I move:
That government business notice of motion no. 1 be called on immediately.
I will make the following remarks before I move that the question be put. As Senator Gallagher has given notice of, we're signalling to the Senate the priority nature of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 for the government, which is no secret to the members of this place as it was a clear commitment of the Labor Party at the election. It is critical that the legislation pass the Senate today to ensure it can return, with likely amendments, to the House of Representatives tomorrow, and then be enacted, to deliver the government's commitments and to ensure people can be safely transitioned off the card.
Unfortunately the Liberal-National opposition have taken an unconstructive approach to Senate debate in each sitting week since the election and insist on filibustering debates to delay passage, and we're in the position where we need to sit late into this night to ensure the bill gets passed. This is a problem of the opposition's own making. We saw time-wasting yesterday, and I'm sure we will see it again today. I would like to remind those opposite that this government has a clear mandate in relation to this legislation, and the government is clear about delivering upon our commitments to the Australian people.
I will make some additional comments in relation to the territory rights legislation. Whilst the government has many legislative priorities to consider before the end of the year, this is one bill I would like to highlight briefly. The Senate has already begun its consideration of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill. It is the government's clear position that we resolve this bill once and for all before the end of the year, noting that it will be a conscience vote and noting that we have taken the view previously that conscience votes ought not be the subject of guillotines.
Restoring territory rights is an issue important to many in this place, particularly the territory senators, and I acknowledge Senator Katy Gallagher, who has advocated on this issue for the past decade. It has been an issue that this Senate and previous Senates have considered at length, and we want to ensure that this issue is voted on this year. The motion before you provides an hour for debate on this bill tomorrow, to take a further step towards a vote on the bill, and we will continue to look for opportunities through the remainder of the sitting calendar year to ensure it comes to a final vote before the Senate finally rises. I move:
That the question now be put.
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.
The question now is that government business notice of motion No. 1 be called on immediately.
At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That—
(a) on Tuesday, 27 September 2022:
(i) if consideration of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 has not concluded by 7.20 pm, the routine of business be consideration of the bill only, and
(ii) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bill has concluded, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is the earlier; and
(b) on Wednesday, 28 September 2022, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 have precedence over government business between 11.15 am and 12.15 pm.
I seek leave to amend the motion in the name of Senator Gallagher, moved by Senator Wong, to substitute all words after 'That' with the words on the motion by leave circulated in my name in the chamber.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That—
(1) On Tuesday, 27 September 2022—
(a) if consideration of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 has not concluded by 7.20pm, the routine of business be consideration of the bill only;
(b) divisions may take place after 7.20pm, for the purposes of the bill only; and
(c) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bill has concluded, or at 10pm, whichever is earlier; and
(2) On Wednesday, 28 September 2022—
(a) at 9.30am, consideration of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 for one hour;
(b) from 10.30am, consideration of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 have precedence over all other business until 2pm;
(c) at 2pm, questions;
(d) following questions, the Senate return to its routine of business;
(e) if consideration of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 has not concluded by 7.20pm, the routine of business be consideration of the bill only;
(f) divisions may take place between 12.15pm and 2pm, and after 7.20pm, for the purposes of the bill in paragraph (b) only; and
(g) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bill has concluded, or at 10pm, whichever is earlier;
(3) If by adjournment on Wednesday 28 September 2022 the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 has not been finally considered:
(a) the Senate meet on Thursday, 29 September 2022
(b) the hours of meeting for Thursday, 29 September 2022 be from 9am to adjournment; and
(c) the routine of business shall be consideration of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 only:
(d) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bill listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
To be clear to senators: this change would still provide for open-ended debate that would ensure the cashless debit card legislation concludes this week. That is the stated aim and objective of the government and of others, on the crossbench, and so the opposition is willing to facilitate that occurring. What we propose is that, rather than an open-ended all-hours debate going into the middle of the night tonight, we actually do this in an orderly way that ensures the chamber gives consideration to these matters at times and in a manner that these matters deserve.
The government is proposing the adoption at a later stage, for the next sittings, of Procedure Committee recommendations to apply more family-friendly sitting hours in this place. That would see us, largely consistent with the House of Representatives, finishing around 8 pm every night Yet now they've come in with this motion, moved by Senator Wong, that could see us sitting here until 11 pm or 1 am or 3 am or all the way through until tomorrow. That's why we've proposed an approach—far more consistent with the normal practices of this Senate—that would see us consider this bill until 10 pm tonight. If it's not resolved, the government gets to come back to it tomorrow and consider it until 10 pm tomorrow night. If it's still not resolved then, then consistent with the suggestion of Senator Pocock last week, we come back on Thursday to deal with this. That is the way in which we can ensure the matter is resolved but it is resolved in a thoughtful and orderly manner.
I do wonder why we're having the hoo-ha about resolving this bill, because Senator Wong spoke about the clear mandate she claims the government has for this bill. Well, I'm actually uncertain that there will be much left in this bill by the time the government have finished gutting their own legislation. They've already had to undertake embarrassing backflips in relation to content of this bill. It now does not seek to achieve what the government took to the election. It barely comes close to it. And yet they're trying to put this on as an order of priority.
We are clear that we're not opposing consideration of this, that we welcome the fact that at least the government is not trying to guillotine it, and nor are we. I put that on record. We acknowledge there is not an attempt to guillotine, and I thank those on the crossbench, who probably argued against a guillotine, for arguing against it. But it should be done in respectful hours. It should be done in hours where there is thoughtful consideration. It should not be a case of legislation by exhaustion. This is an important matter. It deserves serious consideration, and that is why the opposition is offering a serious, viable, credible alternative. I encourage the government to accept our alternative and, particularly, the crossbench to live up to what they have argued before, around family-friendly hours, around decent hours for the consideration of legislation, and adopt the approach that we have applied.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
I rise to speak in continuation on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. As I was saying in my speech last night, Labor's new amendments to extend the CDC, the cashless debit card, represent a very embarrassing backflip by the Albanese Labor government. But, more than that, they reflect the fact that Labor has not been listening to the women, particularly the women in the communities that have been served so well by this card.
I want to correct a statement made by Senator Chisholm in his contribution last night, when he quite improperly criticised the member for Hinkler, Mr Pitt. The senator said:
They didn't consult with anyone in Hinkler before they did it; they just put everyone on it and said, 'This is the way it will be.' Then you add to that a local member, Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, who wouldn't meet with constituents who raised issues about this card, who had problems with this card. So there was no consultation before they did it …
I want to strongly refute those comments by Senator Chisolm and put on the record that there was very extensive consultation in Hinkler. Between May 2017 and December 2017, the Department of Social Services conducted over 188 meetings in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay with federal government agencies, community members, local government representatives and service providers. This included five meetings with Commonwealth government agencies, 19 meetings with community members, three meetings with community reference groups, two large community meetings with the public, 25 meetings with local government representatives, four meetings with peak bodies and 55 meetings with service providers. The Hinkler electorate office contacted 32,000 constituents to get an indication of their views before the trial was even put forward; 32,000 individuals were sent direct mail, about 500 people were phone polled, and an additional 5½ thousand were sent emails.
The feedback that the member for Hinkler, Mr Pitt, received showed that 75 per cent were supportive. Throughout the consultation process it was highlighted by numerous groups, schools and frontline service providers that children in the Hinkler electorate were missing out on the basic necessities of life and needed to be the focus. In May 2018, the local newspaper, the NewsMail, and the Fraser Coast Chronicle engaged ReachTEL to do a poll. The ReachTEL poll showed that the overwhelming majority of people in the Hinkler electorate were not against the card. Just 27.8 per cent of those polled were opposed. So I really want to strongly put on the record and refute the pretty nasty comments made by Senator Chisolm, which were clearly and demonstrably not true. The member for Hinkler, Mr Pitt, has done an exceptional job in consulting with his community, and I've just outlined some of that work.
As I conclude my remarks, I just want to again say how sickened I am by the Labor Party's attempts to shut down the cashless debit card. We have now seen, of course, this dramatic backflip, where the CDC will now continue in Cape York in the trial sites, and those people in the Northern Territory who have voluntarily transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the CDC will be able to remain on the cashless debit card. As I said last night, I am also sickened because this government, the Albanese Labor government, has not listened to those people, those Australians, that this card has given so many positive benefits to.
I condemn this government for its attempts to shut down the card. As I've mentioned and as we've spoken about in this debate, these amendments made it clear that this government got this completely wrong. Not only did it botch its election commitment; it's demonstrated that it has not listened in relation to the overwhelming benefits of this card and the enormous amount of good work that it is doing for so many vulnerable Australians. I condemn the Albanese Labor government for trying to shut down the card, and I hope and trust that common sense will prevail and that this card, which is doing so much good in so many communities, will continue.
This is a very serious bill, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, and it has the potential to impact thousands of Australians and their lives, their safety and their community. As we have heard from other speakers, the areas of our country where cashless debit cards have been trialled and used are regions that have been, tragically and unfortunately, afflicted by domestic violence and by drug use and addiction. The cashless debit card has been a good-faith effort to improve the lives of the Australians who live in those communities, and not just those on welfare but those who would be or could be impacted by poor decisions made by those on welfare—especially children. Obviously, no young children get welfare themselves or get a cashless debit card, but they're often the victims in the lives of people who have, tragically, gone off the rails.
I want to take a step back. A lot of the debate we've had has focused on issues for Indigenous Australians, and there's an understandable reason for that: the first trial sites for the cashless debit card were Indigenous communities. That was because some of those issues I mentioned were highlighted in Indigenous communities, particularly through various coroners reports about the BasicsCard, which I'll get back to, and the cashless debit card grew out of that, in response. However, the cashless debit card has applied to non-Indigenous communities. Indeed, it has applied to the entire community of Bundaberg, a town of tens of thousands of people who are predominantly non-Indigenous. There are Indigenous people in Bundaberg too, of course, but it is predominantly a non-Indigenous population. It also has the cashless debit card. So this is actually not a policy or program that is focused only on Indigenous Australians. It is about people, and that is where we should centre this debate.
There is going to be, and there has been, a lot of political toing and froing here, with various claims about auditor's reports and all those things, but we should come back to why we are doing this and what its impact is on Australian people and their families.
I'm someone who has, fortunately, not had to resort to welfare myself over my life. But, when I think about these issues, I am struck by the difference between how we approach providing support to strangers, our fellow Australians that we might not know—how we provide help through this parliament, through our welfare system—and how we treat our own children, our own family members. I've got five children and I want to support them and help them grow up. They're not yet of an age that they would be applying for welfare, but, potentially, they could be in that situation where they might not have a job or might be between things. How would I help them if they didn't have a job, weren't in work, or didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives? Or, if they did, tragically, get addicted to drugs and those sorts of things, how would I try and help?
Well, I tell you what, as a parent I would not go anywhere near or do anything close to how we administer our welfare system. I wouldn't do that, because how we administer our welfare system for people, a lot of them on a BasicsCard or a cashless welfare card, is we say, 'You're in trouble; we want to help and support you'—that's an admirable goal and aim—and then we just say, 'Here, have some free money. Go down to the Centrelink office and you can get a few hundred dollars a fortnight. There are no questions asked. Just take it and do what you want with it.' That's not how I would try and support my children. I certainly wouldn't do that. I certainly wouldn't say, 'Hey, Peter—I will use different names so I am not identifying any kids; none of my children are called Peter—here's 500 bucks a fortnight; knock yourself out. It will tide you over until you work out what you want to do with your life.' That is not to say I wouldn't provide any help or any financial assistance to a child but I wouldn't do it without any strings attached. I wouldn't be just handing over money. It would almost be a dereliction of my parental duty and obligations to hand over money and just let them go. I would help and try to support them but in return I would want to see some response from my child, like doing some work around the home or applying for a study course or trying to train or doing something. That is what you do as a parent. You might fail—they might not do what you want them to do—but you try to put some boundaries, some discipline, some focus on your child's life while also trying to help them.
It is a basic life principle that if you are going to give something, you've got to get something in return. You need to teach people that principle. You need to teach your children the principle that you don't get anything for nothing—well, you shouldn't; at Centrelink you do. In normal life, you don't get anything for nothing. You have to work hard to get paid; you have to exercise to get fit. You try and impart those lessons on your children. Coming back to our welfare system, we do not do that. We treat people who need our help and support in a way that we would never even contemplate treating our children. That has traditionally been the approach but, as I mentioned before, measures like the cashless debit card have been good-faith attempts to provide more give-and-take. We do want to help and support people but there has to be an obligation that the help and support, in the case of the cashless debit card, is spent on things that are essential for someone's own life, for their family and for the children they support with food, education and things that are important to them.
Yes, those restrictions are onerous for people and they provide less freedom than earning money in employment or a workplace environment but it is very different to working and getting a pay cheque from week to week. You do not get that money for free. If you are working in a job, you do not get a pay cheque for nothing; you have to work. You have to give up time in your day. You have to give something to get something. Likewise, those on the cashless debit card get support but there are some restrictions on how they can spend that money. That is not to say of course that all these good-faith outcomes have been perfect or solved all the problems. They are not going to do that.
The issue I have with the approach of the government is what are you going to do when this goes? What is the plan? We need to think about the history of the cashless debit card. This grew out of another attempt in 2007, 15 years ago, to do something similar, to provide restrictions on what could be bought using the BasicsCard; however, the technology around the BasicsCard was very restrictive and it was even harder for people to work. The cashless debit card is better technology, it provides more focus on restricting items. Of course it still provides a certain level of cash to people that they can spend on anything but there is a component that is restricted.
The cashless debit card has been, you must say, successful in the sense that other people have wanted to join. We rolled it out in trial sites, so we didn't rush this out. It was a major change and we tried to take it step-by-step, starting in some Indigenous communities before moving on to broader Australian communities like Bundaberg as well. We took it step-by-step while we were in government. But you can tell something is a bit successful when other people seek to join it, when they put their hand up and say 'let's do it'. Communities in Cape York want to convert from the BasicsCard to the cashless debit card. There are people in the Northern Territory who want to go from the BasicsCard to the cashless debit card. They can see the benefits in this technology. The government's proposal here is to take away the agency and sovereignty of those communities—in these cases, Indigenous communities—take away their rights to make that decision, scrap it altogether and leave them with nothing.
But what are you going to do? If we go back to the old system I mentioned before—where we just hand out free money—we know that it will fail. It's failed everywhere in the world. It's not something just here in Australia and it's certainly not something that is just Indigenous community related. This is not about blackfellas and whitefellas. I can take you to lots of suburbs in Rockhampton, near where I live, that are welfare deserts because we have destroyed the culture of work, the culture of family, the culture of community, through our pipeline of unrestricted welfare. And we pat ourselves on the back here in this place, thinking we've done a good job. 'We've put out budget papers. We've spent $2 billion. We're helping people.' No, you're not. You're getting them addicted to free money that destroys their lives and creates a generational cycle that ends up, as I said before, with domestic violence, drug abuse and addiction. We know that.
We all have these communities, wherever we live, yet we continue this fiction of thinking that just an extra zero on the budget papers is going to solve people's problems. We know it doesn't, but it makes us feel good. It gives us a good media release. We can go on TV and say how good it is. But we destroy communities from doing it. And that's what the government is proposing to go back to—the failed welfare policies of the 1960s and 1970s that were just terrible and wiped out whole communities of working-class and poor communities when factories left or economies changed. A lot of regional communities have lost their forestry or fishery industries, and they have completely descended into a violent cycle of welfare dependence that we have at least facilitated, sometimes by turning a blind eye.
We're at least trying, with things like the cashless debit card. It's not perfect, but what are you going to do instead? What's going to be the alternative? We know what we learnt this week. We learnt more details yesterday in question time. The government are starting to wake up and understand that actually they can't go down this path, and that, if we were to completely scrap all of the income management proposals we have in this country, it would consign communities to this cycle of welfare dependence. You've got lots of communities out there shouting at the government right now to wake up to themselves before we go back to the dinosaur age of free money and free welfare that destroys people's lives.
There are going to be a huge number of amendments here in this place today. For those of you up in the gallery, it will be a long night if you want to stick around. We're going to be here till the early hours of the morning probably, because the government has to completely overhaul this ill-thought-through legislation, to reintroduce income management opportunities for communities—to allow the people of Cape York to continue the cashless debit card, to allow other communities across the country to do the same.
It raises the whole question now of why we are here. Why are we doing this? We don't need this legislation. The government are now apparently saying—we'll know when we see these amendments—that they're going to continue the cashless debit card. This is a broken promise I completely welcome, but they went to the election and said they'd get rid of it. As I said, it was ill thought through. They didn't consult properly with communities that are on this card, and they're now realising that and desperately backtracking. Well, I welcome that broken promise, and I won't make a political point about it, because it's better for communities for the government to understand the error of their ways and turn around here, do a complete U-turn, which is apparently what we've got happening here in the Senate.
But why do we need to do this bill? We don't need to do this. We've already got the legislation in place. The government can adjust the trial schemes as they see fit. But they are embarrassingly persisting with this legislation, taking up the Senate's time, making people stay here till all hours of the morning, making the note takers, the Senate staff, stay here all night, in a desperate attempt to save some face from an embarrassing policy decision they made on the hop, in a rush, in an election campaign.
So I do welcome that change, because what we need to do as a parliament now, in my view, is a little bit less talking—there will be a lot of talking over the next 24 hours, unfortunately, because we'll be here for so long—and more listening to those communities on welfare, those communities that actually are affected by these changes.
Less talking? You can talk!
That's what we need to do. These government amendments are apparently going to do that, because they're going to allow communities to request these changes. They're going to allow them to do that. Hopefully the government will listen and not be so prideful as to obsessively insist on getting rid of something that some communities want and that works for them. I hope they do listen to them.
Senator Henderson mentioned earlier that Senator Chisholm had completely misrepresented the member for Hinkler yesterday and had accused him of not consulting with his community. Senator Henderson very succinctly rebutted the number of emails sent by the member for Hinkler's office. The member for Hinkler had sent tens of thousands of emails and done hundreds of calls to local constituents about this issue. Overwhelmingly, the feedback from the people of Hinkler was that they support the cashless debit card. In the member for Hinkler's case, 75 per cent of those surveyed said they support it. And it wasn't just the member for Hinkler. The local newspapers around Bundaberg—the NewsMail and the Fraser Coast Chronicledid their own independent survey that found that less than 30 per cent of people were opposed to the cashless debit card in the area in and around Bundaberg.
So the communities want it; they support it. The people who are going to be the real victims, if we persist with this obsessive attempt to go back to the era of free money and free welfare, will be those people who themselves are often not receiving the money but are on the receiving end of the destroyed lives that come from receiving free money. It's about the mums who might be subject to domestic violence and the children who might go uncared for in people's homes if we turn a blind eye to the corrosive effects of unrestricted welfare payments.
Free welfare might make people feel good in this place but it certainly doesn't build homes. It doesn't build communities. It doesn't help people's lives. We need to make sure that, if we're going to hand out support to people, we also help them with their lives and the responsibilities that are required to get them back on their feet, in work and rebuilding their communities.
I seek leave to continue my remarks, and it will only be for five minutes.
Leave granted.
I do appreciate the chamber allowing me to continue my remarks. I think the cashless debit card is very important. I travelled to Kalgoorlie and spoke to the locals there. I spoke to the elders and other people, and heard their plight and their concerns. I've travelled to Doomadgee. I've been up to the Cape. I've been to the Northern Territory. I've been to many places around Australia and to Aboriginal communities.
Let's be honest: the card was rolled out in these Aboriginal communities mostly because of the problems and issues that a lot of these communities are facing. Let me explain to the people who may be listening to the broadcast. The card was rolled out to ensure that people had 80 per cent of their money put on the card to be used to pay rent and buy food or essential services; 20 per cent was in cash to spend as they so wished. Over the period of time from the card being introduced, there were decreases in violence, domestic violence and children staying away from school. School attendance increased, violence was decreasing, children were better fed—it was helping.
What people don't know is that in a lot of these communities alcohol is illegal. So what happens is people go outside the communities and spend a huge amount on alcohol. If they're going to purchase a cask of wine—a five-litre cask is called a pillow—they'll pay about $150 or more for that pillow. For a bottle of rum, they could pay $200 or $300. You see, they need the cash and they need the money, so these people would go to their family members and threaten to take their money—and they did. Their family handed over money to them, and that money was spent on drugs and alcohol, not on the children.
The people who are suffering from all of this are the children. Aren't we more concerned about the vulnerable, those people who cannot defend or look after themselves? When you go to these communities, as I have done, you see kids on the street in the middle of the night. These are young children—and I'm talking about three, four, five years of age—who are not in their homes. They don't feel safe in their homes, not only from the alcohol and drug abuse but also from sexual abuse. We are supposed to be protecting these people.
Also, why shouldn't the taxpayers have some accountability for the money that goes to these people? Regardless of your cultural background or whoever you are, if you're going to be receiving welfare, there has to be responsibility. Show some respect for the money that comes from a hardworking Australian who's paying their taxes. It's usually a person who works and earns $80,000, and the taxes they pay go to support one person on welfare. Their taxes go to support one person. We have a debt approaching $200 billion that we pay out in welfare in this country. There must be accountability for that.
It's quite funny now to hear that Noel Pearson complained about getting rid of the cashless debit card in Cape York for approximately 120 people. Now, you've listened to Noel Pearson. So, if you can listen to these people, why do you need a voice in parliament? Why do you need another chamber? Why do you need to put it in the Constitution when people can have their say and you listen to what they have to say?
I'm pleased to see that you are maybe rethinking this cashless debit card. The whole point is that we've got to look after the vulnerable. I also have to make a point of saying that I was so impressed with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's speech yesterday. This is a woman who has lived this. She has lived in these communities and has represented the people. I'm not Aboriginal and I'm not a person on welfare, but I listened to someone who spoke from the heart to try to explain. Those of us who have never been in these people's shoes must try to listen to someone who has been and who speaks commonsense.
We are here to make the right decisions. Do not let your emotions say that it's human rights and all the rest of it. Sometimes people need to be taken by the hand to show them love and give them guidance, and that's what we must do. Giving your sorries and all your apologies and everything doesn't change it for the stolen generations. That's not what it's about; it's about making the right decisions that will give future generations some hope for the future.
I, too, rise to speak on these opposition amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. I have listened to the speeches over the last day or so and I have reflected on the lived experience and the passion that so many senators are bringing to this discussion. I did hear an interjection earlier, suggesting that, in some way, this was about extending debate unnecessarily, and I reject that with all of my heart and soul, because there are those of us who live in communities that are marginalised and disadvantage—and this is not just Aboriginal communities.
I heard Noel Pearson, who was one of the people who inspired me to get involved in politics, speak at a Press Club function in about 2008. He talked about these being issues not of race but of poverty. The cashless debit card, when it was enacted, was rolled out to try to assist people who needed additional protections. They needed additional support not just for themselves, and we heard Senator Henderson talk about women being bashed to get access to social security payments. I'm very concerned about some of the discussion where the minister has been proposing that they'll put a PIN on social security cards. Isn't having a PIN for their card just the same problem as forcing people to hand over the password to their card? I don't see that solving the problem at all.
So I join Senator Canavan in his congratulations of the government for listening. They took so many poorly thought through, paternalistic, idealistic statements to the last election which they are, one by one, having to reverse. At the last lot of sittings we saw them having to re-establish the northern Australia committee. On day one of the new parliament they abolished the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, and by the end of the following week we had re-established the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. That abolishing the cashless debit card would be the right thing to do is another example of this thought bubble.
I do congratulate Labor on actually listening: on listening to the speeches, on listening to the examples that are being given, on listening to Noel Pearson and other leaders talk about why this is such an appalling decision. By overturning the alcohol restrictions in the Northern Territory and removing the CDC, they are actually driving families into terrible, terrible situations.
I know the stories that I hear in the north are of young people who are unable to study. They are having to get up early and stay up late at night. They are looking after their younger siblings, getting them something to eat and helping them to get dressed and get to school, and it's at the price of their own education. They end up dropping out of school, dropping out of higher education and missing out on the opportunities that this great country has available to us all if we have the sort of supported childhood that most of us here were fortunate enough to have.
So I embrace this embarrassing backflip from Labor where they suddenly work out what the reality of the world is. They get out of Sydney, Melbourne and whatever other protected areas they've been in, and they understand that in regional parts of Australia, and no doubt in outer-city places, people need the support that the CDC extended, because it was a superior welfare card. It had access to a million different sites to spend your money in, as opposed to the BasicsCard, which is exactly that. It is a second-rate, poorly considered alternative to what the CDC is, which is a much-enhanced card that allows people to focus, as Senator Canavan said, their hard-earned dollars from the Australian taxpayer so that, when we provide assistance, we provide assistance for the safety net and for welfare to be spent on housing, on food and on supporting the children to be educated—the important goals of social security—and not on alcohol—on grog—and those other expenditures. That's what the CDC was protecting.
So I support Labor's new amendments to extend the CDC back to allow the Cape York communities, the CDC trial sites and those people in the Northern Territory who voluntarily transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the CDC to remain on it. This is a very good starting point, and it is just the first admission that they have messed up with this ill-conceived election commitment. The amendments put forward by the government confirm that even they admit that abolishing the cashless debit card will have serious consequences for vulnerable communities.
What we saw last night when Senator Chisholm attacked the cashless debit card rollout in Hinkler was an example of the lack of informed debate and understanding that has happened. Senator Henderson has already read into the record the huge amount of consultation that happened in the electorate of Hinkler, in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. Between May 2011 and 2017, the Department of Social Services conducted over 188 meetings with federal government agencies, community members, local government representatives and service providers. Senator Henderson has laid all of this out—the huge amount of consultation. So it is truly appalling to have a government senator somehow represent that there was no consultation with that community at all. It is not the case, and in actual fact there is overwhelming support. When ReachTEL, an independent survey organisation, surveyed that community, they found overwhelming support for the CDC. Anecdotally they're talking about participants having money left over at the end of the fortnight. Some now have savings. Children are going to school with lunch, and they have had breakfast. Requests for emergency food hampers have plummeted. These are good outcomes. These are great outcomes that we want to see more of, in all of the federally funded services—over 70 existing across the region, including drug and alcohol services, financial capability, employment and family and children's programs, just to name a few.
I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the local member, Keith Pitt. He has been attacked by these kinds of senseless, ill-informed, ignorant accusations that were again directed at him yesterday, when he has fought diligently for his community—for the disadvantaged in his community and for the voiceless in his community, particularly the children and the elderly who are now able to feed themselves and have more money left over and not be abused by family members who were trying to access their cash.
So I welcome Labor's backflip and amendments to this CDC legislation, but you now have to wonder: what is the purpose of this legislation at all? What is the purpose of us being here if Labor is just going to slowly and very quietly continue rolling the advantages of the CDC right across Australia? This is a card that the communities say works and that has seen more families in better situations and more appropriately spending the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars that we are using when we fund social welfare.
We know that in communities right across Australia there are poor outcomes. In northern Australia, juvenile crime levels are bordering on the ridiculous, because one of the results of alcohol and drug fuelled home environments is that children feel safer on the streets than they do with their parents. Cairns and Townville will smash previous records for stolen vehicles. In Townsville, car thefts jumped 124 per cent in 2020-21, and there was a further increase of 20 per cent in 2021-22. It's a 140 per cent increase in two years in Townsville, while Toowoomba, the Gold Coast and Brisbane topped the state's card theft dishonour board.
Tripadvisor is advising people against going to Mount Isa, my much loved nearly home town, and I know why: because when you're out in the evenings groups of young people are roaming the streets because it is not safe at home. There is no food at home. There is no protection or nurturing environment at home, and they are on the streets roaming around. They are stealing cars and creating mischief, and they are not ever going to achieve their potential. Father Mick Lowcock, who is a great man in Mount Isa, picks up young people as they come back from Cleveland Youth Detention Centre. He looks out for them, but he knows there are only a small number of children that this applies to. It is children who are not at home because they are not being provided for there. I would welcome seeing the sort of support that the cashless debit card provides to those children being rolled out to Mount Isa and other communities. People pick up these kids. They drop them at home. They watch them run through the house, down the back stairs, over the fence and onto the streets again, and they have not enough resources and places to take these kids to.
So it is clear that steps must be taken to switch off the access to alcohol and drugs as a first step to addressing a multitude of issues. The cashless debit card does exactly that. We have strong evidence over the past five years to show improved outcomes for those who use it and for their loved ones: less alcohol and drug abuse, less violence and more incentives to find employment. In effect, Labor's removal of the CDC is opening the door to more cases of children who are not being fed and nurtured at home and cannot access the advantages of education because they're going to school hungry, without breakfast or lunch, and eventually drop out of school altogether. By banning the purchase of alcohol and gambling products via the card, we are quarantining more money to be spent on fresh food, school excursions, sports gear and petrol for the car.
The cashless debit card, as we have heard, has been operating in Ceduna, South Australia since 15 March 2016; in East Kimberley, Western Australia since April 2016; in the Goldfields, Western Australia since March 2018; and in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland since January 2019. With virtually no consultation, Labor has made it easier for those at risk to spend their taxpayer funded payments on activities and substances that harm themselves, their families, their communities and society at large.
Finally, I want to touch on the community of Doomadgee, where there is an extraordinary group of elder women, the Strong Women's Group. They are the ones who are taking in kids in unofficial, loose fostering arrangements from their own children and making sure that these kids have food, are being dressed and are going to school. I had a discussion with another senator from the north the other day, and we were worried about who is going to do that job for these young people when those elders are gone. Who is going to nurture and feed these children and ensure they get to school so that they can access the potential and possibility that they have within themselves? Who is going to do that? That is why the role of the cashless debit card and other social security measures is to protect our children, to protect our vulnerable, to ensure that money is being spent where we as taxpayers are assuming it's being spent. This is not about individuals' rights to spend money wherever they want. This is about a protection, a social security safety net for communities that are disadvantaged by poverty, by lack of education, by remoteness, by other disadvantage.
In the first independent evaluation of the CDC in late 2017, the card was shown to deliver considerable positive impact in the initial trial sites. Forty-one per cent of participants surveyed drank alcohol less frequently, 48 per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using them less frequently, and 48 per cent of those who were gambling before the trial reported gambling less often. Dozens of evaluations of the cashless debit card have provided consistent evidence about welfare-quarantining policies having positive impacts on communities, on the people who were previously victims of crime and, most importantly, on our children, on our vulnerable and on their future.
I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. What an interesting journey this bill has had, particularly in the Senate chamber. Obviously, the opposition was certainly not in agreement with the bill as it was initially introduced. We have now seen a series of amendments, which, as my colleague Senator McDonald was saying, do seem to be quite sensible in the circumstances. There are amendments which will allow some communities currently utilising the CDC to remain on it. I think that we in this place should be seriously scrutinising and questioning why we are now in a situation where these amendments are being made. In effect, the government are admitting to themselves that abolishing the CDC in its entirety would have devastating effects on remote and vulnerable communities. And why is this the case? What is the reason for this backflip?
I think we need to look very carefully at the origins of this bill. This bill is simply a political fix to try and justify the scare campaign which the now government ran during the federal election, a scare campaign which was repeatedly found to be false and misleading but which Labor persisted with again and again to try and scare Australian pensioners around the country. This is a Labor Party that spent an election campaign talking about integrity yet was happy to run a scare campaign about pensioners being forced onto the cashless debit card. Now, to try and justify all of that misinformation that they put out in an attempt to win votes, they are trying to abolish the CDC, causing major concerns for people in the communities where it is being used successfully. And, now, apparently having a moment of circumspection, where they realise that perhaps that wasn't the most sensible tactic, that perhaps there are communities in remote Australia that benefit from having the CDC, they are trying to backward reason their position, because it was effectively coming from a place of bad intentions.
If we look back at the way that Labor conducted themselves during the recent election campaign, as I said, the answer to why this legislation has been brought forward is very evident. In the lead-up to and throughout the federal election, Labor MPs were continually uttering false claims that the coalition government at the time was planning to put pensioners onto the cashless debit card. There was no credibility to this claim. It was rejected outright by the former coalition government on repeated occasions. But that didn't stop Labor MPs and Labor senators spreading this misinformation both online and through targeted media campaigns. This isn't just my view, and it's not just the view of the opposition. An AAP Factcheck dated 22 November 2021, months before the election, explored in detail Labor's claim that the former coalition government planned to force all age-pensioners onto cashless welfare cards. To quote the AAP Factcheck:
Our verdict: False. There is no evidence the government intends to put all age pensioners on cashless welfare cards, a measure not permitted under existing legislation.
Multiple Labor politicians have claimed the Morrison government wants to put all age pensioners onto cashless welfare cards that would allow the government to control the way they spend their money.
There is no evidence to support the claims.
'False,' 'no evidence,' but that didn't matter to the Labor Party. They seem to think that they can get away with not telling the truth to the Australian people during an election campaign, or even before then. In a media release from October last year, the then Minister for Social Services, my good colleague Senator Ruston, said:
Let me make it crystal clear—the Morrison Government will not force age pensioners onto the Cashless Debit Card. We were never going to, and never will.
'Crystal clear,' Senator Ruston said. You can't get much clearer than that.
This clear rejection followed a number of other occasions in which the minister refuted outright Labor's false claim concerning the CDC, including in a letter that the former minister wrote to the Council of the Ageing, in which the minister stated that the CDC was not aimed at retirees and never would be. That was on 28 October 2021. Again, the former coalition government's position could not be much clearer than that. But there was a reason that the Labor Party remained wilfully ignorant of the truth surrounding the CDC—blatant, misleading electioneering. We've seen Labor employ these kinds of tactics before, most notably in the 2019 campaign and the 2016 campaign. We all remember 'Mediscare'. Labor remembered it so well that they decided to redeploy the tactic in the lead-up to and during the 2022 election campaign.
But the new Labor government have backed themselves into a corner. While they promised to repeal the cashless debit card, they did not think of the resulting consequences for communities that rely on the card. Despite clear findings that the scare campaign was entirely fabricated by the Labor Party—that's not me saying that; that's the AAP Factcheck—there is a very long list of Labor MPs and candidates, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who were more than happy to repeat those false claims like 'they'—referring to the Coalition government at the time—'have a plan to force 80 per cent of people's pensions onto a cashless debit card so they can control and limit how pensioners spend their money.' Or this from the member for Gellibrand:
80% of your pension payment would be put on the privatised cashless card. It's not like an ordinary bank debit card—it can only be used at shops that are approved by the government.
They can limit and control where, when and how you spend your own money.
Imagine not being able to pay cash to buy cheap food at the local market, or a meal or a beer at the RSL.
This was all totally and utterly false, and it was called out as false by the AAP Factcheck as far back as November 2021, six months before the 2022 federal election. The Labor Party persisted with these falsehoods right up until election day. In Tasmania, the Labor member for Lyons posted:
I'm proud to be leading the fight in Tasmania to scrap the Morrison Liberal-Nationals Government's plan to expand the cashless welfare card to all Australian pensioners.
Unfortunately, we know from the facts that the Liberals and Nationals want to expand the cashless welfare card to include all pensioners. This means that 80% of your pension will be put on a card and the government can then control where you spend your own pension.
The facts—that's an interesting use of words, given what the AAP Factcheck found.
Similar messages were posted to websites and social media platforms of other Labor members. These claims were nothing but blatant and deliberate misinformation. And who is going to pay the price for Labor choosing to run an election campaign based on acknowledged falsehoods? The people in communities who have actually seen the positive difference that the card has made to their lives. We've heard these voices and these concerns throughout this debate, particularly from my colleagues, and the fears of alcohol induced violence against women and children. Yet the Labor government is determined to ignore these concerns from on the ground and push through this repeal based on a scare campaign they ran in electorates thousands of kilometres from anywhere the card was actually being used and supported.
The bill shows little care for the consequences for the communities which rely on this card to tackle social harm, particularly harm associated with drug and alcohol addiction, except as relevant to the amendments which we are now having presented to us in the Senate chamber because Labor have apparently realised that there was some error in their ways.
To add insult to injury, Labor have pushed for the abolishment of the cashless debit card with virtually zero consultation with key stakeholders. Again, I think that's why we are now hearing these amendments. Labor senators are sitting here in this place and listening to the contribution of opposition senators who have been consulting with key stakeholders and who have been providing that information to the Senate. These are stakeholders that should have been consulted from day one but were ignored by this government until the very last minute.
As late as 30 August, the so-called CDC engagement team sent the Goldfields a raft of draft engagement documents, seeking feedback. These busy shires were given until 12 noon on 2 September to provide their feedback—simply days. How is this meaningful consultation? How does this allow communities and key stakeholders the opportunity to have their say on legislation that will adversely impact their communities? A couple of days. How can that possibly be long enough?
