Nobody Deserves Poverty
@nobodyinpoverty.bsky.social
Raise all income support above the Henderson Poverty Line, because #NobodyDeservesPoverty.
An @ausunemployment.auwu.org.au backed campaign.
🧡 nobodydeservespoverty.org.au
An @ausunemployment.auwu.org.au backed campaign.
🧡 nobodydeservespoverty.org.au
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
The bill establishes a redress scheme for those identified to have received unlawful debts.
The government were also seeking to retrospectively validate apportionment debts—why would they do that if they'd agreed to repay them?
To cover off Chaplin's expected High Court appeal.
The government were also seeking to retrospectively validate apportionment debts—why would they do that if they'd agreed to repay them?
To cover off Chaplin's expected High Court appeal.
November 7, 2025 at 3:30 AM
The bill establishes a redress scheme for those identified to have received unlawful debts.
The government were also seeking to retrospectively validate apportionment debts—why would they do that if they'd agreed to repay them?
To cover off Chaplin's expected High Court appeal.
The government were also seeking to retrospectively validate apportionment debts—why would they do that if they'd agreed to repay them?
To cover off Chaplin's expected High Court appeal.
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
You've been asking me why they introduced these amendments—I cannot tell you.
This bill was central to the government's legal strategy re: unlawful apportionment debts and a recent Federal Court decision affirming DSS' preferred method of recalculating them.
www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/about-us/new...
This bill was central to the government's legal strategy re: unlawful apportionment debts and a recent Federal Court decision affirming DSS' preferred method of recalculating them.
www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/about-us/new...
Statement on Centrelink debts decision
Legal Aid NSW acknowledges the decision last week regarding the DSS’s calculation of Centrelink debts and encourages the department to consider waiving the historical debts.
www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au
November 7, 2025 at 3:30 AM
You've been asking me why they introduced these amendments—I cannot tell you.
This bill was central to the government's legal strategy re: unlawful apportionment debts and a recent Federal Court decision affirming DSS' preferred method of recalculating them.
www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/about-us/new...
This bill was central to the government's legal strategy re: unlawful apportionment debts and a recent Federal Court decision affirming DSS' preferred method of recalculating them.
www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/about-us/new...
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
The Commonwealth argued in this hearing that the High Court appeal should not proceed, as the retrospective measures in the bill resolve any legal questions.
They may have had a point, had the bill been passed. I'm not sure it would have been a good one. In any event, the appeal will now be heard 🙂
They may have had a point, had the bill been passed. I'm not sure it would have been a good one. In any event, the appeal will now be heard 🙂
![Enacted and foreshadowed legislation limits the public importance of the matter
23 In its application, Legal Aid contends that the “public importance” of the proceeding for the purposes of s 35A(a)(i) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) lies in the significance of the interpretative question to a large cohort of social security debts calculated under affected provisions of the SSA: SLA[18].
24 Two legislative developments mean that there is no such issue of public importance.
25 First, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Act 2020 (Cth) (2020 Amendment Act) carved employment income out of point 1067G-H23 (and similar provisions relating to social security payments other than Youth Allowance) and made fresh, specific provision for the allocation of employment income to instalment periods. The 2020 Amendment Act commenced on 7 December 2020. The issue of statutory construction in this proceeding only affected the calculation of social security entitlements by reference to employment income prior to that date. It is for this reason that the cohort of persons identified by LegalAid as affected by this proceeding are those with historic social security debts that arose prior to 7 December 2020: SLA[18].
26 Secondly, the 2025 Bill would render the issues of statutory construction raised in Ground 2 of the special leave application irrelevant to the resolution of questions about historic entitlements under the SSA. That is because the Bill would provide that those questions are to be resolved by reference to the methodology for the allocation of employment income set out in proposed s 1117D of the SSA (Sch 1 of the Bill), rather than the provisions in issue in this proceeding: see proposed s 1117D(14).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ixeh4sx7e2e5z5ugpmkrptee/bafkreibmqwcwcuodkpj5ld2xam7lfhlfrcyf7lvinlscbpoeormmqdtkla@jpeg)
![The proposed appeal raises issues of public importance
16. The Secretary has not shown that the proposed appeal lacks public importance. The 2025 Bill is not an Act and has no bearing on whether special leave should be granted. The courts “can only act upon the law as it is” and do not “speculate upon alterations in the law that may be made in the future”. The Secretary invites the Court to engage in that kind of speculation: see RS2 [17]. In any event, the Secretary has not explained how it is said the Bill (if enacted in its current form) would “determine” the issues raised by the proposed appeal: RSI [3]; RS2 [4].
