The Australian Greens support the recommendations of the majority report but wish to make some additional comments. We note that simplifying income reporting has broad in principle support from the social services sector, provided that a number of issues are clarified and some protections put in place.
This bill will simplify the process of reporting employment income for
1.2 million income support recipients who report earnings in the course of a year. Income support recipients will need to report the gross income that has been paid to them by their employer(s), instead of estimating the amount of income they have earned.
This bill needs to be considered in light of the ongoing debacle of the unlawful robodebt program that has adversely affected hundreds of thousands of Australians. We must view this bill through the lens of robodebt to ensure that the failures of robodebt never happen again and to demonstrate the importance of getting the legislation right from the start to avoided harmful consequences. It is critical that the Government learns from the lessons of robodebt before implementing further automation and data matching processes within the social security system.
Rushed timeframes
The Australian Greens hold concerns that this bill is being rushed through Parliament limiting the time for review of the provisions of the bill and their potential ramifications. The limited consultation phase and short time frame for stakeholders to consider the bill is concerning. We strongly believe the Government must get these significant changes right to ensure the bill does not cause unintended harm.
Victoria Legal Aid recommended that the Committee consider 'whether further time and consultation with stakeholders is required to consider the potential implications of the bill'.
The National Social Security Rights Network noted that it is difficult for them to provide comprehensive feedback on the practical implications of the bill without seeing the reporting screens that outline the new process. This concern was echoed by other stakeholders including ACOSS.
It is unclear whether the rushed timeframes are being driven by the need to align the process with the start of the financial year or because of the significant savings the Government claims will be generated by this measure.
Clarification on operation of the bill
The current bill does not provide a clear definition of key terms, including 'employment period' and 'in respect of a particular period or periods' under clauses 1073A and 1073B.
Victoria Legal Aid noted in its submission:
It is not clear what is meant by the particular period to which the employment income relates. It could be the pay cycle, the number of days of work or the period during which the person worked.
During the hearing, the Department of Social Services clarified:
If you got paid and it related to the period 1 January to 31 July, the employment period would be 31 days. It doesn't relate to what days you worked in that period. The use of the term 'employment period' was to avoid confusion that it related to specific days. It was to relate to the employment period over which you earned the income.
As it is currently drafted, the bill does not specify that an employment period means a person’s pay cycle and not the number of days a person worked. This could cause confusion and problems when calculating a person’s social security entitlement.
Where a person is paid an amount but there is no corresponding timeframe (for example, a Christmas bonus), the Secretary has discretion to attribute this employment income over a period not exceeding 52 weeks. There are currently no guidelines or limitations on the Secretary’s discretion which is a concerning feature of this measure.
Recommendation
That the Government provides a clear definition of what is meant by 'employment period' in the bill.
Recommendation
That the Government provides guidance on how the Secretary should use their discretion to determine an employment period where employment income is paid but not in respect of a particular timeframe.
User testing of the new process and system
Throughout the inquiry stakeholders raised the issue of user testing the new process and system.
National Social Security Rights Network noted that the small scale of user testing being undertaken will not adequately capture the complexities and vulnerabilities experienced by income support recipients:
We understand from the briefing we attended that a focus group of 10 people in Brisbane will be invited to user-test the prototype of the new reporting system. We are concerned that that this small sample will not provide the level of diversity of perspectives required to ensure that the system will work well for everyone, particularly those most vulnerable.
During the hearing, ACOSS urged the government to test the new scheme on a large number of people in different circumstances, different geographical locations and with different levels of access to online forms of communication.
Anglicare Australia noted the need for rigorous testing of the automated system 'to ensure that it generates accurate data, and supports accurate decision-making'.
The Australian Unemployed Workers Union also recommended that the reforms undergo rigorous testing with underemployed workers to test real people with real scenarios.
ACOSS also called for testing to occur with social security law experts who would be able to identify issues with the new system due to their understanding of social security law.
We echo the concerns raised by stakeholders and believe that the extent of user testing to date has been inadequate. We are especially concerned that the Government is running out of time to rigorously test the new system if it is aiming for a 1 July start date.
Given these measures will affect 1.2 million income support recipients, it is essential that the Government urgently undertakes comprehensive user testing of the new process and system. People receiving income support payments who also report income often have complex employment situations and experience vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
That the Government urgently undertakes comprehensive user testing on a large and diverse range of cohorts to capture the experience of people of different ages, abilities, literacy levels, geographical locations, access to technology, First Nations peoples and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Recommendation
That the Government undertakes user testing with experts in the field, including ACOSS, National Social Security Rights Network, and other social security law stakeholders.