Stakeholders have made their disappointment very clear, highlighting the severe lack of consultation on this bill. The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder stated:
The decision to abolish the CDC has been made without any consultation with the regional community and the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder remains unconsulted on how the transition will impact CDC participants, social services providers, government agencies, and the community.
The Mayor of the District Council of Ceduna echoed these sentiments, stating:
We've had no consultation about it at all. The first we heard of it was in the PM's election promises, that he was going to do it. Prior to that, we had had no representation from any Labor politicians.
The Minderoo Foundation further highlights Labor's lack of meaningful consultation on the bill:
We are concerned the decision to abolish the CDC is being rushed through the Parliament without appropriate or meaningful community consultation. The removal of the CDC has the potential to exacerbate vulnerability, and this must be avoided at all costs.
So thank goodness that members of the government have been in this chamber and have clearly been listening very carefully to contributions from opposition senators who have done the job and have been doing the work of consulting with these communities and understanding the impact that the repeal of the CDC would have on them. I am very certain that that is why we are seeing the amendments that we will be debating here later on tonight.
The cashless debit card was introduced into communities as an important financial management tool to help improve the lives of vulnerable people in these communities, which were looking for solutions to entrenched alcohol and drug induced violence. Instead of listening to the voices of those people, particularly women and children, who are safer and more secure because of this card, Labor chose to make the CDC a source of political gain through a scare campaign based on falsehoods—a scare campaign that I have outlined here my contribution today. Labor pushed for the abolition of the cashless debit card with virtually zero consultation with key stakeholders who should been consulted from day one but were ignored by this government until the last minute. This bill must be seen for what it is: a political exercise by Labor to justify the falsehoods they used to scare the community for their own political gain.
I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. It's terribly disappointing that I'm rising to speak on this bill which would abolish the cashless welfare arrangements under the cashless debit card program because the cashless debit card program is such an important piece of technology. It was implemented by the former government specifically to assist vulnerable Australians and the communities in which they live. It was an innovative approach and it built on income management programs that the former Labor government had operated. Most importantly, these programs delivered change—real change, meaningful change—for communities, and I know that others around the chamber have said that over and over again today.
More importantly, I worry that the government's motives for this are dismissing the fact that, when faced with difficult challenges—
Order, Senator Hume. You will be in continuation when debate resumes on this bill. It being 1.30 pm, we move to two-minute statements.
The ABC strikes again. What we saw on Four Corners last night regarding Peter Dutton was nothing short of disgraceful, another taxpayer funded hit job for the Lefty luvvies. The board at the failing ABC, who champion this cavalier faux journalism, should be ashamed of themselves for using our once-great national broadcaster to serve up a bucket of slop.
Last night we had roughly six minutes of hearing positive insights from interviewees and over 17 minutes from other guests who spent their time trashing Peter Dutton and his reputation. This is rich given most of them haven't even met Mr Dutton—very balanced reporting from the ABC, as always!
The line-up of irrelevant guests rolled out by Four Corners to trash Peter Dutton included the shameful Cheryl Kernot; the trainwreck Terry O'Gorman; the failed Kerryn Phelps; some disgruntled former public servant; some Twitter bore nobody knows or cares about; a no-name human rights lawyer who I don't think anyone has ever heard of, and for good reason, who had the gall to say they would not feel safe in a country where Peter Dutton is Prime Minister. This is Peter Dutton, a former police officer from Queensland. This is a diabolically terrible take, typical of the ABC's cooked universe.
Peter Dutton has maintained a lifelong commitment to keeping all Australians safe. Being a dad and a former police officer, there's nothing radical or scary about his agenda to keep all Australians safe. The ABC continues to openly wage war on centre-right attitudes, values and beliefs—and, indeed, centre-right political parties. The ABC treats Australians who do not share their fanciful leftist ideology with disdain. Australians deserve better from our national broadcaster. Last night Four Corners was a bucket of slop, and we deserve better. The taxpayers deserve better from the ABC. It's time to reform it.
I was disappointed, but sadly not surprised, to learn that one in four—one in four!—Tasmanians were short-changed on their superannuation in the 2018-19 financial year. In that year alone Tasmanian workers were ripped off to the tune of $76.6 million. The superannuation system was designed to ensure that people who have worked all their lives can enjoy a comfortable retirement, and the deliberate failure to pay workers their full legal super entitlement is theft.
Employers who engage in this theft are not just stealing from the workers; they're also stealing from taxpayers by unnecessarily increasing Australians' reliance on the age pension. And, by gaining an unfair competitive advantage, they are stealing from other employers who are doing the right thing and paying their workers super on time and in full.
In some ways superannuation theft can have an even greater impact on workers than wage theft. Because super is not paid directly to workers the theft can take longer to detect, and it is likely to be more costly in the long run. A $1,000 underpayment to a worker aged 25 could end up costing that worker up to $6,000 at retirement. Right now workers cannot pursue their claim to superannuation unless it is specifically included in their award, agreement or employment contract. It is instead left up to the Australian tax office to pursue.
The Australian Labor government will legislate to include a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards. This will enable the Fair Work Ombudsman and other parties to pursue claims when workers have not received their full super entitlement. Australian workers deserve greater financial security in retirement and, after nine years of inaction by the previous government, Labor is getting on with the job of tackling super theft—another area that the now opposition let slip.
Recently I travelled to the Tiwi Islands to support the traditional owners in their legal battle against NOPSEMA over their failure to identify eight different clan groups as relevant people to consult for the Barossa gas project. From the second I stepped foot on the island it was clear that traditional owners did not want this, one of the dirtiest gas projects in the world, on their country.
Last week we saw the incredible result that the traditional owners were in fact successful as it was found that Santos didn't do their job properly and NOPSEMA approved this project regardless. I want to take this time to congratulate everyone who was involved in this case for their hard work that led to this landmark victory. This was also the result of a group of dedicated people who were sick and tired of seeing fossil fuel companies destroying their country. We know that they're not the only ones. Indeed, right across this country—from Beetaloo, to Scarborough, to Narrabri—traditional owners are crying out for their voices to be heard and their cultural heritage to be respected. This case has put fossil fuel companies on notice and set an example of precedent for other projects. One of the traditional owners that I had the absolute privilege of meeting with, on their trip to Canberra in the last sitting, put it perfectly when she said: 'We are the cultural giants. We are the original people from this land. And we need to be taken seriously.'
Today I rise to pay my respects to and remember the life of a fellow Western Australian, Nick Way. On Friday, Nick lost his brave two-year fight against motor neurone disease. I'm proud to have known and to have worked with him.
Nick was dedicated to fighting for what was right, in every aspect of his life. There was a wonderful summary of Nick's life in the West Australian on Monday, by Steve Butler, which I encourage everyone who knew him to read. But I'd like to refer to another aspect of his life that wasn't mentioned in the article, and that is Nick's tireless efforts on behalf of Bali bombing victims and their families, his coverage of the bombings and his passion to fight for families and victims since that time.
He was chairman of the Bali Peace Park Association. In that role, Nick was committed to delivering a peace park at the site of the former Sari Club at Kuta, which was destroyed in the 2002 Bali bombings, the 20th anniversary of which we're coming up to next month. He was absolutely committed to this cause and he passionately believed in its importance for all Australians, particularly for those who lived and for the families of those who did not.
Sadly, Nick was one of the more than 2,000 people in Australia every year who contract motor neurone disease. This is a truly evil disease, with no cure yet and a life expectancy of less than 2½ years from diagnosis. Nick fought this disease with absolutely everything that he had, with every fibre of his being. I offer my sincerest condolences to his beloved wife, Karen, and his family. It was a life of many great contributions, but, Nick, we've lost you too soon. Rest in peace.
I just want to take a moment to recognise the fantastic announcement from our Minister for Housing this week that regional Australians can count on the Albanese Labor government's support to buy their first home, through the regional first home buyer guarantee. Labor made this election commitment to regional Australia, and we are delivering on it three months earlier than promised. From 1 October, 10,000 places will be available each financial year, through the regional first home buyer guarantee, to support regional first home buyers to purchase new or existing homes with a deposit of as little as five per cent.
Labor took this commitment to the election because we know how hard it is to buy a house in regional Australia. On average it takes over 11 years to save for a home in our regions. That's why we are wasting no time in tackling this challenge. The Australian government will guarantee up to 15 per cent of the purchase price for eligible first-time buyers, allowing them to avoid the cost of mortgage insurance. I know many regional employers are desperate for more skilled workers, and they view the prohibitive price of housing as a significant barrier in attracting these workers to regional Australia. The regional first home buyer guarantee will improve accessibility to regional housing markets and allow more workers to stay in or move to our regions. This is all part of the Albanese Labor government's broader vision for housing, including the establishment of a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to increase housing supply and improve affordability.
Volunteer firefighters embody so much of what is great about Australia. We have around 200,000 of them nationally who put themselves in harm's way every bushfire season. All firefighters are more susceptible to certain types of health issues than the general population, and this is well documented. Across the country, we do not make volunteer fireys prove this. We presume that injuries, including certain cancers, developed as part of the job. That's the case everywhere except for the ACT, due to a quirk in the Comcare legislation. This means volunteer firefighters in the ACT have to fight to prove any injuries were incurred on the job in order to access compensation or health care. The government can change this with a stroke of the pen, and it wouldn't cost a cent. The ACT government supports this and would have to pay any compensation.
I'd like to thank the team at ACT Volunteer Brigades Association for bringing this to my attention and for the advocacy that they are doing on behalf of volunteer fireys in the ACT. I have written to the minister about this, and I look forward to working with him to ensure this is done before the next bushfire season.
I rise to extend my congratulations to the proud nation of Italy for electing their first female Prime Minister. How wonderful to see a strong, modern woman in power and I'm sure that Giorgia Meloni's victory will serve as an inspiration to women and girls everywhere. Yet, strangely, the corporate media doesn't seem too excited about Italy's progress and, rather than celebrating, they're voicing their concerns about Italy's drift to the far right.
So what makes Italy's Prime Minister so far right? As far as I can tell, it's that she's promising to defend the nuclear family, she is opposing woke ideology and she is proposing to limit immigration in her country. How radical! Could it be that the sisterhood only advocates for women when they hold their leftist views? Surely not! That seems unlikely. Surely it couldn't be that their rhetoric about equality and the patriarchy applies only when women hold their world view. It seems that, when women hold traditional values, their success is not viewed as cause for celebration by the selective sisterhood.
I am sure we will hear more from the media about the dangers of the far right or the hard right, because it is clear that these days all 'hard right' actually means is normal people who care about their families. Of course, in 2022, defending the family and one's culture does make you a threat to the leftist agenda. The Left only enjoys democracy when it gets the results it wants. Italy has elected Giorgia Meloni, showing that her policies are winning issues. That is how democracy works.
My home state—the great and mighty state of South Australia—is well known for its firsts. Of course, we were the first state to grant women the right to vote, we were the first to legalise trade unions and we were the first to elect a town council—perhaps a lesser-known fact.
Today I want to acknowledge another amazing first from South Australia in the appointment of Australia's first minister with responsibility for autism in Emily Bourke. My good friend the Hon. Emily Bourke MLC will be taking up this role and she is already hard at work in South Australia, establishing the Autism Education Advisory Group and overseeing the appointment of autism lead teachers in public primary schools. Her appointment is a demonstration of the commitment by our state government to establish a whole-of-government vision to support neurodiverse Australians. I have had families approach me since this announcement who finally feel seen and feel better supported. One parent wrote to me saying that, after her child with autism had had a tough few weeks, the announcement had brought her and her partner to tears. This is a nation-leading change and yet another example of the power of reforming Labor governments—Labor governments which can rewrite history in a positive way and pave a fairer path for all, but especially for our children.
I wish Assistant Minister Emily Bourke every success in her new role, and I wholeheartedly congratulate our state Labor government for putting South Australians with autism at the heart of their ambitious policy agenda.
This year, 2022, is the 50th year since the magnificent Lake Pedder was flooded. It's 50 years since legendary environmental activists Brenda Hean and Max Price took off from Cambridge Aerodrome, near Hobart, in Max's Tiger Moth plane. They planned to write 'Save Lake Pedder' in the sky above Parliament House, in Canberra. They started their flight on 8 September 1972. But that Tiger Moth plane never arrived in Canberra. Brenda and Max were never seen again. Their disappearance without trace remains one of Tasmania's greatest unsolved mysteries. As raised by Scott Millwood's 2008 film, Whatever Happened to Brenda Hean?, the police investigation was ultimately unsatisfactory despite police discovering that the hangar storing the Tiger Moth had been broken into the night before the flight.
On 10 September this year the family of Brenda Hean completed the mission by flying a Tiger Moth from Cambridge, near Hobart, to Canberra. Congratulations to all involved in such a tremendous achievement and such a fitting tribute to Brenda and Max. Brenda's great-great niece, 16-year-old Charlotte Ditcham, was in the Tiger Moth, and Brenda's great-great nephew, Ollie Ditcham, piloted an accompanying Cessna.
This is the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Now is the time for the Commonwealth government to nominate restoring Lake Pedder as Australia's flagship project in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoring Lake Pedder would set right a great wrong and would restore the spiritual heart of Tasmania's magnificent wilderness.
I pay tribute today to a very special event and the exciting possibilities it holds for Perth and Western Australia. The Special Olympics was founded in 1968 and is a global movement that uses sport to foster inclusion and recognition for people living with an intellectual disability. Its oath is 'Let me win, but if I cannot win let me be brave in the attempt.' It speaks to the empowerment and removal of bias the Special Olympics provides.
The World Games, held every four years, has been described as the largest humanitarian event on earth. Around 8,000 athletes representing 170 countries and territories compete in 26 sports over 10 days. Past host cities have included Los Angeles, Dublin, Shanghai and Abu Dhabi. Berlin is next in 2023, and we want the games to be in Perth in 2027. Perth was chosen as host city for the 2027 bid by Special Olympics Australia in March this year, with the ultimate selection panel expected later this year. I acknowledge at this point the incredibly hard work that continues to be done by those at Special Olympics Australia and on the Special Olympics committee in Western Australia. I am proud to be advocating for them both. They have been hugely informative.
It has been a great pleasure to meet with organisers, recently, in my Perth office, hearing from them firsthand about the real benefits the Special Olympics can bring to Perth, Western Australia, the Southern Hemisphere and, indeed, the world. I encourage interested colleagues, particularly those from Western Australia, to do likewise and help bring the World Games to Australia and to Perth. The campaign for Perth 2027 says it best: 'Let's show the world we are inspired to become the most inclusive nation on the planet.'
It is estimated that one in five people aged 18 to 65 will experience a common mental health disorder in any one year. However, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are under-represented in accessing mental health services. They tend to present late to these services and are therefore more unwell by the time they begin to receive help. This is saying that people from CALD backgrounds wait and wait and wait. They find coping mechanisms to deal with how they're feeling or they bottle it up and keep it to themselves until it's serious, until it's severe.
There is a stigma in many CALD communities about seeking help for mental health—trust me, I know. It's sometimes even considered a taboo topic, to remain unspoken or brushed under the rug, afraid of being judged or appearing weak. Young people, in particular, face this. There is often an intergenerational difference in perceptions of mental health. I know that there are many other barriers that people from CALD backgrounds face when accessing mental health services, like a limited understanding of the support services that are available, high cost of private services, long waitlists for public services, language barriers and the limited supply of providers who can deliver culturally responsive services. I acknowledge these barriers, and I know how difficult it can be. I've experienced it myself.
It takes work from all of us to change this perception of mental health. We need to prioritise our health, both mental and physical. It is okay to not be okay. It is okay to ask for help. It is okay to talk it out. It is okay to take medication to fight the blues. We need to be open with our friends and families, because they're there and they love us.
I must speak on Australia's ongoing housing and rental crisis. This is primarily a problem of supply. We just don't have enough houses and rentals to meet high demand. In fact we have the lowest number of dwellings per head of population in the developed world. Home building in Australia has not kept up with population increase.
The Labor government is only making things worse by increasing our permanent immigration intake. We desperately need to increase supply in Australia and there's one measure guaranteed to work: ban all foreign ownership of Australian residential property, both new and established. We need a regime which requires that Australian citizenship or permanent residency be proven before a dwelling is sold. This must be done at point of sale, and there should be stiff fines for agents or vendors who don't meet this requirement. We need current foreign home ownership properly policed. They are getting around the rule that they can only buy new housing. The Foreign Investment Review Board needs to crack down on this evasion of the law. We need to require all foreign owners to get out of the market, giving them a reasonable grace period to sell property. We must ensure international students who are here on a temporary basis are required to divest themselves of property when it's time to go back home.
State stamp duty must be addressed. Actually, getting rid of it completely would be a good start. New Zealand bans foreign home ownership, and Canada has also put a ban in place. There's no reason why we can't do the same. This would put a big supply of housing on the market for Australian property investors and homeowners at very reasonable prices. We need these tough decisions to be made, given people are living in cars and caravans on the streets. We have a Minister for Housing in this place. I haven't heard a word from the minister about how they intend to address the housing crisis in Australia, so I'd like to hear from the housing minister on the Labor side, who is in government here, how they attend to address it. Here's a start, with some of my suggestions.
I rise to place on the record my thanks to the Senate for instituting an inquiry into the big tech platforms. I think it is without question that these organisations have more power than any other set of corporations since the Gilded Age—or perhaps ever. They have enormous control over our society and our economy, and we must form a stronger view on the policies which are going to be required to protect our interests—our interests as individuals, but also our interests as a country—over these next few years. My hope is that this inquiry can do a good deal of that work. It may well be able to shed some light on the sorts of policies we should have had in place to better protect our interests, in light of the massive data breach that Optus is currently having to address.
I think it can also have a good hard look at the use of algorithms and how these are used on these major platforms, and what sort of policing should there be of these organisations. Of course, as a capitalist, I am always wary of government regulation, but I think there is no doubt that when an organisation becomes so large and has such a substantial impact on your economy or your society you should be prepared to consider regulation, so I very much look forward to the work that we have to do over the next 12 months.
For some time my view, as a member of this chamber, has been that the best work the Senate does is through its committees. I'm not so sure about question time being a terrific project of determining new information or developing new policies, but certainly the committees do a good job in my experience.
On 13 September, Mahsa Amini was visiting Iran's capital, Tehran, from her hometown in the western Kurdish region. Little did she realise that this would be her last visit. Mahsa was arrested by Iran's morality police. Her crime: wearing a hijab too loosely. Three days later, Mahsa was dead in police custody. Mahsa represented women around the world. She represents a defiance in the face of restraint. She represents strength and, most of all, freedom. Her legacy will now always remind the world of the harsh realities of women's rights in Iran and indeed many countries.
More than 80 Iranian cities have bound together in protest, with women leading the way. A generation of young people, particularly young women, are filling the streets. I want to offer my full solidarity to the protesters and join them in their demand, in a call for women's rights and for the rights of every person to wear what they choose. These protesters are bold and they are strong. They hold in their hands the future of Iran, and I am honoured to amplify their calls in this place. The Iranian intelligence ministry has said that anyone that takes part in these protests will be doing so illegally. Iranian authorities are making every move to shut down the right of women to have a voice, and they are not holding back in this effort. Over 1,200 people have been arrested, and at least 57 have been killed to this point. The Australian government must work internationally to hold the regime to account and ensure that the forces responsible face consequences.
We tell people to get mental health support when they're not feeling great. We say: 'It's okay to not be okay. Go and talk to someone about what's on your mind.' So why are we making it so hard for people to get help? Medicare subsidy item 288 ended on 1 January this year. This item helped people in rural and regional areas to access subsidised psychiatrist appointments by telehealth. Mental health providers were only given two weeks notice of this—over the Christmas period, no less. Merry Christmas!
Around 8,000 Tasmanians accessed psychologist appointments under item 288 last financial year. Most of these people can't afford to pay the full fee of seeing a psychologist without the subsidy. One provider told me that 90 per cent of their patients stopped seeing their psychiatrist when this subsidy cut out. The provider told me that patients were in tears when they found out. Their patients are homeless, long-term unemployed, single parents and pensioners, all people who desperately need these services. One Tasmanian mama told me her teenage daughter had been seeing a psychiatrist by telehealth. Without the subsidy, she'd be $100 out of pocket. She couldn't afford that. This woman felt like she was failing her daughter because she couldn't pay for the help her daughter needed. But I bet that mama went without to make sure her daughter was able to have those appointments. There's nothing worse as a parent than not being able to give your child the help they need.
During the election, Labor said they would bring back item 288, and I was really pleased to hear that because I know how much people have been struggling without it. But since the election we've heard crickets. There have been no updates, no splashy announcements, nothing that says when this Medicare subsidy will come back into play for the people who desperately need it. I'm hoping that October's budget will bring back item 288. I know spending is being kept to a minimum, but people shouldn't be punished for living in a rural and regional area. Government shouldn't be saying, 'Hey, because you don't live in a city, Medicare won't help you.' We can't put a price on people's mental health.
This is a fantastic opportunity to say how happy I am about the Albanese Labor government introducing the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 today. We know that this legislation is an important step forward in implementing the legislative recommendations of the Respect@Work report, so they will be finally implemented in full. We know that the previous government left the Respect@Work report on the shelf for over 12 months and then failed to implement the full recommendations. I want to congratulate the Attorney-General, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and particularly the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, who has been championing this legislation in the Senate. It will see sexual harassment as a positive duty for employers to take proactive action on. We know that sexual harassment is preventable.
We will now move to question time.
My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On 23 September, Optus CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin said to the public of the Optus data breach: 'It is a sophisticated attack.' On ABC's 7.30 last night, when the Minister for Home Affairs was asked if she agreed it was a sophisticated attack, she replied: 'What is of concern for us is how what is quite a basic hack was undertaken on Optus.' On ABC Radio this morning, Ms Bayer Rosmarin described the minister's comments as misinformation. Minister, who is right here?
That was to me, wasn't it?
Yes.
That's a pity! I thank Senator Paterson for his question. Obviously, I've just come back from the UN General Assembly, so I haven't been in Australia for the events to which he refers. I think Senator Watt is probably more across what has occurred while I've been away, and I think he was asked questions yesterday about this. This is an occasion where it does appear, if I may say so, that the lack of action by the previous government has come home to roost. When you look at, for example, the privacy commissioner's comments—
Senator Wong, resume your seat, please. Senator Paterson.
A point of order on relevance: there were no questions about the policies of the former government, only questions about interviews that occurred this morning and statements of the minister.
Senator Wong has just commenced her answer and she's heard your objection. I'll ask her to continue.
If only it were so easy that the failure to govern properly could be simply dismissed in that way. The reality is: you failed to act on so many issues, including the Privacy Act, and in relation to cybersecurity more broadly. As a consequence of the previous government's failures on this front, Australia is less prepared for and less resilient to cyberattacks than we should have been. You would know that, Senator Paterson, because you are one of the people on that side who understands some of the issues of national security and some of the complexity. You would know that the previous government did not pay sufficient attention to this issue. You would know, for example, that there were recommendations made, which the privacy commissioner has talked about, to strengthen the regulatory framework to provide additional rights for Australians to protect their personal information, and it does not appear that they were acted upon.
Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham.
A point of order on relevance: in response to Senator Paterson's point of order before, you indicated the minister was just beginning her response. When he drew a point of order that the question was related to statements about this particular cyberattack and which of those statements was correct, the minister went on talking about the former government. You indicated she was beginning her answer and gave her some latitude, but now, with 12 seconds left, I ask you to draw the minister to the question.
I will draw the minister to the question by Senator Paterson.
As I understand it—and my brief is that on 21 September Optus reported a data breach to the Australian Cyber Security Centre—shortly after identifying the compromise, Optus took action to contain the incident— (Time expired)
Senator Paterson, a first supplementary question?
I note that the minister did not say whether she supported the minister's version of events or Optus's version of events, but I'll try again. On ABC Radio this morning, the Optus CEO said that this data was encrypted and had multiple layers of protection. On ABC's 7.30 last night, the Minister for Home Affairs accused Optus of having 'effectively left the window open for data of this nature to be stolen'. Minister, who is right here?
Self-evidently, the data could be stolen. I find it hard to believe that you come into this place, Senator Paterson, and are concerned about the minister saying that, when it's self-evidently the fact that the data has been stolen. The data has been stolen, and the government has been working, including with Optus, to try and resolve what has occurred with this data breach. But I think it is an odd thing to do, to come into this chamber and try to play politics on the basis—
Sorry—did you want to say something?
Order! It is disorderly to engage across the Senate chamber, and I ask senators to remain quiet while Senator Wong concludes her answer.
I find it passing strange that you would come into this chamber being upset about a minister making a point that is demonstrated in fact. This data has been breached.
The minister's wrong.
The minister is wrong that the data has been breached?
Order! Senator McGrath!
I just think that's pretty extraordinary. We know that there has been a breach. I think that is not contended. (Time expired)
Before I call Senator Paterson I would ask all senators and remind them that interjections are disorderly and that Senator Paterson has the right to ask his question in silence and Minister Wong has the right to respond to that question in silence. Senator Paterson.
As part of the response to the cyberattack, will the government expedite passport applications and waive fees of Optus customers whose passport details may have been compromised in this data leak?
That is a good question and I should say that obviously the situation is evolving and the government is considering how we respond to identified risks such as the one you have outlined. Regrettably, this occurs at a time when we already have a lot of pressure in the passport system as a consequence of the previous government's failure to plan for the massive spike in passport applications that occurred because people didn't renew whilst the borders were closed. I think I've been up-front with the public, and Assistant Minister Watts has been up-front with the public, about how we are trying to resolve that issue. But that is an issue that will take time, and we are still dealing with unprecedented demand, and this comes at a time when the system is already under pressure. (Time expired)
PRATT (—) (): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister detail the global economic headwinds the Australian economy is facing?
I thank Senator Pratt for the question. Last night the OECD revealed analysis outlining the significant downturn they are anticipating, with downgrades to the growth outlook for almost all of the world's major economies and almost all of our major trading partners. The OECD analysis has wiped 0.6 percentage points off the global growth projection for 2023 and is predicting no growth at all for the UK next year, negligible growth in the United States and slower growth in China than previously predicted. The factors contributing to this are growing inflationary pressures, increasing energy security shocks, the continued illegal war advanced by Russia against Ukraine and extreme uncertainty over the future.
This analysis from the OECD is confronting reading, but I want to assure Australians that we are working all day and every day to put the Australian economy in the best position it can be placed in to tackle these global challenges head on. In a few weeks the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, will be going to Washington for a short trip to meet with our international counterparts about some of the current challenges, to discuss some of these difficult issues and challenges that lie ahead, not just here in Australia but globally. The reality, certainly from my point of view, is that the budget could have been in a better and stronger position if it wasn't for the years of mismanagement from those opposite. We are doing what we can to put that budget back on track. But there's no doubt that there are some difficult days ahead which will require a lot of work as well as cooperation and collaboration with our international counterparts. But I can assure Australians that the Treasurer and I, and our colleagues, are working day and night to make sure that the budget we put together in October assists with meeting some of these challenges.
Senator Pratt, a first supplementary question?
Can the minister outline how the Australian economy is placed to deal with some of these global challenges?
I thank Senator Pratt for the supplementary question. Here in Australia we do have some advantages that will position the economy well to withstand the worst of these challenges, but, as the OECD report identifies, some of these are intensifying, not disappearing, and the Australian economy will not be immune from these impacts.
We are a government that from day one have been upfront with Australians about the situation now and what we forecast to be the challenges we will collectively face in the future. This is a stark difference to the kind of government we saw when those opposite were in office. As I said, this is not aided by the state of the books we inherited, which aren't in good shape. We are making some—
Woops—just got a $50 billion turnaround!
I'm happy to debate that with you, Senator Henderson, if you want to bring that on. But we entered this period of uncertainty after a wasted decade, the consequences of which can be seen in wages growth, flatlining productivity and a trillion dollars of debt. (Time expired)
Senator Pratt, a second supplementary question.
nator PRATT (—) (): Can the minister outline why the Albanese Labor government is best placed to guide the Australian economy through these challenging times?
I can. It is critical for Australia's economy that we deal with some of the challenges, as we have been doing with climate, after ten wasted years on energy policy—22 failed policies, and not one of them landed. We are looking at policies like cheaper childcare, investing in TAFE, cleaner and cheaper energy, skills reform and a future made in Australia. We need to make sure that we are dealing with the waste and rorts that defined the period of the previous government. But this is just the beginning, not the end, of our work. Our work will last beyond this budget and into the next. It will take multiple budgets to fix the mess we got left with, and it will involve some hard choices. But, despite everything that's been thrown at us, Australian's have every reason to be optimistic about the long-term prospects of our economy and our country, and, certainly, the budget that we are putting together right now.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Will the minister rule out tax increases or new taxes on Australians in the coming budget?
I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Albanese government's plan to fix the budget and to deliver on our promises. We have made it clear, and we made it clear during the election campaign, that our focus would be on multinational tax reform. We outlined that in our plan for a better budget. We were clear about the revenue this would return. We were also clear about the savings that we would seek to put in place to fix the budget that you broke. That is clear in our—what would we call it?—'Better budget, better economy: Labor's plan for a better future.' This is the plan that got endorsed.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Henderson?
Thank you, Madam President. On a point of order, I ask that the minister direct her comments through the chair.
There was so much disorder then. I think the minister was, apart from one interjection. I remind senators once again that interjections are disorderly and that comments need to be directed to the chair. Please continue, Minister.
Thank you, President, I was just getting started. We will not be lectured—when you lot were in government you were the highest taxing and highest spending government in history. And here you are trying to lecture us about it. We've been clear about what our plan is. Our focus is on multinational tax reform. You could also support our approach to reduce taxes on electric vehicles. We actually want to lower taxes.
Senator Birmingham?
President, I have a point of order on relevance. Senator Cash's question was very clear, asking about tax increases or new taxes on Australians. It wasn't about multinationals; it was about taxes on Australians.
Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I would ask senators when they call points of order to please be brief. I'll call the minister. I do believe she is being relevant.
The point I was making, and I have made, is that our focus will be on multinational tax reform. Our focus in the budget will be implementing the commitments we took that formed part of Labor's plan for a better future. We won't be lectured by those about taxes—
Opposition senators interjecting—
How about you support our proposal to lower taxes. How about that? We thought you liked lower taxes. Lower taxes on electric vehicles—how about that? How about you support that? We're trying to lower taxes. That's a priority and you guys won't have a bar of it. You want to keep them high.
I regret to have to raise this point of order again, but just a reminder to direct her comments through the chair, please.
Thank you, Senator Henderson. I will remind those particularly on my left that interjections are disorderly. There are a lot of interjections coming from the left. I remind all senators that those are disorderly. I'll remind the minister that her comments need to be directed to the chair.
Of course I will follow that ruling. We won't be lectured by those opposite about taxing when their record on taxing was as the highest taxing government. We are doing the responsible thing. We will be implementing the commitments we took to the election.
Senator Cash, a first supplementary?
Can the minister guaranteed to the Senate that there will be no changes to franking credits in the upcoming budget, as Labor promised at the last election?
This budget will be our opportunity to implement the commitments we took to the election. As I have been clear, we are implementing the policies that we took—remember those? We've got them. We've got the policies. The October budget is partly to implement our election commitments and the other part of the October budget—sorry, through you, President—is to deal with the waste and rorts that you guys buried in the budget as a payoff to colleagues when you were—
A point of order in relation to relevance: the question was incredibly specific. It referred to ruling out changes to franking credits. I would ask that you direct the minister to be relevant to the question.
Thank you, Senator Cash. It also included the word 'budget', but the—
Opposition senators interject ing—
I can't direct the minister to answer your question. I can direct the minister where she is not being relevant to be relevant. Please continue, Minister.
I think I've answered the question. You're right, President, I was asked about what will be in the budget. It will be a combination of policies we took to the election. The first stage of the waste and rorts work that I've been doing cleaning up the mess—the billions of dollars in the budget that you buried for political convenience. That's what this budget will be about.
Senator Cash, a second supplementary?
Can the minister advise whether Australian families will receive the promised $275 energy bill relief in the upcoming budget?
You continue to surprise me, Senator Cash. Honestly—after 10 years, 22 failed energy policies, a 20 per cent increase in electricity prices on your watch that you buried before the election—that you would stand up and ask us about energy prices—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I have a senator on her feet seeking to make a point of order. It was so disorderly that Senator Cash had to sit down again. I would ask senators to listen quietly. Senator Cash.
I rise on a point of order: relevance. The question was actually about the government, not the opposition, and whether or not Australian families will receive the promised $275. I would ask you to direct the minister to the question.
Thank you, Senator Cash, I will direct the minister to your question.
The audacity of it is just absolutely staggering, as though you are these passive players in the decade of energy failure—honestly!
Order! Senator Wong. Senator Cash. Minister, have you concluded your answer? You have five seconds.
Yes.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Minister Wong. Last week's announcement regarding the landmark case against the Australian government lodged to the UN Human Rights Committee by the people of the Torres Strait Islands in May 2021 clearly stated the federal government breached their fundamental rights to culture and life. What will the new Labor government do to ensure they uphold Indigenous rights as part their climate policy and planning, in particular article 27—the right to culture—and article 17—the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home?
Thank you, Senator Cox, for the question. She is correct that the UN Human Rights Committee found on Friday 23 September that Australia had violated the rights of a group of Torres Strait Islanders by failing to adequately protect them from the impacts of climate change. The finding was made in response to a 2019 complaint filed by eight Torres Strait Islanders from small or low-lying islands in the Strait. This is a reminder, if I may say, before I try to respond to the second part of the question, of what the Labor Party has been saying for years, which is that climate change was an existing threat to island nations and island homes, both in the Pacific region but also in the Torres Strait. I can recall going to Saibai Island when I was climate minister in 2008 or 2009 and seeing first hand what was already occurring as a result of increased storm surge, how that was eroding coastline and eroding infrastructure. It is a reminder yet again of the irresponsibility of those opposite, who, for nine years, refused to do anything about this.
In relation to the broader issue, which is how you try to give effect to and keep faith with First Nations peoples, we have a long way to go on this. I acknowledge that. Part of what we're trying do with our First Nations ambassador and First Nations foreign policy initiatives is work through how it is that we bring the perspective of First Nations people into the work that we do into the world, including on climate. I was very grateful to have Senator Dodson accompany me to the UN General Assembly for that reason. (Time expired)
Senator Cox, a first supplementary question?
Australia can no longer hide behind the myth that scope 3 emissions are not their responsibility and they are free of legal obligation after this landmark case. What are the decisive steps this government is taking to drastically cut emissions and invest in adaptation measures in the Torres Strait Islands and other First Nations communities vulnerable to climate change?
In relation to the first part, we are not hiding behind anything. That is the framework the United Nations has agreed, so let's be clear about that. We are adhering to a finding that the world community has agreed. We will take decisive steps, as we are taking for the first time in a decade, to reduce emissions. Under our policy, in excess of 80 per cent of Australia's energy—despite the fact we have vast fossil fuel resources—the overwhelming majority of our energy this decade will be renewable. That is a substantial step.
In relation to the broader issue of adaptation I would make the point that we are clear about the need to try and help, or work with, Torres Strait Islander communities— (Time expired)
Senator Cox, second supplementary?
Minister, when will this government start listening to the voices of First Nations people in Australia, led by our Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters and their children, who echo their neighbouring Indigenous nations of the Asia-Pacific and globally, to say no to new coal and gas projects on their ancestral lands that breach their human rights, fast-tracking the destruction of our culture and climate and risking their livelihoods?
First, in relation to the voices of First Nations communities, Australia's environmental assessment regime will ensure those voices are heard. I think you have seen from senators in this place on this side and, I would hope, from some from the other side a recognition that that is an important part of ensuring approvals meet the community test, the social licence test.
In relation to who we are listening to, I make the point to you that the Torres Strait has seen the Prime Minister, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the climate minister all visit in the first months of government to hear firsthand from First Nations people in the Torres Strait about their experience, what they need and how we can help. We intend to engage in good faith with them and with the views of the human rights committee.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. The cyberattack on Optus and the theft of personally identifiable customer data is of great concern. Can the minister please update the Senate on the breach and the possible impact on Australians?
Thank you, Senator Ciccone. You're right; this is a matter of great concern to all Australians. Australians expect when they hand over their personal data that every effort will be made to keep it safe from harm. We know that millions of Australians have been impacted by the Optus data breach. This data breach, let's be clear, should not have happened. It involved the release of Australian citizens' names, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, residential addresses, and, for some customers, passport and drivers' licence numbers being for sale on the dark web—completely unacceptable.
