Social Security Policy

Question

In relation to questions asked during AE2025-26 with portfolio question numbers DSS SQ26-000027 through DSS SQ26-000030, which deal with benefit restriction notices: 1. In response to question 1 of DSS SQ26-000027, which sought the statement of reasons for the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 3) Bill needing to be considered as a Category T bill, DSS responded "The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 3) Bill was not progressed". This is not an acceptable answer and demonstrates a disdain for the Senate's role as a house of review. Does the statement of reasons exist? 2. If YES: either provide the statement of reasons as was asked of you in February, or make a public interest immunity claim and identify why releasing the document would not be in the public interest. 3. In Attachment A to the response to DSS SQ26-000027, DSS lists various documents as simply 'Documents redacted' when the documents have been redacted in their entirety. For each such instance, identify the title of the document and the form of the document (email/brief/etc). 4. When asked "In the response, one of the organisations listed under External Consultation in various documents (for one example, the fourth page of MS25-000634) is redacted. On what ground/s is this redacted?", DSS responded by listing all grounds for redaction across the entire response to the OPD. This is not an acceptable answer and demonstrates a disdain for the Senate's role as a house of review. For that specific organisation's name, on what ground or grounds does DSS claim that redacting the name is in the public interest? 5. When asked "At page 380 of the response, a Home Affairs official wrote that "we continue to think would [sic] may be utility in allowing benefits and payments to be redirected from the subject of the notice to their dependants, where appropriate, similar to how the current benefits cancellation framework for persons who are in custody operates". Is this possible under the legislation that was passed?", DSS responded "Before the Minister for Home Affairs makes a determination to issue a benefit restriction notice, the legislation requires the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to seek advice from Services Australia to identify any dependants and assess any impact on them. This advice must be considered by the Minister as part of the decision-making process." This is not an acceptable answer and demonstrates a disdain for the Senate's role as a house of review. Could benefits and payments be redirected from dependents of a person subject to a BRN? 6. Is DSS aware that the only pathway to refuse to answer a question is by making a public interest immunity claim, which is considered and either accepted or rejected by the committee or, if agreement cannot be reached, the Senate? 7. If YES, why did DSS fail to directly answer questions 1 and 10 of DSS SQ26-000027, and question 14 of DSS SQ26-000030? 8. To date, have any BRNs been received? 9. If NO: 10. Why was this change rushed through the Parliament for no reason? 11. Was it believed that there was an urgent need for these powers to be put in place?

Answer

Please see attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• DSS SQ26-000335.pdf (opens in a new tab)