Recommendation
If this testing cannot be undertaken in time for a 1 July 2020 start date, the implementation of these measures should be delayed at least for another quarter
Transition period
During the inquiry we heard concerns about the two week transition period and whether people will be unfairly penalised for misreporting their employment income.
The National Social Security Rights Network and ACOSS both expressed concerns about the need for income support recipients to do a manual calculation during the transition period. This opens up risks of double-counting income or incorrectly reporting income. ACOSS noted 'there is a large risk that many people will get this wrong'.
There are outstanding questions around whether people will be penalised if they misreport their employment income during the transition period. The Australian Greens strongly urges the Government to play a role in helping people to report correctly under the new rules and receive their correct entitlement. The Government should also guarantee that people will not be penalised if there is misreporting.
This bill will introduce the new reporting rules from 1 July 2020. However, Single Touch Payroll data will be rolled out progressively from September 2020 until 30 June 2021. We are concerned that this two-step process will result in added confusion for people reporting employment income.
Recommendation
Recommendation: That the Government guarantee that people will not be unduly penalised if they misreport their income during the transition period.
Support for those affected by the new process
To limit any unintended consequences or harm to income support recipients, it is essential that appropriate support services are available through Services Australia. The additional steps of needing to check, edit and add income will likely cause additional stress for people.
Anglicare Australia noted that information about the changes needs to be made available in other languages. Currently, Centrelink apps are only available in English which could result in difficulty for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Support services should include a dedicated Centrelink phone number and contact channels and face to face support for people who are unable to navigate the new system that is available on demand.
The National Social Security Rights Network emphasised the need for additional resourcing for the Centrelink phone lines, staff numbers and staff training to facilitate an effective response.
The Australian Unemployed Workers Union suggested a pop up function that provides advice could be included when people are editing their pre-filled Single Touch Payroll data. The Australian Greens believe it is essential that income support recipients are provided with advice about their rights and responsibilities if they make changes to pre-filled Single Touch Payroll data.
Recommendation
That the Government ensures appropriate support services are available to ensure income support recipients are receiving the correct entitlement, including tailored services for First Nations peoples and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Communication plan
A large part of the success of this measure rests on how the new rules and system are communicated to income support recipients.
National Social Security Rights Network highlighted the importance of effective communication products:
The communication of the new process needs to effectively explain that the Centrelink payment recipient will still have the ability to review, edit or add additional employment income before finalising their report to Centrelink, and that any edited or additional information they provide will supersede the pre-filled STP data.
ACOSS also noted that people will assume their pre-filled Single Touch Payroll data is correct:
I think this is where clear communication is critical, because I imagine that many people will assume that that prefilled data are correct and will consequently feel like they don't need to do anything further because it is correct.
ACOSS highlighted that Services Australia plan to undertake much of the communication about the reforms via online means and noted:
This is unsuitable for many people, and we urge the government to provide information via letter, television, radio (including mainstream radio), and other channels.
It is critical that the Government implement an effective communication strategy to ensure people understand the changes around reporting income.
Single Touch Payroll
There will be a number of income support recipients who have an employer that is not using the Single Touch Payroll reporting system. While Single Touch Payroll data will become mandatory for all employers from 1 July 2021, micro employers with 1-4 employees are exempt from this requirement.
Victoria Legal Aid raised concerns regarding the lack of information about how the bill will affect people receiving employment income outside the Single Touch Payroll system.
The Australian Greens support the recommendation made by Victoria Legal Aid for the need for clear guidance on how the bill affects people who remain outside the Single Touch Payroll system and continue to report their employment income.
Review one year on
The Australia Greens are concerned that the rushed nature of this legislation and limited consultation process could result in unintended or harmful consequences.
Victoria Legal Aid, ACOSS, Australian Unemployed Workers Union and Anglicare are supportive of a review of the legislation after 12 months to ensure that the bill is operating fairly and correctly, and there are no unintended consequences. As part of the review, a panel of income support recipients using the new system should provide advice to the review about how the changes are operating in practice.
Recommendation
That the bill be amended to include a requirement for a public, independent review one year after commencement of the operation of the act, and ensure that this review includes advice from a panel of income support recipients about how the bill is operating in practice.
The Australian Greens urge the Government to adopt these recommendations to ensure that the legislation does not cause unintended harm and avoids the mistakes of robodebt.