As the government, we were incredibly concerned this morning about further reports that personal information from the Optus data breach also includes Medicare numbers. Medicare numbers were never advised to have formed part of compromised information from this data breach. Optus has a clear obligation to notify affected individuals and the Australian Information Commissioner when a data breach involving personal information is likely to result in serious harm. Consumers also have a right to know exactly what individual personal information has been compromised in Optus's communications to them.
Yesterday the Minister for Home Affairs called on Optus to provide more support to impacted customers. I was pleased that Optus made a commitment to provide free credit monitoring to impacted consumers. This will help protect consumers against identity theft as a result of this breach. I know all my government colleagues are of the same view. The government expects Optus to continue to work with customers to help them understand the impact on them and what Optus can do to help. Optus owes the Australian public a full explanation—nothing less.
Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?
Thank you for that response, Minister. Can you please outline the steps the Australian government is taking in response to the data breach?
Thank you, Senator Ciccone. As the Minister for Home Affairs said yesterday, and as I repeated in this chamber yesterday, very substantial support has been provided by the Australian government since this data breach was revealed. I want to credit the work of the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Australian Federal Police for their support.
The Attorney-General has also announced today that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also assisting the AFP with this investigation, which shows the reach of this data breach. The Privacy Commissioner is currently working with Optus to obtain further information to determine whether she will conduct a formal investigation. While we will of course not go into the technical assistance and cybersecurity advice being provided to Optus, we want to reassure Australians that the full weight of cybersecurity capabilities across government, including the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Australian Federal Police, are working around the clock, along with ministers, to respond to this breach.
Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary.
Again, I thank the minister for that answer. Could the minister please outline how this government's approach to cybersecurity contrasts with the previous administration?
Thank you, Senator Ciccone. This is a very important point that I know Senator Wong was also going to in her answer to Senator Paterson's questions. I have outlined the approach that this government have taken in the short time that we've been in office in response to cybersecurity in general, and in response to this particular data breach. The contrast to the inaction and sloth that we saw, for 10 years, from the then government could not be greater.
To give you one example: in March 2019—over three years ago—the then Attorney-General Mr Porter stated that 'existing protections and penalties for misuse of Australians' personal information fall short of community expectations'. That was three years ago. He followed it up by finally introducing legislation in June 2019, saying, again, that penalties needed to be increased for data privacy breaches. That legislation then sat around doing nothing for three years. Further legislation was introduced just before the election—and nothing happened. I noticed Mr Tehan this morning said the former government was 'asleep at the wheel'. Here is yet another example of it doing so. (Time expired.)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Today ACOSS launched a new report, How JobSeeker and other income support payments are falling behind the cost of living. We already know Australians are suffering the worst cost-of-living crisis in generations. The report reveals just how bad this is: 62 per cent of low-income earners are eating less or skipping meals; 71 per cent are cutting back on meat, fresh fruit and vegetables; almost half of low-income owners spend half of their income on rent; 71 per cent of low-income earners have been cutting back on heating over winter. When will the government raise the rate above $48 per day and lift millions of Australians out of poverty?
I thank Senator Pocock for that very important question. The issue is one that the current government takes very seriously, and it appreciates the sentiment and the sincerity in which you have raised this issue. I'll make a couple of observations about the process.
Of course, there will be an indexation process in the October budget. We know from statements already made by the Prime Minister that he is obviously concerned about the issue, concerned about the people who find themselves in those situations. He has undertaken to look closely at the issue and to see what can be done in what is a very difficult budgetary circumstance. We were left with $1 trillion worth of debt, as has been said already, by the previous government—the highest-taxing and highest-spending government in history. That's left us with an extremely difficult set of financial circumstances to deal with. The Prime Minister understands the issues that people in these circumstances find themselves, and he has undertaken that he will look at the issue. (Time expired.)
Senator Pocock, your first supplementary.
Thank you, Senator Farrell. Outside of indexation, will the rate be raised in the September budget?
Thank you again, Senator Pocock, for your question and for your concern in this space. I'd make this observation: it's not customary for ministers, particularly ministers like myself, to reveal what may or may not be in the budget. That's for the Treasurer to deal with, and he will deal that in due course. We don't have very long to wait to find out what will be in what will be the first Albanese budget. However, I can say this: five million people— (Time expired)
Senator Pocock, a second supplementary?
We hear much from the government about tough challenges and tough choices that the government face. This is about choices. What do you say to Canberrans like Sam and Leilani, who are here today, about whether they should choose between housing or heating? What do you say to them when you are subsidising a fossil fuel industry that's making record profits, to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money?
Well, I say to them: welcome to the Senate. If they'd like to identify themselves, I will give them a little wave. There they are.
Don, you can't waffle your way through everything.
Look, I've answered all of the questions as honestly as I can. I wish that, with the wave of a wand, we could solve every difficult financial issue that we were left by the incompetent coalition government over the last nine years. We're not going to be able to do that, but we understand the issues, and I can only repeat what the Prime Minister has already said: it's his intention to look at this issue from now on in respect of every budget. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Minister, on 28 July, the Minister for Health said 'it has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor' in Australia. Just yesterday he described the GP shortage as 'terrifying' and something he is 'deeply concerned' by. Given the health minister clearly recognises the pressures that the health system is under, can the minister guarantee the government will not cut the $27.5 million in regional development funding for the Coffs Harbour health services precinct delivered in the 2022 federal budget?
R (—) (): I won't stand here and foreshadow decisions that are being considered through the budget process. I have been clear with the chamber and, I think, publicly that we are reviewing measures from the March 2022-23 budget, the budget before the election. We are reviewing that budget. There was a lot of spending in it, but if that spending is warranted—if it's needed, if it meets that test—then we will make decisions based on that. Seriously, we, an incoming government, need to go through and have a look at where this money was placed. We've seen reports in the paper today about some of the decisions made under some of these programs where proponents weren't aware of them, where applications weren't made for them or when disproportionate amounts went to particular parts of the country, so there is a legitimate issue here that we are taking our time to work through.
On the issue of health and making sure that the health system is adequately resourced, we have already injected over $1.4 billion, I think, into the health system through various payments and COVID related things. I'll check if I've got that figure wrong, but we have made those investments. This was money that wasn't provisioned for by the previous government. We have made additional investments into health.
On the issue of the GP shortage, it is a crisis. Primary care is in crisis, and nine years of cuts to Medicare and pushing back and not ensuring that there was a good supply of doctors coming into and being trained in general practice are problems that we have inherited from those opposite and are trying to fix. People can be guaranteed that a Labor government will always be better on hospitals and will always be better on Medicare. (Time expired)
Senator Cadell, a first supplementary question?
Can the minister also guarantee that the government will not be cutting the $19.5 million in regional development funding for the Shepparton Rural Clinical School delivered in the 2022 federal budget?
As I said, my answer is the same. We are going through all the measures. If they stack up, if they actually meet that quality test—yes, they're needed; yes, they can be delivered; yes, they've been properly costed—then we will proceed with many of the measures, where they meet that test. If they don't meet that test, then we are looking at other opportunities to reprioritise, to return money to the budget. Can I just remind people: the budget we inherited had deficits in the order of over $200 billion across the forward estimates—$1 trillion in debt. Costs of servicing debt are going to exceed many government programs in the next few years. Just the increase in interest is going to hit the budget to $125 billion. This is the budget that we're trying to manage, and we will prioritise accordingly. (Time expired)
Senator Cadell, a second supplementary question?
Can the minister guarantee that the government will not cut the $8.3 million regional development funding for a national posttraumatic stress disorder centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast delivered in the 2022 federal budget?
We're working through all that. As I've said, my answer is the same to the two previous questions. But I would also say we are—
No, this is serious. We are working through all the ongoing health programs—adult dental, for example, which just falls off a cliff next year. They're the problems we've inherited. What about the My Health Record card? We'll just get rid of that, shall we, in the next two years? We have so many terminating programs in health—over 200 terminating programs that we are dealing with that you hid when you tried to make the presentation of your budget look better, by cutting services and not funding them properly, in an ongoing way. So, is adult dental going to need to be funded after next year? Yes, I reckon there's a pretty high chance that it will need to be. Yet those opposite didn't make provision for it in the budget, and this is what we are fixing.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. The MOP(S) Act review is due to be completed by the end of this week. Will the government immediately release the review when it is provided to the Prime Minister? If it doesn't intend to release it there and then, how long will it take until you will release that review?
Sorry, I didn't catch the end of the question—and I thank Senator Lambie for the question. I think it was around release of the MOP(S) review. I think the intention is to release that review after it's been provided and people have had an opportunity to be briefed on it. The intention is to release that review publicly.
Senator Lambie, a first supplementary question?
Standard convention is that opposition staffing as set as a proportion of the staffing allocation afforded to the sitting government. What's the convention for the crossbench?
My understanding is that the allocation of personal staff across ministerial offices, opposition offices and the crossbench is at the complete discretion of the Prime Minister. That is a decision that falls entirely within his portfolio and he's made those decisions based on information and advice he's had.
Senator Lambie, a second supplementary question?
Since the Prime Minister has never come from the crossbench, why should the leader of a political party have the power to set the resources available to his political opponents?
This is the arrangement that has existed for some time. It is my understanding that staffing levels in this building, and how many advisers people are entitled to have, is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. I think, from the discussions that I've had with him, that he felt that additional staff over and above EO staff should be provided to members of the crossbench where they had additional responsibilities, and that's what he's done. Everyone gets four electorate office staff, and I think in the Senate people have been provided with two additional staff on top of that. That means crossbenchers have six personal staff available to them. We also use electorate office staff, as members in this place do all the time. In fact, I'm using EO staff in my office when required to support parliamentary responsibilities. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The tourism and travel industry has had a few challenging years. Given that today is World Tourism Day, can the minister please provide an update on how the industry is faring?
I thank Senator Sterle for his excellent question on World Tourism Day. It is, in fact, World Tourism Day today, and I'd like to say thank you to the dedicated people who work in our tourism and travel industry. Without you, we wouldn't have such a robust and vibrant tourism industry.
The survival of tourism businesses and the growth that we've seen in the domestic tourism market is a testament to the hard work and dedication of those people who work in this industry. It has been a very tough few years for many travel and tourism businesses. Managing through the pandemic was no small feat, but Australians are back out enjoying some of our iconic regions, ticking things off their bucket lists and supporting local travel and tourism businesses.
Tourism Research Australia's data shows that domestic tourism is actually booming. Many regions have surpassed where they were pre pandemic, and others are close to pre-pandemic levels. The previous government had all the wrong priorities. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce JobKeeper, and then they removed it from tourism businesses far too early, knowing that many were still struggling immensely.
The growth seen in our domestic industry is a testament to the hard work of those who work in the visitor economy and their determination to keep the doors open and the tours operating. Again, I say thank you to every person who works in our tourism and travel sector.
Senator Sterle, a first supplementary question?
Minister, what is the Albanese government doing to support the tourism and travel industry to recover post pandemic?
I once again thank Senator Sterle for his very important question. This government, unlike the previous government, understands the importance of the travel and tourism industry. That's why we've decided that, in the upcoming budget, we are going to invest in the recovery of this sector. Pre COVID, the visitor economy was worth about $166 billion annually, and it was growing faster than GDP. It supported one in 12 Australians in work. Our $48 million tourism package aims to attract and train workers, upgrade caravan and camping infrastructure, increase the focus on business events and work— (Time expired)
Senator Sterle, a second supplementary question?
Minister, what are some of the outcomes you are hoping will come from the Tourism Ministers Meeting?
That's an excellent question, Senator Sterle. Pre the pandemic, tourism employed almost one million Australians across every state and territory. It's a truly national industry which every jurisdiction has an interest in maintaining and growing, which is why I'm looking forward to meeting with my fellow tourism ministers at the upcoming ministerial meeting in Adelaide next week. We will be discussing ways that all governments can work together to support our tourism industry in all of the regions. There will be a focus on addressing the workforce and skills shortages, as well as issues facing aviation in our country. These are some of the largest problems facing the sector and unfortunately no region has been immune. They are not new issues, just ones that the last government simply— (Time expired)
My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The ACCC states that because of the temporary cut in the fuel excise:
… in the period between 29 March and 10 May 2022, the largest decrease seen in average daily regular unleaded petrol prices was:
Does the minister agree?
I have got no reason to disagree with the ACCC. I have no reason to. The information I have before me, which is, I think, taken from a different data source, aligns largely with that. Yes, in the larger markets falls were in the order of anywhere from 26 per cent in Sydney, to, I think, the biggest in Perth and Darwin, which were higher than that. Yes, I have no reason to disagree that because of the fuel excise temporary measure we did see a fall from the peaks that were experienced in March.
Senator Smith, a first supplementary?
Can the minister advise the Senate on the average monthly benefit to motorists living in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth of the decision to provide temporary fuel excise relief?
(—) (): I don't have that information. I will see if I can make it available. It would vary considerably, obviously, across households, depending on the number of cars, the distance that you travel for work, people living in the suburbs and commuting to the city versus those who are in the city. There are a whole range of different factors there. I don't think any of us are disputing the fact that the excise, which cost $2.9 billion for six months, reduced the price of petrol at the bowser. That was the intention of that policy. It was when petrol prices were considerably higher than they are right now. Your party, when in government, set the timetable for that to come off at the end of September. Our decision is aligned with the timetable that you, when you were in government, set. It was set as a temporary measure. As people would know, I'll have the opportunity to talk further— (Time expired)
Senator Smith, a second supplementary?
The Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, has said:
… industry estimates that there'll be more than 700 million litres of lower excise fuel in the system when the fuel excise is reintroduced… And so the ACCC and the Government expect that the price of petrol shouldn't shoot up at the bowser on Wednesday night by the full 23 cents if the normal market pressures are in operation.
Given the Treasurer's comments, can the minister confirm the date on which Australian motorists can expect to be paying— (Time expired)
It will be the date when those 700 million litres expire. That's the point we're trying to make—that we will look very firmly down on any petrol station that has supplies purchased under the previous arrangement that sees the need to, overnight, jack the price up 23c a litre. We want to make sure that people get the right deal, to the maximum possible benefit, from the fuel that was purchased under the arrangements where the temporary measure was in place. I think that's entirely reasonable. I hope you would agree with that. I think petrol stations will do the right thing. We wanted to make sure the Australian people knew about that, which is why we made those comments last week and it's why the ACCC will be watching this as the temporary measure comes off. But we would like to see people do the right thing. It's a generous measure that's been put in place, but it's only temporary. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Can the minister report to the Senate on her visit to the United Nations General Assembly and on her message to other countries on the need to protect and promote the international rules based order?
Can I thank Senator Green for her question and for her interest in international affairs and also thank, on indulgence, my colleagues, particularly Senators Farrell and Gallagher, for covering me in my absence yesterday.
Australia helped create the United Nations after World War II, and we did that because it was in our interests to have a world in which countries operate by agreed rules and norms and where outcomes are not determined by power and size alone. In fact, if you look at what is occurring in Ukraine, it is a reminder of how much all of us have to lose if we fail to protect the United Nations Charter. Australia and every other country in the world cannot accept a situation where large countries simply can determine the fate of smaller countries. We don't want to see any one country dominating or any country being dominated. For this reason, Russia's attack on Ukraine is an attack on all smaller countries, and this was the message in meetings around the UN General Assembly week and in the national statement that I articulated on behalf of Australia. It is a position which aligns us with nations around the world, particularly those small and medium-sized nations.
I had the privilege of delivering a national statement to the General Assembly on behalf of Australia. In that, I made the point that we are more than just supporting players in a drama of global geopolitics. We can't leave it to the big powers to work it out and we can't be passive when big powers flout the rules. That is Australia's historical legacy at the United Nations. It is a legacy that the Albanese government seeks to renew. We all want a world that is stable, that is peaceful, that is prosperous and that is respectful of sovereignty, and it is up to all of us to create that world. In Australia's own region, we have to ensure also that competition does not escalate into conflict, and it is up to all of us to consider how it is we can avert such catastrophic— (Time expired)
Senator Green, first supplementary?
Can the minister outline how she used her time in New York to advance the national interest?
I had the opportunity in New York to attend around 60 engagements, which included bilateral and trilateral meetings, pull-asides and larger meetings where I could represent Australia's views. Bilateral meetings obviously reflected our key national priorities. It was an opportunity to meet with counterparts from countries that I've not had a chance to visit as well as to re-engage with representatives from nations which I have had the opportunity to visit. Those direct meetings included Indonesia, India, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, China, Jordan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and others and were often focused on the threats to the rules based order and what we could collectively do to protect it. That was also a major focus of a meeting with Quad foreign ministers. I chaired a meeting of the Friends of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, convened by the Prime Minister of Japan— (Time expired)
Senator Green, second supplementary?
Of particular interest to my part of the world, Minister: how did the Albanese Labor government use participation at the General Assembly to promote the concerns of our Pacific family?
At the United Nations, we worked to ensure that we engaged deeply with our Pacific partners and responded to their needs. This included working with Pacific Islands Forum members to launch the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, which I had the privilege of hosting—well, Prime Minister Bainimarama hosted it at the Australia mission, and we were very privileged to support that. In addition, I joined the United Nations General Assembly Ocean Panel leaders on ensuring the health and resilience of our oceans, which we know is vital to our Pacific family.
Unlike those opposite, we know we are stronger in the world when we work together to defend our interests, and we seek to treat our friends and partners with respect and listen to what they say. Instead of disrespecting our Pacific family's climate concerns, we are seeking to work with them to deliver real action on climate and to build a stronger Pacific family, and I thank them for their engagement. (Time expired)
With that, President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I just have a matter relating to question time yesterday. In question time on 26 September, I took questions from Senator McKenzie in my capacity as the minister representing the Treasurer relating to the fuel tax credits scheme. I've written to Senator McKenzie to provide additional information, and I table the letter for the information of senators.
by leave—I move:
That general business notice of motion No. 43 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Waters, move:
That the Senate—
(a) condemns all racism and discrimination against migrants and people of colour;
(b) assures all migrants to Australia that they are valued, welcome members of our society;
(c) affirms that, if Parliament is to be a safe place for all who work and visit here, there can be no tolerance for racism or discrimination in the course of parliamentarians' public debate; and
(d) censures Senator Hanson for her divisive, anti-migrant and racist statement telling Senator Faruqi to 'piss off back to Pakistan', which does not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.
Like many migrants and people of colour in this country, I've been told to go back to where I come from hundreds of times. Senator Pauline Hanson did it a few days ago, telling me in a tweet to 'piss off back to Pakistan'. It was a racist slur against me and for her supporters—a deliberate and effective attempt to whip up a frenzy and mobilise a pile on. Right on cue, her tweet triggered an avalanche of—and days of—abusive calls, emails, tweets and comments directed at me, saying things like: 'People will piss on your grave'; 'I will cheer when you die'; 'Your lot are good for target practice'; 'What a dirty, vulgar creature you are'; and 'You are lower than pond life.' Predictably—
What about your tweets, Senator Faruqi?
This is exactly what I'm talking about, President. This is the sort of behaviour—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order. This is a particularly serious matter.
She said something exactly like that.
Senator Canavan, I've called the Senate to order! I am asking senators on this occasion to listen respectfully. If you wish to make a point, stand and make that point respectfully. Do not call out across the chamber. It is disrespectful and it is disorderly. I expect Senator Faruqi and any other senator who participates in this debate, whether you agree with their opinion or not, to be heard in silence. Senator Faruqi.
Thank you, President. Predictably, dozens of versions of 'Shut the eff up, and leave' were also there.
Opposition senators interjecting—
While I bore the brunt of it, my family—
Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. Senator Watt?
Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt the debate, but Senator Canavan is obviously ignoring your request. This is a sensitive matter. Discussions have occurred to keep this debate respectful, and I'd ask that all senators, regardless of their opinions, follow that so that we can have a debate on a sensitive matter in a respectful manner. That applies across the chamber.
Thank you, Senator Watt. I do not expect—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! I do not expect repeated points of order to be called during this debate. I expect senators to be respectful—that is, to remain silent. You are free to stand and seek the call and make a point. I would ask you to respond in that way. Please continue, Senator Faruqi.
Thank you, President. While I bore the brunt of it, my family and staff were also subjected to unacceptable vitriol. Someone even called my husband's workplace and told him to go back to where he came from because 'people are effing sick' of us.
Many migrants let me know how triggered they felt after reading Senator Hanson's attack tweet. It never gets easier to deal with racist attacks. It hurts every time. It does shape my sense of worth and belonging to a place which has been home to me for 30 years. It is insulting and it is humiliating but then that is exactly what it is intended to be. Racism takes an immense toll on our mental and physical health. It is an experience that is hard to explain, being despised, not just for what I look like and where I came from but also for having the audacity to participate in public debate. It is even more painful because so often we are told to just get on with it. We are gaslighted by those who have never experienced racism into downplaying our own trauma. We are also gaslighted by those who think engaging in racist attacks constitutes a debate, even though the line between genuine, robust debate and racism and discrimination should actually be clear to everyone.
Senator Hanson crossed that line, as she has done so many other times. While others take for granted the right to voice their opinion, for migrants of colour, our Australianness will always be conditional. It is conditional on us keeping our heads down and mouths shut, it is conditional on us being grateful for being let in, it is conditional on us giving up our identity and assimilating, and it is conditional on us agreeing to those in power, even if it means ignoring our own trauma. Well, to hell with that. Let me say this loudly and clearly to Senator Hanson and to each and every person who joined in at the pile-on, including Senator Lambie: I and everyone like me, us black and brown people, have every right to participate in public debate, just like white people. Yet you hate us for having the temerity to raise our heads above the parapet, to join the public debate on what you see as controversial topics.
I am here, in here. You try to silence people who hold racism to account instead of the perpetrators of racism. Targets of racism risk being labelled unparliamentary for pointing out blatant racism when it happens, while the racists sit back and relax, protected from the repercussions of outdated, unfit-for-purpose conventions and rules. You will not silence us. I will not be silenced, especially on the topic of the British monarch and monarchy, the head of an Empire which ruthlessly colonised, plundered, looted and divided the land of my ancestors. Truth about the Empire must be told. I will not toe the line and participate in a wilful delusion about the monarchy, which exists to maintain white supremacy and to make all the beneficiaries of colonialism feel comfortable at the expense of its targets.
Over centuries of rule, over most of the Indian subcontinent where I came from, first through the violence and rapacious East India Company and then through the Crown itself, the British monarchy decimated the economy and caused the deaths of millions. They destroyed local industries like textiles and shipbuilding through violence, through taxes, through import tariffs. They taxed locals at exorbitant and unprecedented rates, and, through torture and cruelty, stole vast wealth which they shipped off to England. Reparations have never been paid by the Empire for its barbarism, and much of the loot is still shamelessly held, including in the form of diamonds in the Queen's crown or treasures in British museums.
This nation has experienced British colonialism in its bloodiest form. My solidarity is with the First Nations people, who never ceded their sovereignty of these lands and who continue to bravely speak the truth of Empire, often at much personal cost. I have the right to talk about this history without being racially vilified. Senator Hanson's catalogue of racist filth over the past decade is widely known and truly despicable yet she has rarely been held to account, if at all. She has never been held to account for all of the harm that she has caused. She has never been suspended, fined, stripped of her privileges or even just made to apologise.
She faced no real consequences in 1996 when she said this country was in danger of being swamped by Asians, and then, again, in 2016 when she claimed that we were now in danger of being swamped by Muslims. She faced no real accountability in 2006 when she claimed Africans coming to Australia had AIDS and were of no benefit to this country. She faced no real sanction in 2017 when she called Islam a disease against which we need to vaccinate ourselves. She faced no real sanction in 2017 when she mockingly wore a burqa into this chamber. But, do you know what? It's never too late. We can start today.
I do urge senators to hold your colleagues accountable for unacceptable behaviour and the racial vilification of one of your peers. If you don't, then all your commitments to setting the standard in this place will be nothing but empty rhetoric. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and thus far our parliament has accepted this hateful racism of the worst standard. It is no surprise therefore that the Jenkins review found that workers in parliament felt that they wouldn't be taken seriously in raising issues of racism. It's no surprise that First Nations people and people of colour don't see parliament as a safe workplace for them.
It is so important that we recognise that no decent workplace would tolerate the dangerous, unhinged racism that Senator Hanson has displayed against me and others. Thankfully, we have reached a crossroads in defining the kind of workplace we want to be. Whether we get there is another story. The recommendations of the Jenkins report are being implemented by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards is developing new codes of conduct for parliament, parliamentarians and parliamentary staff. It is vital that we use these opportunities, which may not come again, to make parliament more safe, respectful and diverse. Our codes of conduct must firmly prohibit racism in our workplaces. Antiracism training must be mandatory for everyone who works here. Racism must be identified and called out every single time that it happens in here, or out there, by anyone who works in this place. And people who spew such hate must face serious consequences.
I do understand that Labor has an amendment to my motion, and my motion, probably, is unlikely to get through. And I do have to call this out—the vague statement about respectful debate, which is all well and good, doesn't actually call a spade a spade. Over two days, in the parliamentary committee that is developing the codes, we heard evidence from people who mentioned to us the best practice codes of conduct, which call out behaviour like this and hold parliamentarians accountable. But we can't do that without agreeing to this motion that is in front of us. Labor's amendment really lets Senator Hanson off scot-free and gives her a free pass to do this again and again, as she has done in the past.
This is not the standard we want to set in here or out there. We have to name and shame racism and the perpetrators of racism. Censuring Senator Hanson today is really the absolute bare minimum. It is a symbolic but important step that everyone in this place can take to make clear that we condemn racism in all its forms, shapes and sizes. It is a necessary step that we must take to show the many people of colour in this country that parliament is a workplace that will not tolerate racism, and that it is simply not okay for anyone, but particularly the people you work with, to racially vilify you.
So I will say it again. Racism must be identified and called out every single time, and people who spew such hate must face serious consequences. This must start today. It can start today. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, not next year—today. This place needs to set the highest standard today for all others to follow.
First, in regard to the amendment circulated in the chamber by myself and Senator Birmingham, I acknowledge Senator Birmingham's willingness to co-sponsor, which, as people might recall, is my preferred response on issues of race in this place. That was the way in which we sought to deal with the comments that former Senator Anning made. The amendment has been circulated and there are a few changes, but I would make the point that it also calls on senators to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments both inside and outside the chamber. I, and on behalf of Senator Birmingham, move to amend the motion in the following terms:
Paragraph (a), omit "all racism and discrimination against migrants and people of colour", substitute "racism and discrimination in all its forms";
Paragraph (d), omit the paragraph, substitute "calls on all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments, both inside and outside the chamber at all times".
I will make some comments in relation to the amendment of the primary motion generally. We are seeking to amend for two main reasons. First, we don't agree that the offending sentence should be repeated in this place. We don't think it should be repeated at all, much less in the Senate. Second, we don't think that a censure can be our default response in such a situation, particularly in reference to social media and other comments.
I do want to say, to start with, that I condemn Senator Hanson's comments without reservation. I think they're appalling. They're comments that have been levelled at me countless times since I arrived in this country. I remember getting them when I was a kid in the schoolyard, and I've got them since. They're not just the pathetic hecklings of a schoolyard bully. They are, as Senator Faruqi rightly said, something you say to de-legitimise someone's right to speak. I don't know what drives it. Perhaps it's the fear of anything different—different races, different ethnicities, different opinions. But I say to Senator Faruqi: we on this side do understand your grievance at this comment and we understand why you are calling out such behaviour.
I pick up on something that Senator Faruqi said in her contribution about how triggering this is. It's true. It is triggering each time you hear it. I am the Senate leader; I still get triggered. I wonder how it is for kids in the schoolyard who get the same thing. I join in the assurance that is in the motion that all migrants to Australia are valued and welcome members of society. I was reflecting, when I saw the media focus on this, on my first speech, because I actually talked about this experience. I asked the question in the speech: How long do you have to be here and how much do you have to love this country before you're accepted? How long? The good news is that I do actually believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians are accepting. I think the overwhelming majority of Australians are accepting and respectful, and I would say also that, regardless of our differences of views, I think the overwhelming majority of members of this chamber are accepting of people of different ethnic backgrounds.
In relation to the workplace issue, the parliament has been through a long and comprehensive review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, led by Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and she rightly described us as having an opportunity to transform this place into what it should be, referring to:
… workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced … and in which any Australian, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation, disability status or age, feels safe and welcome to contribute.
She went on to say:
This aim is an important one, because it is only by reflecting the whole of Australian society, and living up to community expectations, that Parliament can perform its function in a representative democracy …
Each of us in this place needs to take responsibility for our words and the impact of our words. Sometimes we say the wrong thing. Sometimes we do say the wrong thing, but we do have an individual and collective responsibility to act in a way that Australians would expect of us and that we would expect of our fellow Australians.
It is why, when confronted with such behaviour or words that we are describing, I think it's far preferable that the response is bipartisan. That's the approach, as I said, that I took with Senator Cormann when Senator Anning made his most egregious remarks several years ago. If I may repeat what I said on that occasion, in that debate and in that motion I made clear:
… that we abhor racism and religious intolerance, and that we acknowledge and celebrate diversity and the harmony of the Australian people. We stated our respect for people from all faiths, cultures, ethnicities and nationalities—a respect that has made our country one of the world's most successful migrant nations and multicultural societies—and we reaffirmed our commitment as Australians to peace over violence, innocence over evil, understanding over extremism, liberty over fear and love over hate.
For our democracy to function well we must treat each other as equals. It is true that freedom of speech is a feature of democracy, but speech which is directed at people's heritage, race or religion is an attack on democracy, because fundamentally what it is saying is, 'You are not equal.' We must treat each other as equals, no matter the differences in our views. When we fail to take such an approach, it is not only diminishing of the other; it is diminishing of us all.
Well, this has just been hypocrisy. Pure, spectacular hypocrisy is the most fitting description for this most ridiculous motion. It is the most fitting description for the conduct of the Australian Greens. They embody hypocrisy. They signal it as a virtue. They claim they want parliament to be a safe and respectful workplace. What they really mean is that no-one must be allowed to disagree with or criticise them in any way while they are free to say anything they please. This is because they see themselves as the epitome of virtue who can say or do nothing wrong. Their sense of entitlement and privilege is stunning.
I wonder if they read the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. There is a very interesting story in that newspaper detailing the conduct of one Greens senator in this very building that is anything but respectful. It reports the co-chair of the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria, Aunty Geraldine Atkinson, aged in her 70s, was left shaking and ill to the point of requiring medical attention after being verbally abused by Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe in a meeting in this building last year. It reports Senator Thorpe's former chief of staff was actually 'scared and appalled' at his senator's conduct, which he described as, 'by far one of the most unprofessional displays I have ever seen', and as making him want the earth to swallow him whole.
Ms Atkinson herself described Senator Thorpe's conduct as 'vicious and personal' and 'abusive', saying she accused Ms Atkinson of being involved in corrupt Aboriginal organisations. Listen to the stunning entitlement and privilege in this: when Ms Atkinson attempted to respond to this abuse, Senator Thorpe spoke over her, 'in a highly aggressive tone, repeatedly stating: "I am an Australian senator. You are in my meeting."' This came from the same Green who, in an estimates committee hearing, told a minister she was offended by being referred to as an Australian.
There was despicable behaviour on the streets of Melbourne just recently, showing even blood on her hands and the crown's foot on her throat. You may have accused me of a lot of things in this place—what you refer to—but I have never acted with the behaviour of one of your Greens senators. You talk about my behaviour and what I've said? You may call me a racist—
Senator Hanson, may I remind you to address the chair with your remarks, please.
The whole thing is: the term 'racist' is very easily thrown about and bandied around in our country these days. People must understand what the word 'racist' means. It means you believe your race to be superior to another. I have never ever stated myself to be superior to another—ever. Criticism is not racism. To question anything is not racism.
Hear, hear!
Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. I did request that senators be heard in silence, and I reiterate that request once again.
This is coming from the same Greens senator—and I spoke about Senator Thorpe. She's gone missing. She's not here. Senator Thorpe's not here today. Wonder why? I question why she's not here.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, I am not entertaining a point of order. I have asked all senators to listen in respectful silence.
I'm not entertaining a point of order; I said that before. I've asked you, and I'm directing you, to listen in respectful silence. You may not agree with what's being said, but you were heard in silence and I expect silence from the chamber.
Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat.
Senator Whish-Wilson, I am directing you to resume your seat! This is a very difficult matter, and it is not assisted by cheering, by clapping or by comments across the chamber from any senator. I'm going to ask Senator Hanson to continue, and I expect Senator Hanson to be heard in silence.
Senator Thorpe said she was offended by being referred to as an Australian. This is coming from the same Green who happily collects a $211,000-a-year salary for sitting in a parliament she has called illegitimate.
Senator Hanson, I remind you it is not appropriate to reflect on other senators. I would ask you to withdraw that. Senator Hanson, I am asking you in the spirit of this debate to withdraw that comment.
The fact is she said she—
I'm not asking you to repeat—
I'm not—I just don't know. I said a couple of sentences there. Which one would you like me to withdraw?
Senator Hanson, I'm asking you not to reflect on a senator in any way. I'm simply asking you to withdraw.
I shall withdraw.
Thank you, Senator Hanson. Please continue.
Isn't it funny? The Greens hate the Crown but they love accepting the currency the Queen's image is printed on.
Then, of course, there is her fellow Green Senator Faruqi. This screen implies the tweet I posted in response to her disrespecting the late Queen Elizabeth II was racist and disrespectful and called for parliament to be made a safe and respectful workplace. Let me read out what her comments were:
Condolences to those who knew the Queen.
I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.
We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies & becoming a republic.
Only a couple of months earlier, she stood in this place and swore allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. Yet she turns around here and says 'a racist and a coloniser'. I just don't get it. I don't understand it.
This is the same Greens senator who posted a tweet telling the former Prime Minister of Australia to 'just eff off'. This is directed at all the Greens. You discussed the majority of the Australian people. The Greens are hated, loathed and despised by most Australians not only for their outrageous, destructive policies but also because the Greens always insult Australians as racist and destroyers of the environment. They wear this hypocrisy as a badge of honour to display this to their sycophants and young Australians being misled during their formative school years by left-leaning ideologists.
I am so grateful to the Greens for this idiotic stunt. It's time we had a real discussion about what constitutes racism. I didn't refer to Senator Faruqi's race or imply that she had inferior characteristics due to her race or country of origin. I only suggested that, because she is so obviously unhappy in her adopted country with her privileged position, she should go back to Pakistan.
I remind the Senate that Senator Thorpe yelled at me in this very chamber to go back to where I came from. I heard her comment to a couple of members in this chamber, male members 'you are just white privilege'. As far as the Greens are concerned, it's okay for them to say it but it's unacceptable for me. To them, only white people, including their own parliamentary leaders, can be racist, and I must not be allowed to say this. This is blatant reverse racism and I'm calling it out. I'm not remotely intimidated by Greens threats and their stunning hypocrisy. With their threats, they are not just trying to silence me; they are also trying to silence the many thousands of Australians who feel frightened or intimidated by the likes of your lot to have an opinion, let alone open their mouths. Your intimidation, calling someone a racist to shut them up, is not only pathetic, to say the least; it is a misuse of the true meaning of the word.
Criticism is not racism. I am fed up and so too are millions of other Australians with people who use their skin colour to play the victim. From the day I was first elected, I have always fought for equality for all Australians regardless of race. At the last election, who stood second on the ticket to me in Queensland? A gentleman from India. My candidates have come from all different walks of life and backgrounds, all different races, but you are not interested in that. If I was racist I wouldn't have people from different cultural backgrounds.
Please resume your seat, Senator Hanson.
I rise on a point of order.
Senator Hanson-Young, I said I wasn't entertaining points of order. This is a very difficult debate. I'm listening very carefully and I will ask senators to withdraw when I think they are out of order.
Senator Hanson has not been doing that. Order! This is not debating point. Senator Hanson, that is not appropriate.
No, don't debate me. I have asked all senators to treat each other with respect, to have a respectful debate, one that is in silence. Please continue.
I remind the Greens that in exchange for the tremendous privilege of serving the Australian people in this chamber, they swore allegiance to the Queen and her success. I remind them that it doesn't matter whether you think Australia should be a republic or that Australia only belongs to Indigenous people, Australia is a constitutional monarchy that belongs to every Australian, Indigenous or not.
I reflect on Senator Wong's words about the racism that she feels has happened to her over a period of time. I remember growing up in this country, the Italians used to say, 'They called us wogs.' I used to go to the fish markets and the guys down there would say, 'Yes, you know what? We wore it as a badge of honour—to be called a 'wog'.' That was the Australian way, but those people got out and worked. They felt part of the country, if you ask a lot of these people now. I see the comments on my Facebook page. People say, 'We are proud. We came to this country to be Australians.' They love this nation, they worked hard and they see themselves as Australians. That's all I've ever spoken about in a lot of my speeches.
