Growing calls for Labor to abandon new powers to stop Centrelink payments for people accused of a serious offence

Civil society organisations representing welfare recipients, First Nations people, survivors of family violence, disabled people and legal experts are calling on the government to scrap a proposed law due to be considered in the senate today that will involve police and federal government ministers in individual social security decisions.

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS) Chair Karly Warner called the proposal “controversial” and said it is “an unprecedented attack on fairness and due process which will shake public confidence in our legal system.”

Comments from NATSILS and Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre included below. For media enquiries contact 0413 261 362 / ‭0403 429 414‬ / media at antipovertycentre.org

Advocates were blindsided by the new Schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Leg. Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 – which does away with the right to due process for welfare recipients accused of a serious offence – when it was introduced by social services minister Tanya Plibersek and passed by the house last week. Senator Lidia Thorpe will move an amendment to remove Schedule 5 later today, while Senator David Pocock will seek to split the controversial changes into a separate bill that can be sent to an inquiry. More background information about the new powers is included at the end of this statement.

Karly Warner, Chair of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS) said

“The Government is trying to pass legislation that would allow police to cancel Centrelink payments for people who have not been found guilty of any offence.

”This is an unprecedented attack on fairness and due process which will shake public confidence in our legal system. Under this legislation, people’s benefits could be stripped away simply because they are unaware police have issued a warrant for their arrest, and without any opportunity to access legal help.

”The proposed amendments will inevitably have a greater impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are grossly overrepresented at every stage of the criminal process. Cutting off people’s Centrelink payments will not only impact those individuals, but put their children and families – too many of whom already live below the poverty line – at risk of homelessness and child removals.

”Such a controversial proposed legislative change should be the subject of considered consultation with community and legal experts. We call on the Government to withdraw this proposal.”

Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre CEO and Bundjalung woman Christine Robinson said

“Wirringa Baiya has concerns about the proposed amendments, and the way that these are being pushed through the parliament without adequate scrutiny.

“As a service that works with Aboriginal women who are often misidentified as perpetrators, we see the many possible unintended consequences of this proposed amendment.

“We urge the government to remove this amendment from the bill and go through the appropriate pathway to allow necessary scrutiny and input from stakeholders.”

Antipoverty Centre spokesperson and JobSeeker recipient Jay Coonan said

“The government knows that what it is doing with these changes, which treat welfare recipients as second class citizens by violating our basic right to due process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty, is abhorrent.

“If they thought giving themselves this power to cancel someone’s social security payment was the right thing to do they would not have tried to hide it by tacking this amendment on to an unrelated bill at the last moment, catching advocates and legal experts by surprise after the window for consultation was closed.”

“We object to this violation of rights and the perverse, hypocritical and pointless nature of the proposed changes. The only thing they will achieve is further demonisation of welfare recipients and opening the door to more justifications for ministers being granted powers to punish people without trial just because they are poor.”

A joint statement released yesterday by the Australian Council of Social Services and Economic Justice Australia said

“Allowing social security to become a police tool is a dangerous step in the wrong direction… This amendment … would allow a government to cancel someone’s payment based on advice from a senior person in the police, without a conviction. This could see innocent people have their social security payment cancelled. Police should not have any involvement in determining someone’s social security entitlement.”

Media contact: email media at antipovertycentre.org or call/message 0413 261 362 via Signal

Background

• The new powers added to the amended Social Security and Other Leg. Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 will enable law enforcement, the Attorney-General and the Home Affairs minister to directly intervene and have Centrelink payments cancelled for a person subject to a warrant who is accused of a serious offence before they have appeared in court or had access to legal advice. They breach the right to social security and the right to due process, which every person is entitled to. People accused of a crime, no matter what it is, are innocent until proven guilty.
• This amendment was added to a completely unrelated bill that is supposed to deal with issues related to unlawful Centrelink debt collection, and was inserted by Minister Plibersek after the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has concluded their inquiries and published reports into the bill. It reflects an unlegislated 2018 budget measure from Turnbull and Morrison. In their 2022 budget, Albanese and Chalmers announced this measure was being abandoned. The original bill affects millions of people and was rushed through with no meaningful opportunity for those harmed by unlawful debt collection to provide feedback.
• In New Zealand, where similar powers already exist, the government released a report from its Welfare Expert Advisory Group in 2019 that recommended removing the powers. A 2021 government report highlighted that their usage was increasing over time, and applied to Māori at double the rate of other welfare recipients.
• The introduction of these new powers means a person could have their payment cancelled without even being aware there is a warrant for their arrest. The AFP, who entrapped and radicalised a 13 year old boy and say they would do so again, will be trusted to tell the government when to cancel a person’s Centrelink payment.
• The proposed changes apply to people receiving any income support payment including Parenting Payment, Paid Parental Leave and Family Tax Benefit, meaning it can deprive people and children who are not accused of any crime of the money they need to live. Rent and bills paid through Centrepay or direct debit will fail, including for those on cashless welfare with a BasicsCard or SmartCard.
• During an inquiry into a 2014 bill that introduced similar measures for people accused of being foreign fighters, Tanya Plibersek raised concerns about the potential implications for dependents relying on a payment that could be cancelled by a minister. Her expanded version of this power does not protect partners, children and extended family members who may rely on an accused person’s payment from losing their income.
• The 2024 Senate Inquiry into Missing and Murdered First Nations Women and Children found misidentification of women as perpetrators puts First Nations women at risk. Victims of domestic and family violence and murdered women are frequently accused of serious offences by law enforcement. This amendment means a woman fleeing a violent partner following an altercation could be misidentified by police as a perpetrator and, while in hiding or simply in the process of fleeing and not being able to be found by police but being wanted on suspicion of an allegedly assaulting her abusive partner, have her payment cut off at the most dangerous time in her life.
• Under current laws, a person who is on remand can have their payment suspended, but this means they have had an opportunity to access legal support and appear in front of a judge before their payment is affected. It also means they have access to food and shelter. A payment suspension is also less severe than the cancellation proposed by the government, which does not contain anything to say a person would be back paid if they had their payment cancelled and were found innocent. There is also no requirement to revoke the cancellation once a person is apprehended.
• There are many existing mechanisms that enable a person’s Centrelink payment to be suspended and would already be applicable to someone who is evading authorities. These include the simple requirements to keep your residential address up to date, regularly submit an income report and/or complete compulsory activities.
• The Castan Centre for Human Rights said in its submission to the 2014 foreign fighters bill inquiry, “This is highly objectionable. People deemed to be of “bad character” are not deserving of homelessness or starvation, and nor are their families – the whole suggestion is abhorrent. There are already ample laws to prevent recipients of social security spending that money for criminal, including terroristic, purposes.” A joint submission to the 2014 inquiry from the councils for civil liberties across Australia said: “…punishment beyond that imposed by the Court such as the deprivation of welfare benefits or of the right to vote, creates a second class citizenship. In this context persons are to be deprived of their social security without conviction on the say so of the Minister without any right of review. This is entirely unacceptable.”