Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Dowling argued that the bill addressed fairness and accountability by validating the use of income apportionment between 1991 and 2020 to provide legal certainty and prevent endless appeals. Dowling emphasised that the bill did not validate the unlawful robodebt practices but instead established a resolution scheme for affected individuals. Dowling highlighted reforms to the small debt waiver threshold, raising it to $250 and indexing it annually, and expanding special circumstances waivers for victims of domestic violence and financial abuse. Dowling defended the new power to cancel benefits for those with outstanding arrest warrants for serious offences as a necessary safeguard for community safety.

Allman-Payne opposed the bill, arguing that the compensation scheme for income apportionment debts was inadequate and failed to address the broader harms caused to recipients. Allman-Payne noted that the maximum payment of $600 was insufficient for large debts and that accepting compensation required waiving future legal rights. Allman-Payne strongly criticised Schedule 5, which allows benefit cancellation for those with outstanding arrest warrants, arguing it violated the presumption of innocence and risked harming victims of family violence. Allman-Payne moved a second reading amendment noting that the resolution payments were unjust and that all affected debts should be waived.

Brown supported the bill, framing it as a commitment to dignity and fairness in the social security system. Brown highlighted raising the small debt waiver limit to $250, which would prevent 1.2 million small debts from being raised in 2025-26. Brown explained that the expansion of special circumstances waivers would protect survivors of financial abuse and domestic violence from being penalised for debts incurred under coercion. Brown defended the benefit restriction notice power as a tightly controlled measure to ensure taxpayer funds were not supporting individuals evading arrest for serious violent or sexual offences.

Shoebridge opposed Schedule 5 of the bill, arguing that cancelling welfare payments for individuals with outstanding arrest warrants constituted punishment without trial. Shoebridge stated that the amendment was added after committee scrutiny had concluded, bypassing proper parliamentary oversight. Shoebridge cited concerns from advocacy groups that the measure could disproportionately affect vulnerable people, including victims of family violence and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Shoebridge argued that the provision expanded ministerial power excessively and treated welfare recipients as criminals before conviction.

Roberts opposed the bill, characterising it as an attempt to retrospectively validate unlawful income apportionment practices that caused significant harm to Australians. Roberts argued that the compensation scheme was deceptive and inadequate, offering minimal payments to individuals who had been overcharged by thousands of dollars. Roberts claimed the government was using legislative instruments to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and avoid full accountability for past administrative errors. Roberts stated that One Nation would oppose the bill to protect the interests of Australians who had been victims of government incompetence.

Cox supported the bill, distinguishing the income apportionment issue from the robodebt scandal by describing it as a technical error rather than a deliberate scheme. Cox highlighted that the resolution scheme would provide payments of up to $600 to affected individuals and clear debts for those owing less than $200. Cox emphasised that raising the small debt waiver threshold to $250 would reduce administrative burden and stress for low-income families. Cox argued that the bill demonstrated the government's commitment to rebuilding trust and ensuring fairness in the social security system.

Pocock opposed the bill primarily due to the inclusion of Schedule 5, which was added after the committee inquiry had finished. Pocock argued that the power to cancel benefits for individuals with outstanding arrest warrants treated people as guilty before trial and risked harming children and dependents. Pocock noted that the safeguards regarding dependents were weak, as ministers were not required to consider advice on the impact of benefit cancellations. Pocock proposed amendments to separate Schedule 5 for further inquiry and to strengthen protections for dependents.

Green supported the bill, summarising its key measures including the expansion of special circumstances waivers for victims of financial abuse and the increase in the small debt waiver threshold. Green stated that the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme provided a fair pathway for remediation while sparing taxpayers the cost of recalculating millions of old debts. Green defended the benefit restriction notices as a necessary measure for serious circumstances, ensuring that individuals evading arrest for violent or sexual offences did not receive social security benefits. Green thanked senators for their contributions and highlighted the bipartisan work on financial abuse protections.