Punishment before trial: this Home Affairs power grab will hurt many families

The rationale? According to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, "the government shouldn't be paying people to hide from police". The amendment targets individuals with outstanding warrants for serious violent or sexual offences, or those deemed a threat to national security. But the implications stretch far beyond the accused.

Family Tax Benefits, Parental Leave Pay, and other household supports are also on the chopping block, meaning entire families could lose income based on suspicion alone.

This is not just a technical tweak - it's a seismic shift in how Australia treats the presumption of innocence. It hands police and intelligence agencies a backdoor into welfare law, allowing them to trigger financial punishment without judicial oversight.

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe called it "a shocking attempt to quietly expand police power into the welfare, tax and workplace relations systems," warning that it's harsher than penalties faced by convicted individuals.

So why has Labor - historically the party of social justice - pushed this through?

The timing is telling. The amendment was bundled into a broader bill offering compensation to millions affected by the unlawful robodebt scheme. That scandal, which saw automated debt recovery based on flawed income averaging, was condemned for its cruelty and lack of oversight.

Now, instead of restoring trust, the government risks repeating history - this time with police as gatekeepers.

The official justification is national security and public safety. A spokesperson for Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek said it's "not appropriate" to provide support to someone charged with a serious offence. But this framing conflates accusation with guilt. It assumes that being charged equates to being dangerous, and that cutting off income will somehow protect the public.

Let's be clear: this is not about convicted criminals. It's about people who have been charged, not tried. People who may be innocent. People who may be struggling with mental health, addiction, or systemic disadvantage.

And it's about their families - partners, children - who rely on that income to survive.

Are there any pros to this policy? In theory, it could deter individuals from evading police. It might prevent public funds from supporting someone actively avoiding arrest.

But these are speculative gains, weighed against concrete harms. Cutting off income doesn't make someone easier to find-it makes them more desperate.

It doesn't protect communities - it destabilises them. Afterall, if you take the income of a person in these circumstances away, they will likely see no option but to commit further crimes just to survive, with Thomas More's observation coming to life in vivid 4K - that we first create thieves and then punish them.

And what of the broader precedent? If police can influence welfare decisions, what's next? Tax benefits? Housing support? The separation of powers exists for a reason.

Social security law is not a tool for law enforcement; it's not a threat that police should be able to wield in the interview room to influence an individual's decision to waive their right to silence. Social security law is a safety net.

When that net is weaponised, it ceases to be protective, and becomes punitive.

This reform also risks deepening the stigma around welfare recipients. As Jay Coonan from the AntiPoverty Centre noted, it contributes to "further demonising welfare recipients". Instead of acknowledging the structural barriers people face, it paints them as potential threats. It shifts the narrative from support to suspicion.

READ MORE ZOE WUNDENBERG:

In the wake of robodebt, Australians were promised accountability, compassion, and reform. This amendment delivers none of those. It's a power grab dressed as public safety. It's a punishment without trial. And it's a betrayal of the liberal democratic principles that underpin our legal system.

If Labor wants to restore trust, it must scrap this amendment. Welfare policy should be grounded in fairness, not fear. It should protect the vulnerable, not penalise them for being accused. And it should never, ever be used as a proxy for criminal justice.

Because when we start punishing people before they're convicted, we don't just undermine the rule of law - we unravel the very fabric of a just society.