Turner Judy: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10862] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. United Future will be supporting the first reading but as in the case of the previous speaker there are a couple of areas where we will be keen to hear more detail and to hear what submitters say. I have just been checking through the Bills Digest that came into my office today. It describes the current situation and what happens under the current legislation. When the agencies identify that somebody is in prison they have to give notification in writing that the benefit will stop. That gives the beneficiary the opportunity to confirm the position or to deny it if he or she feels there has been an information mismatch before payments cease. 
We support the intention of the bill because when people unnecessarily get into debt with a Government department that is an unhelpful outcome. But I do have a concern about the fact that many times a beneficiary is not the sole person who is dependent on that income. Beneficiaries may have partners and families who are reliant on it. If this measure becomes a blunt instrument where gaps are created by a benefit being stopped due to incarceration but nothing is done in a timely way to remedy that for the rest of the family that has been relying on that income then United Future would have problems with that. So we want to hear some information about how the family that is reliant on that benefit will be redirected before their income is cut off. Who makes an approach to the family to let them know that they need to reapply? Are there any time delays that could happen? 
I am comforted though by several things that I have read in the commentary on the bill. I am comforted by the thought that the intention is to minimise any detrimental effects and to mitigate any negative impacts. However even mitigation is weak if a person has gone through a period of time when he or she was in desperate straits had no income and had children around the table to feed on a particular night. The fact that 3 weeks later the department may say: “Oops” and give that person a back payment does not solve the problem that existed right then. I think that is the kind of area where United Future will be really keen to ensure that what is proposed here is advantageous to everybody concerned. 
Our concern is about people who could be unintentionally detrimentally affected by this proposal and we want to be assured that they have been identified and catered for. It is not the matching of information between Work and Income and other agencies about a person being in prison that is the problem. The issue is whether any efforts are then put in before the benefit is cut off to determine who else was reliant on that income and to take appropriate steps to make sure that those people are catered for and there is not an untimely gap between one benefit stopping and another one kicking in. 
The other issue I want to signal which is one that comes up quite a lot in amendments at present is the increasing ability of Government departments to match information. We do have to keep a watchful eye to make sure that this is not a horse that bolts on us. I am interested to hear what people like the Privacy Commissioner have to say about this kind of thing. 
I think a previous speaker mentioned that quite often people with debt have got into debt because of an overpayment and the inability of departments to respond quickly to people’s changing circumstances. I just want to make sure the bill has been well-thought-through and that families who have been reliant on the income from a benefit do not suddenly find themselves cut off at the knees and having to go to Work and Income with their hat out asking for a temporary benefit. If members know anything about how that situation plays itself out they will understand that when mum goes in and says the family does not have any income during the time that it is all worked out sometimes they get irregular amounts of money. That income very rarely covers the basic needs of the family over the week. It can be a pretty traumatic time and can put a lot of pressure on people who I imagine if they have just had a family member go into prison are already under severe stress. 
So we support the intention of the bill but we just want to make sure that it is very clear that those other consequences have been catered for and considered and that there are mechanisms in place to make sure that any harm to families is minimised.