amendments and commit to a system that upholds people’s rights and dignity, not one that tears them away.”
Everybody’s Home National Spokesperson Maiy Azize said: “This is a shocking and dangerous proposal. Cutting off someone’s Centrelink payment means cutting off their rent, their groceries, and their lifeline. It will push people into homelessness before they’ve even had a chance to defend themselves in court. These changes mean that someone could lose their home because of an accusation that later turns out to be wrong. Once you’ve lost your home, there’s no easy way back. No one should be made destitute or homeless before they’ve been found guilty of anything. Using the threat of homelessness as a form of punishment is unconscionable. The government should withdraw this amendment immediately.”
