

- Title
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS) BILL 2003
In Committee
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
13-10-2003
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
40
- Electorate
Queensland
- Interjector
CHAIRMAN, The
- Page
16252
- Party
ON
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Harris, Sen Len
- Stage
In Committee
- Type
- Context
Bills
- System Id
chamber/hansards/2003-10-13/0131
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- BUSINESS
- MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
National Security
(Ludwig, Sen Joe, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Immigration: People-Trafficking
(Payne, Sen Marise, Ellison, Sen Chris) -
Telstra: Email Services
(Mackay, Sen Sue, Kemp, Sen Rod) -
Bushfires
(McGauran, Sen Julian, Macdonald, Sen Ian) -
Trade: Free Trade Agreement
(Lundy, Sen Kate, Kemp, Sen Rod) -
Attorney-General's: Child Sexual Offences
(Murray, Sen Andrew, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Taxation: Family Payments
(Bishop, Sen Mark, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Immigration: Asylum seekers
(Nettle, Sen Kerry, Vanstone, Sen Amanda) -
Social Welfare: Carer Allowance
(Collins, Sen Jacinta, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Electoral Roll: Integrity
(Mason, Sen Brett, Abetz, Sen Eric) -
Small Business: Government Policy
(Conroy, Sen Stephen, Abetz, Sen Eric) -
Housing: Affordability
(Bartlett, Sen Andrew, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Immigration: Detainees
(Bolkus, Sen Nick, Vanstone, Sen Amanda) -
Industry: International Resource Projects
(Tierney, Sen John, Minchin, Sen Nick)
-
National Security
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- PETITIONS
- NOTICES
- IMMIGRATION: DETENTION CENTRES
- INSURANCE: MEDICAL INDEMNITY
- COMMITTEES
- NOTICES
- TRUTH IN FOOD LABELLING BILL 2003
- DOCUMENTS
- PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
- COMMITTEES
- EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING: ROAM CONSULTING
- COMMITTEES
-
SPAM BILL 2003
SPAM (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2003 - NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN (GUNGAHLIN DRIVE EXTENSION)
- MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
- AUSTRALIAN PROTECTIVE SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 2003
- FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS) BILL 2003
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
- QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Page: 16252
Senator HARRIS (9:35 PM)
—I rise to place on the record again that One Nation supports the Democrats' amendment. In my speech on the second reading I raised the issue that a considerable proportion of these overpayments are incurred as a result of the departments themselves making an error. However, before I continue with that I would like to draw to Senator Patterson's attention the fact that, while it is not very often that she does get it wrong, she did most definitely get it wrong during her contribution. In relation to supporting the government's bill, I very specifically raised the issue of extending the time frame by 12 months and giving families two years to make a past claim. I also raised the fact that the time frame for the payment of the top-ups is extended for 12 months as well. The debate in this chamber is not about knocking for the sake of knocking. When the government does get it right, One Nation is very prepared to put that clearly on the public record—and the government has got it right with that extension of time.
Coming back to the amendment by the Democrats, the departments have the ability to sweep accounts, as I said earlier. They know what is in people's bank accounts. The example I gave was of a custodial parent who had not received child support payments for over two years, got that issue resolved and then found that the department had swept the bank accounts, removed the $6,000 and put that person back in exactly the position where they had been for the last two years.
The other reason that it is important that this amendment by the Democrats be supported is that it brings accountability to the department. It will make the department be more accurate in the determinations that they make because, if they do not, it is the department that comes into disrepute, not the person who has received the overpayment. We have a situation at present where the department could well say, `Well, gee, we got that wrong, but don't worry because we can just turn around and make the person pay it back.' With this amendment by the Democrats, this will stop because the department will have to get it right. They will have to be accurate. I believe it is socially unacceptable for people, through no fault of their own, receiving an overpayment to then be told by the department, `Gee, we got it wrong—let's have that payment back now.' This will resolve one of the major issues in relation to the legislation.