Labor’s Plan To Let Police Cut Off Centrelink Payments — And Why We Must Keep Fighting It

It’s time for another update on the Labor Government’s Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 to give police and ministers the power to strip Centrelink payments from anyone with an arrest warrant for a so-called “serious crime.”

Let’s be clear: people affected by this law would not have been convicted of anything. This proposal tramples on natural justice, tramples over the presumption of innocence and hands life-altering power to police – the same institutions that already over-police and criminalise poor people, disabled people, and First Nations people at every turn.

Over the past week, more and more organisations have joined the call for Labor to abandon this sneaky, dangerous amendment. Anti-poverty groups, the Law Council of Australia, disability and housing peaks, legal and justice advocates, and social service networks have all spoken out. Here you can see the growing list of organisations that are calling for Labor to abandon new powers to stop Centrelink payments for people accused of a serious offence.

We’re grateful to everyone who has stood up quickly and loudly – but we also want to acknowledge something important.

We posted to our member group, social media and on our website, “Can we get a hell yes!?” when the Law Council of Australia came out swinging about this, and added “When a bunch of anti-poverty activists pool their knowledge, contacts, policy nerds, and the ones willing to read dense legislation (so the rest of us don’t have to), show up, write to and ring MPs’ offices, and jump on early-morning Zooms without coffee – it works.”

Tabitha Lean, one of the coordinators from The National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls challenged us “Imagine if all of the anti poverty activists got together and pooled their knowledge, contacts and efforts when a Blak person living in poverty was killed in custody, who also had never been convicted of a crime! That would get a hell yes from me!”

Tabitha wasn’t wrong. It’s was a sharp reminder that the system is far harsher on First Nations people, and the stakes are so much higher when poverty, colonial violence, and over-policing intersect. We need to channel the same energy, coordination, and pressure into fighting for justice and dignity for Blak people as we do for welfare rights. Her point was powerful and humbling – we need to do better.

Our advocacy can unintentionally cause harm when we fail to consider perspectives beyond our own – not because we intend to, but because we lack that lived experience and knowledge. When people offer their wisdom, insight, and time, we need to sit with our discomfort and reflect on why it challenges us. Committing to the principle of “Nothing about us without us” means actively ensuring that all communities affected are centred and respected in the work we do.

Here in an opinion piece by Tabitha Lean and Debbie Kilroy, the National Indigenous Times highlighted how the amendment quietly turns welfare into a weapon, bypassing courts and threatening the survival of people already living on the edge.

We’ll keep working to make sure this campaign reflects that: amplifying voices from the inside, not just those with policy or advocacy titles.

When governments criminalise poverty, the people who pay the highest price are those already harmed by racism, colonial violence, and over-policing. This fight isn’t just about welfare rights – it’s about justice, dignity, and solidarity with all who’ve been punished for surviving. It certainly doesn’t pass the ‘closing the gap’ pub test!

In an interview with the ABC earlier this week we pointed out – if the amendment was in fact appropriate, why introduce it after scrutiny had been completed and reported? We also wondered, what exactly is in it for the Labor government to be pushing this amendment so hard?

We surmised that it’s possibly that being seen to be tough on crime, and tough on welfare both garner votes – and this amendment gives double the bang for the government’s buck. The performance on, of all places – Murdoch media’s Sky News – by Tanya Plibersek below, is exactly that. A performance.

During the highly emotive interview, the only person Tanya Plibersek came up with who is against this amendment is “Lydia Thorpe”. Is that because Lydia is a threat? We think it’s might be because Tanya knows that Lydia’s name will rile people, and they will happily support giving away their rights for a ‘sense’ of safety.

In reality, lifting people out of poverty would make communities safer far more effectively than punitive measures ever could.

The Antipoverty Centre issued a further statement: Minister Plibersek must apologise for Sky News comments about advocacy groups

And let’s be honest – family and domestic violence situations are messy.

Aboriginal women are already disproportionately targeted by the justice and welfare systems.

If a woman defending herself is wrongly charged with a “serious violent offence,” her benefits could be stopped – even if she’s the victim.

Abusers often accuse victims of assault.

If a woman is wrongly charged with a “serious violent offence” that triggers a warrant, there is a possibility her benefits could be stopped under these amendments – even if she is the actual victim. Don’t let them hoodwink you that this is not the case.

This amendment is simply wrong. It impinges on human rights and undermines natural justice. The fact it was slipped in after the parliamentary scrutiny process had already finished says it all – they knew it wouldn’t stand up to proper examination. It doesn’t matter what a person is accused of; our justice system is built on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. To strip someone of their income before a trial, before a conviction, is not justice – it’s punishment without process.

When Tanya pretends it’s a “righteous” path she walks, we’d rather she showed some real righteousness – by lifting people out of poverty, by standing up to end Black deaths in custody, by acting on the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommendations that have gathered dust for over 30 years. Innocent or not, people are dying in custody every year under policies and systems Labor refuses to confront.

Even the unions have recently called out the government’s failures. Labor talks about tackling “serious crime,” but when they don’t fix poverty – when working families are locked out of housing, rents keep rising, and investor subsidies like negative gearing and capital gains remain untouched – they are not serious about making communities safer.

Real safety comes from ensuring people have homes, secure income, and a chance to live without constant financial stress. That is what reduces desperation, homelessness, and the social conditions that fuel crime. Stripping people of benefits before they’ve been convicted of anything, while leaving structural poverty untouched, is performative at best. If Labor really cared about “no one left behind,” that would be their frontline policy – not fear‑mongering about people “on the run” while ignoring the economic violence that hurts tens of thousands of Australians every day.

Thankfully, Thursday afternoon The Antipoverty Centre tweeted:

“It’s official. Labor has failed to sneak through its attempt to grant police powers to cancel welfare in this parliamentary sitting.

They can now explain to the community why they believe such a drastic power grab should be waived through without scrutiny from the parliament.”

They will vote however – and we need as many people calling for this bill to be voted down in the meantime.

What You Can Do

Everyone can help stop this.
Raise awareness and pressure decision-makers before it’s too late:

• Write to your local MP and Senators – demand they vote against Schedule 5 and uphold the presumption of innocence.
• Share posts and updates on social media using clear messages:
  • “Stripping Centrelink before conviction is punishment without process.”
  • “Criminalising poverty isn’t justice.”
  • “Real safety means homes, income and dignity – not police powers.”
  • “#StopSchedule5 #HandsOffOurPayments”
• Talk to friends and family – explain how this could affect DV survivors and Aboriginal people the hardest.
• Sign and share statements and petitions from the community and legal organisations listed above.
• Encourage your networks – especially advocacy groups – to issue statements, media releases, and contact MPs directly.

But seriously now – what happened to Labor?

The party that said “No one held back, and no one left behind.” The party who once claimed to stand for fairness, rights, and justice appears to be gone. When did they become so comfortable criminalising poverty and eroding due process? This is not safety. This is not justice. It’s another step down the path of moral panic, scapegoating, and authoritarian control dressed up as “righteousness.”