Disposition
17. Special leave should be granted. If special leave is refused, there should be no order for costs (which the Secretary has not sought).
Dated 18 September 2025
Kateena O’Gorman Laura Hilly Tim Farhall Glyn Ayres
James Hogan
Victoria Legal Aid
Solicitors for the Applicant](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ixeh4sx7e2e5z5ugpmkrptee/bafkreia44q5tntqv6faqivvoa7mfuwrdqn2j5hsoytujz7zusz3dxjhdou@jpeg)
November 7, 2025 at 3:30 AM
The Commonwealth argued in this hearing that the High Court appeal should not proceed, as the retrospective measures in the bill resolve any legal questions.
They may have had a point, had the bill been passed. I'm not sure it would have been a good one. In any event, the appeal will now be heard 🙂
They may have had a point, had the bill been passed. I'm not sure it would have been a good one. In any event, the appeal will now be heard 🙂
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
The Albanese Government had everything they needed to get this bill passed last week and that was the outcome we'd all prepared ourselves for.
Last Thursday, when I learned of the proposed police amendments—the entire pro bono law sector was attending their annual conference in Melbourne.
Last Thursday, when I learned of the proposed police amendments—the entire pro bono law sector was attending their annual conference in Melbourne.
November 7, 2025 at 3:30 AM
The Albanese Government had everything they needed to get this bill passed last week and that was the outcome we'd all prepared ourselves for.
Last Thursday, when I learned of the proposed police amendments—the entire pro bono law sector was attending their annual conference in Melbourne.
Last Thursday, when I learned of the proposed police amendments—the entire pro bono law sector was attending their annual conference in Melbourne.
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
By creating some Parliamentary and media opposition to the amendments and by the sum of all sorts of manoeuvrings and spectacle on transparency etc in the Senate, the bill did not make it to a vote by yesterday's adjournment.
The day of Mr. Chaplin's special leave hearing.
bsky.app/profile/mkla...
The day of Mr. Chaplin's special leave hearing.
bsky.app/profile/mkla...
High Court granted special leave to appeal Fed Court’s decision in the Chaplin v DSS case (related to Centrelink’s assessment of employment income and income apportionment).
Comes same day the gov’s income apportionment validation Bill delayed to next sitting www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-ju...
Comes same day the gov’s income apportionment validation Bill delayed to next sitting www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-ju...
www.hcourt.gov.au
November 7, 2025 at 3:30 AM
By creating some Parliamentary and media opposition to the amendments and by the sum of all sorts of manoeuvrings and spectacle on transparency etc in the Senate, the bill did not make it to a vote by yesterday's adjournment.
The day of Mr. Chaplin's special leave hearing.
bsky.app/profile/mkla...
The day of Mr. Chaplin's special leave hearing.
bsky.app/profile/mkla...
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
I obviously will never shut up about anything and neither should you but it's entirely possible they won't want to bring it back now the appeal is going ahead. And the Minister's tantrum yesterday was utterly poisonous for the perception of this thing. Those amendments WILL be scrutinised now.
November 7, 2025 at 5:57 AM
I obviously will never shut up about anything and neither should you but it's entirely possible they won't want to bring it back now the appeal is going ahead. And the Minister's tantrum yesterday was utterly poisonous for the perception of this thing. Those amendments WILL be scrutinised now.
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
Can't afford to be in a relationship with a person who is unemployed or disabled... seems bad!
Placing the person who is unemployed or disabled in a position of absolute dependency on a partner, without any financial autonomy... seems bad!
Placing the person who is unemployed or disabled in a position of absolute dependency on a partner, without any financial autonomy... seems bad!
November 7, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Can't afford to be in a relationship with a person who is unemployed or disabled... seems bad!
Placing the person who is unemployed or disabled in a position of absolute dependency on a partner, without any financial autonomy... seems bad!
Placing the person who is unemployed or disabled in a position of absolute dependency on a partner, without any financial autonomy... seems bad!
Reposted by Nobody Deserves Poverty
"This move by the Federal Government demonstrates its investment in punitive measures above the social determinants, including social security, for safety such as strong families and communities." – Thalia Anthony
Read the full article 👇 (if you can't access the link, send us a DM)
Read the full article 👇 (if you can't access the link, send us a DM)
'Punished before conviction': Is this new welfare law a national shame?
Just what is the government's grand plan when it comes to welfare cuts?
www.canberratimes.com.au
November 6, 2025 at 11:09 PM
"This move by the Federal Government demonstrates its investment in punitive measures above the social determinants, including social security, for safety such as strong families and communities." – Thalia Anthony
Read the full article 👇 (if you can't access the link, send us a DM)
Read the full article 👇 (if you can't access the link, send us a DM)