Bill Debate · In Committee
Senate · Wednesday 26 November 2025
Continued from Tuesday 25 November 2025.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The Senate considered amendments to the bill during committee stage. Senator Allman-Payne moved amendments to extend the income apportionment resolution scheme back to 1991, extend its duration to three years, increase the small debt waiver threshold to $440, and remove 'knowingly' and 'justified' requirements from domestic violence debt waivers. Senator Pocock moved amendments to ensure ministers consider Services Australia advice before cancelling benefits under Schedule 5, and later moved to refer Schedule 5 to a committee for inquiry. The government opposed all amendments, arguing the bill balances fiscal responsibility with fairness and that Schedule 5 addresses a specific law enforcement gap. All amendments were defeated.
All seven divisions on the amendments were lost, with the government retaining control of the bill's provisions.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Continued the debate
Chandler opened the committee consideration of the bill and the initial amendments moved by Senator Allman-Payne. Chandler did not offer a substantive policy position but facilitated the procedural start of the detailed consideration.
Government response
Gallagher defended the government's approach, stating that the resolution scheme covers debts from 2003 because the legal status of income apportionment prior to that date was unclear. Gallagher argued that a one-year scheme duration balances administrative costs with the need to repay individuals, noting that $400,000 each would be provided to ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia for outreach. Gallagher opposed increasing the debt waiver threshold to $440, citing budget costs, and rejected removing 'knowingly' and 'justified' tests from waivers to prevent fraud. Regarding Schedule 5, she maintained that existing administrative law requires ministers to consider relevant factors, including advice from Services Australia, and that merit review is impractical for individuals evading arrest.
Allman-Payne argued that the resolution scheme should cover debts from 1991, citing departmental advice that unlawful practices predated 2003. Allman-Payne contended that a 12-month scheme duration was insufficient given the complexity of claims and the need for legal advice, and that the $250 debt waiver threshold failed to keep pace with inflation. Allman-Payne also raised concerns that 'knowingly' and 'justified' language in domestic violence waivers could create hurdles for victim-survivors. Allman-Payne moved amendments to address these issues and later supported referring Schedule 5 to a committee for scrutiny.
Pocock moved amendments to explicitly require the Home Affairs Minister to consider advice from Services Australia regarding dependents before cancelling benefits under Schedule 5. Pocock argued that without this explicit requirement, there was no avenue for merits review, leaving vulnerable individuals without recourse. Pocock questioned the timing of Schedule 5's inclusion, noting it was added after the committee inquiry concluded, and moved an amendment to refer Schedule 5 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for further scrutiny.
Thorpe criticised the lack of scrutiny for Schedule 5, arguing it violated human rights and disproportionately affected Aboriginal women and communities. Thorpe stated that the government had bypassed the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and dismissed concerns from over 100 organisations. Thorpe argued that the provision was rushed and lacked proper consultation, asserting that it would harm innocent people and undermine the rule of law.