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

Senator Thorpe tabled a statement from over 100 academics and legal experts opposing Schedule 5, arguing it violated the presumption of innocence and due process. Thorpe highlighted concerns about disproportionate impacts on First Nations peoples and victims of violence, and moved amendments to remove Schedule 5 from the bill entirely.

Senator Allman-Payne read out a long list of legal and policy experts supporting the opposition to Schedule 5. Allman-Payne questioned the Minister on the lack of public consultation and the urgency of including the schedule in this bill rather than introducing separate legislation subject to Senate inquiry.

Senator Pocock raised concerns from the Law Council of Australia regarding the constitutionality of Schedule 5, specifically whether it constituted punishment by the executive rather than the judiciary. Pocock questioned the timeline of drafting and why the schedule was not included in earlier committee inquiries.

Senator Roberts opposed the government amendments, particularly section 44A, arguing that using computer programs for debt recovery risked repeating the errors of the Robodebt scheme. Roberts supported removing Schedule 5 due to lack of scrutiny and supported a Greens amendment to restore the six-year limit for debt collection.

Senator Shoebridge challenged the Minister to confirm explicitly that Schedule 5 was constitutional and questioned the reliance on police briefings for decision-making. Shoebridge highlighted risks to First Nations women who might be mischaracterised as aggressors in domestic violence situations and distrust government services.

minister

Gallagher clarified that Schedule 5 applies only to individuals charged with serious offences punishable by life imprisonment or at least seven years, excluding general protest attendance. Gallagher confirmed that social service organisations were advised of the changes but not consulted, and that the minister was prepared to work with them on implementation. Regarding Schedule 1, Gallagher argued that retrospective validation was essential to manage operational risks and avoid the estimated $9 billion cost and administrative burden of recalculating millions of historical debts. Gallagher maintained that the bill preserved rights to legal remedies and that waiving debts in full would be unreasonable given that most overpayments were marginal.

Thorpe questioned whether the benefit restrictions in Schedule 5 would apply to threats to national security, seeking clarification on the scope of the offences covered by the bill.

Shoebridge cited the Law Council of Australia's concern that the definition of serious offences was overly broad. Shoebridge raised issues regarding the mandatory requirement for the AFP Minister to seek advice from the Human Services Secretary only when police were already aware of dependants, arguing this created a gap in protection for vulnerable individuals.

Hodgins-May noted that the committee was considering the bill as amended and that Amendment 2 on sheet 3481, moved by Senator Thorpe, was before the committee regarding Schedule 5.

Allman-Payne highlighted that Economic Justice Australia and the Australian Council of Social Services had not been consulted on Schedule 5 and opposed it. Allman-Payne moved amendments to remove the retrospective validation of income apportionment, arguing it set a bad precedent and undermined the rights of individuals to challenge convictions arising from unlawful methods.