When I mentioned in my maiden speech about being swamped by Asians, it was a comment questioning the immigration in Australia. I put this on the record again. I have spoken about it many times. We had high numbers coming from Asia and I wanted to address it by saying that we have to look at this; otherwise, we would have an imbalance in our population in time to come. It is the same as Japan. They are very parochial about who they allow into their country. Why shouldn't I have the right to say who should come to the country? We have even had former leaders of this nation say we have the right to say who comes to our country. But when Senator Hanson says it in such a way, my God, it is racist. We have to have this debate on who comes to the country, and why they should come here. I've never stated that Senator Faruqi shouldn't be here, but I was appalled—and so were many other thousands if not millions of people—by her comments in regard to the Queen less than a day after her death. I won't stand by and let that be said. I had my tweet. Senator Faruqi made comments that people like me should be pulled up. Well, when people like her make her comments, I will still have my say, and I will pull them up as well.
This place is the heart of our democracy in this nation, and we are here to represent the Australian people. When we acknowledge and accept that we all have an opinion and a right to say things, that's when we come to the right decisions for the people of this nation. They are looking at us as the leaders of this nation. My comments were not made in the chamber; they were said on a tweet, in retaliation to her comments.
Everyone has a right to have a say, but—along with a lot of other Australians—the way I see this country going is that there is too much reverse racism. I see activists who are using their race and their colour to divide us as a nation. I'll fight against that, and I'll speak out against that, every step of the way, as much as I possibly can.
It is very important to me, and I'm privileged to be here, but I refuse to acknowledge that I have made racist comments constantly. As I said to you, understand what the word racist means: your race to be superior to another. You tell me anything, since 1996 or before, that I have said that is actually racist. And I don't mean criticism of policy or criticism of immigration. There is nothing at all. Understand what the word racist means, because you are putting a message to many Australians: 'If they disagree with you, then call them a racist.' Our skin colour may be different, but we are all human beings in this place, and we have a right to a decent way of life and a decent standard of living. We have all worked hard and should enjoy this wonderful country that we have, without the hatred that goes on. It's about working together and who we are as a nation. Until that changes—and if your threats are trying to silence me it's not going to damn well happen—you are here to do a job. Do your job and represent all Australians with the dignity and respect they deserve.
In closing, as I have explained, I will not retract what I've told Senator Faruqi or any other Australian who has come here for a new way of life and disrespects what is Australian to me. She can go and do what I've said. I make the offer, also, to take her to the airport.
You scumbag! You absolute scumbag!
Senator Steele-John. You may have missed what I said before: if you are in the chamber, you will listen in silence. You will not make points across the chamber. I'm going to call Senator Birmingham now, and I remind all senators once again: you are to listen in respectful silence.
Thank you, President. And I thank the government, at the outset, for their cooperation in the joint proposal of the amendments to this motion. At a time when, right around the globe, we see enormous fracturing of politics and the way politics is conducted, and at a time when there are media and media sources perpetuating evermore extreme and conspiratorial material and perpetuating remarks that are offensive to other individuals, it is important on occasions like this that the parties of government in a country like Australia speak with one voice when it comes to central and important values for our nation. And I make clear, as the motion as proposed to be amended by Senator Wong and myself makes clear, that racism and discrimination have no place in any place, anywhere, at any time, against anyone in our nation or elsewhere. There is certainly no place in this parliament for racism or discrimination. My personal experiences will self-evidently be vastly different to those of senators of other backgrounds, who have confronted racism or discrimination leading to hurt, to injustice, to stereotyping or to prejudice.
I say to all Australians—be they others in this place or elsewhere, be they Indigenous Australians or migrants to our nation throughout the generations—that you are all valued, that you are all important, that you all, and should all, enjoy the rights and responsibilities accorded to all Australians, rights and responsibilities in equal measure to all, regardless of their background.
We all, in this great country, do have enormous rights accorded to us and enormous opportunities that are not available everywhere else around the world. But we carry some responsibilities too, and particularly the responsibilities to show respect—respect to those rights, respect to the opportunities accorded to us and respect to the systems that have provided for those opportunities—and with that, there ought to be clear respect for one another.
In this place, in this parliament, we enjoy certain privileged rights, enhanced rights, but also very clearly enhanced responsibilities for our conduct. And this parliament, as per the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins's report last year, and its title, should set the standard. That report focused on a range of different conduct issues, but frankly it should apply in all manner in relation to the way our nation engages. This place should set the standard in all of our conduct and on any of the issues and approaches that we undertake. Members and senators are of course free to seek change, but they should, in seeking change, respect the rights, the institutions and the practices that give them, in this country, the opportunity to seek those changes. Members and senators will disagree, but they should show respect for one another.
President, my advice to senators of all stripes is: stay out of the gutter; rise above the Twitterverse; play the ball, not the person. Even in the conduct of this debate the interjections, the swipes and the insinuations have hindered, not helped, in the conduct of being able to make clear statements in relation to the condemnation of racism; in relation to the assurance of all Australians, especially migrants, that they are valued and welcomed; in relation to the importance of this parliament being a safe place to work; and in relation to making sure that it is clear to all senators to engage in debates respectfully. Please look to the bigger picture and be the bigger people that Australians of all views and values overwhelmingly want us to be.
I move:
That the question be put.
Question agreed to.
I now put the question on the amendment circulated in the names of Senators Wong and Birmingham.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
I'd like to raise a point of order, if I might.
On what matter?
Do I have the call to raise a point of order?
If it's on the matter we've just concluded, no.
President, can I just suggest that 197(2) of the standing orders does allow me to make a point of order.
And it's also up to me whether I entertain a point of order.
Well, you haven't heard it yet: that's my point.
I'm not entertaining points of orders about the debate we've just had, Senator McKim. That does not add any value at all.
I'll be writing to you on this matter, President.
Thank you. I'm happy to seek the advice of the Clerk.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cash today relating to taxation.
We saw today a remarkable example of what we know is a broken promise from the newly elected government—they've already broken a promise—and then the flagging, or at least not ruling out, of more broken promises on potential tax increases in the future. As I said, we already know that the promise that the Labor Party made to the Australian people to reduce their electricity bills by $275 a year has been broken. That has been broken. The now Prime Minister told the Australian people on multiple occasions that if he were Prime Minister he would lower their electricity bills by $275. There were no conditions; there was no fine print; there was no little asterisk next to it: he promised people that their electricity bills would come down by $275. He said he'd done the modelling and it was all going to happen.
Then, within weeks of winning that election and winning the trust of the Australian people, he turned around and walked away from that promise, and we've never heard the words 'two hundred and seventy-five' come out of the Prime Minister's mouth again. Now we get vague commitments to put downward pressure on electricity prices, but there's no commitment to do what the Labor Party actually said it would just a few months ago.
Today, once again, there was an example of that. Senator Cash asked Senator Gallagher: 'Will you deliver on your promise'—not our promise; your promise—'of $275?' No, no, no; there was no commitment at all. They've already broken a core promise. It is an absolute world record for a newly elected government to break a promise that they made just months ago, and that's going to be confirmed in the budget in a few weeks' time.
Not only that; we can now see that there's going to be a laundry list of broken promises from this government. You can just see it, and there is now another one on the list, which was confirmed at question time today. When asked whether the minister could rule out any changes to franking credits, they wouldn't rule it out. Now, we all remember—it wasn't just during the election; it was years before the election—that the Labor Party said no, they wouldn't touch pensioners' franking credits. They'd learned from their mistakes—remember, from the 2019 election—and they were going to make sure that pensioners in this country could receive the full return on their investments that come through dividends and, in particular, through franked dividends, which mean that you do not pay taxes twice.
When the company that you've invested in pays taxes, it makes sure you get a credit, effectively, for those taxes so you don't get doubly taxed. But the Labor Party now, in failing to rule this out today, are putting on the table another prospective broken promise to double-tax Australian pensioners. They'll put two taxes on Australian pensioners. They'll tax the companies that they invest in. That happens. That's appropriate. Then they'll tax the income that pensioners have just to try to survive. It's very hard at the moment, with costs going up for almost everything. Food prices are going up and electricity prices are obviously on the way up. It's hard for those on fixed incomes, for those who rely on investments. They have very little ability to supplement their income with other work or other means. It is very hard for them, and the Labor Party is failing to rule out a potential tax on them.
This is very concerning, not just because of the broken promise. For anyone who is following what is going on around the world, what is happening in global markets is very, very concerning. The British pound has crashed over the weekend and remains under pressure. Government yields are up for all countries, but especially those in Europe. The Treasurer has said, rightly, that we will not be immune from these changes. But what we definitely do not need in this country is more taxes or even the prospect of more taxes, because that will kill confidence. That will presage or bring forward any potential economic downturn because investors and others will be concerned about whether the Labor Party is going to break another promise and increase taxes. They will therefore spend less today and potentially invest less. We may get the economic virus that is circulating right now primarily in Europe and a little in America. It may come to this country.
We will see in a few weeks time, when we're back here in late October, what the Labor Party does do for their budget, but it doesn't look good. The entrails for their budget are not looking good. They've got form now from breaking one promise. They're possibly about to break more. We will be watching and making sure that the Australian people understand that the Labor Party hasn't left its addiction to new taxes with the previous Rudd-Gillard government. It is on form. It is going back to form. It is breaking promises and increasing your taxes.
Those opposite broke the budget. What Minister Gallagher outlined to the Senate in question time today is a plan to fix the budget and deliver on our promises, the promises we made before the last election—not the election before that or the election before that. We've made it clear that we have an agenda on multinational tax reform. We've outlined a plan for a better budget, a plan to ensure that revenue will return to our national coffers so we can keep the country running and be clear about savings we need to make in order to fix the budget that those opposite broke. This is the plan that saw Labor get elected.
When those opposite were last in government, just recently, they were the highest taxing, highest spending government in history. It's all very well for those opposite to ask questions about ruling out tax increases or new taxes on Australians in the coming budget, but we take seriously the responsibility of balancing our budget. We take seriously the responsibility of balancing our nation's need for good-quality public services—not the waste and rorts those opposite put forward—with the need to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax, that the big end of town that those opposite let off the hook so often is there. When Australians spend their good hard-earned dollars with big companies, we don't want to see jobs and profits all going offshore. We want to see companies that have derived great benefit here on our shores paying their fair share of tax.
Let's talk about lower taxes. Why won't those opposite come on and support lower taxes on electric vehicles? That would be a great idea. We have the opportunity as a Labor government to implement what we took to the election. How about those opposite critique the policies that we took to the election, not have the arguments that they would like to have because they suit them? The simple truth is that those opposite can't put a finger on it. They can't even get close, because they know what a bad job they did. They know the mess that they left this nation in. So what are we left with? Made-up catastrophising. They're not here to critique Labor's plan for this nation; they're here to run their own scare campaign.
Seriously, this October we will have a budget ready to implement our election commitments. It will also be a budget that has to deal with the waste and rip-offs that those opposite buried in the budget. That was highlighted, frankly, in other parts of answers to questions this afternoon, when those opposite tried to ask questions about Medicare and the need and how expensive Medicare is, only to learn from Senator Gallagher that in fact there's no sustainability in the health budget that those opposite left us when serious things like adult dental care—such fundamental pieces of health care—were just expiring pieces of expenditure.
So I take pride in what our Labor government is doing. There's no depth to the questions asked by those opposite today. We saw 22 failed energy policies, a 20 per cent increase in electricity prices, and policies that you buried before the election that saw absolutely no outcome for Australians on the energy price increases that Australians have suffered through because you were missing in action on policy.
It's a real pleasure to be able to make some comments on this matter coming out of question time. Of course, question time is generally, in my view, one of the greatest wastes of public funds, because it's a theatre. It is a pretty contrived process, and all these additional questions and whatnot are pretty low-rent stuff, aren't they? But it is important that we in this chamber do our best to hold the government to account, and it is a pretty weak government. It has very few policies, and it already wants to crab-walk away from its promises on the economy.
There's a pretty important philosophical difference of views between the major parties, and that is that on this side we believe that the government has no money on its own. The money that it is able to spend it levies from the people and from organisations like corporations which are required to pay tax under the tax laws. The lower taxes are, the greater the chance is that you will have private investment. Private investment is what is required to create opportunities and employment in this country, and what we're now seeing is the spectre of higher taxes being flagged and dripped out through the financial press in the lead-up to this budget. We've already seen the Treasurer giving very lukewarm support to stage 3 tax cuts, which is very interesting and illuminating, you'd have to say, but perhaps not surprising, because I'm sure that the government actually don't believe in the stage 3 tax cuts, because they've never really been committed to aspiration.
The point of the stage 3 tax cuts is really to do two things. The first is to reward middle-income earners by ensuring that they are not pushed into higher tax brackets. It might suit the budgetary and fiscal strategy of the government of the day to have higher tax collection because of bracket creep. But cutting taxes for middle-income earners by removing these tax brackets and thereby delivering the removal, effectively, of bracket creep means that people can actually keep more money that they've earned. So, if you do another shift or you do some more hours or you do something else in relation to paid employment, you keep the money, not Canberra. I would have thought that that's a pretty reasonable proposition. For middle-income earners—on 60, 70 or 80 grand a year—that is what they will be facing. They would have faced higher taxes due to new tax thresholds, which we've abolished. The tax thresholds have been abolished as a result of the stage 3 tax cuts.
But the other point—and I know it's not fashionable—is that we actually do want to be a competitive economy. We want to attract high wage earners into this country, because we have massive skills shortages. You want to have a song and dance and have a skills summit and talk about how you want to improve our economic capacity. But every person who runs a company in this country will tell you that in the short term some of the skills can't be delivered from the domestic stock. So, we need to bring people in, and we have a very uncompetitive tax system. At a very low level of income, the highest possible tax threshold kicks in. It is very uncompetitive when compared with the systems of Singapore, Japan and countries that we are competing with right now in our time zone or close to our time zone. So, if you want to reward middle-income earners and you want to be a competitive, dynamic economy, then you need to retain the stage 3 tax cuts.
Of course, the other spectre we're now looking at is the return of the dreaded franking credits tax, whereby, as Senator Canavan has set out quite eloquently, people will be facing double taxation. They've already paid taxation. The companies have paid taxation. And now they'll be looking at the return of a new tax in retirement which has not been taken to any election. So, although I'm not a huge fan of question time, it's very important that we use question time to ensure that we don't foist new taxes on the Australian people. We don't want to see new income taxes or higher income taxes, and we certainly don't want a see new retirement taxes or savings taxes.
Senator Gallagher gave a very comprehensive set of answers to the question she was asked about tax. She also detailed an amazingly important set of priorities and the way in which this government is going to go about looking at the $1 trillion of debt that has ben inherited and the deficits of around $200 billion across the forward estimates per year. In those answers she detailed extensively the tests that the government is going through, looking at the various measures, seeing whether they stack up, seeing whether they meet the quality test of being needed and whether they can be delivered. It was comprehensive and it was studied and measured. She talked about priorities and how we are going to have to return money to the budget because of that $1 trillion in debt and the cost of servicing that debt.
The analysis Senator Gallagher gave in question time also gave her an opportunity to talk about the Albanese government's plan to fix the budget and deliver on our promises—promises that won us government; we won the election. And in what she detailed and what we detail, we've been very clear about our position on tax, and that has not changed. Our priority when it comes to tax reform is ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax here in Australia. What is wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that. It is clear policy. It was outlined during the election campaign. We won the election. And what Senator Gallagher has said is that we are going to do that.
The last government was one of the second highest taxing governments in the past 30 years, behind the Howard government. It's pretty rich that we're sitting here listening to questions about tax cuts from people who were in the second highest taxing government in the past 30 years. What Senator Gallagher spoke about and what we're very proud of on this side of the chamber is the government's electric car discount, which will help make electric cars cheaper and more affordable to families by reducing tariffs and fringe benefit tax liabilities. But the coalition is opposing this tax cut for families and small businesses, so we get questions about tax cuts. Yet here we have a policy which we took to the election, which is quite clear, which has been spelt out time and time again, and yet the coalition, who says that they are for tax cuts and that they don't what new taxes, will not support a tax cut for families and small businesses in relation to the electric car discount.
Let's look at that. The electric car discount has a two components. It will remove five per cent tariffs for eligible cars with a customs value falling below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient vehicles, which in 2023 is $84,916. It will also provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax for eligible cars below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient vehicles. Two things in one. It's good for the environment and it's great for families and for small businesses. That is what we're going to deliver.
We are also going to do is, in a responsible way, look at the budget line by line to see what fits the bill and what can be afforded, and, as the senator outlined, to find all the things that have been hidden by the former government, which are there sneakily and which were unfunded. This is what the responsible government does and that is what was outlined in the answer to this question. Rightly, it takes time, and time has been taken. Certainly, looking at the questions that were asked, the senator made absolutely fantastic points, was clear and absolutely stood by the policies that won this government the election.
I find it a little bit—well, it would be amusing if it weren't so serious, listening to this Labor government and its supposedly comprehensive answers. I don't think we have heard anything comprehensive in terms of answers or the lack of answers that are being provided to us here at question time. What I do hear is that there is an ongoing theme going on here. I think Labor is just hoping that if you say the same thing over and over again, if you repeat mistruths, the general public will accept them as truths.
This Labor government would be in a most unfortunate situation if they were to end up being confronted with another global pandemic. As they keep telling us, it was the former coalition government that has left this budget in a dire situation, despite the fact they've got $50 billion in their back pocket. I would remind them of what it was that the former coalition government achieved in those dire times: providing $314 billion in economic support during the pandemic, helping Australians get to the other side of the greatest economic shock since the Great Depression. This included the JobKeeper program, the single biggest economic support program in Australia's history. The Reserve Bank of Australia said that JobKeeper saved at least 700,000 jobs, and Treasury said it prevented the unemployment rate from reaching 15 per cent.
From across here, we hear there are plans and plans and plans and lots more plans. But they cannot detail those plans. They cannot provide answers when we question those plans going forward. The questions put to Minister Gallagher were very simple, and the answers were not comprehensive. We heard a bit of fluff about multinational tax reform, and, as we've heard just now, this wonderful lowering of tax on electric vehicles—wow! That is really going to help the everyday mums and dads out in the regions! That's really going to help the everyday mums and dads, the middle-income earners, the low-income earners. It's going to help them incredibly—much better than the promised $275 decrease to everyday Australians' bills, a promise that has not been kept at all by this government.
I would remind the government: perhaps use a bit of common sense. Take a leaf out of our book in understanding that it is the private sector, not government, that drives opportunity and prosperity, and that resilient small businesses, not bureaucrats, are the backbone and the strength of our economy, and that families know what is best for them. I can tell you now: there are probably only a handful of families in this nation who would even be able to benefit from this wonderful lowering of tax on electric vehicles—certainly none of the families I'm concerned with in the Northern Territory. Perhaps your mates in big business will benefit from the lowering of those taxes. Please, put everyday Australians first in this next budget. I hope that's what this government is going to do, but I won't hold my breath.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today.
The blame game cannot continue. We heard today in question time that the current government keep referring to, in the blame game, what the previous government did over the last decade. It is absolutely crystal clear in that that the human rights of all Australians matter but most importantly First Nations Australians, and unfortunately that's not up for debate. The Greens firmly believe this has been bandied around for too long, particularly when we talk about the rights of First Nations people, disabled people, trans people—it's used as a political football in this place. It's absolutely unacceptable.
The answer I received in response to my question in question time was: 'We cannot keep going to the UN, to the Pacific, to other places, talking about accountability and what we're going to do when we get into government, and then not do it, because we're leaving the grassroots people behind in that conversation.' We need action. We don't need any more empty words. Unfortunately, you can't stand up in this place and the other place and say these matters are serious when you're doing nothing about them. When are we going to have that immediate action on the impact we can already see happening in communities? We are seeing the impacts of climate change right now. The echoing of the conversations and the voices of the people from the Torres Strait Islands, who are saying to us they have water lapping at their doorstep—we are still not hearing their voices. Do we believe it's serious enough, that it's an emergency, when we have examples of this particular case from the Torres Strait Islands—the landmark case, where one of the residents of the Torres Strait Islands had to continue to look for bones from an ancestor, from a grave that's possibly washed away? That's not happening anywhere else in Australia and no-one cares. No-one is going, 'Oh my God, this is an immediate issue. We need to get onto this.' Now we're seeing the Labor government saying they are committed to giving First Nations people a voice but they're actually not then getting into action.
What I heard from Minister Wong is she knew about the issue when she was the climate minister in 2008 and 2009. Why is it now, many years later, we're going to put in place a First Nations ambassador for foreign affairs to give us the answer? First Nations people, Torres Strait Islander people, have already been giving you the answer and telling you what needs to be done, urging you, when you were in power in government, to take the action that is required, and that's what I'm asking for.
You don't need a referendum to start respecting First Nations people's rights, culture and sovereignty in this country. What we now see is a continuation of statements. The massive statement, the voices from the deep, that Torres Strait Islander people gave to the Prime Minister, to the climate minister, to the minister of Indigenous affairs—handed it to them—was about self-determination and regional autonomy by 2037. We are still not listening. We, as First Nations people in this country, are standing up. We are sick of being silenced—our voices being silenced—and we're sick of this government not respecting our rights. We've seen that happen in the Tiwi Islands and now we're seeing it happen in the Torres Strait.
First Nations people shouldn't have to resort to court cases. They shouldn't have to resort to the Human Rights Commission and committees overseas for the government to do their job properly. We shouldn't have to bend our ways of life, our knowledge, to the legal system in this country to be taken seriously. If you want to listen to our voice, listen now. We are the original scientists. We can tell you what the climate impacts are just by looking at our country. We know what that looks like.
This government's failure to take action on climate at the rate that it's needed is eroding our culture. It's impacting on our cultural heritage. It's impacting on our land, our water, our sea country and our sky country. The government is continuing to violate those human rights. This is not up for debate anymore. Compensation is an absolute bare minimum and that's what we need. They need this government to take action on the climate crisis seriously, not be captured by their mates in the fossil fuel industry. We continue to raise our voices in relation to climate action now.
Question agreed to.
I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Proposed fit-out of Parramatta and Ultimo offices.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:
Department of Defence—Robertson Barracks base improvements.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:
Department of Defence—HMAS Harman redevelopment project.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 28 September 2022:
(a) the letters from TikTok's Director of Public Policy, Australia and New Zealand, Mr Brent Thomas, addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 6 June and 21 July 2022; and
(b) the response letter from the Department of Home Affairs addressed to TikTok's Director of Public Policy, Australia and New Zealand, Mr Brent Thomas, dated 17 August 2022.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 7 October 2022, any briefing notes, file notes, emails and reports since 1 July 2017 regarding the:
(a) 'Barmah-Millewa Feasibility Study';
(b) terms of reference and membership of the 'Modernising Murray River Systems' independent technical assessment of infrastructure in the southern Murray-Darling Basin; and
(c) feasibility study for the 'River Murray bank stabilisation works'.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
A crucial element of the delivery of water, as defined in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, is the ability to ensure that its delivery is in conjunction with constraints management. The key constraint on the Murray River system is the Barmah Choke. The natural capacity to deliver water through the choke has declined over time. Without addressing this bottleneck for enabling overbank flows through agreements with landholders, the delivery of additional water will not result in any better environmental outcomes. These issues and associated options to address them need to be investigated. That is why the coalition government commissioned the study.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 7 October 2022:
(a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails provided by the Department of the Treasury to the Treasurer and/or his office, or to the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury and/or his office since 30 May 2022 in relation to changes and/or potential changes to the effigy of the Sovereign on Australian legal tender;
(b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Department of the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet since 30 May 2022 in relation to changes and/or potential changes to the effigy of the Sovereign on Australian legal tender; and
(c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and/or Prime Minister's office since 30 May 2022 in relation to changes and/or potential changes to the effigy of the Sovereign on Australian legal tender.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Friday, 7 October 2022:
(a) any briefing notes provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister and/or the Prime Minister's office since 30 May 2022 in relation to changes and/or potential changes to the effigy of the Sovereign on Australian legal tender;
(b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Treasury since 30 May 2022 in relation to changes and/or potential changes to the effigy of the Sovereign on Australian legal tender; and
(c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Prime Minister and/or the Prime Minister's office since 30 May 2022 in relation to changes and/or potential changes to the effigy of the Sovereign on Australian legal tender.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator Hughes Smith, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on 30 September 2022, all submissions received by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and associated agencies that were provided as part of the Safeguard Mechanism reforms consultation process.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the National Energy Transition Authority, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I present the explanatory memorandum and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The climate crisis is happening before our eyes—and it's getting worse. In the past few weeks we've seen a third of the land mass of Pakistan drowned by record floods, caused by torrential rains and melting Himalayan glaciers, which are disappearing at a much faster rate than scientists had predicted.
Earlier this year the east coast of Australia suffered through its own flooding catastrophe, in what was Australia's third-most costly natural disaster. Thousands of homes ruined; livelihoods destroyed; 22 lives lost. More flooding is forecast this year.
Scientists say that global heating makes a sea-level rise from the melting of the Greenland ice cap now inevitable, even if fossil fuel burning was to end immediately. With continued carbon emissions, and the melting of other ice caps, a multi-metre sea level rise now appears likely. This would mean that islands in the Torres Strait and many of our neighbours in the South Pacific would simply cease to exist.
In July we discovered the full extent of climate change's impact on our natural habitat and wildlife in the State of the Environment report, a devastating and terrifying assessment that drew a direct link between the extraction and burning of fossil fuels and species extinction.
Climate change is threatening farming production and food security, with a recent report commissioned by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment forecasting massive reductions in meat, wool, dairy and fruit production by 2030 as a result of global warming and extreme weather events.
There can be no doubt that the climate crisis is here. And the biggest contributor to the climate crisis is the extraction and burning of coal and gas.The IPCC, the International Energy Agency, climate scientists and environmental groups all say that in order to have even a chance of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees from pre-Industrial levels, we must open no more coal and gas projects. And that slim chance dwindles by the day.
To continue to open up new coal and gas flies in the face of all scientific and environmental reason and would keep us on the path towards a planet that is no longer capable of supporting human life.
Not only can we not open up new coal and gas mines, we must also phase out existing coal and gas extraction and energy production and rapidly transition to a zero emissions economy.
The good news is that this is already starting to happen. The global market for coal is drying up, as more and more renewable energy comes online and the urgency for climate action ramps up. Our major trading partners are beginning to abandon Australian coal, with a recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis saying the export market is in "permanent decline".
The Australian Energy Market Operator is preparing for a grid dominated by renewable energy, with around half of Australia's coal-fired power stations scheduled to be retired in the next decade. The former CEO of AEMO, Audrey Zibelman, described the retirement of Australia's existing coal fleet as "inevitable".
Renewable energy is taking off across the country. Almost 20% of power generated on the national grid comes from renewable energy sources. My home town of Gladstone, for example, famous for the 50 million tonnes of coal that leaves its port every year, will soon be home to one of the world's largest hydrogen equipment manufacturing facilities, making Queensland a world leader in hydrogen generation.
The transition has begun. But what's missing is a plan for a fair and equitable transition that ensures we are able to rapidly and responsibly exit coal and gas while securing the futures of the workers and communities who are at risk of being left behind.
We can't leave our renewable energy transition in the hands of private interests. Coal and gas corporations have no interest in safeguarding the futures of the workers and communities from which they have extracted their billions.
We only have to look at what's happened in Appalachia in the United States for a cautionary tale of what happens to coal communities left to fend for themselves during transition. With no federal leadership or funding allocated, disconnected local initiatives to transition former coal workers into other industries floundered, leaving already economically disadvantaged areas to suffer even more. Vulnerable and without planning and support, many of these communities fell victim to predatory corporations like private prison operators. Instead of safe, secure and rewarding work, the Appalachian coal workers that had been the backbone of America's economic boom were rewarded with coercion into working the for-profit carceral state, typically on a lower wage.
In Australia, some state-based initiatives in places like Collie in Western Australia and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria have had variable success in managing the decline of coal, but we still lack an overarching national approach.
That's why we need a National Energy Transition Authority. Unions are calling for it. Business is calling for it. Coal workers and communities are calling for it. And the Greens hope this parliament will vote for it.
Our bill establishes a new independent public authority, the National Energy Transition Authority, to guide Australia's shift from an economy powered by polluting coal and gas to one powered by reliable, secure and low-cost renewable energy.
By providing national coordination, expert advice and funding, the National Energy Transition Authority will work with communities, workers, unions, energy companies and governments at all levels to plan the pipeline of clean energy projects, creating good, secure jobs and opening up new export markets while pushing down power prices for homes and businesses.
The National Energy Transition Authority will support the creation of regional jobs and ensure localised transition plans are put in place so that coal- and gas-dependent communities get the funding and support that they deserve.
We don't want these communities to collapse. Australia owes coal workers a debt of gratitude for their contribution to this country. They have literally kept the lights on. The communities that have grown around mines and power stations—whether it's in Collie in Western Australia, the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, New South Wales' Hunter Valley or my home of Central Queensland—cannot simply be left to the whims of the market. We all know how that ends, and they deserve much more respect than that.
These communities know the transition is happening and they know their livelihoods and communities are at risk without a coherent strategy that they are able to contribute to. I know these communities. I live in one of these communities. What they're asking for is for politicians to stop lying to them that coal and gas are here to stay, and that their futures are secured. They know that's not true. They read the same headlines we all do. They're simply trying to answer the question, What comes next?, and they want some help to work that out.
Mining will continue to play a role in Australia's energy future, and Australia is going to continue to mine the minerals that are needed to make the products we need in a zero-carbon world.
Instead of continuing to dig up iron ore and send it off overseas, only to buy it back as steel, we can create thousands of green steel jobs for former coal and gas workers right here. Using our sun and our wind to make the steel locally from our own ore, we can lay the tracks for high-speed rail or build the wind turbines that are going to power the country with renewable energy.
That is what this Bill is about.
The National Energy Transition Authority will ensure that no worker is left behind during our energy transition. It will support and fund the creation of the new industries and jobs that communities want and help revive the fortunes of declining regional centres.
Four out of every five tonnes of thermal coal we dig up in this country are exported overseas. If you don't have a plan for the phasing-out of coal exports, then you don't have a plan for climate change.
The authority will provide guidance on the closure of coal- and gas-fired power stations, giving communities and governments certainty and providing clear direction to the energy market about how much clean energy we will need where, and by when. Without such a plan, coal plants can shut at short notice, like Hazelwood did and like others might do next.
The National Energy Transition Authority will ensure that no worker is left behind during our energy transition. It will support and fund the creation of the new industries and jobs that communities want and help revive the fortunes of declining regional centres.
We know this can be done. It's been done before. In Germany, under the slogan "No one left in the pits," thousands of workers have been helped in their transition out of coal. The plan they made between workers, employers and government meant that every coal worker walked into a new job or transitioned safely into retirement.
I believe in an Australia that leads the way in renewable energy, and ensures that all workers have well-paid, secure employment and world-class social services.
This is why a National Energy Transition Authority is so critical, but also so invigorating. We can harness the power of the state, alongside private investment, to guide, to shape, to implement, and ultimately, to transform our country's relationship with energy.
We can, once again, engage in nation building.
Everyone knows that there is massive potential for clean energy and for job creation if we manage this transition properly. I believe that the Government knows this as well.
With planning, compassion and foresight, we can tackle the greatest threat humanity has ever faced while embracing new energy opportunities, looking after workers and breathing new life into regional Australia. But we need this Bill to do it.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Friday, 7 October 2022:
(a) any briefing notes, file notes and emails provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and/or to his office since 30 May 2022 in relation to the reintroduction of the full fuel excise from 29 September 2022 and monitoring activities undertaken by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC);
(b) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Treasury and the ACCC since 30 May 2022 in relation to the reintroduction of the full fuel excise from 29 September 2022 and monitoring activities undertaken by the ACCC; and
(c) any briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Treasurer and the ACCC since 30 May 2022 in relation to the reintroduction of the full fuel excise from 29 September 2022 and monitoring activities undertaken by the ACCC.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government has been upfront with Australians: with the budget heaving with a trillion dollars of debt, we can't afford to extend this very expensive temporary measure. The Treasurer has written to the chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Ms Cass-Gottlieb, instructing the commission to step up its surveillance of fuel markets ahead of and following the reintroduction of the full excise rate from 29 September 2022.
As the independent regulator enforcing Australia's competition consumer laws, the ACCC will investigate concerns arising out of misrepresentations regarding petrol prices and false and misleading conduct or anticompetitive conduct in fuel markets and take appropriate action.
Question negatived.
I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am, 31 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Reynolds proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
'The need for the Senate to reaffirm the importance of transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector, and to support measures that ensure superannuation funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money.'
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standin g orders having risen in their places—
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Senate to reaffirm the importance of transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector, and to support measures that ensure superannuation funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money.'
I have moved this urgency motion today as it is very clear to those on this side of the chamber that the dead hand of the trade union movement is alive and well, not just in the Prime Minister's office, not just in this chamber on the government benches, in building work sites across this nation, but also in the pockets and the wallets of Australian superannuation holders. This is shocking but hardly surprising that the Albanese Labor government has reversed the requirement that we introduced for super funds to disclose—so the government have reversed the requirement for disclosure—how they spend their members' funds on sponsorships and payments with no line items, no transparency, no accountability and absolutely no integrity whatsoever.
Service payments are clearly political and are designed to buy political interference and influence. How could they not be? These payments, some at least $85 million over the past five years alone, from superannuation funds are for things like million-dollar football sponsorships, corporate boxes, union kickbacks and lobbying. This is the money of Australian workers' superannuation funds. It is their money. It is the money that they have earned, that they have put into their superannuation fund. Australians deserve to know how their retirement income is being spent.
The Labor government's amendments, with the encouragement and the persuasion—probably not too hard a persuasion—of the trade union movement, go against recommendations from both the Productivity Commission and APRA. Of course, they oppose what those opposite wanted, because it is against the best interests of all Australian superannuation holders, who unknowingly are having their superannuation funds used for such things.
If those opposite had a modicum of seriousness about transparency, their very first move in government would not have been to support winding back these transparency measures for every Australian worker. The measures that we introduced were designed to let sunlight into the $3 trillion industry. This is an industry that impacts on the retirement of all Australians. What absolute hypocrisy. Labor government parliamentarians and crossbenchers ran their campaigns on integrity and trust, and what is the first thing they do? They come into this chamber and move a motion to get rid of the regulations that we introduced that provided transparency. They now seek to pass regulations that would hide the disclosure of payments that superannuation funds make. It was the first thing the Labor party did in government. They talk about integrity but, on their first test, they failed dismally.
In this chamber and on the government benches, we have to always strive for the best when it comes to Australians' hard earned money. Australians work hard, making their income, putting money aside for their retirement, doing the right thing. The key thing here is that they do it compulsorily. Australians, by law, if they are working, have to put some money aside for the future. Compulsory savings by ordinary Australians has seen the growth of the super industry now to over $3.4 trillion—on the face of it, a fantastic result. After all, the initial intent, and still the intent, of superannuation was to take the financial pressure off government or taxpayers by ensuring that Australians can pay or partially pay their way through retirement with their own money. Remember this: it is their own money.
On this side of the house, when we were in government, we wanted to make sure that members actually had transparency about whether money was going. We will continue to support that. In stark contrast to the union puppets opposite, there are three key principles coalition MPs will continue to adhere to in relation to superannuation: we know it is members' money, we are always committed to fund performance and we are always committed to transparency and integrity for every single superannuation member. These principles are the bedrock of what we know delivers the best superannuation system.
The coalition government's Your Future, Your Super reforms, which were so ably championed by my colleague Senator Jane Hume here in the chamber, were the most significant reforms to superannuation since the introduction of compulsory super in 1992. The name says it all. It says what we're all about on the side: Your Future, Your Super. These reforms ensure that superannuation works in the best financial interest of all Australians and not in the interests of superannuation board members and trade unionists who had corporate tickets at the cost of superannuation members—they never even knew about it. We also supported superannuation members by removing unnecessary waste, by increasing accountability and transparency and by providing more flexibility for families and individuals, particularly lower-paid Australian woman.
Critically, when in government, we were all about doing three things in relation to super. Firstly, strengthening obligations to ensure trustees only act in the best financial interests of members. If these services fees are paying for corporate boxes or paying money to the trade union movement and the Labor party, is that in the best interest of Australian superannuation holders? Of course not. That's what we wanted to do to make sure Australians understood where there superannuation money was going. Secondly, we also ensured that superannuation funds provided better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money in advance of annual members' meetings. Thirdly, we looked after their interests through enhanced portfolio holdings disclosure. Again, this was all aimed at supporting the transparency and management of an individual's funds.
