The Anti-Poverty Centre’s Kristen O’Connell is one of who are pressuring the government not to follow through with its proposed Centrelink law. (Source: TikTok/Getty)
The federal government has been called out for trying to rush through a new law that would cut alleged criminals off from any Centrelink payments. Schedule 5 was recently added to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and it has attracted strong opposition from community groups.
The proposed law would see individuals who are the subject of an arrest warrant relating to a serious violent or sexual offence cut off from social security payments. While that might sound like a commonsense move to some, civil society organisations representing welfare recipients are up in arms.
Anti-Poverty Centre spokesperson Kristin O’Connell told Yahoo Finance it could see many people accidentally caught out and unfairly impacted by this law.
“[The government is] trying to push it through as quickly as possible,” she said.
“The ministers are going to have the power to make a decision that a person is effectively guilty before they have had any opportunity to access legal advice or appear before a judge, or, in some cases, even know there is a warrant out against them.”
Under the proposed Schedule 5, the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, who is responsible for the Australian Federal Police, can issue a notice to the Minister for Social Services, Tanya Plibersek, who is responsible for Centrelink payments, which could cancel someone’s social security, family assistance, and parental leave payments as well as concession cards if they’ve been accused of a serious or violent crime.
Do you have a story? Email stew.perrie@yahooinc.com
But O’Connell said there are many instances where a victim is “misidentified by police as perpetrators” in the early stages of a case and they could also have their payments cancelled with one stroke of a pen.
“We heard from a mum yesterday who, a few decades ago, was accused of murdering a child and took her other children from an abusive foster home and fled over state lines,” she told Yahoo Finance.
“She is the kind of person who would be captured by rules like this.
“She was later found innocent and cleared of everything. She never did anything wrong, but in that scenario, the Centrelink payment she was relying on to feed her children when taking them away is exactly who would be cut off.”
Story continues
Cancelling someone’s Centrelink payment, rather than suspending it, can mean a recipient would have to go through the entire process of signing back up, and wouldn’t be entitled to backpay if they were found to be innocent.
The Anti-Poverty Centre’s concerns have been echoed by a raft of other community groups.
The Law Council of Australia has called for Schedule 5 to be separated from the broader Bill, which could allow for “appropriate scrutiny”.
Senator David Pocock will be pushing for this in parliament on Wednesday, while Senator Lidia Thorpe is seeking to have the amendment removed altogether.
Law Council of Australia executive member, Elizabeth Shearer, said the proposed law could punish people before they have gone through the proper legal process.
“We are concerned that this denies those people the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness,” she said.
Senators David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe will be pushing for the Schedule 5 amendment to be separated from the bill or removed altogether. (Source: Getty) · Martin Ollman via Getty Images
“No one, even those charged with serious offences, should be subject to punitive action by the state unless they have first been found guilty of an offence by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal. It is unclear whether any Constitutional implications arising under the Bill have been considered.”
Karly Warner, chair of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS), called Schedule 5 “an unprecedented attack on fairness and due process” and could “shake public confidence in our legal system”.
”Such a controversial proposed legislative change should be the subject of considered consultation with community and legal experts,” she added.
The Australian Council of Social Services and Economic Justice Australia added that this could be a “dangerous step in the wrong direction”.
“Police should not have any involvement in determining someone’s social security entitlement,” the joint statement said.
It has been officially noted that the government hadn’t previously announced these amendments before they were submitted last week and had “provided limited opportunity for public or parliamentary scrutiny”.
The government documents also agreed there could be the following issues as a result of the law:
unequal treatment of people who have not been charged or convicted of any crime
human rights infringements, including a lack of review rights
the measures may be seen to be targeting marginalised groups
the undermining of key principles in Australia’s welfare system
It added that there are additional concerns that cutting an alleged violent offender off from social security payments could increase the risk of further criminal activity.
A spokesperson for Minister Plibersek told Yahoo Finance that the amendment is justified for the situation.
“If someone is charged with a serious offence like murder, terrorism or child sexual abuse and is on the run, they should not continue receiving a payment from the Government,” they said.
Minister for Social Services Tanya Plibersek believes the proposed law is a commonsense move. (Source: Getty) · Matt Jelonek via Getty Images
“Continuing to provide support in these circumstances is not appropriate, but there is currently no legal authority to cancel a payment.
“These powers will only be used based on expert advice from law enforcement agencies. Advice from Services Australia about any impact on dependents must also be considered.
“It is a serious power, for the most serious of circumstances.”
The Ministers involved in executing this action will have to weigh up how cancelling a payment for an individual might impact their dependents.
The Child Care Subside will not be included in the list of payments that can be cut off, but for family payments like the Family Tax Benefit, another parent or family member can become eligible for the money to ensure the continued support of the child.
Get the latest Yahoo Finance news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram.