Ms HALL (6:22 PM) —I feel ashamed to be a member of the same parliament as the member for Parramatta. I have never heard such a mean-spirited speech in my life. It was a speech totally bereft of any compassion for human beings. It was totally bereft of any compassion for people who are disadvantaged. He showed a total lack of understanding of the issues that confront people on a daily basis. He really demonstrated his total commitment to economic rationalism in his speech on the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 .

The member for Parramatta obviously has no idea of what it is like to be unemployed. He has obviously lived in a very sheltered, insular environment. He has only to come and visit us in the Hunter to see how difficult it is to get a job, how people are desperate to find work and how they would give anything to have a job rather than to be in receipt of benefits. It is not a matter of saying, `You have been unemployed for six months, so we are not going to support you.' Where is that going to lead us? What kind of Australia will that lead us to? If that is the way we in this parliament go, each and every one of us stands condemned. If that is the legacy the member for Parramatta wants to leave to the people of Australia, I think he really should be ashamed of himself.

He talks about punishing young children because they do not go to school. They are, more often than not, young people who come from very disadvantaged backgrounds where there is poverty in their homes. When they do not go to school, what is the member for Parramatta's solution? To cut off financial support to their families. Where is that going to leave those children? What sorts of opportunities will they have for the future? How many more people will we have living on the streets? If that is the type of Australia the member for Parramatta wants, I think he should be condemned, and condemned by every member of this parliament. He has made an absolutely disgusting contribution to this debate.

This legislation that we are considering in the parliament tonight is yet another example of the contempt this government has for those Australians who receive Centrelink payments and for the staff who administer the payments. This legislation will disadvantage both groups. It is legislation that will lead to injustice and create a more complex administration system, even though the government argues that it will actually simplify the act.

On a number of occasions in this House I have accused the government of having 1950s style policies and of looking back to the 1950s for its inspiration. But, on this occasion, it has surpassed itself by reverting to 1940s style legislation. This legislation represents a move back to the Social Security Act of 1947, an act that was rewritten in 1991. The 1991 act located most of the provisions relating to a particular payment together in order to reduce the need for cross-referencing—in other words, making it simpler to administer and making it more user-friendly. This government is moving away from that and looking to increase the red tape.

The government has argued that one aspect of this legislation is the simplification, as I just mentioned, yet it is separating provisions relating to the same payments. How is this going to simplify it? Tell me. You can just see the Centrelink staff in their offices. They have somebody come in with an inquiry about a benefit, so they have a look in the manual: `Yes, okay, that relates to family allowance. I will go over there and look in another part that relates to the family allowance.' By the time they have gone through all of the various manuals and pieces of paper they have to look at, they have spent twice as long on administering the payments.

Will it benefit the Centrelink recipient? I cannot see how having to stand at the counter for a longer period, when they already have to wait, will benefit them. The way I look at it, it is not going to benefit anyone. I was in a shopping centre in my electorate on Saturday and I was speaking to a person who works at Centrelink. This person was complaining to me about how there is an increased demand on their time to administer all of the payments that are being put in place. At the same time that they are having this increased workload, they are having a decrease in staff. So, once again, it is harder for people who work for Centrelink and harder for the people who need to access the services of Centrelink.

The government argues that the act will make minimal changes. I argue that this bill actually makes significant changes, changes that will have a very adverse impact on Centrelink clients. It actually allows the Executive Director of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to direct that an issue be put before the tribunal by written submission. You might ask, `What problem will that create?' I can see it leading to injustice, particularly for the most disadvantaged clients of Centrelink. These are people who quite often have literacy problems, problems that make it difficult for them to adequately express themselves in a written submission.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m

Ms HALL —Those people who will suffer the greatest disadvantage by being required to supply written submissions to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are those people who are already disadvantaged to the greatest degree. It is not only those people who have literacy problems who will be disadvantaged by this requirement but also people who come from non-English speaking backgrounds and who struggle with literacy and sometimes with the requirements of our social security system, and indigenous Australians who live in remote areas. That requirement to provide a written submission rather than appear in person will really disadvantage them. The member for Parramatta was quite scathing in his attack when he said some indigenous children do not attend school, but it demonstrates his lack of understanding of the issues that exist in those areas. The requirement to supply a written submission will always disadvantage the most disadvantaged people within the community.

Another change suggested within this legislation is a more strict time limit on appealing decisions. Currently, there is no time limit on the right of an authorised review officer to appeal. This legislation is looking at a time limit, of 52 weeks, except in `special circumstances'. Even though there is no prescribed time limit, effectively most cases do have a time limit, with a 13-week period being imposed on decisions to increase a person's payments. This legislation will put in place a situation where an authorised review officer cannot consider any issue after 52 weeks. You may say 52 weeks is a reasonable period of time, but you need to look at individual situations. What about a situation where a person is extremely disadvantaged? They may fit into the category of having poor literacy skills. They may be a homeless person or a person who has been struggling with a drug and alcohol problem. They may be somebody who has had a psychiatric problem. The people that will be affected by this legislation will tend to be the most disadvantaged people. They are people who change their address—people who go from one place to another. It may be a case of somebody who is a victim of domestic violence. We all know that students frequently change their address. If these people incur some sort of debt and do not appeal the decision within 12 months, that is it.