Now we learn, as I said, that the first thing this Labor government is doing is putting these reforms under attack, with the dead hand of the trade union movement coming in persistently behind them. Of course, it was not in the Labor Party policy before the last election that they were going to go ahead and dismantle this transparency. Of course it was not. For the Prime Minister and for crossbench members who campaigned on accountability and integrity, this was the first act of those opposite in government: to extinguish transparency on how unions and the ALP access millions and millions and millions of dollars every year of trade union funds. The first action was to do this. It was not to take measures straight away to deal with cost-of-living pressures on Australian workers, and it was not to take action to actually address workforce challenges or anything else; it was to do the trade unions' bidding to hide where superannuation members' funds are going.
Staggeringly, there are elements of the superannuation industry who support this watering down of transparency. How can it possibly be in the best interests of superannuants to hide this expenditure—this self-interested expenditure for Labor and the unions. Most of all, when we on this side of the chamber have a look at this issue we wonder how this can possibly not be a matter of integrity. Of course it is a matter of integrity. The fact is that they are hiding millions of dollars of expenditure which flows through to trade unions and to the Labor Party, and now they want to do it without disclosure so that people cannot see the benefits that Labor and the trade unions are getting from superannuation funds. You've got to ask why. It is very, very clear. Earlier this month, Michael Roddan in the Financial Review, let the cat out of the bag when he noted that Senator Nick McKim is working alongside the Treasurer to help him hide the disclosure of payments. Senator McKim tweeted on 16 September:
The Greens want meaningful transparency that tracks the flow of members' money, including for political purposes and for profit.
What bunkum. It is utter hypocrisy. If you read that article further, you will see exactly why that is the case.
The Hayne royal commission's exhibit 5.368—the KPMG audit into payments made to Cbus sponsoring organisations—is illuminating. Any superannuant who wants to know where their money is going should look further into this, because shortly Labor will be hiding all of these payments from you.
I rise to speak on the urgency motion on transparency and accountability, moved by Senator Reynolds. I can assure chamber that our government is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system. So we welcome this motion today.
You've really got to ask yourself what is going on with those opposite. It has been only a matter of months since Australians banished them to the opposition benches and ended their decade of wasted opportunities and messed up priorities, and apparently, they haven't learned a thing. They've got nothing to offer Australians. They themselves admitted: 'We're the opposition; we have no policies.' Instead, they're throwing random bits of mud and trying to see what will stick.
Today they're trying to talk about transparency and accountability of all things. We welcome this motion. We welcome the conversation today. It's pretty rich for those opposite to suddenly claim that transparency and accountability are matters of urgency for them, on the opposition benches, considering their decade of rort after rort, scandal after scandal, cover-up after cover-up. This motion has come from the people with the former Prime Minister who was the minister for health; the Minister for Finance; the minister for industry, science, energy and resources; the Minister for Home Affairs; and the Treasurer—all at the same time.
You must have missed some.
I probably missed some. They were all kept secret from his own ministry, and from the Australian public as well. So let's talk about transparency and accountability. We welcome it. They are the former government, who want to come to this chamber and talk about transparency and accountability—really! Let's be absolutely clear: those opposite have no interest in transparency and no interest in accountability, and they had 10 long years to demonstrate that.
This motion has absolutely nothing to do with either of those anyway. It is just another ploy in the war that those opposite are waging against our proud Labor legacy of superannuation in this country. What Australians are asking themselves right now is why the Liberals hate super so much. Is it because it was thought up by the union movement, Senator Hume? Is it because it was made universal by a Labor government, Senator Reynolds?
Order! Excuse me, Senator Walsh. Now, I'm pretty lenient here, Senator Reynolds, but I am going to ask you to withdraw that.
I withdraw, and my apologies.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Reynolds.
Maybe they hate super so much because it is a legacy of the union movement; it is a legacy of the Australian Labor Party. Or is it just the industry super funds that you on the opposition benches hate? And why would that be? Is it because the industry super funds consistently outperform the rest of the sector? Is it because you can't stand the idea that workers in a union would have an interest in ensuring their retirement savings are working for them and choose to invest them in an industry super fund? Or is it because industry super funds have dared to invest in nation-building projects and infrastructure in this country—projects that will deliver good, secure jobs for the very workers whose retirement savings are invested; nation-building projects like the Star of the South, Australia's first offshore wind farm; nation-building projects like the construction of social and affordable housing, which will create thousands of jobs, as well as drive down the cost of housing and rentals?
Those opposite can't stand to see these projects funded; as well, they can't stand to see the returns that those projects will deliver for members. They just can't stand to see the superannuation industry step up and deliver the very things that your government refused to deliver. That's why the former Treasurer tried to insert himself into the boardrooms of the super funds. And it's why they're back here, continuing their ideological war on super.
This motion has absolutely nothing to do with transparency and accountability. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the interests of super fund members, because those opposite do not care about super fund members. They do not care about Australian workers and their retirement. They definitely don't care about workers' hard-earned retirement savings, because, for the last decade, on the watch of those opposite, Australian workers have lost $5 billion per year in unpaid superannuation. There has been $5 billion per year missing from the retirement savings of Australian workers because those opposite have sat back and allowed the ATO to take a light-touch approach to dodgy employers—a light-touch approach which has done nothing to stop employers stealing super from their workers.
You were the ones that tried to block the amnesty.
I think the taxation commissioner has admitted it himself, Senator Hume. A light-touch approach has resulted in less than 15 per cent of unpaid super being recovered by the tax office and has shifted the responsibility for chasing unpaid super onto workers themselves.
As if forcing workers to do the job of government agencies weren't enough, those opposite made that job almost impossible. We know those opposite just sat by when workers tried to get their stolen super back. We know they sat by while workers who reported unpaid super to the ATO were consistently given no information about the progress of their claims. We know they sat by while the ATO kept workers completely in the dark about any deals they made with employers about their hard-earned super. Where was the sense of urgency then? Where was the sense of urgency from those opposite about transparency and accountability then, when it came to unpaid super? Where were the Liberal senators who could have come to the defence of Australian workers or super fund members then? Why did those opposite sit back while $5 billion per year went missing from members' super accounts?
Well, we know why. It is because those opposite are only moving motions like this one as part of their ideological war on super. But going after the funds isn't enough for those opposite. In their war against super, the Liberal Party themselves are going straight after workers' retirement savings. They want to force workers to raid their retirement savings to buy a house, despite the consequence that will have of driving up house prices.
I will take your interjection about choice, Senator Scarr, because during COVID you did force Australian workers to raid their retirement savings to get through the global pandemic. You said this in the chamber yesterday; you're saying it again today. You're saying that it's a question of giving people a choice. I am not sure whether you actually understand what choice is.
When you champion low wages growth as a deliberate design feature of your economic plan, when you do nothing to drive down housing prices to make them more affordable, when you deny Australian workers access to pandemic support based on the industry they work in, when you leave casual workers, workers in the arts and university workers off pandemic support because you hate those sectors, when you leave workers with absolutely no support in the middle of a global pandemic, you are not giving them a choice. You are not helping them to make a choice. What you are doing is forcing them to raid their hard-earned retirement savings because you can't be bothered coming up with policies to actually help them yourself. Almost half a million Australians had their super funds closed or almost completely cleaned out as a result of what you are calling a choice; $37 billion was taken out of accounts by people who really needed those funds the most, leaving them at absolute ground zero when it comes to retirement security.
But those opposite, they don't want to stop there. It's not enough to have workers drain what's already in their accounts. Now coalition senators have even more policy ideas to go after workers' retirement savings. So apparently you do have some policy ideas, Senator Hume, on the backbench. They're suggesting that the government increase taxes on super. They've said the government should not proceed with the legislated increase to the super guarantee. They've called for the requirement for employers to pay super to be removed altogether. And, most shamefully, they've called for super not to be paid to low-income earners at all. If they cared about transparency and accountability they would own up to their hatred of superannuation.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I'm trying to listen intently, and I understand these conversations can get quite boisterous, but when there are three of you, who haven't got the softest voices in the Senate, it's starting to hurt my ear. So I'll just ask if Senator Walsh can be heard in silence for the remaining 29 seconds.
If you cared about transparency and accountability you would own up to the fact that you hate super. You hate Labor's proud super legacy, and you hate the industry super funds the most. You would be honest with Australians that you just want to tear the whole system down, and that's what this is about. Our world-class superannuation system is a Labor legacy. We will always stand with workers to strengthen it and protect it. We have no interest in being drawn into a war with you on super. (Time expired)
The Senate is being asked this afternoon to reaffirm the importance of transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector and to support measures that ensure that superannuation funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money. The Greens could not agree more with those sentiments.
Just after the election the new Minister for Financial Services, Mr Jones, gave what I dare to suggest is a pretty optimistic take on how this new parliament was going to deal, broadly, with the issue of superannuation. Mr Jones is quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying:
The spear carriers have left parliament, so there is now an opportunity to sign a treaty to end the super wars.
We here in the Greens very much appreciate that sentiment, but I'm sorry to say to Mr Jones that the end to the super wars is very clearly nowhere in sight, because the opposition has a deep reserve of spear carriers and they are committed to fighting the super wars. That, colleagues, is exactly how we find ourselves having this debate today.
This debate is cloaked in very respectable language and, in fact, language which the Greens support, and we will support the question being put about the need for transparency and accountability in superannuation and for measures to ensure that super funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money. We look forward to supporting that. But this is, of course, in the context of the government's new regulations that establish a set of rules for what information is provided by super funds in their annual members' meeting notices. The opposition has put forward this debate today precisely because Senator David Pocock has postponed his motion to disallow these regulations. The fact that it's Senator Pocock's disallowance, not the LNP's disallowance, is an incisive insight into the mercenary nature of the spear carriers inside the LNP. If the spear carriers inside the LNP are so confident of their case that the new government's regulations should be disallowed and the old regulations should stand, why are they relying on Senator Pocock's good name and reputation to lead the argument for them? Why doesn't the LNP put up its own disallowance?
I'm going to answer the question I've just put to the chamber. The reason that the opposition is so keen for Senator Pocock to lead the charge in this battle is that the transparency and accountability regime that the LNP put in place when they were the government was designed to target the unions. It was designed to target industry super funds while going soft on for-profit retail super funds. That's because the LNP is full of spear carriers who want to fight the super wars. It's also full of spear carriers for whom the very idea that organisations that represent a collective of workers would have access to large amounts of capital is actually hell on Earth.
The idea that working people can have a say on how large amounts of capital are distributed in our society is a complete anathema to the LNP. The opposition's idea of transparency and accountability is a line-by-line itemised account of payments by super funds to unions but nothing whatsoever—this is the critical part—on the payments of dividends or other proceeds for profit by retail super funds to their parent companies. You want to make the industry super funds declare payments to unions, but you don't want the retail super funds, the for-profit super funds, to declare their payments, their dividends, to their parent companies. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, go and take a good look in the mirror. That's all I have to say to the LNP.
The previous government's regulations provide lopsided transparency because—this is the critical part—they were designed to provide ammunition for those on the side of profit in the super wars. Those regulations were drafted under the Morrison government, a government that was the absolute living embodiment of crony capitalism. That crony capitalist government spent every day of its existence fighting organised labour as hard as it could and defending the rent-seekers as hard as it could. That is what you are doing when you saddle up Senator Pocock to take the lead in this battle.
The Greens are not interested in playing along with the spear carriers in their war on industry super. What we are interested in, and what we are working to deliver, is meaningful transparency. We want to see an annual super transparency report, published by the regulator, APRA, that tables all of the relevant expenditure, including expenditure for political purposes and expenditure for profit. We want that all together in one space so cross-comparisons can be made by members. Members would get a better understanding of how their super fund rates relative to other funds, and it would enable institutional scrutiny from the media, from NGOs and from parliamentarians on expenditure and profit-making by super funds. That is far more likely to bring about meaningful change than either of the regulations that the LNP want us to choose from.
We are in discussion with the government, and we hope that we can land in a place which will provide a far more meaningful transparency regime than either the LNP's old regulations or the Labor Party's new ones.
I rise to speak on this urgency motion, which calls on this chamber to reaffirm the importance of accountability and transparency in Australia's superannuation system. It is so disappointing that we have to have a debate like this, on a motion like this, in this very chamber, whose primary role is scrutiny, whose primary role is to shine a light in dark corners. You would think—indeed, the Australian people would expect—that this chamber, no matter which party you are from, would support accountability and transparency in Australia's superannuation system. But no—clearly, no. After all, the trustees that operate within Australia's superannuation system are the custodians of $3.4 trillion of Australia's retirement savings. Let me put that into context for you: $3.4 trillion is twice the size of the ASX. It's 1½ times the size of Australia's GDP. It is an enormous amount of money, and yet we allow these enormous companies—these huge, huge organisations—to operate in the dark.
Unfortunately, this is not a view that's shared by everyone in the chamber. We in the coalition have always supported transparency and accountability in the superannuation sector because we know that it will deliver choice and better outcomes for Australians if we do. That's why, when we were in government, we implemented a series of reforms that modernised the superannuation system, addressing the two key drivers of poorer outcomes for superannuation members: opacity and underperformance. Our reforms, through the Protecting Your Super legislation, choice legislation and Your Future, Your Super legislation, were designed specifically to improve transparency and to allow for better informed choices and greater retirement outcomes for Australians. And it is working.
The Your Future, Your Super reforms were the most significant since the introduction of compulsory super back in 1992, consolidating 3.5 million unintended multiple accounts, which were an intentional design feature of the system so that you paid twice as much in fees, twice as much for administration. It was an intentional design feature. Well, they have diminished dramatically; 3.5 million unintended multiple accounts have now exited the system, making you more money. We banned exit fees, we capped fees on small balances, and we ensured that younger people do not have to pay for insurances that they do not need.
We also provided Australian workers with a genuine choice—a real choice. You didn't have to be told by your employer which fund you had to go into. You didn't have to be told by your union. For the first time, you got to choose which superannuation fund best suited you, your family and your lifestyle. These measures stopped superannuation balances being eroded by unnecessarily and overly high fees, which, over time, will save people—particularly young people now—who have combined their accounts tens of thousands of dollars, which will be compounded into hundreds of thousands in their retirement. Following this, the Your Future, Your Super reforms will save all workers around $17.9 billion over the next 10 years by putting increasing downward pressure on fees, removing unnecessary waste and, most importantly, increasing the accountability and transparency of all superannuation funds.
Unfortunately, the Labor Party and the Greens fought us every step of the way on all of this legislation. They were desperate to keep their mates in the industry—and particularly in the unions—happy at all costs. That's at the costs of super fund members—at the cost of you. One key element of our reforms was to ensure that super funds had to act in the best financial interests of members—not the best interests, because that morphed. All of a sudden, it was in the best interests of members to drive across great bridges or to invest in housing developments in London! No, the best financial interests of members should be the primary purpose of superannuation funds.
Unfortunately, those opposite prioritise mates instead of ensuring accountability and transparency for all Australian superannuants. That's why it wasn't surprising, although it was extraordinarily galling and extraordinarily brazen, that the first thing Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, did in the other place upon coming to government—the very first thing; the number one priority in the Treasury portfolio of a brand-new government—was to wind back transparency and accountability in superannuation. You would think that, after nine years in opposition, you would have had a little bit more to do once you hit the Treasury benches. But, no, that's what Labor have prioritised. That was their first order of business. It's shameful, it's brazen and it's after all the good work was done. I will agree with Senator Walsh: yes, superannuation was certainly the invention of a Labor government, but by god it took a coalition government to make it work for members rather than making it work for the funds and fund managers.
The Assistant Treasurer has quickly followed up with a review of the Your Future, Your Super laws, the laws that improved member outcomes, that improved performance, that improved transparency and that got rid of the underperforming funds. Now there's a review going on—a secret review, I hear. We don't even know who's on this secret review, but I reckon that we can guess. Under the former government's accountability and transparency reforms, super funds were required to disclose, line by line, their expenditure on things like political donations, marketing and whether they sponsor football stadiums or football teams. They were required to disclose payments to industry bodies, including unions. They were required to disclose inter-related party transactions, this mysterious, amorphous blob. They were required to disclose exactly what that meant. That's what the Assistant Treasurer has decided to unwind.
Why is this outrageous? Because superannuation funds are trusts. Every single dollar that a superannuation fund has belongs to a member. It doesn't belong to a big corporate entity. It's not as if they can borrow it. It's your money, and they won't tell you how they're spending it. For every dollar that they spend, that's one dollar that's gone from your retirement savings. Don't you think that you deserve to know where every dollar of your retirement savings is being spent? That's all we ask. Yet the first order of business for the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, is to unwind these reforms.
I'm very disappointed in the Greens. It appears that the self-appointed arbiters of transparency in this place, the Australian Greens, are backing the Labor Party. Senator McKim has actually said out loud in this place that the Greens want meaningful transparency that tracks the flow of members' money. Well, the fastest way to do this, Senator McKim, is to commit to supporting the disallowance of the government's watered-down regulations. But he refuses to do that. Senator McKim talks about working with the government to improve accountability, while at the same time maintaining that the Australian Greens will not commit to supporting a motion on the Notice Paper this week to disallow a repeal of these watered-down measures.
Senator McKim thinks that the government, which has already put its flag well in the sand on this issue and moved to repeal these transparency measures, will suddenly change its tune when the only mechanism in parliament that it has to stop it evaporates. I wish that I had Senator McKim's optimism. In fact, I think that's probably the wrong word. I thought that perhaps it was naivete, but I think when we heard from Senator McKim before we realised he's just as captured as those opposite. What a terrible shame for a party that prides itself on its ethical behaviour, its accountability, its transparency and its mission for integrity. What a shame, Senator McKim.
I do suspect that the Greens will support this motion. I suspect that they will claim that they do support accountability and that they do support transparency in super in order to deliver those better outcomes, but the proof of the pudding is always going to be in the eating. Put your money where your mouth is, Senator McKim. The proof will be how they vote when they get a chance to actually ensure transparency rather than just talk about it. They will have a chance to ensure transparency in super is maintained or removed. I call on the Australian Greens right now to walk this talk. First support the motion, but then commit to supporting the disallowance motion on the Notice Paper. But not only that; commit to supporting it today. Commit to supporting it this week. Your reputations depend on it.
I'm very happy to speak on the urgency motion moved by the opposition today. I agree, like all of us on this side—and that side will speak for themselves—that transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector is extremely important. But those measures must reflect real-world behaviour and be built for the majority of Australians, not just a chosen few. The motion also goes to the level of information given by super funds to their members and how they spend their members' money. Of course relevant disclosure should be made when required and reporting dates met. Members deserve to know where their fees are going and how their money is being managed. That's why we have regulators such as APRA and ASIC that are tasked with overseeing the health of super funds and ensuring governance and accountability. I could also add that we've had a financial services royal commission, too, which some people seem to have forgotten about, which was heavily opposed by the other side until they were dragged kicking and screaming into it. They don't talk about that at all, do they?
Let's be clear. It wasn't the industry super funds with both worker and employer representatives making decisions in the best interests of members that got touched up by the banking royal commission. No, it wasn't those funds. It was the other side's mates in the big banks and the profit-to-shareholders super funds that were found to be up to no good. Remember that? We don't hear that coming from that side, but none of us on this side will ever forget that. In recent weeks we've heard a bit from the opposition on this topic of transparency and accountability around super, but let's be clear: this is really just another opportunity to bash super and to bash unions and the huge outcomes delivered for everyday Australian workers. How do I know? Because I am a member of the fund. I was signed up in 1987 through the Transport Workers Union. I remember asking, 'What am I going to do with $1.87?' when I was 27 years old. Thank God for the Transport Workers Union! And thank God for all the unions that have pushed these super funds and done it in the best interests of their members that their mates, through the banks, and all that side—that cronies' side—I'd love to hear their record of what they've done for their members!
We saw it last year with the former government's Your Future, Your Super package of changes to super laws. While there were some changes supported by Labor—yes, there were—there were also some ridiculous changes that only increased the admin burden on super funds and did nothing to help the best financial interests of super fund members. The Your Future, Your Super package, which we've heard some squealing about today, was met with a chorus of concern from all sides, including investment managers, actuaries, business groups and of course the unions. But the former government would not listen, and the legislation and regulations were flawed. So it has fallen to this Labor government to fix their mistakes, as in so many other areas.
I recall the rushed Senate inquiry last year, where dozens of submissions outlined the concerns with the real-world impacts of the new legislation, and we didn't even get to see the associated regulations until the 11th hour. This was a deliberate attempt by the former government to avoid scrutiny and came despite concerns being raised by bodies such as CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand and the Law Council of Australia, along with almost the entire industry. I will repeat that: almost the entire industry. So whether deliberate or accidental, certain regulations that were introduced by the former government as part of their Your Future, Your Super package have acted as a ridiculous admin burden, especially for smaller funds, and proved to be a waste of members' money, which required change which was ultimately led by the industry itself—not that side but the industry. In particular, the former government's regulations about annual members meetings didn't adhere to existing accounting standards and did nothing to improve real-world disclosure for super fund members.
In order to improve productivity and the quality of service being provided to the superannuation holders, the superannuation sector, especially the profit-to-member industry sector of the industry, with a strong track record of actually delivering better return for members, have supported changes to the annual members meetings regulations, which the minister issued on 9 September. But it wasn't just flawed on disclosure regimes, where the former government got it wrong. As senators know—and I've said it before—I come from the transport industry. I am a truckie. Being a transport worker is the most dangerous job an Australian worker can have. For many workers, the only insurance coverage they and their families have is through the insurance attached to their super. That's one of the reasons why it's so important that we have industry and worker voices represented in the governance arrangements for super funds.
Alongside terrible regulations that did nothing to provide better real-world disclosure to members was the former government's aim to override default provisions and agreements with the introduction of stapling. The ability of transport workers to exercise collective choice through collective enterprise agreements has been a key avenue for those workers to ensure superannuation and associated product options are tailored to their collective needs and maintain vigilance that their interests are protected against practices and fund offerings that, as testimony before the financial services royal commission demonstrated, might otherwise leave them worse off in the short and long term. Those default provisions once provided a measure of security both to employers and workers. Those workers joining transport employers can be confident they will have superannuation coverage and services that reflect their occupation and industry—even where they neglect to make an active choice.
I've heard directly from industry that those changes are leaving people without the coverage they need—all for an ideological bent of the former government. Do we hear anything from them about what those workers in industries such as transport, construction and agriculture need? No. That is why I'm pleased to reiterate Labor is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system, including in superannuation. That is why we have committed to recommendations of the Hayne royal commission that expand accountability on banks, superannuation funds and other financial service providers.
The Albanese government believes Australians deserve a dignified retirement supported by a strong superannuation system. Our $3.4 trillion superannuation system is world-class. It's the fourth largest in the world, though our economy is the 13th largest. How proud should we be of this? This is an Australian success story against which those opposite have been waging a tireless, ideological battle for many years—and some continue to do so now. The Albanese government, by contrast, is committed to strengthening the system in the interests of working families. Never forget: those opposite are the same party who, in the final hours of the election campaign, introduced a policy that would allow first home buyers the ability to borrow $50,000 from their superannuation to get into the property market—a policy which was widely condemned for a range of reasons.
Furthermore, the regulations the previous government introduced regarding the notice of annual member meetings were clunky and ideologically motivated. Burying super members under mountains of paper riddled with double counting serves no useful purpose. The level of detail previously mandated was excessive and far greater than required by public companies to their shareholders. It is important to have consistency in disclosures wherever possible and to have a level playing field. Furthermore, there was no clear alignment with the Australian Accounting Standards Board or APRA reporting—under both of which funds currently report now. This adds unnecessary costs and reduces the efficiency of the system as well as accountability across public disclosures.
It's also created confusion due to a lack of consistency across disclosures made by funds. The aim is to assist members to better understand fund expenditure by the provision of adequate information, not to confuse them by using different definitions in different public disclosures. Adequate information is designed as information that informs, not overwhelms, and provides useful insights into fund expenditure but does not put funds at a commercial disadvantage by disclosing granular, contractual information.
I rise to make my contribution to this matter of urgency. The Greens indeed agree that the superannuation sector needs more transparency. You've heard from Senator McKim exactly that. Australians should know how their super is being invested. In particular, it should be easily accessible for an individual to know if their super is being invested in, say, fossil fuels, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, logging, offshore detention and many other industries.
We've seen a rise in companies ramping up their policies and commitments regarding environmental and social governance, and it's great to see increasingly more companies starting to own this responsibility and take it seriously whilst also acknowledging that they have a lot of power and a huge role to play in relation to what environmental and social responsibility looks like. It's also great to see investors taking these factors more seriously, too, and being more conscious of the industries and companies they are actually investing in.
We all vote with our money. Every single day we do this. We might not put much thought into it, but every single dollar we spend sends a message to a company that we like them, the products and services they have to offer, and what they stand for overall. If we didn't, why would we spend our hard earned money there?
However, whilst on one hand we are seeing this increase of transparency and accountability, we are also seeing some take advantage of that. They are advertising themselves as being environmentally friendly; taking care of their workers; having social license to operate in those communities they operate in; and having good, diverse and accountable leadership, when in fact they absolutely don't. They are greenwashing and misleading the public and their investors on lots of occasions. Some businesses are taking advantage of investors who are wanting them to do the right thing and making great claims without actually embodying them.
This is why we need strong regulations relating to environmental, social and governance regulations. It's commonly known as ESG, and the EU has a comprehensive framework that governs ESG, which has formed part of the European Green Deal. The UK and New Zealand they have also taken measures to help regulate ESG, with a primary focus on environment considerations, which we here at the Greens obviously see as a priority.
Australia, once again, is about five or 10 years behind the rest of the world. We can start to elevate this through this process, particularly with the transparency of investment and transparency of super funds. We know there are some frameworks here in Australia that people refer to as sustainability that are already in place but in fact are not strong enough if we are seeing companies continuing to talk the talk without walking the walk, and without it being properly regulated and having the power to do that.
We know that fossil fuel companies in Australia know that the Australian public wants climate action, and they know they want renewable energy, so what are they doing? They're placing wind turbines and solar panels in their ads. That's what they're doing. But they're still continuing to extract coal and gas, cooking our planet. This is absolutely a marketer's dream, the greenwashing that they are doing. These ads are obviously curated for that sneaky and convenient purpose, to convince the public that this is not actually the issue. They are not providing transparency in relation to what superannuation funds are doing.
In the past we have seen that the super funds that are doing this are already performing better than others who are not: making sure that their governance is in check, and making sure there is transparency already for investors who are investing in fossil fuels, gambling and weapons. It has been found that these criteria actually helps investors avoid some of the controversy that can impact their stock prices and their investment returns. One example is BHP's catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We absolutely need to hold these companies to account and make sure that there is transparency in their ESG policies. We will not address the climate crisis with companies simply adjusting their market strategy.
If we want to make sure that if companies want to do good by the planet and people, then we actually need to create that transparency through a regulated framework. Many of us have seen super invested by these giant companies. We need to make sure that when they are making those investments they align with their priorities and their values and not aiding the burying of the truth.
nator BRAGG () (): It's regrettable but necessary to make some comments on this matter of urgency. Effectively, this is about the compulsory superannuation scheme, which is compulsory and sees about $30 billion a year going out in fees—quite a lot of fees. On a comparative basis, it would be one of the least efficient and least productive retirement schemes anywhere in the world.
Effectively, what you have here is a very reasonable transparency measure. At least $15 million in this year is being spent by superannuation funds to go into union coffers, and that is not being disclosed to members. Now, that figure will balloon to $30 million by the end of the decade, so that is $30 million of retirement savings that is being shovelled into unions that members can't see.
The nub of this issue—and there have been lots of contributions on this issue—is that, in regard to the funds' expenditure, as a result of these changes in regulations, there is now more transparency by visiting the AEC website, where the unions are captured and have to disclose their sources of income, than there is available to the members of the superannuation funds. If I'm a member of a super fund and I go to the super fund website, I get less information than I would as a punter going to the AEC website and searching on associated entities and finding the income the unions get from the super funds. That's how ridiculous this is.
Effectively, the Labor Party was against these reforms. The now minister, Stephen Jones, wrote 90 letters to members of the then government, urging us not to proceed with our own reforms and pass the Your Future, Your Super changes. That's because the vested interests that Mr Jones and the Labor Party are closest to don't want to see these changes because they don't want to see transparency. They don't want people to see the amount of money that is being distributed from the super funds to the unions.
There is no question that there has been too much politics in super, but I think it's hard to avoid when you have a system that has been created by the laws of this country and you have allowed such a poorly run structure, where there is huge leakage, to operate for 30 years. There is no question that the banks have done a bad job with super. They have charged ridiculously high fees and they have plundered the retirement savings of their members, and the unions have been able to do the same. And they are proceeding with this agenda of taking tens of millions of dollars a year out of the funds and putting it into the unions.
Now, one of the funds, which is called First Super—it is a very small fund—is taking $3½ million a year in directors' fees on a tiny little super fund. This is more than an ASX 20 company would be doing. Of course, some of the first disclosures we've seen under this new regime, including from AustralianSuper, are that they are now able to conceal more than $100 million in related party transactions and a further $1 million in payments to unions. So we're now not allowed to see any of these payments. These are now secret—brought to you by the party that apparently is arguing in favour of transparency. I think it is very regrettable.
If the Labor Party were obsessed with the legacies of Paul Keating and all these people from the 1980s and were genuinely concerned about the longevity and the credibility of the superannuation scheme, surely they would be embracing the idea of transparency, because the people who are forced to put their money into this scheme are forced to put their money into this scheme; they have no choice. So the least you could do is show them where their money is going. And if you have concerns about the money going to related parties in other part of the industry, then make that transparent as well.
I think the issues that the Greens have raised may well be legitimate issues. Maybe there is scope for more transparency, but the bottom line here in this debate is that the regulations that were made by the last government that require transparency on payments from super funds to unions or any other related party are credible and should not be removed and that the disallowance that has been proposed by Senator Pocock should be supported by anyone who wants to campaign in the future on transparency and integrity. Certainly, they won't be able to make these arguments if they are not going to support this motion.
Clearly, we are hearing from all sides of this chamber that people want more transparency. Australians have voted for more transparency. And when it comes to superannuation we should be pushing for more transparency, not less. According to APRA, we pay some $9.1 billion per annum in fees, but the Grattan Institute points out that many super funds don't report the fees that they pay to companies who help manage their members' money. When you add that, it's more like $30 billion, which is an eye-watering amount of money. These are big, big numbers. Superannuation consumers have come out saying they want more transparency. They don't like these changes to the regulations. To make it clear: the old regulations apply to both industry and retail funds.
Despite Minister Jones's claims of high administrative burdens, Prime Super and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation both disclosed under the old regulations. It didn't seem to be a problem for them. I'd like to address Senator McKim's point earlier, casting aspersions on my disallowance motion. I'm not carrying anybody's spear here. This is something I've heard a lot about from people in the ACT. They want to know where their money is going in superannuation. If we put aside the partisan nature of this debate, we should be for transparency. Regardless of where it is, we should be supporting it. That's why I have a problem with rolling back transparency in superannuation.
I haven't been in here for long, just a few months. One of the things I've noticed is that not everyone votes consistently for good policies. Often they are votes for politics, which you can understand. I'd point to a time a few weeks ago when I and the rest of the crossbench supported one of Senator Roberts's motions on the Climate Change Bill but all three parties voted against it, because to support PHON, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, was not politically convenient.
I will certainly continue to push for more transparency in super. It's something that the people I represent want and it is certainly something that I want to see.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I present a non-conforming petition of over 26,000 signatures, relating to the withdrawal of Australia from the AUKUS agreement and the stopping of the development of nuclear submarines.
On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the definitions of meat and other animal products.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to speak to the meat definitions inquiry because the report of definitions of meat and other animal products inquiry is a timely examination of the food labelling regulatory framework intended to benefit and protect consumers.
Definitions matter. We use them every day. We couldn't function as human beings or as a society without them. The amount of information contained in just a simple definition is extraordinary, and it's particularly important for people making decisions about what to put into their mouths.
Food categories have become increasingly blurred, and claims on plant based proteins have not been clearly regulated. Organics, free range and other raising-claimed categories are overseen by the Australian Consumer Law, while nutritional and compositional labelling are overseen by the Department of Health and Aged Care. However, the department of health does not have matching policing or investigative powers.
The growth of new protein categories such as plant-based, cultured, and blended animal-and-plant based proteins is recognised as providing consumers with new sources of protein. An increasing world population and pressure on arable farming land by encroaching urban zoning are competing needs that are, in part, addressed by manufactured proteins.
The perception of competition between the traditional category of meat protein and manufactured plant-based protein was not borne out in consumer or consumption trends. It appears that the two categories are growing in size, in line with the growing hungry world, and it is in Australia's interest to be a part of the growth of both sectors, utilising our reputation as a producer of high-quality produce, both animal and plant, and high food standards.
What is missing is the clarity for the consumer. While industry sectors will argue the relative benefits of one over another by nutrition, sustainability and environmental standards, the consumer is not benefiting if the labelling does not clearly define which category a product belongs to. Consumers are increasingly well informed and educated about ingredient and nutrition labelling, but the use of animal terms and imagery on plant based products is not adding to the ease of use of busy consumers. While it appears most plant based protein product manufacturers do use clear labelling and terms, such as plant based burger, there are no labelling standards to ensure that animal terms or images are not used on the product packaging of plant based proteins.
Anecdotally, since this inquiry began, awareness of this issue has grown considerably following the associated consultation and media interest. This may explain why groups such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Food and Grocery Council stated that they had little or no feedback, yet media reports and consumer surveys had thousands of responses.
However, the committee heard that, since Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ, made changes to section 1.1.1—13 of the Food Standards Code in 2016, labelling and claims on plant based proteins have not been clearly regulated. Members of the agriculture industry spoke of their frustration with the consultation process on the proposed change in 2016, which focused solely on dairy products, meaning other affected industries, including the meat industry, were not consulted on the changes or even made aware of them until the proposed changes were signalled by a media release. The result is that the definitions for dairy were altered to allow manufactured products to use animal terms and to appropriate implied claims of equivalency. This pathway has subsequently been used by manufacturers of plant based proteins.
As the new protein category in Australia expands from plant based to cultured—trialling in Japan and others—and blended animal and plant proteins, Australia has an opportunity to identify the best regulator—health, consumer or other—and mandatory labelling requirements. Domestic labelling guidelines are important to protect the existing and significant export market, which has clear definitions of meat, and to protect the new protein market. Categories such as organic and free range may also be seeking greater clarity on labelling claims, and it is important that there is a national standard that aligns with mandatory standards found in existing legislation. The alignment between domestic and international standards will provide all stakeholders with clear guidance and enforcement by the ACCC, which has the powers and resources to address improper labelling and marketing practices.
People are more diet conscious now than ever before, whether it be toward allergic reactions, to watch their waistline or to show care about how or from where their food is sourced. This is why we have labels on foods and why we have long-established definitions for food. Wrong definitions could literally be the difference between life and death for some people.
The Senate inquiry into meat definitions is important. It's why the coalition is interested in it. The rise of plant based proteins has been exponential. Therefore, the need to clearly define what a food is has grown in importance. Organic food consumers want certainty in definitions. Vegans would be mortified to find out their vegetable lasagne contained meat. Likewise, those wanting animal proteins would be bitterly disappointed to know that instead of a simple piece of beef they had bought a highly processed plant alternative.
The inquiry didn't seek to influence food choices; it aimed to make these choices easier and clearer. During the hearings we saw some extraordinary and, at times, dishonest lengths to which some plant protein makers go to market their products. Terms normally associated with animals were displayed on packaging in big letters, and the words 'plant based' or 'meat free' were barely visible. The packaging also features the animals that are not used in the food. If you're a person who has English as a second language, are dyslexic, have poor eyesight or have a disability, word association and imagery are important tools to use when choosing food. You may not recognise the word 'fillet', but you would see the word 'beef' and a picture of a cow on the package and be fairly confident that the food is beef. However, if the word 'beef' is in large letters and the words 'plant based' are in small letters and there's a picture of a cow on the pack, you can see how these compromised consumers would be misled into choosing a fillet of plant based protein. The same applies to people who are simply time poor, which is very common in today's world. You see the word 'chicken' on a box and a picture of a chicken. You grab it and race home, only to find you've grabbed a vegetarian product.
