Senator NEWMAN (Minister for Social Security and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women)(6.35 p.m.) —The government opposes the opposition's motion for a number of reasons. In the constrained time available, I want to try to canvass some of the issues that I think should be on the record. There may yet be time to convince some people that their support for the opposition's motion is, perhaps, a little misguided.

We have always said that there would be a safety net for newly arrived residents who were serving the two-year waiting period and found themselves in severe financial hardship because of an unforeseen change in their circumstances or the circumstances of their sponsor. We stand by that. This was clearly spelt out in our election document Meeting our commitments which said:

The coalition will provide a safety net in the form of a special allowance for those migrants whose circumstances change significantly after arrival in Australia for reasons beyond their personal control.

That safety net, in the form of limited access to special benefit, was delivered in the legislation passed by parliament in February of this year. Essentially, the speech which Senator Bolkus gave seems to me to be virtually a re-run of the arguments which the opposition were using at that time. That was an argument against the legislation, of itself. My concern is that the opposition's motion is in fact allowing the backdoor route for people who would otherwise not be eligible under the legislation which this very chamber passed in February.

The guidelines which the opposition now seeks to have disallowed were determined under that legislation to provide an administrative basis for the special benefits safety net. Setting down the guidelines for paying special benefit to newly arrived migrants in this way assists in consistency of decision making—and senators would be the first to criticise the government if we had a rash of inconsistent decisions. You do need certainty and consistency both in decision making and in interpretation within the Department of Social Security but also within the tribunals that review the decisions. Having the guidelines available in this form and in this way also gives some certainty to new migrants on what constitutes a change of circumstances for the purpose of payment of special benefit.

There have been a number of recent criticisms of those guidelines, including by the Welfare Rights Centre. These criticisms, I believe, largely ignore the basic purpose of special benefit and they also display some lack of understanding about the provisions of the guidelines. In many ways the Welfare Rights Centre criticisms are more about the legislation imposing the two-year waiting period, which, as I said earlier, has already been resolved by the parliament, than about the special benefit guidelines, which are the subject of this debate here tonight.

My office has been provided with three case studies from welfare rights which purport to show some difficulty with the current special benefit guidelines we are debating tonight. First, we have not been able to substantiate the veracity of these supposed case studies from the information which the Welfare Rights Centre would disclose to us. Second, on the basis of the information provided in the three case studies that I have seen, workers' compensation should be payable in one case and other social security payments in another.

Special benefit is a discretionary payment available to people who are not eligible for any other form of income support and who, through circumstances beyond their control, cannot earn a sufficient livelihood. It is a payment of last resort. There is a tough dollar for dollar income test and a strict available funds test which ensures that only those in severe financial hardship can access the payment. As it is a payment of last resort it is clearly intended that people seeking special benefit make maximum use of their own resources or other available sources of support before turning to the taxpayer. That is not unique to those applying for special benefit; it is the basis of the social security safety net as a whole.

Therefore, the government considers that the available funds test, under which a person's available funds must be less than the equivalent of two-weeks benefit, currently being applied to new migrants seeking access to special benefit is reasonable. This same test is applied to other people applying for special benefit and has been for a number of years.

Criticisms by the Welfare Rights Centre and opposition senators about the position of sponsored migrants demonstrates, unfortunately, a misunderstanding of the provisions of the determination. This is where I urge honourable senators to listen very carefully. They have concentrated on arguments that subclauses 5(2), 5(3), 5(5) and 5(6) do not cover every possible situation under which a newly arrived migrant might not be able to secure support from their sponsor. However, very importantly, subclause 5(1) provides that:

A sponsored claimant can be paid special benefit if they have attempted to obtain support from their sponsor and can demonstrate that financial or in kind support cannot be obtained from any other source.

If ever there was a protection to make sure people do not fall between the cracks, as a couple of speakers have mentioned, surely subclause 5(1) provides that protection.

In addition, subclauses 5(2), 5(3), 5(5) and 5(6) set out situations under which the claimant is not even required to attempt to seek support from the sponsor, for example, death, disappearance, change in the financial circumstances of the sponsor, abuse, or violence by the sponsor towards the claimant or a family member of the claimant. If a person in any of the circumstances put forward by the Welfare Rights Centre satisfies the secretary that they have attempted to obtain support from their sponsor, the attempt has genuinely failed and there was no support available from any other source, then that person could be paid special benefit.

There have also been criticisms of the causal link between the depletion of funds by unsponsored migrants and the change in their circumstances that leads them to apply for special benefit. It is true that in some cases this will mean that some new migrants will not be able to receive special benefit even though they meet the available funds test. However, it cannot be said that the two-year waiting period has been kept a secret from migrants. The advice that I have received suggests that immigration officials in overseas posts have been vigilant in this area.

From March 1996 the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been informing migrants, intending migrants, sponsors and intending sponsors that only in special circumstances will the Australian taxpayer support the new migrant during the first two years. This information was provided in the form of a comprehensive leaflet on the matter. Since August last year all visa grant letters have included four paragraphs alerting successful visa claimants to the two-year migrant waiting period and providing a phone number where they can get more information from Social Security.

Immigration officials in Australia's overseas posts have been reminded on a number of occasions of the importance of drawing this matter to the notice of all intending migrants and those who have been issued with visas prior to April 1996. After migrants have received this information it is then the intend ing migrant's decision whether to migrate to Australia or not. Advice to intending migrants needs ongoing vigilance and I have been consulting with my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) to confirm that all reasonable actions are taken to ensure that intending migrants and their sponsors are fully informed of the two-year waiting period.

In answer to the example that Senator Harradine gave of the skilled worker, I am assured it is covered.

My concerns are that the Welfare Rights Centre may be scare mongering. The statistics from the department show that in the 12 weeks from 4 March this year there were only 110 reviews within the department of decisions to reject payment of special benefit in the waiting period—that is nationally. Thirty decisions were changed in favour of the migrant out of the 110. Of the few that have yet reached the SSAT I understand that most departmental decisions have been confirmed.

I do urge the senators to think very carefully before they support the opposition's proposal that we should use the previously applying guidelines. That simply means that the opposition is undermining the purpose of the two-year waiting period legislation.

The new guidelines, while strict, are fair. They prevent people from accessing income support by the backdoor, when the legislation already passed by the Senate says that they are not eligible for income support. They also prevent people from falling between the cracks.