Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Cox argued the bill restores trust in the social security system by aligning legislation with longstanding policy intent. Cox explained that schedule 1 clarifies child support periods and prevents parents with less than 35 per cent care from receiving support, retrospectively from 2008. Cox stated schedule 2 provides a lawful framework for urgent payments, removing the two-payment annual limit while introducing safeguards. Cox noted schedule 3 clarifies income attribution rules to ensure consistency and integrity in payment calculations.

Allman-Payne supported the technical measures but criticised the government for legislating practices that had been unlawful for six years. Allman-Payne moved a second reading amendment calling for social security rates to be raised above the poverty line and for the abolition of partner and parental income tests. Allman-Payne also moved committee amendments to reinstate the six-year limit on debt recovery and remove arbitrary limits on urgent payment amounts. Allman-Payne argued the mutual obligation system punishes people for structural unemployment and called for a pause on these obligations.

Askew stated the coalition would not oppose the bill, recognising its intent to clarify child support and urgent payment frameworks. Askew reiterated concerns about the removal of the urgent payment cap, questioning what safeguards would prevent recipients from falling into cycles of financial hardship. Askew argued that urgent payments are not additional assistance but advances on existing entitlements, requiring careful management to avoid misuse. Askew emphasised the need for the government to ensure support services are accessible to prevent entrenching disadvantage.