Critics of this inquiry have scoffed that people should learn to read or they should choose a plant based product, and they just have to be more careful. But people choose what they eat for a range of very good reasons. The term 'buyer beware' would appear to hold some weight, but I would argue that it shouldn't apply to people wanting simple truth in labelling. Other criticisms of the inquiry included that we should also change the name of baby oil, peanut butter and hotdogs, because those products didn't contain babies, butter or dogs. I laughed at first, but then I realised these people were serious. The argument fails because these products aren't trying to market themselves as containing babies, butter or dogs, whereas many vegetable products were trying to pass themselves off as containing meat from animals. The best example in common usage today of substituted terms is margarine, a product undoubtedly sold as a butter substitute, but which has its own unmistakable and clearly visible name.
An issue for consumers is the fact that plant based proteins are processed, contain chemicals you've possibly never heard of, and are not nutritionally equivalent. This isn't an issue if consumers know what they're eating, but the committee have a concern that plant based proteins are marketed as being more healthy than animal protein, when plant proteins do contain chemicals and additives compared to animal products.
It's not just consumers who deserve to know what they are eating; the animal industry deserves free air to market its products. Since 1997, about $5 billion has been collected from red meat producers in the form of levies which are used to fund research, development and marketing of red meat as safe, healthy and nutritious, but this work is undermined if the industry is not allowed to protect its own descriptions and names. Last year, the CEO of Impossible Foods, Pat Brown, was quoted as saying he wants to end all animal farming by 2035. This goal adds a sinister element to the sector, deliberately trying to equate its products with animal products.
The committee acknowledges the submissions and testimony from all who took the time to give evidence. I'd like to thank the witnesses who gave testimony and the many interested parties who made written submissions. It is only by having robust discussions that we can achieve harmony and clarity. I also want to thank the committee members, including co-chair Glenn Sterle and Senator Whish-Wilson, for their diligence and interest. I commend this report.
I also participated in this inquiry. I mean this genuinely, and I really wish I didn't have to say it, but, in the 10 years I've been in the Senate, this inquiry is the biggest waste of time and taxpayers' money that I have seen.
I want to note firstly that, very unusually, this inquiry didn't come as a reference inquiry. It should have, so that the Senate, including Senator McDonald's colleagues, would have voted on it. This came as a reference inquiry dressed up as a legislation committee inquiry. Senator McDonald put this through the legislation committee with no discussion or democratic process with other senators, and then she chaired it herself.
I said to the Labor Party only a month or so ago that I do not think it's good process in the Senate for governments to put up their own references inquiries and write their own reports. I participated as much as I could. It was a conga line of farmers, and I felt bad for the farmers, because I think some of them genuinely thought there was an opportunity to actually get regulatory change from this inquiry. It was an opportunity for Senator McDonald and the National Party to call on some of their rusted-on constituency and come to present evidence on how plant based foods are somehow a threat to their existence and to their livelihoods.
I admit today that I could tell there was some genuine anger and frustration from some of these stakeholders. But I felt very sad that they were drawn into some kind of culture war that was never going to deliver an outcome for them, because there was no substantive evidence presented at all that the labelling on plant based food is somehow undermining the red meat industry or animal agriculture—in fact, quite the opposite.
Details were laid out by a number of credible witnesses, including the CSIRO and others, that said that yes, the plant based sector has a very bright future. I think that's something we should all be celebrating, no matter our political colour, because it's jobs for farmers, it's Australian exports, it's gross national product and it's a whole bunch of other things, as well as providing choice and alternatives for people. But we also heard that the red meat industry, for example, also has massive growth protections in the years and decades to come.
This was nothing but a thinly disguised attack on the plant based food industry, and it made me very sad to see the Senate, and taxpayers' money, being used for this. It would be fine if we actually felt like somehow we were going to get some regulatory change around labelling, and I actually do think we need change around labelling, by the way. I think we need to have good seafood labelling, because we see imports of seafood and we don't know where the fish has come from, how it was caught, what gear was used, where it was landed or whether safe labour was attached to it. Our Australian fishery industries are competing with these products that we actually know very little about.
There are some very urgent labelling challenges if we want to look at that and look at changes to regulations and legislation, not to mention much better chain-of-custody labelling around Australian-made food as well. I've been on two inquiries before that have looked at labelling changes, and we've got some changes to our labels that show what's an Australian product and what's not, but they don't go anywhere near far enough.
Here we have an inquiry that is actually designed, in my opinion, to be set-up to attack the plant-based food industry. There are enormous opportunities for Australian farmers in plant-based food. Most farmers are diversifying. Yes, they might be running cattle or sheep but they're also potentially growing chickpeas or soybeans, or a whole range of other products. The example that was used by Senator McDonald that a vegan would be horrified if they were to find mince in their lasagne that they bought—and, yes, they would be—and that, therefore, someone who goes to buy a steak would be horrified that somehow they are eating a fake steak is a very poor comparison, because it is pretty obvious that plant foods are put in the forms of burgers. There are no alternatives to, for example, a steak, which is the example that was constantly raised throughout the Senate inquiry. You are probably likely to find almost as much vegetable protein and other matter, and a whole range of other additives, in meat burgers as you are in a vegetable burger. They are full of vegetables, as are a number of other meat products. Of course, when we got into that in the inquiry no-one wanted to talk about it.
It's no wonder that plant-based burgers are doing very well on the markets with the flexitarian consumers—people who want to reduce their consumption of meat but aren't vegan or vegetarian—because they actually taste like meat. They've got the same protein as meat. They have been very carefully designed to appeal to people who like meat. They provide choice. They come in the form of a burger and some other very clearly labelled packets. There is no way you could mistake a chicken fillet for an alternative plant-based product.
I agree that there potentially should be some changes around the use of animal logos on some of these products. Sometimes it was the farmers themselves who were saying that they want to see massive changes to labelling, or they do not want to see alternative meat products or plant-based meat products sold in the same isles as meat products because they accidentally picked up a vegan chicken vindaloo when they wanted a normal one. We never got any real evidence that this is a significant problem.
I'm not sure where it's going to go from here. The Greens have put in a very detailed dissenting report that talks about the definition of meat and other animal products; the consumer understanding of animal products; the regulatory framework, including Australian consumer law; and what would need to be done from here to actually help promote the opportunities for the protein sector across the board. This is something that I think Australians would be interested in, because they are increasingly eating plant-based products.
If we are going to feed the planet this century—we know we have a lot of challenges. We know plant-based foods will help provide the protein that we need, including in many Third World countries. It has been named by CSIRO and other people as one of the biggest investment opportunities for farmers and for investment companies wanting to get into exciting areas where there are opportunities to tackle environmental problems.
Of course, Meat & Livestock Australia and other groups recognise that they have to decarbonise. They recognise that consumers out there have concerns about the carbon footprint of their products. They are also, I hope, looking at what they can do to reduce their carbon footprints and reduce emissions from their sectors, because consumers, or customers, are voting with their feet. They are voting with their feet and they are seeking out alternative products.
I would say to senators, if they are interested in this, don't just read the government's own report into its own inquiry—which went through the legislation committee without any scrutiny from the Senate—please also read the Greens' dissenting report, which I think provides a much more balanced assessment of this topic.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table the revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills, and I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
JOBS AND SKILLS AUSTRALIA BILL 2022
The Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 delivers on the Government's commitment to establish Jobs and Skills Australia as an independent body to provide advice on the skills and training needs of workers and employers, now and in future.
Today I am introducing the Bill with amendments to the initial Bill introduced on 27 August 2022, to expand the functions of Jobs and Skills Australia to help improve employment opportunities for Australians and strengthen the economy.
Jobs and Skills Australia will provide advice on issues relating to skills, training and workforce needs in regional, rural, and remote Australia—including the accessibility of training for those living in regions, and skill gaps which exist. The number of businesses unable to fill job vacancies is increasing, especially in our regions which have specific skills and workforce needs.
Jobs and Skills Australia will provide advice on pathways into VET, and the pathways between VET and higher education. This will create a clearer understanding for students who might commence studying in the VET system, before continuing into higher education.
Improving opportunities for employment, and VET and higher education outcomes are critical for Australians that have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion, like First Nations Australians, women, and those aged over 55. Jobs and Skills Australia will ensure these cohorts are prioritised in performing its functions.
Initial Bill introduced on 27 August 2022
Informed by the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit on the 1st and 2nd of September 2022, the Government will continue to consult industry and employer bodies, unions, education and training providers, State and Territory Governments and others to determine the next stage of implementing Jobs and Skills Australia.
This consultative approach paves the way for shared value from the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia for all stakeholders with an interest in skills and the quality training of Australia's workforce.
Taking into consideration what we have heard, the Government will introduce further legislation that sets out the full range of functions, structure and governance arrangements to establish the permanent model for Jobs and Skills Australia.
Jobs and Skills Australia will have an important role in strengthening Australia's economy by providing crucial workforce planning functions. It will undertake workforce forecasting and prepare capacity studies for new and emerging industries and contribute to planning for a pipeline of skilled workers.
One of the biggest challenges facing Australian employers across many sectors right now is that they are struggling to find workers with the skills needed to ensure their enterprises are fully operational.
Skill shortages have been made worse by the pandemic—especially with reduced skilled migration and the lack of support for migrant workers during the COVID lockdowns.
The absence of planning and lack of a coordinated national response to skills and labour shortages in the last 10 years have contributed to the crisis facing some sectors.
The Government intends to restore tripartite cooperation and is determined that the trend over the last decade towards more insecure, low-paid and unskilled work, is addressed.
Innovative sectors of our economy have also been held back by the lack of policy leadership and planning. To succeed, our emerging industries in advanced manufacturing, technology and clean energy, all critical to tackling climate change, require an increase in the supply of highly specialised skills.
These challenges for emerging industries are being experienced against a background of an already tight labour market, supply chain and related economic challenges.
The Bill provides the first stage of establishing Jobs and Skills Australia and identifies the initial functions and structure of the organisation. The Bill establishes an interim Jobs and Skills Australia Director to commence the important work needed now, and who will lead Jobs and Skills Australia through its initial establishment and the performance of its initial set of functions. To support its formation, the agency will be situated within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.
From inception, Jobs and Skills Australia will give effect to the Government's commitment to a tripartite approach. In exercising its functions, Jobs and Skills Australia will be required to be inclusive and to genuinely consult and work with State and Territory governments and other key stakeholders.
Jobs and Skills Australia will have a remit to advise on the adequacy of the VET system and to consider the adequacy of outcomes for students engaged in training.
Conclusion
The advice of Jobs and Skills Australia will help build a bigger, better-trained workforce and a more productive economy.
This Government supports the aspirations of all workers for secure work, meaningful work, and a better future for themselves and their families.
We understand work isn't just about your pay packet. With work comes purpose and identity.
Australians who have the right skills have more job security and more job choices.
A skilled workforce is also a more productive workforce.
Learning new skills, acquiring knowledge and cultivating innovation is key to opportunity, wage growth and job security for workers, and to increasing productivity and revenue for industries.
The Government understands immediate action is needed to address critical skill shortages.
Core business of this Government is to create opportunities for Australians to prosper. That is why an expeditious establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia is a priority for the Government.
Finally, I make mention to the Senate Committee for their tabled report and recommendations from the inquiry.
The recommendations demonstrate and support the government's ongoing commitment to establish Jobs and Skills Australia as a matter of priority and establish the permanent Jobs and Skills Australia, including its full range of functions, structure, and governance arrangements, through informed stakeholder engagement.
Specifically, recommendation one mentions, 'the Government's rebranding exercise of Jobs and Skills Australia must reflect the needs and aspirations of the business community who gave evidence during the hearings in support of the new Jobs and Skills Australia'. While not agreeing to the characterisation of a rebranding exercise, Jobs and Skills Australia will reflect the needs and aspiration of business. That's why they are given a voice in the tripartite model and we are further engaging on the final form of Jobs and Skills Australia for the second tranche of legislation.
Recommendation two mentions, 'Coalition Senators urge the Albanese Labor Government to provide the sector with certainty by committing to legislate the final model, with measurable outcomes, of Jobs and Skills Australia within the 12-month timeframe they have set. Anything outside this timeframe will put Australia at a competitive disadvantage'. The Government's delivery plan is clear. We will deliver the final Jobs and Skills Australia model in a reasonable timeframe, noting that the intention is reflected in the legislation. This is evidenced by a time limited 12-month appointment period for the interim Jobs and Skills Australia Director.
Recommendation three mentions, 'in establishing the new Jobs and Skills Australia, the Government must consult widely and ensure that it preserves the independence of the new statutory authority.' The government is engaged in wide consultation on Jobs and Skills Australia's functions. The Government will draw to .Member's attention that the model in this legislation is independent. The Minister is not able to direct advice given by Jobs and Skills Australia.
I commend this Bill to the chamber.
JOBS AND SKILLS AUSTRALIA (NATIONAL SKILLS COMMISSIONER REPEAL) BILL 2022
Today I am introducing the Jobs and Skills Australia, National Skills Commissioner Repeal Bill 2022.
This Bill repeals the National Skills Commissioner Act 2020.
The National Skills Commissioner has performed important advisory functions since the office was established in 2020.
However, to address the economic challenges facing Australia, we need a more strategic focus on our future workforce and skills needs and to develop better connections with industry, employers, unions, and state and territory governments.
The establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia will deliver on this, and repealing
the National Skills Commissioner Act is part of the pathway forward.
I commend this Bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Question agreed to.
I finished my contribution on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 by saying that I was very worried that the government's motives for this legislation were dismissing the fact that, when faced with very difficult challenges, we need not let the perfect get in the way of the good. In fact, as one stakeholder put it, the cashless debit card is not a silver bullet, but it is something, and we can build on it. In fact, the cashless debit card is an advanced technology that's accepted now at more than one million businesses right across Australia. That's far more than the less than 16,000 merchants that accept the BasicsCard, which was operating under the former Labor government. It's a very practical tool that assists users in managing their money. It helps people to focus on what it is that they need to deliver better health outcomes for individuals and, most importantly, positive change in their communities.
The critics of the card will talk about the increased stigma of welfare recipients and say that it prevents their freedom of choice and is discriminatory or is based specifically on Indigenous communities. That's not right. So let's get the facts straight. In fact, the cashless debit card looks and operates just like a regular bankcard. It cannot be used to withdraw cash or to buy alcohol or gambling products, along with some specific gift cards that would enable these purchases. Importantly, the cashless debit card does not change the amount of money people receive from the government. Welfare payments for Ceduna, Goldfields, East Kimberley and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region participants are allocated as 20 per cent in the regular bank account and then 80 per cent onto the cashless debit card. In the Northern Territory, participants receive the same payment split that they received under income management. And in most cases cashless debit card participants in the Northern Territory receive their welfare payment allocation with 50 per cent in the regular bank account and 50 per cent on the card. In the Cape York region in Queensland, participants receive the same payments they received on income management. Users can operate internet banking and can tap and pay with their cards.
Over 17,000 participants are now using the cashless debit card, and this isn't an insignificant number given the populations of the locations in which the card operates. The communities where the cashless debit card has been employed—Ceduna, East Kimberley, Goldfields in Western Australia, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Cape York—have disproportionately high incidences of drug and alcohol related issues. They also include higher than average rates of social security dependency and even intergenerational social security dependency. An independent impact evaluation by the University of Adelaide that was released in 2021 looked into the cashless debit card and found that 25 per cent of people reported drinking less since the introduction of the cashless debit card; 21 per cent of CDC participants reported gambling less with the cash that was previously used for gambling and instead spent it on essentials, such as food; and 45 per cent of cashless debit card participants reported that it improved things for themselves and for their families.
More than a dozen evaluations of income management have provided consistent evidence about welfare quarantining. Most importantly, it's a dramatic improvement on what existed before. The BasicsCard, which was operated under the former Labor government, could be used only in certain stores and was less flexible in its operation. The cashless debit card operates in communities regardless. Labor has walked away from the participants in each of these cashless debit cards and from their communities. For the coalition, this is not about ideology. It's about what works. It's about what people want. But unfortunately, despite these positive results, Labor is now abolishing the program. Even more concerning, it's clear that the decision was taken without consultation with the communities that this program mostly benefits.
Among the amendments that have been discussed today, amendments have been moved to allow the Cape York CDC trial site and those people in the NT who have voluntarily transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the CDC to remain on the CDC. While some of these amendments do go some way to walk back this unfortunate policy, the intention of the bill is to repeal the cashless debit card, which was put into communities as an important financial management tool to help improve people's lives, particularly the lives of some of Australia's most vulnerable.
In concluding my remarks, I want to reinforce just how disappointed I am that the government is seeking to extend the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory without consultation and without transparency whilst at the same time seeking to wind back the cashless debit card. Even though the government is seeking to walk back its bill with the amendments that have been moved and the provisioning of $50 million for additional drug and alcohol support services—because they themselves now realise the significant issues that will come if this critical program is watered down or repealed—the evidence clearly shows that the cashless debit card is a significant piece of welfare infrastructure in the communities in which it operates. More importantly, it is working. The idea that it would be repealed is a callous act of this government. It should not be removed, because of the importance of the effectiveness of the program, and the government should rightly be condemned for its act to do so.
It's with great sadness that I speak on the repeal of the cashless debit card, which currently is used by over 4,000 Western Australians in the Goldfields and East Kimberley regions. These are unquestionably some of our state's most vulnerable people. I've gone through a wide range of emotions since the introduction of this ill-conceived and botched piece of legislation, from disbelief to great anger, and now sadness for the inevitable impacts that this will have on the lives of so many Australians.
The cashless debit card was introduced by the previous coalition government as a means of ensuring that those receiving welfare payments were spending taxpayers money on necessities such as food, household bills and clothes, and not on habits that enabled destructive lifestyles. And this is one thing that I think those opposite seem to have forgotten: it is not just about the life of the person on the card; it is also about the lives that they impact. It is about the women, the children and the elderly in their lives that have more money and are subject to far less violence than they had been.
I still cannot get my head around the pious self-righteousness of colleagues on the other side who have callously put ideology above the needs of Australia's most vulnerable. It is my opinion, and the opinion of those on this side of the chamber, that the card should be extended, not repealed. It is truly mind blowing just how incompetently the new government has managed this issue. As we kept hearing from those opposite, 'This is a policy we took to the election.' Well, they may have taken the policy to the election, but they certainly didn't take an implementation plan to the election, they certainly didn't take any consultation to the election and they certainly had none of that after the election when they introduced this legislation. In fact, there is no evidence that they consulted—properly consulted—with any of the communities who chose to have the CDC in their electorates.
How could they think that those in this place and the other place would allow them to steamroll such appalling legislation through this place, having been forced to have the quickest of all possible inquiries? Since then, as we'll hear in the committee stage of this bill, the government has been forced into embarrassing backflips time and time again. But these are concessions that they're now making because they've botched it the whole way along—again, impacting on over 14,000 Australian lives. They've botched it, and they're now about to make it worse.
Clearly they have never been up to any of these communities. What they don't realise is that saying, 'Look, we'll make it optional,' makes it worse. If you're an abused woman who is on the card, what do you think your partner is going to do? Do you think he's going to say: 'Yes, no problem. You just keep that card. Don't worry about giving me the cash.' It makes women in particular more vulnerable than less vulnerable, and shame on you. You've forced yourself into making these ill-considered and certainly not consultative amendments. It is a disgrace.
Now we're seeing the Labor government making amendments on the run, amendments that we are about to debate shortly in the committee stage, to this legislation. Again, you are better off withdrawing this legislation rather than trying to steamroll these ill-conceived amendments that will make people's lives even worse than what you were proposing to do in the first place.
Despite these new amendments, the intention of the bill still is to repeal the cashless debit card, which was put into communities as an important financial management tool. Again, it is all about helping our most vulnerable. And then those opposite were trying to say, 'Well, the Australian National Audit Office recommended that it be repealed.' Well, please bring in that report and show us exactly where the ANAO said this card be repealed, because, on our side, we can find no ANAO report that says that it needs to be repealed. That is simply a lie. That is simply a great big fib told by multiple members opposite. The reduction of taxpayer funded access to drugs, alcohol and gambling products has significantly reduced alcohol and drug abuse, assaults, rapes and murder—the evidence is there. Those opposite, during the debate, have been saying, 'Well, we haven't been able to find anyone to really tell us about this.' Well, if you don't go out and talk to the communities, of course you are not going to find anyone to comment on this. Again, with ungodly haste, the government shunted the committee inquiry through this place and did not visit one of the trial sites or talk to one member in my own home state of Western Australia, so of course they didn't find anyone in Western Australia because they didn't go and talk to them.
After all this backlash, the Albanese government has finally conceded that abolishing the cashless debit card—oh gee, golly gosh—will lead to more violence, more alcohol and drug abuse, childhood neglect and violence in vulnerable communities, including in my home state of Western Australia. The announcement of nearly $50 million for alcohol and drug treatment services is a complete admission that this will cause more harm and that more support will be required as a direct result of what the government are proposing. Shame on the Labor government for doing what they have done, leaving great uncertainty in these communities amongst Australia's most vulnerable. Now, surprise surprise, at the 11th hour, very shortly in this place they will be coming in with amendments which admit they were wrong. But these are amendments that haven't been consulted on across any of these communities, so the government have introduced this atrocious legislation without regard or consultation with those it will impact the most. So much for an Indigenous voice.
We had two amazing Indigenous senators, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle, speak with firsthand knowledge. If anybody who listened to Senator Nampijinpa Price tell us about her own personal experience with still thinks that this bill is good, then you have no heart and you have no shame.
This ideological opposition to the CDC will leave thousands of Australians vulnerable. Let me make it very clear: this government and this parliament have not consulted with Western Australians who have chosen to have this card in their communities. Given that the cashless debit card is only being used in six places and two of them are in Western Australia, in the East Kimberley and Goldfields regions, this Senate's inquiry conducted not a single, not one, hearing in either East Kimberley or the Goldfields. Not only that, when they were finally forced to actually consult, shamed into consulting with some of these regions, guess how many days the local councils got to deal with and provide some input? They had three days, three working days, to comment on four documents. That is not genuine consultation and that is a disgrace.
The East Kimberley as a whole was a site where the most problems were reported and recorded before the introduction of the CDC and it was also the site that reported the strongest positive change, particularly in relation to alcohol. East Kimberley was the site affected by the most severe alcohol problems but was also the site that has demonstrably recorded the greatest reduction since the introduction of the card. The CDC was very positive in preventing humbugging. The lives of those vulnerable people who are subject to humbugging by their family and friends have been improved by the cashless debit card, because no longer can their relatives put their hand out and ask for cash. They can no longer stand at the ATM waiting for that money to come out and take it away from mothers and children. That is one of the benefits of this card.
I would like to conclude with a couple of comments from leaders in my own home state of Western Australia, both from East Kimberley and the Goldfields, people who those opposite and this Senate committee obviously made no effort to talk to. The first one is from the mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, John Bowler:
It almost seems that they are putting the cart before the horse.
The Shire of Laverton said:
The lack of consultation is profound on the government's part and the words and rhetoric do not go well for the future of Laverton, and as local governments do, we will pick up the pieces with other state government agencies who work under trying conditions and see the community continue.
… … …
The CDC has brought some sanity to the people's lives as most of the spending allocation is to purchase food—
food for women, children and the elderly—
and the other essentials of life.
… … …
Is this submission emotive, yes, it is because we believe and have seen firsthand the benefits of the CDC and the impact upon Laverton for which I have called home for over 65 years and the generation before me as the Shire President.
Ian Trust, the director of the fabulous Wunan Foundation, in Kununurra, who knows firsthand—the foundation deals with the health and the lives of so many in the East Kimberley. Ian has said:
It reduced the alcohol violence and the harassment of the elderly and vulnerable for cash when they used to go to the ATM.
The cashless card is not a silver bullet but it is something, and we can build on it.
But there is no plan as to what happens after the CDC is abolished, we are left in a vacuum. The government says if we want to go down that path of keeping income management that it has to be a community decision, but there's no information about how they want us to arrive at that decision or what the replacement could be.
Classic Labor policy on the run on the back of a coaster—a great idea, but with nothing behind it.
It is inconceivable to me, and to all of us on this side of the chamber, that any government or any senator would knowingly inflict more pain and suffering on vulnerable women, children and elders. But that is exactly what this piece of botched legislation that Labor are now about to seek to amend—that will make it even worse than it currently is. All I can say is: shame on every one of you. We know what will happen out in the communities if this bill passes here today: more grog, more violence, more rape, more abuse, more child neglect and more murder and death. You cannot say you were not warned. You cannot say you did not know. Yet you continue to push this based on blind ideology. Shame on you all.
I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Somewhere in Australia today, a child woke up, put on fresh clothes and sat down to breakfast, because of the cashless debit card. Somewhere in Australia this afternoon, a wife or partner won't be trembling in fear of a man coming home grogged up and ready to fight, because of the cashless debit card. Somewhere in Australia tonight, some elderly people will sleep soundly knowing they are unlikely to be robbed or rolled for cash, because of the cashless debit card. Today we are being asked to vote to take that away from them. I must believe that we as a chamber are better than that, and I have to believe that I as a person am better than that.
Today I would like to talk about two things: how did we come to the point that this chamber, filled with people who care about Australia and Australians, is about to throw some vulnerable people to the wolves; and what are the realities of dealing with these displaced communities? In looking for why people do things I always look at the motive behind the actions. In this case, maybe contrary to some others, I get those opposite took this policy to the election; I understand it and I respect they are trying to meet those undertakings they made. I also get that at the time, without all the information, they may have felt the card was inequitable; I can see where that may have come from. But I also understand that whilst you can't expect people to change their minds you can ask them to make a new decision with new information. As brief as the inquiry was, it came up with some new information, and this process must, at a minimum, be paused.
I won't be going into the stats that many trotted out or the quotes from Noel Pearson that I've probably heard about 20 times in defence of the card here today. But I want those opposite to go and read some of the powerful testimonies of those directly affected—not the agencies, not the industries and not the vested interests, but the people. Imagine their faces when they are talking about the better life they've had without fear. Imagine the hope they have had for life with less crime and better health. And imagine those same faces when we are telling them we're going to take that away. I accept that this was not the intention of this legislation when it was first considered. I can see the care that all in this chamber have for the people this affects. That is why I ask: if a couple of weeks in an inquiry can point out these issues, why don't we take a couple of months to try to find a better way to fix it? Why does this have to happen this way? Why does this have to happen on this day?
I know by the proposed amendments that have been introduced that there is an acceptance that perhaps, for the other side, this is not as cut and dried as first thought. I can see by the looks on some of the faces opposite that even with them it's something that still sits uneasy because of some unexpected consequences. What happens if that child can't go to school because we pass this? What happens if those elders get robbed because we pass this? What happens if that lady gets bashed, or worse, because we pass this? We need to get this right.
I accept that there are some flaws in the cashless debit card. It is not perfect and it can be improved. But I also know that this legislation and the rushed amendments are not the way to do it. Let's take the time and do this properly. These displaced communities suffer from the double barrel of disadvantage, cultural displacement and geographical distance. It is not hard to see that if I were relocated miles from anywhere with little hope of employment or destruction then I would probably hit the cans and have a punt—to what end, I don't know. Throw on top of that an Indigenous community's displacement from culture and generational neglect, and it only gets worse. These things are not fixed by taking away something that at least had some impact. These things are not fixed by tokens or platitudes. We have said sorry. We have closed the gap. We are trying to find a voice. But all the time the problems just get worse.
Today I spoke to Mr Mark Lockyer, and I tell this story of his family with his permission. Just two months ago his niece Alena Kukla and her son Orlando were shot in an apparent murder-suicide at 16 Mile Camp near Alice Springs. The apparent perpetrator, the toddler's father, had a history of violence against women and earlier had been drinking all day with the victim. As bad as all that is, the only witness was Ms Kukla's older son, all of three years of age. After seeing that and losing his mother, he can add another couple of barrels to the challenge that will face him in his life.
But where was the national outrage for this? Where was the media coverage of this horrible crime? It was nowhere, because it is too difficult for us to face the fact that, despite all our best intentions and billions of dollars spent over decades, this problem still exists. And in the absence of answers we give silence and throw more guilt cash at the community so we can pretend we are making a difference. But let's face it, we are not.
We were asked to do that again today with another $50 million being allocated as part of an amendment that acknowledges that there will be increased crime and there will be increased alcoholism because of this bill. A coroner's report has found that 65 Aboriginal women have been killed by their partners just in the Northern Territory since 2000. And we hear nothing and do nothing. Justice Judith Kelly noted:
Everyone is willing to talk about the over-representation of Aboriginal men in prison … But, as I have said before, the stream of Aboriginal men going to prison is matched by a steady stream—a river—of Aboriginal women going to the hospital and to the morgue.
During a 2016 episode of Q+A, Professor Marcia Langton said domestic violence suffered by Aboriginal women ranged from between 34 times the national average and up to 80 at the worst. This was later checked by ABC Fact Check and found to be broadly true.
The problems facing these regional Aboriginal communities are real and monstrous. They are very different to the problems faced by similar communities in the cities. They are harder to see and harder to solve. The withdrawal of this card will be the second blow to many of these communities, after the revocation of the alcohol ban by the Northern Territory. Alena Kukla and Orlando deserve better than that. That is why I cannot support this bill, even with the amendments. And that is why I ask again: delay the bill, enlarge the inquiry and come back to this place with legislation that is designed to make a difference not tick a box.
I too rise to speak on the cashless debit card. I want to touch on the scourge of addiction. I know that there's been a lot of discussion about other issues and other areas, but I think that one of the strengths of the cashless debit card is to enable or help people get off their addiction, whatever that may be, whether it's drinking, gambling or drugs.
I was talking to a pastor at Hervey Bay who works with food banks and he said that when the cashless debit card was introduced up at Hervey Bay—thanks to the hard work of the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt—that the length of the food lines dropped dramatically, and that the feedback he was getting was that a lot of people who were previously addicted basically had no other choice but to get off whatever their addiction was, and that food was being put on the table, which was a pleasant change for many families.
This has been touched on a lot, and there's some merit in the idea of making the card voluntary, but the problem is that you try telling that to an addict and they just won't go down the path of choosing self-control. They'll always take the cash because obviously a lot of things like drugs, for example, are only traded on the black market, so they need cash.
I will point out that I've always had a big issue with the Labor party and gambling in my home state of Queensland. I grew up in the small town of Chinchilla in the 1970s and eighties. At the time it was only a small town of 3,000 people. It's now almost 8,000 people, so it's much much bigger than it was. I grew up when my hometown had a maternity ward but we didn't have poker machines. When the Goss Labor government got in in the early nineties the first thing they did was introduce poker machines into the state and then proceeded to sell all of our infrastructure. So now my hometown has basically lost its maternity ward, it's lost its councils, the roads out there continue to deteriorate, and it's basically being left behind. The Labor politicians, certainly from my home state, should reflect on the scourge of gambling and poker machines that have been introduced into the state of Queensland and if they themselves—because they're not in the state government—can't repeal those poker machines, maybe the least that they can do to try to reduce the scourge of gambling with poker machines by reflecting on whether or not this cashless debit card would help reduce the number of people who are addicted to gambling in pubs. As someone who enjoyed a pint quite a lot in my early days, I can't tell you how much I hate a pub full of poker machines. It just kills the atmosphere greatly.
I'll keep my remarks very brief but I do think there's a lot of merit in keeping the cashless debit card. I don't think it's a question of being punitive for the sake of punitive or anything like that. I think it's got the best of intentions, ultimately.
The other thing is that, when you are addicted, it is very hard if you're spending time on drugs, at the pub drinking or with the gambling machine. You're less inclined to go and look for work; whereas, if you suddenly have your cash pulled away from you, you might go: 'Well, I actually might have to get a job to get some cash so I can continue to do whatever I want to do.'
Obviously, I think that the benefits outweigh any downside with this card, and I thoroughly would urge those on the other side to reflect on the potential damage that the repeal of the cashless debit card could cause, not just in Indigenous communities but in poorer communities across Australia, especially in regional towns. I'll conclude with that, but I will foreshadow the second reading amendment on sheet 1665 in Senator Ruston's name, as circulated in the chamber.
I've visited the cashless debit card trial sites many times. I can tell you that life is not easy for people in Ceduna, Bundaberg, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields. I've seen the poverty. I've seen the family violence and the alcohol abuse. I wanted the cashless debit card to fix those things. It didn't. It didn't get the results I had hoped it would. That's why the card is going. Right now, whatever happens to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, everyone in the trial sites is coming off the card this December.
The card will be gone. It will be gone because two years ago I didn't give Morrison the vote he needed to make it permanent. Honestly, it was one of the hardest choices I have ever had to make in this place, because I desperately wanted the card to work. I wanted to see life get better for people in those trial sites. I wanted to give people an out from addiction and welfare dependency and give them a way to manage their money and fight their worst impulses. I did that because I know what it's like to be on welfare; I know what it's like to live with an addict. I wanted the card to work because I wanted to fix things for people like me and my family.
But the truth is that the coalition government did not set the card up for success, and that is why it failed. I have always said to them: 'If you want to help people, you've got to have a carrot and a stick.' You can't just punish people; you cannot just have a stick. You need the carrot so people know that there's light at the end of the tunnel, that there's reward—it's called reward—that there's a pathway to make their lives better if they want to take it. The former coalition government were good at the stick. They were crap at the rest.
They put the card in. That was the stick; there was no carrot. They never did put in the work to help people get off welfare, get off the card and get into a decent job. They didn't set up residential rehab facilities for alcohols and ice addicts. They didn't get proper, real jobs into trial sites or help business get off the ground; they just chucked the magic card at people. They expected the card to fix everything. That was the only effort they wanted to put in. That was it—just a plastic card.
Well, that card couldn't fix anything by itself. It was never going to be successful. It was never going to work. They set it up to fail, and fail it did. And that's why the card is going—not because of anybody else in this Senate. You had seven years, and you failed miserably. That's why, back then, I voted against making this card permanent. The coalition have no-one to blame but themselves.
And here's the thing: taking the card away isn't good either. That's not going to fix it, because the problems in the trial sites won't disappear when that card goes; they'll only get worse. Those problems—the alcohol abuse, the drug abuse, the violence, the hopelessness—aren't going anywhere. That all stays, and it gets worse. That's the saddest thing for me.
The card is going somewhere: it's going in the bin. It's going in the bin because, let's be honest, the coalition has trashed it. It was seven years in the making, and you trashed it. What should have been gold you trashed. Taking the card away doesn't fix this. I will tell you how worried I am about this: if the coalition had expected the card to fix everything, Labor seems to think that ripping it out will fix everything too. It won't. You can't pull this thing out from under people and walk away like that's your job done. The kids and the families in those trial sites deserve better than that. I've met those kids and those families. I know their faces. I know what their lives look like. With or without the card, they aren't getting the opportunities in life that they deserve. We can't leave them to figure it out on their own. Every single one of us in this place has a responsibility to do better by those people.
If this bill passes tonight, that will not be our job done. It will be the start of our working day, not the time to clock off, I can assure you. I will be running around those trial sites, and I expect to be back here within six months, telling you you have done a disastrous job—that's the Labor Party. Not only will you have killed the card off, the mess that you will make on top of that will be absolutely disastrous. I've written to the Minister to ask her to work with me on four issues. Here's the first one.
Make sure services in the trial sites actually work. Public servants love paying for 'services' for poor people. I've never known a public servant who didn't think all the world's problems couldn't be fixed with more services and more cash. Like Noel Pearson said, public servants see a problem and they grab their four-wheel drive, they grab their wide-brimmed hats, they set up someone with a clipboard and a fax machine and they reckon their job is done. Seriously, that's what I saw in the trial sites, over and over again. It was devastating. That's where you did waste money. You shouldn't have bothered sending them, because they couldn't sell anything, let alone themselves. There was plenty of money for services but no thought about whether the services actually worked.
Take Ceduna as a great example. Ceduna has a number of cashed-up services that were set up as part of the cashless debit card trial. You can get a free breakfast whenever you want in Ceduna. You can hang out at the community centre and do arts and crafts, but the best you can get from the local TAFE is a short course on first aid, and that's on a good day. If you're a heavy drinker in Ceduna you can go to the sobering up centre for a safe bed to sleep that night. As a matter of fact, you can go there every night if you want, and when you wake up they'll even give you breakfast. How's that helping you? It's great, isn't it? There's no rehab if you want to get over your addiction, and there's no psychological support. There are no residential facilities for you to break out of your bad habits. If you want to go to rehab, you'll have to go five hours up the road to Port Augusta. I don't know about you people, but that doesn't work for Indigenous people; they've got to be close to family. Five hours is too far away. That was your first failure. Once you come back, more than likely you'll fall in with the same crowd and you'll be drinking again and carrying on.