The legislation fails to define `special circumstances'. What are the special circumstances? Is a special circumstance a situation where a person has changed address and has not received notification? Is a special circumstance a case where a person ends up in hospital or, as I have mentioned, a case where a person has had a drug and alcohol problem or suffers from some sort of psychiatric illness? At the moment Centrelink has a problem in notifying people of overpayments. Within the last month I have seen people in my office who have been advised of debts that they incurred prior to April 1998. Centrelink is in a position where they can now levy these debts on people. It has taken Centrelink over 12 months to work out that these debts are owed, yet they will not extend the same consideration to their clients who may, for some reason or other, have incurred a debt but have not got around to appealing the debt within 52 weeks. A number of issues come into play here. I do not feel that this legislation takes account of them, and I do not think it spells out what the special circumstances are. The legislation is designed to create distress and confusion amongst people in the community, and I think this is something that this government is particularly good at. Once again it is attacking the most disadvantaged people in our community.

In addition, this legislation will require that appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal be lodged within 28 days. You might say, `Twenty-eight days is a month, that's plenty of time.' Although the current time limit for lodging an appeal is three months, they are further limiting the time. They are taking away people's right of appeal and restricting the rights of the most disadvantaged people. Centrelink clients lose all right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if they do not lodge an appeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, so it is a double whammy—and, as I have already said, it affects the most disadvantaged people. Twenty-eight days is not long. If a family in receipt of family allowance is away on holidays, by the time they get back the 28 days could have expired. I constantly see people who come into my office and say—as I know happens in the offices of other members—that they have not received letters from Centrelink. We do not know why that is, but it does happen.

It is also questionable as to whether the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will be able to consider new information. By not allowing new information to be considered when they are making their decision, even though it can be referred to the secretariat, it is removing the right of people to get true justice, and it is drawing out the process. This bill also reduces compliance times for some, not all, Centrelink clients. This change to their com pliance times means that they will be obliged to advise Centrelink of changed circumstances within seven days instead of 14 days.

At present, pensioners and young people receiving youth allowance and families receiving family allowance have 14 days to comply with the requirement to notify Centrelink of any changes to their circumstances. For instance, under this new legislation, if they receive money through a compensation claim they will be required to advise Centrelink within seven days. On the other hand, if there is a change to an interview requirement or some such thing it will be 14 days. This is confusing, complicated and bureaucratic.

People have difficulty contacting Centrelink. There should be no reduction in the compliance time whatsoever until somebody can pick up a telephone, ring Centrelink and know they will get through. At the moment, there are long waits when people ring Centrelink. They are constantly disconnected and it is by no means a user-friendly system. Pensioners are constantly complaining to me about how difficult it is to get in touch with Centrelink and how confusing it is when they are trying to use the system. It is designed to create confusion and it is designed to affect those people that are most disadvantaged.

This legislation also moves the international social security agreements, currently scheduled under the Social Security Act 1991, to a separate act. It does not significantly change the operation of the international agreements—except by allowing agreements to be added to and varied by regulation. Once again, the question is whether the separation of the act simplifies it or complicates it, and makes it harder to administer. I believe it is another move toward a bureaucratic system. It is not a change designed to improve the system; rather it is a change designed to complicate it. It will increase the red tape and make it harder for staff to work with the legislation and with clients of Centrelink. At a time when their numbers are being slashed by this mean spirited government, it will increase the workload of Centrelink staff. This legislation may appear to be quite benign but it could significantly disadvantage some Australians in receipt of Centrelink benefits.

We heard earlier from the member for Parramatta. In a mean spirited way, he attacked all people in receipt of social security benefits. He showed his lack of understanding of the problems faced by people who are unemployed and by families that struggle within our community. I believe he is symbolic of a lot of people on the other side of this House. This is a government that does not understand the hurt and pain that a number of its policies have caused. It is a government that does not understand ordinary, everyday people. It is a government that does not understand that, if you take money away from the families, you hurt the children. It is the children who will suffer and often they are children who are in the most disadvantaged families in the community. They are children who have to battle extreme conditions and situations of domestic violence. Yet a member of this government argues that those children should be punished.

The member for Parramatta argued that indigenous children should be penalised if they do not attend school. He also argued that anybody who is unemployed and in receipt of social security benefits should have those benefits cut after they have been unemployed for a period of time. He showed a lack of understanding of the problems that ordinary Australians are facing each and every day of their lives. Legislation should be designed to help people get into work and help them improve their education. It should not be designed to punish the most disadvantaged people in the community. It should be legislation that is easy to administer and will help Australians.