The situation in Ceduna is the same for all the trial sites. That's why I've campaigned for each of them to receive better-targeted, more-meaningful support. The government has promised to put money in for services. I hope that won't mean more money for free breakfasts and crafts afternoons. What people in those sites don't need is more window dressing. What they need is a fair go to make their lives better. That's why I've called on the government to put the money for services towards organisations that will help people get their lives back on track. There should be funding for residential rehab in regional areas; money to help people get real jobs, not just time fillers like work for the dole, because that's rubbish—it was never going to work and it hasn't even worked for white people, so good luck with that. There should be funding for better mental and physical health facilities and support for Indigenous-run businesses. It's not rocket science here, people; it really isn't.
It may be the case that the government will have to take money from community organisations that aren't working—so sad, too bad—and there are plenty of those in the trial sites that have nothing to offer but dressing up. It will be hard. Apparently, we have a deficit in this country and there isn't unlimited funds. We've got to make sure that that money is spent properly so people can get on with their lives.
No. 2 for the Labor Party: show us your transition plan. I'm yet to see one. We're going to go from bad to worse. Next you'll be having interventions again—'I have kids out there being abused'—because that's where we're heading. If this bill passes, people will start coming off the card from next week. Whether you think the card worked or not, taking it away is going to be disruptive, and it is not going to be helpful. We're looking at a massive change for some very vulnerable people. The first thing I'm worried about is crime. People have told me plenty of times that crime, antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse spike when trial sites get big cash payments, such as mining royalties, on top of people's quarantined income from Centrelink. There's your other problem. Do something about the mining royalties. It's a massive problem. If Twiggy Forrest can direct it elsewhere, why can't every other mining company in this country do so? No more royalties via cheques. No more! Letting people opt out of the card is going to have a similar effect. I want to know from Labor: what are you going to do about that? How will you protect these people?
This bill will also make a big difference to the women who rely on the compulsory nature of the card to have control of their own money. Being able to say to your sister, your brother or your husband, 'Sorry, I can't give you cash because it's all on my card; I've got nothing left,' is useful to a lot of women. It stops a lot of domestic violence. Once again, it's not rocket science.
When you go to the trial sites and you ask the women what they think of the card, I'll tell you what they say. When the blokes are around, they'll sit there and say, 'It's no good.' When you clear those blokes out, they're nearly jumping up, dancing, because they can't believe how effective this card has been for their lives, especially when it comes to humbugging and abuse—abuse! Making the card voluntary is going to take that away. My question is: what's going to happen to those women? What's the plan for them? Once again, silence from Labor. No plan.
The last thing on transition that bothers me is how we're going to make sure people get new cards on time and without hassle. I don't know if you know this, but they're trying to get them on a brand new card up there in the Northern Territory. Even though it was state of the art and would get them off a BasicsCard, even though they were selling that for three weeks around the Northern Territory, there was no way in hell they were going to buy into that. I'm not a public servant. I was dressed up like they are and I'm Indigenous. Many of these people in these small communities are uneducated. It's very difficult for them; they don't understand. You can't just go out there with a public servant and put something on the screen. It's not going to work. You people have got no idea what you're up against over here—none at all!
You can't just mail it out. Mail's not going to work. It can take two or three weeks to do all that stuff. And then, once again, you have to explain to them about this card and what's happening. You people over there are just not getting this at all. You're lost in a bubble. Plenty of people in the trial sites have no fixed address; they only have their card. You're giving them a whole new system. Once again: how are you selling it? I imagine committee time is going to be an absolute ripper in here shortly. And even if they do have an address, it could, like I said, take two weeks, at best, to deliver a letter.
Six months after this bill passes everyone who's still on the CDC will get the boot off the card. The government expects people to switch their bank accounts and bank cards over in a day. Once again: we're dealing with a heap of uneducated people, so good luck with that. I don't see how that's going to happen without blocking some people from their own money, and then they're not going to have money. It will take a lot of careful planning and preparation to make the transition off the cashless debit card work.
And I still haven't seen anything from the minister or department on how they plan to manage it. That's why I've asked the minister to release the transition plan for the trial sites. The government need to show us how they're going to handle the next six months with the people who are going to come off the card. Put it on paper. Since you think your plan's going to work so well, let's see it! Let's see what the abuse is going to look like in six months time. Let's see how many more alcoholics you've got in these communities in six months time. Let's look at child abuse go through the roof in these communities in six months time. That's what you are facing. You're accountable for what comes next, so lay your cards out on the table. Show us that you're up for the challenge. Right now all I'm getting from the Labor Party on the cashless debit card is a heap of silence and a stupid look of 'I don't know'.
One of the last government's biggest stuff-ups on the cashless debit card was that it didn't monitor its effects properly. When you do a test on whether something works of not, you have to start by looking at how things were before you made a change. Well, here you go. I hope you've been doing your travels out there, because I want to see all that paperwork. What does it look like today? Because I can tell you what: I'm going to be back here in six months asking you. I know what it looks like now; I'm going to tell you what it look like in six months time. And no doubt there will be silence on that side as well.
You have to measure your starting point; that's how you know how far you've come. We didn't do that with the cashless debit card and the trials weren't much of a trial at all. Statistics are very important. I can come in here and tell you how many times I've visited those trial sites and the differences I've seen in them, even if it was only a 20 or 30 per cent difference. I have seen ones that are more successful than others because they had more on the ground. They had limited alcohol consumption, because they had some of the strictest liquor licences in the country. Then they had the cashless debit card. Then they had dogs on patrol. Then they had magistrates—the same magistrates going through the court. It's not a one-thing fix. You need all these additives with it. The cashless debit card was never going to fix everything, but it was a starter.
Making the card voluntary is going to take that away. My question is: what's going to happen out there? I remember Labor saying that they didn't have the statistics, the data and all that. You guys are doing the same thing, so that's really unfortunate. There are also 4,000 people on the CDC in the Northern Territory in Cape York, and those people should be left alone. That system is working very well. Where it is working, leave it alone. If the communities want it, then let them have them. And leave the card there, so if anyone else has drug and alcohol problems in the future they can opt in. It's simple. I would also like to foreshadow that later I will be moving my second reading amendment, as detailed on sheet 1668.
I thank all of those who have contributed to this important debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022.
I appreciate that for many people this has been an emotional debate on both sides of the chamber. However, the bill delivers on our government's election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card, and is the product of ongoing and sincere community consultation. This bill not only is the first step in the transition journey away from the cashless debit card but is a significant milestone in the reform of cashless welfare in Australia.
We want to ensure that any measure we put in place as a government will help the people we are assisting. To that end, the Minister for Social Services will continue to consult with the affected communities, participants using the card and First Nations leaders to deliver a smooth and supported transition off the card. The government thanks the community leaders and the participants who so generously shared their experiences with the minister and the Assistant Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Justine Elliot MP, in Ceduna, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, the East Kimberley, the Goldfields regions, Cape York and the Northern Territory. Some of my colleagues also contributed to those consultations with the local communities. Thanks should go to Senator Pat Dodson and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and to Marion Scrymgour MP, the member for Lingiari. Our government will continue to consult with local communities to implement solutions which communities want to see and ensure that they are supported in the transition off the CDC.
The bill before us will, firstly, remove the ability for any new entrants to be put on the card. Secondly, it will enable the more than 17,000 existing cashless debit card participants to be progressively transitioned off the card as soon as the bill receives royal assent. Thirdly, it enables the Family Responsibilities Commission to continue to support their community members by placing them onto income management where the need exists. Finally, it will allow for the repeal of the cashless debit card on a day to be fixed by proclamation or a maximum of six months after royal assent, allowing for the necessary time to support staged transition off the card.
I note the report delivered by the Senate community affairs committee and thank the senators and the committee secretariat staff involved for their work, particularly the work of Senator Marielle Smith who is the chair of that committee.
Other senators have referred to the report during this debate and to the evidence heard by witnesses at the public hearings in Bundaberg, Alice Springs, Darwin and Canberra. I would like to thank these witnesses for their time with the committee and all those who submitted written submissions. The report noted the strong support for the abolition of the CDC program and the concerns of many stakeholders about the lack of evidence supporting the CDC, as well as the negative impacts of the program on individual participants and communities. The hearings heard directly from participants who were forced to use the card; social policy researchers; providers of the CDC in the Traditional Credit Union; the Family Responsibility Commission in Queensland; and other stakeholders, such as organisations delivering CDC support services.
Taking into account all evidence provided in the hearings and the written submissions, the committee report made two recommendations, which the government has carefully considered in our approach to this bill. The first recommendation was:
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with the Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission to address the concerns raised, including considering possible amendments to the bill, to ensure that the Commission can continue to operate effectively in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.
The second recommendation was:
Subject to recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the bill be passed.
In response to recommendation 1, the government will introduce amendments to this bill to ensure participants are supported through their transition off the card in the most safe and structured way. These amendments will, in summary, further affirm the role of the Family Responsibilities Commission in the Cape York region to allow them to continue referring people to income management, with an improved technology offering allowing access to more merchants compared to the BasicsCard and delivered by Services Australia. This same technological offering will be available to the CDC participants in the Northern Territory who will remain on income management following the repeal of the CDC. Finally, it will allow CDC participants in the remaining site of Bundaberg, Ceduna, Hervey Bay, the Goldfields and East Kimberley to also volunteer for this enhanced card, with more access to merchants and with all client interaction through Services Australia.
The government is also providing a suite of measures that will ensure CDC communities are better off. These include an updated income management technology solution with an enhanced card delivery, delivered by Services Australia; continuation of current community support services and addition of new services; delivering $14.9 million for additional alcohol and other drug treatment services and support in the cashless debit card trial sites; and, finally, providing $17 million for community led and designed initiatives to support economic and employment opportunities in selected cashless debit card sites. This is all funding the former government already had but did not deliver to the communities. We will deliver this.
We will also provide additional front-of-house staff from Services Australia and cashless debit card program sites over the transition period. Staff, including Indigenous service officers and community engagement officers, will support community engagement activities, and additional remote servicing visits will be arranged. More financial information service officers will also be available to work with individuals to improve their financial work capability, foster self-sufficiency and help them make informed decisions about their finances. Social workers will be available to work with individuals with more complex issues.
The Albanese Labor government remains committed to making income management voluntary over the long term for those 24,000 people on income management nationally. During the minister's recent community consultation in the CDC communities she's been discussing what voluntary income management could look like and whether there may be circumstances in which a community decides how they make income management voluntary for individuals. During these consultations it was clear that communities are starting to think about what voluntary income management in their community may look like and if it could be something that is decided at community level, such as the arrangements under the FRC.
The government will work closely with communities in CDC regions to continue addressing entrenched disadvantage in communities and to determine where and how support services can best be deployed. Understanding local issues for the services needed in each region is a priority for the government. The minister's consultations with First Nations leaders, CDC participants, community organisations and service providers will be the first step of a comprehensive and thorough consultation process.
I will detail our government's amendments further in consideration of this bill in the committee of the whole. With these amendments, and our commitments to communities through these additional support services, the government will have addressed the recommendations of the report. In line with the second of the committee's recommendations, I recommend that the bill be passed.
The question is that the amendment on sheet 1627 as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
I advise senators that I have a number of second reading amendments. I'm going to call Senator Rice, who foreshadowed a second reading amendment.
I move the second reading amendment on sheet 1611 standing in my name:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) provide a clear plan for an end to all compulsory income management, which disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples; and
(b) urgently and significantly increase the funding for community and support services through a jobs and services plan, including redirecting any savings from the abolition of the cashless debit card to these services".
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Rennick, I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure that no recipient of the Age Pension or a Veteran or Service Pension will be placed on income management by the Commonwealth Government or any of its agencies. The current authority the Family Responsibility Commission, child protection workers, or the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal in the Northern Territory will continue".
The question is that the motion foreshadowed by Senator Rennick and moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
I move the amendment on sheet 1668:
At the end of the motion, add ", and the Senate:
(a) agrees that it is imperative that social disruption be minimised in trial sites where the cashless debit card is being repealed; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 2 pm on Friday, 30 September 2022, a transition plan which includes an outline of the following:
(i) the administrative measures that will be taken by the Commonwealth Government to ensure cashless welfare participants will continue to have access to restrictable payments, including regarding any changes relating to those participants' bank accounts or bank cards,
(ii) the social and community supports that will be available to combat alcohol abuse, drug abuse and crime in program areas,
(iii) the measures that the Commonwealth Government will take to combat coercive control and financial abuse in relation to cashless welfare participants who are using the restrictions under the cashless welfare scheme to control their own finances, and
(iv) the Commonwealth Government's economic plan for the program areas, including what measures the Commonwealth Government will take to increase access to training and jobs in program areas".
The question is that the movement moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
I table three supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and I seek leave to move items (1) to (13) on sheet TK324 together, noting that the question on some items will be put separately to enable the question that items stand as printed.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (13) on sheet TK324 together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 2), after the heading to Part 1, insert:
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
1A After paragraph 66(2)(f)
Insert:
(fa) Part 3AA of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999; and
National Emergency Declaration Act 2020
1B Section 10 (after paragraph (zb) of the definition of national emergency law )
Insert:
(zba) section 123SJ of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999;
Social Security Act 1991
1C Subsection 1061EK(1)
After "Parts", insert "3AA,".
1D Paragraph 1222(1)(ba)
After "Parts", insert "3AA,".
1E Subsection 1222(2) (table item 20, column 2)
After "Parts", insert "3AA,".
1F Par agraph 1230(1)(a)
After "Part", insert "3AA,".
1G Subsections 1230C(1) and (2)
After "Part", insert "3AA,".
1H Paragraph 1234A(1)(a)
After "Act, Part", insert "3AA,".
1J Subsection 1237AB(1)
After "Part", insert "3AA,".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:
1K After paragraph 60(2)(a)
Insert:
(aaa) Part 3AA of this Act; and
1L After section 70
Insert:
70AA Person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime etc.
Scope
(1) This section applies to a person if:
(a) the person is subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA); or
(b) the Secretary is satisfied that it is likely that the person will become subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA).
Requirement
(2) The Secretary may give the person a notice that requires the person to do either or both of the following:
(a) inform the Department if:
(i) a specified event or change of circumstances occurs; or
(ii) the person becomes aware that a specified event or change of circumstances is likely to occur;
(b) give the Department one or more statements about a matter that might affect the operation, or prospective operation, of Part 3AA in relation to the person.
(3) An event or change of circumstances is not to be specified in a notice under this section unless the occurrence of the event or change of circumstances might affect the operation, or prospective operation, of Part 3AA in relation to the person.
1M After paragraph 72(3)(d)
Insert:
(da) in the case of a notice under section 70AA that requires the giving of information mentioned in paragraph 70AA(2)(a)—be the period of 14 days after:
(i) the day on which the event or change of circumstances occurs; or
(ii) the day on which the person becomes aware that the event or change of circumstances is likely to occur;
as the case may be; or
(db) in the case of a notice under section 70AA that requires the giving of a statement mentioned in paragraph 70AA(2)(b)—end not earlier than 14 days after the day on which the notice is given; or
1N Paragraph 72(4)(a)
After "68", insert ", 70AA".
1P Subsections 72(6) and (7)
After "68", insert ", 70AA".
1Q Subsection 74(1)
After "70", insert ", 70AA".
1R After Part 3A
Insert:
Part 3AA — Enhanced income management regime
Division 1 — Introduction
123SA Simplified outline of this Part
123SB Definitions
In this Part:
balance of the qualified portion, of acategory B welfare payment, means:
(a) if a deduction is to be made from, or an amount is to be set off against, the payment under:
(i) section 61, 61A or 238 of this Act; or
(ii) section 1231 of the 1991 Act; or
(iii) section 84, 84A, 92, 92A, 225, 226, 227 or 228A of the Family Assistance Administration Act;
the amount of the qualified portion of the payment less the amount of the deduction or the amount of the set-off; or
(b) in any other case—the amount of the qualified portion of the payment.
BasicsCard bank account means a bank account of a kind determined by a legislative instrument made under section 123SU.
cash-l ike product includes the following:
(a) a gift card, store card, voucher or similar article (whether in a physical or electronic form);
(b) a money order, postal order or similar order (whether in a physical or electronic form);
(c) digital currency.
categ ory A welfare payment means:
(a) a social security benefit; or
(b) a social security pension; or
(c) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance.
category B welfare payment means:
(a) a category A welfare payment; or
(b) double orphan pension; or
(c) family tax benefit under the Family Assistance Act; or
(d) family tax benefit advance under the Family Assistance Administration Act; or
(e) stillborn baby payment under the Family Assistance Act; or
(f) carer allowance; or
(g) child disability assistance; or
(h) carer supplement; or
(i) mobility allowance; or
(j) pensioner education supplement; or
(k) telephone allowance under Part 2.25 of the 1991 Act; or
(l) utilities allowance under Part 2.25A of the 1991 Act; or
(m) a distance education payment under the scheme known as the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, where the payment relates to a child or children at a Homelands Learning Centre; or
(n) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as pensioner education supplement; or
(o) a social security bereavement payment; or
(p) an advance payment under Part 2.22 of the 1991 Act; or
(q) an advance pharmaceutical allowance under Part 2.23 of the 1991 Act; or
(r) a mobility allowance advance under section 1045 of the 1991 Act.
eligible recipient has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
excluded goods has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
excluded service has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
Part 3B payment nominee has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
qualified portion, of a category B welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SJ.
Queensland Commission has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
subject to the enhanced income management regime has the meaning given by Division 2.
unqualified portion, of a category B welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SJ.
Division 2 — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime
123SC Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Queensland Commission
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:
(a) at the test time, the person, or the person's partner, is an eligible recipient of a category A welfare payment; and
(b) on or after 6 March 2023, the Queensland Commission gave the Secretary a written notice requiring that the person be subject to the income management regime under Part 3B; and
(c) the notice was given under a law of Queensland; and
(d) at the test time, the notice had not been withdrawn or revoked and had not expired; and
(e) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B).
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:
(a) at the test time, the person, or the person's partner, is an eligible recipient of a category A welfare payment; and
(b) subsection (3) applies in relation to the person; and
(c) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B).
(3) This subsection applies in relation to a person if:
(a) immediately before 6 March 2023, subitem 97(2) or (4) of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Act 2020 applies in relation to the person and a notice; and
(b) immediately before 6 March 2023, the person was a program participant under section 124PGD.
(4) Subsection (3) ceases to apply in relation to the person if on or after 6 March 2023 the notice referred to in paragraph (3)(a) is withdrawn or revoked by the Queensland Commission or expires.
(5) This section applies on and after 6 March 2023 despite item 97 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Act 2020.
123SI Relationship with other provisions
If a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time, then the person cannot be subject to the income management regime under Part 3B at that time and cannot be a program participant or a voluntary participant under Part 3D at that time.
Division 3 — Deductions from welfare payments
Subdivision A — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Queensland Commission
123SJ Category B welfare payment to be split into qualified and unqualified portions
Payments by instalments
(1) If an instalment of a category B welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC:
(a) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is qualified (the qualified portion) is the percentage determined by the Secretary under subsection (2) of this section, after consultation with the Queensland Commission; and
(b) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is unqualified (the unqualified portion) is the percentage that is equal to 100% minus the percentage applicable under paragraph (a).
Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (4).
(2) The Secretary may determine a percentage in relation to a person for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).
Payments otherwise than by instalments
(3) If a category B welfare payment is payable, otherwise than by instalments, to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC, 100% of the gross amount of the payment is qualified (the qualified portion).
Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (4).
Variation by Secretary
(4) For a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC, the Secretary may make a determination that:
(a) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(a) to 0%; and
(b) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(b) to 100%; and
(c) varies the percentage applicable under subsection (3) to 0%.
(5) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (4) only if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's BasicsCard bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:
(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or
(ii) a natural disaster; or
(iii) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or
(b) the person's category B welfare payment is payable in instalments and the Secretary is satisfied that any part of the payment is payable:
(i) at a time determined under subsection 43(2), where that determination is made because the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances; or
(ii) under a determination under subsection 51(1).
When determinations take effect
(6) A determination under subsection (2) or (4) takes effect on the day specified in the determination (which must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made).
Determinations are not legislative instruments
(7) A determination under subsection (2) or (4) is not a legislative instrument.
123SK Payment of balance of qualified portion of category B welfare payment
If a category B welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC, the Secretary must pay the balance of the qualified portion of the payment to the credit of a BasicsCard bank account maintained by the person.
123SL Recipient's use of funds from category B welfare payments
A person who receives a category B welfare payment:
(a) may use the balance of the qualified portion of the payment, as paid under section 123SK, to obtain goods or services, other than:
(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or
(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services; and
(b) may use the unqualified portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's discretion.
Division 4 — Information
123SS Disclos ure of information to the Secretary — financial institution
(1) Despite any law (whether written or unwritten) in force in a State or Territory, an officer or employee of a financial institution may give the Secretary information about a person if:
(a) the person is subject to the enhanced income management regime; and
(b) the disclosed information is relevant to the operation of this Part.
Note: Subsection 202(8A) allows a person to disclose information about a BasicsCard bank account to a financial institution.
(2) If information about a person is disclosed as mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary may disclose information about the person to an officer or employee of the financial institution for the purposes of the performance of the duties, or the exercise of the powers, of the officer or employee.
123ST Disclosure of information — Queensland Commission
(1) Despite any law (whether written or unwritten) in force in Queensland, the Queensland Commission may give the Secretary information about a person if:
(a) either:
(i) the person is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC; or
(ii) the Queensland Commission is considering whether to give a notice of the kind referred to in paragraph 123SC(1)(b) in relation to the person; and
(b) the disclosed information is relevant to the operation of this Part.
(2) If information about a person is disclosed by the Queensland Commission as mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary may disclose information about the person to the Queensland Commission for the purposes of the performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Queensland Commission.
(3) If:
(a) a person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC because of the cancellation of a category A welfare payment of the person or the person's partner; and
(b) immediately before the cancellation, the relevant notice referred to in paragraph 123SC(1)(b) or (3)(a) had not been withdrawn or revoked and had not expired;
then, as soon as practicable after the cancellation, the Secretary must give the Queensland Commission written notice of the cancellation.
Division 5 — Other matters
123SU BasicsCard bank accounts
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the Secretary may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of bank account to be maintained by a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime for the receipt of payments under this Part.
(2) A legislative instrument determining a kind of bank account may also prescribe terms and conditions relating to the establishment, ongoing maintenance and closure of the bank account so determined.
123SV Exceptions to Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
(1) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the declining of a transaction by a financial institution is specified and specifically authorised if the transaction would involve:
(a) money in a BasicsCard bank account; and
(b) a business of a kind specified in a legislative instrument made under subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, declare a kind of business, whether by reference to merchant category codes, terminal identification codes, card accepted identification codes or otherwise, in relation to which transactions involving money in a BasicsCard bank account may be declined by a financial institution.
(3) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the declining of a transaction by a supplier of goods or services is specified and specifically authorised if the transaction would involve:
(a) money in a BasicsCard bank account; and
(b) the obtaining of:
(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or
(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services.
(4) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section, it does not matter whether money in a BasicsCard bank account represents the qualified portion or unqualified portion of a payment.
123SW This Part has effect despite other provis ions etc.
This Part has effect despite anything in:
(a) any other provision of this Act; or
(b) the 1991 Act; or
(c) the Family Assistance Act; or
(d) the Family Assistance Administration Act.
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 9 to 11), omit the definition of repeal day in section 123TC.
(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 1, insert:
1S Section 123TC (before subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of excluded Part 3B payment nominee )
Insert:
(ia) is not subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA); and
1T Section 123TC
Insert:
repeal day means the day on which Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022 commences.
(5) Schedule 1, items 20 to 26, page 7 (line 17) to page 8 (line 11), to be opposed.
(6) Schedule 1, item 37, page 11 (line 16), omit "the closure day", substitute "6 March 2023".
(7) Schedule 1, item 38, page 11 (line 17) to page 12 (line 9), to be opposed.
(8) Schedule 1, item 45, page 13 (line 17), omit ", 124PGD(4)".
(9) Schedule 1, item 47, page 13 (line 24), omit ", 124PGD(4)".
(10) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 25), after item 47, insert:
47A After paragraph 192(da)
Insert:
(daaa) the operation of Part 3AA;
47B After paragraph 195(1)(c)
Insert:
(caa) to facilitate the administration of Part 3AA;
47C After subsection 202(8)
Insert:
BasicsCard bank accounts
(8A) If protected information relates to the establishment or ongoing maintenance of a BasicsCard bank account (within the meaning of section 123SB), a person may do any of the following:
(a) obtain the information;
(b) make a record of the information;
(c) disclose the information to a financial institution;
(d) otherwise use the information.
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Act 2020
47D At the end of subitem 97(3) of Schedule 1
Add "before 6 March 2023".
47E Paragraph 97(4)(a) of Schedule 1
After "item", insert "and before 6 March 2023".
47F At the end of subitem 97(5) of Schedule 1
Add "before 6 March 2023".
(11) Schedule 1, items 51 to 57, page 15 (line 11) to page 16 (line 2), omit the items, substitute:
51 Subsection 1061EK(1)
Omit "Parts 3AA, 3B and 3D", substitute "Parts 3AA and 3B".
52 Paragraph 1222(1)(ba)
Omit "Parts 3AA, 3B and 3D", substitute "Parts 3AA and 3B".
53 Subsection 1222(2) (table item 20, column 2)
Omit "Parts 3AA, 3B and 3D", substitute "Parts 3AA and 3B".
54 Paragraph 1230(1)(a)
Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".
55 Subsections 1230C(1) and (2)
Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".
56 Paragraph 1234A(1)(a)
Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".
57 Subsection 1237AB(1)
Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".
(12) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 13), after item 60, insert:
60A Section 123SI
Omit "and cannot be a program participant or a voluntary participant under Part 3D at that time".
(13) Schedule 1, item 61, page 16 (lines 14 to 18), omit the item, substitute:
61 Section 123TC (paragraph (b) of the definition of excluded Part 3B payment nominee )
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) a Part 3B payment nominee who:
(i) is not subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA); and
(ii) is not subject to the income management regime.
The government's amendments allow for an enhanced technology option to provide a modern user experience for Cape York participants. Witnesses requested this in the Senate committee hearings, including Mr Noel Pearson and the Commissioner of the Family Responsibilities Commission, Ms Tammy Williams. These amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 also further affirm the operation of the Family Responsibilities Commission, which was also heard in the committee hearings. Commissioner Williams has reviewed and supports these amendments.
Before I go into the substance of the amendments just moved by Minister Farrell, I'd just like to put a couple of comments on the record and then seek some further clarification around the general nature of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 before we moved to vote on these particular amendments.
Currently, income management in Australia is delivered by two particular means. It is either delivered through the BasicsCard, which sits under a piece of legislation called income management legislation, or delivered through the cashless debit card legislation by technology that is commonly referred to as the cashless debit card. Senator Farrell, I'm very keen to understand whether it is your intention to cause ongoing uncertainty for communities that are currently operating the cashless debit card technology as income management because of your intention, which you have indicated today, to bring your so-called enhanced technology solution into this place for consideration prior to 6 March 2023.
I also note that when you gave your final second reading speech you referred in your contribution to consultation. I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to the definition of 'consultation' and what it actually is. Consultation occurs when you actually go out and seek the views of somebody around a particular issue prior to making a determination or a decision in relation to that particular issue. The definition of 'consultation' is not 'going and telling people what you're doing after you've made a decision and after you've announced a decision'. That is actually just going out and telling them what you're intending to do.
Senator Farrell, when you came in here, you referred to consultation, as did many of your colleagues before you in their contributions. You did not consult on this bill with anybody before you made the decision in the lead-up to the election that you were intending to bring it into this place. So I put that on the record. But what I'd like to understand from you on the particular amendment that you have before us is this: is it the intention of this government to pursue any form of compulsory or mandatory income management in Australia from this time?
In response to the questions from the shadow minister I think I'd start at the beginning, and that starts with the election result, where Labor took a position to the Australian people where we said, because of all the problems with the cashless debit card, that we were going to move to abolish that card. So, that was the position that we took to the Australian people. We didn't do that lightly. We did it after much thought. But, more particularly, we did it after much consultation. People like Senator McCarthy traipsed up and down the Northern Territory in the seats of Lingiari and Solomon, both of which were saved by campaigns that Senator McCarthy conducted in the Northern Territory. And in all of those discussions and consultations with, can I say, a damned sight more people than you would have spoken to, Senator Ruston, in the course of the—
I think you might have a bit of trouble with that one.
Well, look, I'm happy to lay the cards on the table and show you just how much Senator McCarthy, former Minister Scrymgour and Luke Gosling consulted in the Northern Territory alone. They didn't stop talking to the people of the Northern Territory in this particular case. And what did the people of the Northern Territory do? They re-elected two Labor members as well as Senator McCarthy. So, I think there's no doubt that we've gone beyond the call of duty to consult.
But let me talk to you a bit about what we did. Prior to the election Labor heard the many calls from people living on the card who said that the card was negatively affecting their lives and their ability to manage their money. The Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney—she was then shadow minister, but she's now minister—visited many of the CDC communities and spoke with participants. The minister heard that the card did not help them manage their money or improve their lives. Since the election, that terrific Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, and the assistant minister—another fine minister, Justine Elliot—visited each of the six communities affected by the CDC. They spoke with participants on the card, local government representatives, emergency services and the First Nations leaders.
I'm happy to go through the dates of those visits. In Ceduna it was 23 and 24 June 2022; that was Minister Rishworth. East Kimberley was 29 June to 1 July; that was Minister Rishworth again. Bundaberg and Hervey Bay was 4 and 5 July; that was Assistant Minister Elliot. Cape York was 9 and 10 August; that was Assistant Minister Elliot. Cairns was 12 August; that was Minister Rishworth. Then the Goldfields was 15 and 16 August; that was Minister Elliot. Finally, the Northern Territory was 17 to 19 August; again, that was Minister Rishworth. So I'd submit that that's pretty conclusive evidence of the consultation that this government participated in before we moved this legislation.
As to the other particular question that the shadow minister asked, we simply can't sit back and wait for 2023 to roll around, meanwhile extending a payment management system that amounts to privatised welfare. This is not in the best interests of the recipients and, more importantly, not in the best interests of taxpayers. That's why we are passing legislation through the parliament right now to abolish the card.
Minister, I asked you two quite separate questions. I'm asking you: is it the intention of the Albanese Labor government to continue, from this day, with compulsory income management?
Once again, I thank Senator Ruston for her question. As we transition people away from mandatory measures, we'll continue to offer assistance, and we'll take the time necessary to research, develop, consult and implement a future social security payment system that will target supports to the people who identify that their family would benefit from it. The government is making the path to life beyond the CDC our focus today, and we will focus on the future. As we work through this, we must also work with communities to identify what other key supports are needed, not only to support individuals as they transition off the card but to put in place other programs and supports to help the community address issues of alcohol and other drug misuse, domestic violence and problem gambling.
Can I perhaps be really, really clear here for the minister. My question is: is it the intention of the Albanese Labor government to extend or keep in place any form of compulsory or mandatory income management from today?
I again thank Senator Ruston for her question. While income management legislation in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 does not sunset, it operates through a number of legislative instruments that sunset every 10 years. These instruments enable income management to operate in specific locations, and/or income management measures. Six of these legislative instruments were due to sunset on 1 October 2022. In order to consult effectively, the Attorney-General has agreed to a deferral of these six instruments for a period of 12 months. We are extending the instruments to allow time for consultation with communities, including First Nations peoples and leaders, on the future of income management. This will include what a voluntary model of income management looks like at a community or individual level and the best way to transition people who have been living on compulsory income management for 15 years. The transitional arrangements for the abolition of the CDC will also consider pathways for participants to voluntarily income manage. This is why it is practical and appropriate for the existing instruments to remain in place until further decisions are made on the future of income management.
Minister, you made the comment that it was appropriate to keep in place these instruments until the future of income management in Australia had been decided when referring to the extension of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and a number of other sites around Australia. I, then, ask you: is it your intention to continue with compulsory income management in the four trial sites?
nator FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Ruston for her follow-up question. The answer is no.
Yesterday there were questions in question time in relation to the extension of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and other sites. Whilst failing to answer the questions during question time, you did come to the chamber after question time and put on the record that it is the intention of the Albanese Labor government to extend compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and other income management sites around Australia. Today the Minister for Indigenous Australians said in the House, 'Mandatory income management has been a failure across the board, and we do not believe in mandatory income management.' Can you please clarify to me your position on extending compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and other sites with the position of the Minister for Indigenous Australians, who has today publicly said, 'We do not believe in mandatory income management.' You have extended that today in selected sites across Australia, whilst this piece of legislation seeks to move away from compulsory management in other places. Perhaps the minister might be able to explain to us why the government has made the decision to keep compulsory income management in place in the Northern Territory particularly, but has taken it out of other sites. The Northern Territory income management predominantly affects Indigenous Australians. In other sites around Australia with the CDC there's not necessarily as high a number of Indigenous Australians. Why has the government chosen to keep compulsory or mandatory income management in place for a majority Indigenous population?
Once again, I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Minister Burney can obviously speak for herself. I'm not here speaking on her behalf. I am speaking on behalf of the minister who is responsible for this particular piece of legislation, and that is Minister Rishworth. As Minister for Social Services, she and her department are working with the FRC to affirm income management for people in Cape York and to ensure the continuation of support services for people. The minister and Assistant Minister Elliot visited Cape York communities to consult on what income management should look like and what supports will be required to ensure communities are best placed to address the complex social issues that they face.
The model of income management operated in the Cape York region by the Family Responsibilities Commission is distinct to the broad-base compulsory income management models elsewhere in the country. The FRC model is one informed by self-determination, which is something that the Albanese government is committed to supporting for our First Nations communities. We will always listen closely to these communities about the solutions they would like to see in their communities.
The Minister for Social Services visited the Cape York region in recent weeks and spoke with Commissioner Tammy Williams and the local commissioner for Doomadgee. She also met with Noel Pearson and gave evidence to the Senate committee hearing into the CDC that he does not agree with the blanket imposition of the card. Assistant Minister Elliot also visited the remote Cape York community of Aurukun to observe the FRC's operation at work.
As far as the Northern Territory is concerned, there's no evidence that this card has made any difference. The card has not worked. It does not address the concerns of some communities about alcohol abuse and violence in the community, particularly against women and children. We need new ways to do better for Northern Territory Australians. Forget about the discriminatory practices introduced by those opposite. People on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory will go back to the BasicsCard for the time being. We are continuing our discussions with the people in these communities so that we can consider their needs in any future decisions. NT communities deserve opportunities to participate in meaningful work and receive the support they need while they are seeking jobs just like everyone else in Australia.
Can the minister confirm what he just said? He just said that the CDC had not worked in the Northern Territory and he said that those people in the Northern Territory who were on the CDC have transitioned back to the BasicsCard?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. To provide a card with functions people on the CDC are used to requires the involvement of an entity with a banking license. This provides certainty to merchants as well as Visa and eftpos that, when someone purchases something with a card, they will be paid. It also allows people to use BPAY system. Purchases using the internet are also supported through having a bank account that is used to make the payment.
What are you talking about?
I am answering your question.
No, you're not answering my question. I asked you if you could clarify a statement you just made.
You asked some questions about the technology, and I am providing some—
Can I take a point of order to clarify my question?
You can take any point of order.
I'm wondering if it may not assist the minister if perhaps I reframe my question. In a previous answer before that one, the minister said that the CDC had not worked in the Northern Territory and that people in the Northern Territory on the CDC would transition back to the BasicsCard. I am just wondering whether you could clarify whether that is correct or you have misspoken.
I propose to answer in the way I started answering, and that is that the government is working to engage a third-party provider to provide a modern card for people leaving the CDC and moving back to income management. Under the new arrangements, Services Australia would do all customer functions such as taking calls, providing replacement cards and handling account balance requests. The third-party provider would only provide the back-office functions of the card such as maintaining an account so that payments are made through Visa and merchant processing transactions and such as reporting to Services Australia. Specific negotiations with a third-party provider are commercial-in-confidence, and I cannot comment on those.
RUSTON (—) (): Can I seek some clarification. Thank you for the detailed answer you gave me around where you're going. I'm sure my colleague Senator O'Sullivan will have more questions around this supposed enhanced technology and third-party provider to which you just referred in that answer. But I would like to take you back to a comment you made—I'm just seeking clarification whether this is correct. You said 'the cashless debit card had not worked in the Northern Territory' and that 'the people on the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory were going to transition back to the BasicsCard'—I'm quoting you there. I'm just seeking clarification about that statement you made a minute ago, as to whether that is correct.
Thank you, Senator Ruston, for your question. The people in the Northern Territory can choose the enhanced tech, which I was talking about a moment ago, or the BasicsCard.
Can I just be really clear: are people in the Northern Territory who have currently made the decision, the 4,300-something of them who have transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the cashless debit card—after royal assent of this legislation, subject to the passage of the amendments put forward by the government, will those people retain their cashless debit card and functionality of it, or will they be forced to transition back to the BasicsCard, which is what you appeared to be indicating in your previous answer? I'm not talking about what's happening in the future at all.
We just answered the question. You're just repeating the question that was just answered.
Can I be allowed to continue my question. I just want to be very clear here. We currently have two forms of income management: the BasicsCard and the CDC. You are talking about a new advanced technology that you are proposing to bring in sometime between now and 6 March next year. I am talking about the current technologies in place. The advanced technology does not exist at the moment—well, maybe I should ask this question: does the advanced technology you are talking about exist at the moment, and will it be available for implementation on royal assent of this legislation?
nator FARRELL (—) (): I can only repeat my earlier answer; I suppose we can do this all night! The people in the Northern Territory can choose the enhanced technology or the BasicsCard. With all due respect to Senator Ruston, I think the questions you are asking relate to the next amendment rather than this amendment. I'm happy to answer questions, if you want, on the next amendment—that might speed up the process when we get to it—but I think it's probably more sensible if you ask questions as they relate to the particular amendment before the Senate.
TON (—) (): I will come back to ask the question. In the meantime, perhaps we can get a copy of Hansard as soon as possible for the comments the minister made that I am referring to, so I can actually seek clarification about that.
I'm not talking about the next amendment in relation to the people in the Northern Territory on the cashless debit card. I'm just going to ask you right now—you keep referring to enhanced technology. Could you please explain to me whether people who are currently on income management will have access to what you refer to as advanced technology when this bill receives royal assent?
Thank you, Senator Ruston, for the question. I answered that question previously. I suppose I can spend all night repeating the answers I give, but I don't think that's terribly helpful. It's probably not terribly helpful to any of the people listening. I have answered the question.
Senator Farrell, could you just indulge me, please? You said you've answered this question on several occasions. You are referring to a thing. You are referring to advanced technology. I'm sure that Senator O'Sullivan can ask you a whole heap of questions around what this advanced technology is. I'm just seeking to understand when, if I am a recipient of the cashless debit card or of income management, of the BasicsCard, I would be able to get access to this advanced technology.
The sixth of March 2023.
We've got a third card in play—is that what you're saying? We've got a brand-new card? We've got the BasicsCard. We've got the Indue card. And now in a matter of six months—and it took quite a few years to get the Indue card down pat, I can tell you—you're bringing out a third card. Is that what you're telling us? How is this working?
I don't think I can be any clearer than what I've already said. In the Northern Territory, people are going to be able to choose between the enhanced technology that I started to talk about before—you didn't seem very interested when I started to explain that, so I won't repeat what I said about the enhanced technology—or the BasicsCard.
I want to start by putting our perspective on the record so that my questions will be considered in that context. The Greens' position is that we are against any form of compulsory income management because it has clearly failed to work. We have had—what is it?—six years of so-called trials of the cashless debit card, which have failed to address the social problems which they were set up to address. We have had evaluations that have shown very clearly that there has not been any evidence that the cashless debit card has addressed those social problems. We have had a scathing report from the Auditor-General that has shown that compulsory income management has failed. It is a harmful, punitive approach, and it's basically trying to mask an awful lot of other social problems, which are the issues that need to be addressed. We've heard in many speeches, yesterday and today, people being very concerned—and quite rightly—about social problems in some communities across Australia but then jumping to the conclusion that compulsory income management is going to fix those problems. Clearly the evidence from the BasicsCard, which was introduced in the Northern Territory after the Intervention, and from the cashless debit card over the last six years, has shown that compulsory income management has not fixed those problems. Otherwise, the communities it has been imposed upon would have had very clear evidence of having an improvement in those social issues, and it just hasn't happened.
Given that context, the Greens are supporting this bill because it is going to mean fewer people under compulsory income management, because the people in the four trial sites are, after the royal assent to this bill, going to have the ability to get off compulsory income management. That is a huge step forward. I am going to be celebrating with those people in those four trial sites. I know that there are many of them who are just waiting to get off the cashless debit card. We've got amendments that will be attempting to get more people off compulsory income management. But, as I said, we're going to be supporting this bill because it is going to mean fewer people under compulsory income management.
I want to just ask the minister some questions of clarification, starting off with this. Will anyone who is currently not on compulsory income management be forced to go onto compulsory income management as a result of this bill?
Thank you, Senator Rice, for your contribution, and thank you for your support of the legislation. I can talk specifically about the Northern Territory, but I think it answers your question generally. Our amendments relating to the Northern Territory allow for the new, enhanced technology to be offered to the current CDC participants in the Northern Territory. This amendment places no new people on compulsory income management that would otherwise not have been subject to this program. The affected participants are subject to the income management legislation in the Northern Territory and would have been placed back onto the BasicsCard without this amendment offering them enhanced technology.
Thank you, Minister. Just clarifying, just putting on the record, that the rationale for us supporting this bill is that, well, it's a step forward. It's moving some people off compulsory income management and not putting any new people on.
Minister, the media release that was put out by Minister Rishworth refers to 17,300 people transitioning off the cashless debit card and onto the new arrangements or off the program completely. Can you take us through how many people are transitioning off completely?
I thank Senator Rice again for her question. The government's amendments allow people to choose to stay on the card as a voluntary option. Therefore, I can't provide an exact answer, but the government does expect that the majority of participants in Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Ceduna, the Goldfields and East Kimberley to transition off the card if they choose to do so. This would be a total of 12,515, based on current participants as at 16 September 2022. There are currently 4,300 people on the CDC in the Northern Territory and Cape York. These people will be transitioned to a new arrangement on 6 March next year, as I've previously indicated.
Can I just get some more clarification, Minister, about the 4,300 people who are on the CDC in the Northern Territory and Cape York. How many of those are in the Northern Territory and how many are in Cape York?
I can probably provide you with a little bit more information to answer a few broader questions. As at 16 September 2022, there are 16,886 participants on the cashless debit card. In the Cape York region, the number of participants is 105, and First Nations participants are 92 per cent. In the Ceduna region, there are 692 participants, and First Nations participants represent 78 per cent. In the East Kimberley region, there are 1,236 participants, and First Nations represent 86 per cent. In the Goldfields, there are 2,513 participants, and First Nations represent 50 per cent of that figure. In Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, there are 4,209 participants, and First Nations represent 18 per cent of that figure. In the Northern Territory, the figure is 4,266, as I have previously indicated, and First Nations participants represent 79 per cent of that figure. There are 3,865 out-of-area people, of which just under half are First Nations participants. That comes to a total of 16,886, as I mentioned earlier, with First Nations participants representing just over 50 per cent.
Thank you for that, Minister. In terms of my question then, as to how many are transitioning off completely and how many are transitioning to new arrangements, we have 4,266 in the Northern Territory who are going to be transitioned either back to the BasicsCard or onto the new enhanced technology and, similarly, 105 in Cape York. All of the others will then be given the option to be off compulsory income management altogether. Can I clarify that that is the case for the people who are out of area, all of those 3,865? I'll ask that first, then I have another question about the numbers as well.
FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Senator Rice. It's good to get questions from somebody who's actually read the bill and all of the associated documents. The answer to all of your questions just then is yes.
I have one last question on the numbers. In terms of not knowing how many people are going to be transitioning off completely because you don't know how many people will choose to voluntarily stay on the card, have you got any indication of numbers? Based on the consultation that has been done in the lead-up to the abolition, what proportion of people might choose to stay on the card voluntarily?
Part of this whole process is giving back to individual Australians their right to make decisions, which the previous government took away from them in a particularly unfair and cruel manner. The work that's been done by Minister Rishworth is giving these people back the right to make their own decisions about what they do in their lives and how they spend their money. We could only guess what the final numbers are going to be, and if I could give you a more accurate answer than that I certainly would. The whole purpose of this is giving back to those people some rights to make decisions about their futures, particularly to Indigenous Australians because they represent such a large portion of the people under this scheme. I can't tell exactly what those numbers will be, but we will get some results pretty quickly as the changes roll out. I'll very happily supply those results to you when they become available.
You're giving them their rights back. So Labor is okay with our children giving all their money to a bikie to buy ice? We're okay with that, are we? I just want to know. You're okay about giving them back, but you won't answer these hard questions. I want to know what you're going to do with these people once you give them all their money back and they go and spend it all down at the bottle shop and run around drunk, abusing their communities, or they buy ice and get violent in their communities. Labor's okay with that, is it? We don't need to manage them at all! We don't need to provide services ready to go! You want to take 12 months to work that out. Tell me what that's going to look like in the next 12 months, because you're so okay with bringing harm to the rest of the community. Explain that to the rest of Australia, because I'm not getting it.
I thank Senator Lambie for her rather emotional question there. I totally reject the proposition that you—
Of course you would!
I totally reject the proposition that you just put to me, and to be honest, Senator Lambie, I find it quite offensive that you should—
I find it offensive what you're doing to our kids! So do millions of other mothers out there!
Senator Lambie, I find the implication in your question totally offensive.
It's because you don't have any answers; that's why.
Well, I find that comment—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, you don't have the call.
offensive and, look, I found in political life that civility, particularly in the Senate, has never been a weakness. I simply say to you that I totally reject the implication in your question. But, to try and provide you with more information about what the government is intending to do, we are committed to ensuring that people are able to come off the card as quickly as possible, and support will be available to those who need it, including for those opting for voluntary income management. We are setting up a Centrepay arrangement and referrals for local supports. It is critical that those who do need some extra help with the changes to their financial arrangements are able to get it. This may include an option for individuals to transition to voluntary income management programs.
The participants in the Cape York and the Northern Territory will automatically be referred to enhanced income management. These participants will continue to access a contemporary card with customer service and support such as replacement cards and account inquiries provided by Services Australia. Services Australia will provide a new card to people in existing CDC sites that volunteer for enhanced income management or to new people referred by the FRC. Income management participants in the Northern Territory and place based locations will have the option to access the modern technology and transition to enhanced income management from 1 July 2023.
I was wondering if the minister can commit to publishing as soon as possible a transition plan to the departmental website so people know what's going on?
I thank Senator Lambie for a more balanced question. We will take that on board, and I will come back to you with a response.
Since the Labor Party is talking about the cards and who is coming off, who is coming on, I'm wondering if you might supply me the evidence that you used in the last election, where you put out there on all those cards, and scared the bejesus out of all the old-age pensioners, that age pensioners were going on that card because the coalition were going to put them on it. I was wondering if you could supply me with the evidence of where you got that from. Today is good.
Thank you again for your question, Senator Lambie. We didn't make the decision lightly and we did take into account—
Well, I'm about to provide it for you, Senator Lambie. The University of Adelaide report from January 2021 found that the evidence to support the CDC was inconclusive. The study found that any reduction in alcohol and drug abuse could not be attributed to the effect of the card. The report found that the CDC introduced widely-felt and costly hurdles to many participants in financial planning and money management, and that the large proportion of CDC participants reported that their quality of life was affected in a negative way. There is a wealth of research available on the CDC. A study by the University of South Australia and Monash University in 2020 found the CDC had no substantive impact on gambling and intoxicant abuse in Ceduna and no substantive impact on crime or emergency department presentations. A 2020 study by the University of Queensland also found that CDC participants in Hinkler said that the card impacted their emotional wellbeing, that they lived in fear of stigma of their cards being declined and that it reduced their ability to participant in community life and leisure activities that required cash.
Excuse me, Senator Farrell. We have a point of order.
I simply asked for you to show me the evidence that Labor was using during the last election—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: What's your point of order, Senator Lambie?
Sorry. My point of order is that you are not answering my question. You are giving me a lot of babble. My point of order is that you are not giving me the evidence that was used when you ran the campaign—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, that's not a point of order.
Let me rephrase the question. What evidence did Labor use during the 2022 election to go out there and tell age pensioners that the coalition intended to put them on the cashless debit card? I want to know where you got the evidence. I want to know where Labor got the evidence to say that the coalition was going to do that, because you spent a lot of time scaring age pensioners about that and that's really unfair. I think that's a real low point for Labor. I want you to supply me with the evidence on how you came up with that, that the coalition ever said they were going to put age pensioners on that card. Where is the evidence? That's what I'm asking you. Every age pensioner out there deserves of an answer. Who was lying? Show me the evidence that the coalition said this on paper or said it elsewhere. Show me where you got that evidence from? You are not getting away with this, not tonight.
I totally reject the proposition. I've explained all of the reports that were done. The University of Adelaide, a very fine establishment, and the University of South Australia, another very fine establishment, have done all of these surveys. The proposition that we took to the Australian people at the last election was—a very simple proposition—that we would abolish the cashless debit card. That was the proposition we took. We explained that to people—
You lied to people! That's disgraceful!
Well, that's what you say, Senator Lambie, but—
You've got no evidence the coalition said they were going to do it.
You say that, but we took a very clear position to the Australian people. In particular, let's look at the Northern Territory. We took that proposition to the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory re-elected Mr Gosling by a 10 per cent increased margin. They elected Marion Scrymgour in the seat of Lingiari. They elected Senator McCarthy. The people of Australia elected an Anthony Albanese Labor government. What we are doing is implementing what we told the Australian people we were going to implement before the last election. I think, if we hadn't done that, Senator Lambie, you'd be the first to criticise us. We took the proposition to the Australian people. They elected an Anthony Albanese Labor government. I'm here tonight to implement the promise that we took to the Australian people to get this cashless debit card bill through and that is eventually what we will do tonight.
Minister, is it the intention of the Albanese Labor government to have age pensioners on the cashless debit card, the BasicsCard or your new form of enhanced technology? Is it the intention of the government to place age pensions on this card?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The only way that that would happen would be if somebody volunteered or if the FRC placed that person on the scheme.
Can I be absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the government to force aged pensioners or service pensioners onto income management? It is not the intention of the Commonwealth government to place—
We know that's what you wanted to do.
No, no, Senator, let me finish, please. Is it not the intention of the Commonwealth government to place aged or veteran pensioners on income management? I'm not talking about the FRC—I'm talking about the Commonwealth government's intention to place aged pensioners on the Cashless Debit Card, the BasicsCard or your enhanced technology card.
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. I've answered that question already.
Well, maybe the senator could please explain to the chamber and the Australian public why about an hour ago you voted against an amendment that explicitly requested that the Senate call on the government to ensure that no recipient of the aged pension, or a veteran or service pension, would be placed on income management by the Commonwealth government or any of its agencies?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. We're offering people a choice here, and that's the effect of the bill and the amendments.
Could I just seek clarification: was it the intention of the government to vote against an amendment that explicitly prohibited or prevented the government from placing people on income management? Not for people to volunteer, but for the Commonwealth government to place people on income management—was that your intention? You voted against that amendment, so was that the intention? Do you believe that the Commonwealth government should have the right to place aged pensioners, veteran pensioners or service pensioners on income management?
r FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Ruston. Look, we voted against your amendment because we are the government, we have put forward a bill, we have amended that bill and it reflects what we took to the Australian people at the last election. I know you are the former minister in this area, Senator Ruston, and I know you've got an attachment to the Cashless Debit Card. I know there's a reluctance on the part of the opposition—because I see it every day in question time—to accept the result of the Australian people but, like it or not, the Australian people elected an Anthony Albanese government. The Prime Minister appointed Minister Rishworth to this portfolio, and I have to say she has been doing a terrific job both in preparing this legislation and in consulting with the Australian people about the introduction of it. I know you're having trouble coming to terms with that change, and I know you think that amendments that you introduce should be supported by the government but, unfortunately, Senator Ruston, the Australian people didn't elect you as a government. They elected the Anthony Albanese government, and we're presenting our bills and our amendments to the Australian people. We're presenting it to the Senate, and we are asking the Senate to make a decision about what we have proposed.
I don't know what all the jargon was about, but it was not answering the question. It would be nice to get the questions answered in here. If you don't know the subject, Minister, then maybe you need to bring in someone who does.
Minister, when we were talking about the numbers of people who were transitioning off the card, you talked about giving people their rights back, which is certainly the case in the four trial sites. But, of course, in the Northern Territory we've got 4,266 people who aren't getting their rights back. They are being transitioned either back to the BasicsCard or onto the new enhanced technology.
However, you do acknowledge, in the media release, that there's going to be an 18-month consultation on making income management voluntary. Is that specifically for the Northern Territory that we're going to have this 18-month process for making all income management voluntary, so covering people on the BasicsCard as well as those people who have been transitioned off the cashless debit card on to BasicsCard now? Can you tell us some more about that process please?
I thank Senator Rice for her question, and thank her for taking such an interest in this area and taking the trouble to read the minister's press releases, which explain much of what we're doing today.
Under this bill and amendments, the government is delivering a long-term plan to ensure certainty, choice and support to communities moving off the CDC program. First Nations people and other stakeholders have called for a measured approach to reforming income management. During consultation, they made the point that transition needed to reflect the complex needs of the participants and to mitigate any disruption to their ability to manage their money disbursements and their ability to buy essential goods and services. We'll continue consultation over the next 18 months to ensure communities are supported to decide what the future of income management looks like for them.
The government has considered whether to make changes to income management concurrently with the abolition of the CDC. However, we do not recommend this approach due to the difficulties in accessing the large number of participants in the various locations, which are vastly spread out across Australia. Our proposed 18-month time frame will ensure that there is a sufficient amount of time to consult affected communities on the look of the program. It will also ensure the transition of participants in a supported and targeted approach, noting that many people have been part of this program for more than 10 years.
Senator Farrell, I was hoping to follow up on Senator Lambie's earlier question around claims made by members of your party, before the last election, about the CDC.
In a media release dated 27 October 2021, Labor MP Emma McBride said:
Thousands of Coasties who rely on the age pension are at risk of being forced onto the Cashless Debit Card Scheme by the Morrison Government.
They have a plan to force 80 per cent of people's pensions onto a cashless debit card, so they can control and limit how pensioners spend their money.
Then Labor deputy leader, now Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, made a similar claim in a Facebook post on 21 October that said, 'Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants to keep the card and extend it to all pensioners.' Claims the then government wanted to force all pensioners onto the cashless debit card was also made by other Labor politicians, including Justine Elliot, Brian Mitchell, Kate Thwaites, Tim Watts and Julian Hill. In a media release dated 25 October 2021, Senator Ruston, in reply, said:
Let me make it crystal clear—the Morrison Government will not force age pensioners onto the Cashless Debit Card. We were never going to, and never will.
Three days later, on 28 October, Senator Ruston told a Senate estimates committee that she categorically ruled out expanding the scheme to all pensioners, saying:
… there never has, there isn't and there never will be under this government any intention to require age pensioners to go on to the cashless debit card.
An article by the AAP found the claim by Labor to be false. My question to you is one that highlights the need for truth in political advertising laws, and I really commend your commitment to electoral reform and look forward to working with you to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen in future. Labor did a great job of conflating all income management with the CDC, and my hunch is that there are a lot of Australians out there who think that your election commitment to repeal CDC simply means that all compulsory income management is going, which isn't the case. I look forward to seeing your plan to do that. I look forward to seeing your plan to work with communities. My question to Senator Farrell is: given Labor clearly made these comments before the election, why not just own up to it?
Thanks, Senator Pocock, for you question and for coming in for the debate. Part of my portfolio, of course, deals with electoral reform, and I look forward to working with you to make a range of reforms to the Australian electoral system. You mentioned one, but there will be many others. I look forward to having some cooperative discussions with you about what those reforms might look like and ultimately look forward to your support for those very sensible changes to our electoral laws.
Senator Ruston made a number of statements in the lead-up to the last election. On the question that you asked, I'd put to you that the opposition did not rule out the application of the CDC to pensioners. Can I refer to Senator Ruston's comments as minister. She told Channel 7 news in February 2020:
We're seeking to put all income management onto the universal platform, which is the cashless debit card.
My office and other offices—Senator McCarthy's office, I'm sure—were contacted by pensioners with worries and fears, and as a result we made our election commitments. Senator Ruston might want to walk away from that statement that she made, but that statement was made, it was unequivocal, and we stand by what we said.
Can I seek some clarification on the comment that Senator Farrell just made. Senator Farrell, would you be able to explain to the chamber what income management is?
I know, Senator Ruston, you don't like being reminded of that comment. I guess, if you had your time again, you might not have said what you said, but I think your words were pretty unequivocal there. You're the one, in that statement, that's talking about income management. I know it's embarrassing that you made those comments, and I know it's particularly embarrassing because you said it in front of a TV camera and there is a record of it. But I'll repeat what you said. Income management is what you referred to. You said:
We're seeking to put all income management onto the universal platform, which is the cashless debit card.
I seek the minister to answer the question: what is income management? That is what my question was, Senator Farrell. I didn't ask you your opinions about everything. I just want you to clearly articulate what income management is. That's all the question is.
You obviously struggled to understand what income management was when you did that interview, but let me explain it to you. I know you don't like these answers, Senator Ruston, but at some point you have to let go. There has been a change of government here. You have lost the portfolio. We now have a terrific new young minister, who is dealing with solving the problems that you created over the previous nine or 10 years.
The income management scheme that you're referring to actually predates the cashless debit card program. It has been operating for more than 10 years in the Northern Territory, Cape York and 12 other communities across Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Income management was created in 2007 as part of the Howard coalition government's Northern Territory emergency response, often referred to correctly as the Intervention. As part of that scheme, income management was initially introduced to prescribed areas of the Northern Territory, including 73 remote communities, associated outstations and 10 town camp regions. It formed part of the Howard government's response to the high levels of alcohol and substance abuse that were linked to child protection issues described in the Little children are sacred report, which was released in April 2007. The income management scheme was further developed and expanded under the Rudd Labor government.
Income management is for people who are on income support payments, who live in an income management location and who would benefit from assistance in managing their budget. It's a tool that helps individuals budget their welfare payments to ensure that they are able to pay for the essentials, such as food, clothing, housing and electricity. It works by making a proportion of a person's welfare payment income managed and directing it towards these essentials.
The key objectives of income management, under section 123TB of the administration act, are to reduce immediate hardship and deprivation by directing welfare payments to the priority needs of recipients, their partner, children and any other dependants; to help affected welfare payment recipients to budget so that they can meet their priority needs; to reduce the amount of discretionary income available for alcohol, gambling, tobacco and pornography; to reduce the likelihood that welfare payments recipients will be subject to harassment and abuse in relation to their welfare payments; and, finally, to encourage socially responsible behaviour, particularly in the care and education of children.
I thank Senator Farrell for at last actually putting on the public record the fact that I did not say what I was accused of saying by the then opposition and now government. Senator Farrell has just very kindly put on the public record that income management is actually the mechanism by which people in the Northern Territory and the other sites around Australia that he defined received income management by way or means of the BasicsCard. He has confirmed that the comments that I made were about the superiority of the cashless debit card as a platform for the delivery of income management for those people who were on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory and other sites around Australia. So I thank him very much for correcting the record. I really appreciate that, Senator Farrell, because for a very long time a number of your colleagues have been out there making a statement that, clearly, they knew was false and misleading. The fact that you have acknowledged that my comments referred to income management and that income management was the mechanism for the delivery of the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory and other sites around Australia is very much appreciated, Senator Farrell. You have now put on the public record the misleading scare campaign that was run by the opposition during the election campaign and prior to it.
While I'm on my feet, Senator Farrell, could I just seek some clarification in relation to whether the department or the minister has taken any legal advice in relation to the religious discrimination act in relation to this bill? I'm sorry: could the minister advise whether the government or minister has taken any advice in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to this bill, please?
Thank you for clarifying, Senator Ruston.
I did struggle to see why it might be. It's interesting to note that Senator Ruston makes mistakes.
Not very often, Don.
You've made a clanger there. I understand that, on this bill in particular, there has been advice in relation to the application of the Racial Discrimination Act.
TON (—) (): Thank you. I'm just wondering whether you might be able to provide us with some more detail, because, as you would probably be aware, when the income management act was first passed, the then government had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act. Considering that you've put on the record that 84 per cent of income management recipients in the Northern Territory are Indigenous and that the sites around Australia where there will be removal of compulsory income management have a higher percentage of non-Indigenous populations, I was just wondering whether you'd sought specific advice in relation to noncompliance with the Racial Discrimination Act and whether you believe that there was any need to consider the resuspension of the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to the extension of the instruments that relate to compulsory income management in the Northern Territory.
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The first observation I would make is that, as the former minister, you would be aware of advice that has been received in respect of the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to the legislation that you dealt with on these issues. It's not customary for us to release that advice. You're obviously aware of previous advice in your former capacity as minister, but we're not proposing to release that legal advice.
You said you're not intending to release the advice, but I'm just seeking to understand whether you sought advice about the suspension of the act. That's all I was asking. I'm not expecting you to release the advice.
All our bills receive advice in respect of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Senator Farrell, does the government know how many additional staff Services Australia will have available to assist with people wanting to transition off the CDC as soon as they are able to do so—the number both on the ground in communities and also answering phones and emails?
Thank you, Senator Pocock. We'll seek some advice about that, and as soon as I've got that advice available I'll provide it to you.
Thank you. Does the government have a date for when the new codesigned process will commence for future income management? And how will you ensure that it is appropriately tailored to the unique needs of individual communities?
Thank you again, Senator Pocock, for your question. My assistants here are on the ball with every question. Under the bill, and particularly the amendments, it's our intention to deliver a long-term plan to ensure certainty, choice and the support of communities moving to the CDC program. First Nations people and other stakeholders have called for a measured approach to reforming income management. During consultation they made the point that transition needed to reflect the complex needs of the participants and to mitigate any disruption to the ability to manage their money disbursements and the ability to buy essential goods and services. We will continue consultation over the next 18 months to ensure that the communities are supported to decide what the future of income management looks like for them.
The government has considered whether to make changes to income management concurrently with the abolition of the CDC. However, we do not recommend this approach, due to the difficulties in assessing the large numbers of participants in various locations, which are vastly spread out across Australia. Our proposed 18-month time frame will ensure that there is a sufficient amount of time to consult affected communities on the look of the program. It will also ensure the transition of participants in a supported and targeted approach, noting that many people have been part of this program for more than 10 years.
Thank you. Does the government know how much they will have to pay Indue for the transition period 1 January to 6 March next year?
I thank Senator Pocock for the question. That amount is a commercial-in-confidence amount.
I was just wondering: will the government commission a review on the impact of the cashless debit card withdrawal so we can check out the stats and what's going on? How are you running this so we can all find out what's going on, on a monthly basis—and also publish the transition plan on the department's website once again? I think you said you were going to get back on that. But, more importantly, how are you reviewing the withdrawal and when are we going to get updates on the withdrawal? Is that going to be monthly? Quarterly? And who's doing it? Surely you've got someone ready to review it; you're pulling it.
Thank you, Senator Lambie for your question. I can advise that we will publish a transition plan on the website as requested and commission a review.
Thank you.
I really appreciate the questions we heard from Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie. They've been able to, I think, get to the very nub of the reason that we're here in this predicament. We're debating the abolition of the cashless debit card and the genesis of the fact that we're, right here, now talking about getting rid of a card that we know is helping communities, helping vulnerable people to make better choices with their money and to provide protection to the wider community, particularly the elderly and women in these communities. We hear, from so many of them, that talk about the impact.
What is the genesis? I think you've really hit the nail on the head with those questions about the lie that was spread in the lead-up to the campaign, that the coalition was going to put age pensioners and veterans onto the cashless debit card. That's why we're now in this position. If you're going to make a lie true, you've got to demonise the instrument that's being used to help communities. So you had to single out the cashless debit card, the instrument that's helping people. They were forced into a situation where, because you were demonising it—when journalists asked the question 'What are you going to do about it?' you said you would abolish it, without thinking about the impact it would have on the ground and in communities.
What we're now seeing, with these amendments, is that through the committee process—and credit to the government; they've listened through the committee process. They've recognised that the BasicsCard is a really old, redundant technology. It's a stored value card. It's not universal. You can't use it everywhere. There are fewer than 16,000 merchants who will let you use it, compared to the cashless debit card that has over 900,000 merchants or thereabouts who will let you use it. They've got themselves into this position because they had to make their lie true, and we know that you can't make a lie true by just telling more lies.
What they're not doing here—and what we're not hearing from Minister Farrell—is coming forward with the truth about what this new card is going to look like or how it's different. We know that the BasicsCard is an old redundant technology. You've acknowledged that. You're going to create this enhanced card. So I have some questions in relation to what this new card is going to look like. Minister, can you start by explaining to us the features of this new enhanced card, please?
Boy, it took a long time for you to get to your question, Senator O'Sullivan. I know you've got 10 minutes, but you didn't have to repeat what Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie said. At least they could think of their own questions.
I thought you were here earlier when I started talking about this issue and were listening closely, but obviously you weren't.
Order, please, Senator McKenzie.
Thank you, Chair, for that protection. How will the system work? Services Australia will open an account on behalf of a participant with a deposit-taking institution. Services Australia will also issue a new card to the person. The new card will be a debit card connected to the account. This will provide similar functions to the normal debit card. It will have 'tap and go' with the ability of the person to turn this off if they don't wish to use it. It will have internet banking, using the Visa system. It can be used in stores with access to EFTPOS or Visa card systems, with the exception of blocked merchants such as bottle shops. An account exists in both the CDC and income management programs. The account provides the certainty that funds are available to pay the merchant when the card is used.
This is essential for any transaction card. The account will be a bank account that allows the person to use the BPAY system to pay bills. A person will be able to set up direct debits from their account, and people will not be able to withdraw cash from the account. Services Australia will be responsible for customer-facing services, including opening the account, issuing the card, call centre functions, issuing temporary cards and providing statements and websites for participants. Participants will be able to get information on their account and transactions from Services Australia. This is similar to the services they provide under the income management program. The account provider will perform the back-of-office functions that support the card. These include providing bank account transaction processing, the system that approves transactions at the sales terminal, payment of accounts to Visa and EFTPOS, fraud monitoring and reporting to Services Australia.
In recognition of the unique role of the Traditional Credit Union in providing banking services on country, the government will seek to continue their contract and allow them to provide services to their customers. The TCU are a not-for-profit, Indigenous controlled organisation that employs local staff.
Maybe my question wasn't clear. I was asking what the features of the new card are going to be. The minister has actually just described, precisely, the cashless debit card. I seek leave to table a document here. I did provide the whips notice of this before. It's from the DSS website. It's publicly available. Otherwise, I can read it all out if you prefer?
Leave is granted.
Thank you. I table the document. This document here, which is available on DSS website, describes, pretty much word for word, almost, what the minister has just described with the cashless debit card. My next question is: how different is the so-called enhanced card—or contemporary card, as it's referred to in the EM—from the cashless debit card? Or is it, in fact, the same?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. The short answer is no, and while the enhanced card—
We have been going quite well here tonight, Senator McKenzie, in a respectful manner. I respectfully listen to all of the questions, and I respectfully try to answer them without interruption. I do not interfere or interrupt the questions that are being asked, and I would like the same respect when I answer the question. I try to answer the questions as honestly and straightforwardly as I'm able to, and I would like to continue doing that, with your permission.
Well, you weren't here a bit earlier, but I did indicate that in politics I never saw civility as a weakness. In fact, I think we can generally behave in this place in a civil manner, respectfully deal with all the issues that you would like answered, and then, in due course, vote on the legislation and implement what the Australian people voted for at the last election, which is the end of this card. So, in answer to Senator O'Sullivan's question, no, while the enhanced card will retain some of the technical functionality of the CDC, this will be the case with any banking product with a debit card attached. The government has listened to communities; they want the functions of this type of banking product. However, the government's amendments establish a program with important differences to the existing CDC program.
All client interaction and management of the account will be done by Services Australia and not a for-profit company. The government firmly believes that participants should not have to deal with a private company, and our amendments return this role to government.
Will the new card be on the EFTPOS platform, the Visa platform or the Mastercard platform?
FARRELL (—) (): I think I answered that question quite clearly in an earlier answer: it's the Visa platform.
IVAN (—) (): Thank you. I may have missed that. Just to confirm, the government is not seeking to be a deposit-taking institution; it's not going to hold the account on behalf of the welfare recipient.
The account provider will perform the back office functions that support the card. These include providing the bank account, the transaction processing, the system that approves transactions at the sale terminal, the payment of accounts to Visa and EFTPOS, the fraud monitoring and the reporting to Services Australia.
For the enhanced card, will there be a tender process for the provider?
The government is working to engage a third-party provider to provide a modern card for people leaving the CDC and moving back to income management. Under the new arrangement, Services Australia will do all customer functions such as taking calls, providing replacement cards and dealing with account balance requests. The third-party provider would only provide the back-of-office functions of the card, such as maintaining an account so payments are made to Visa, EFTPOS and merchants processing transactions and reporting to Services Australia. Specific negotiations with a third-party provider are commercial-in-confidence and I cannot comment on the status of these.
Will cardholders have to get a new bank account in addition to the card? Will there be support provided to cardholders, because many of them already have direct debits in place with the cashless debit card? You're essentially replacing it with the same thing, but you're going to have a new account. Are people going to get help to make that transition to an account with the same features that they've already got?
Neither the account nor card number will change.
Sorry, could you just repeat that?
Minister, could you repeat that?
Neither the account nor the card number will change.
This is very interesting. If they're not changing the account number—I don't know if senators here have gone to a different bank. You have a different BSB and account number. You have a different credit card number. I'm sure everyone here has changed bank providers. You get a different number. Can I just give you the opportunity to clarify what you've just said: will there be a new number? Because if it's the same number, then it's still the same product—it's still the cashless debit card, people, just with a different name.
I answered your question previously.
People are staying on the cashless debit card. You've just heard it. All that's happening here is it's just getting relabelled. It is currently a silver-coloured card. Maybe there will be a new picture. You might be able to get your face on it, or you might be able to get it printed with some pretty colours or something. I don't know. But you've just revealed to us that it's the same thing.
Let's deal with a couple of things, then, if it is the same. Currently, if you're a BasicsCard holder, you can't purchase pornography or tobacco. With this new card—this enhanced card or contemporary card—will you be able to purchase pornography and tobacco?
No.
You won't be able to purchase that? Let me be very clear. If you are a holder of the new card, will you be able to go into a store and purchase tobacco or pornography?
I've answered that question already.
You put it onto the cashless debit card. The BasicsCard never wanted it, then you guys brought it onto the cashless debit card.
Point of order: Senator McCarthy, if you want to be the minister able to answer questions from this side of the chamber, I suggest you swap positions with Minister Farrell.
Senator McKenzie, thank you. Can we direct all points of order through the chair. Did Minister Farrell answer the question?
I did answer the question. I know the opposition are desperate to keep this debate going by asking the same question over and over and over again, but I've answered the question and I don't have any further comment to make on that answer.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for clarifying that. Senator O'Sullivan.
I refer to a Guardian article that was published three days ago which stated:
The enhanced card will allow access to more merchants, online shopping and Bpay, and will be delivered by Services Australia—
which you've detailed to us tonight. Is it more merchants and services than the BasicsCard or more than the cashless debit card? Is this 'enhanced' card an enhanced cashless debit card—which currently exists—or is it an enhanced BasicsCard?
I'm sorry, Senator O'Sullivan; I haven't read the Guardian article.
I'll just re-ask my question, which was about the features that you talk about—the fact that the card can be used for online shopping and BPAY, things that the cashless debit card currently does—as enhanced services. Is that based on the assessment of the features that are available on the BasicsCard? You're calling it an enhanced card or a contemporary card; is that based on the BasicsCard or is that meaning an enhancement of the cashless debit card?
We're abolishing the cashless debit card. I don't know how many times I can say that, but I'll keep saying it until eventually you get the drift, Senator O'Sullivan. We're abolishing the cashless debit card and we're making enhancements to the BasicsCard. It's a very simple proposition, and I'm sorry you can't understand it.
Can you explain how they've got the same number if the cashless debit card has been abolished?
or FARRELL (—) (): I have already answered the question over and over again. I am not going to answer it again.
How much then does the government estimate it will cost to develop a new enhanced income management technology?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. Would you mind repeating it?
No problem. How much does the government estimate that it will cost to develop the new technology?
Thanks for a new line of questioning, Senator O'Sullivan. Those issues are matters, as you fully would understand, of commercial in confidence.
Can I just take you back to some comments that you made very early on in the night around the consultation that had been undertaken prior to the decision by the government to make the election commitment in relation to the abolition of the cashless debit card. You listed a number of consultations that have been undertaken by Senator McCarthy and other ministers. I was wondering whether you would be able to table for us or provide us with a list of the consultations that were undertaken outside of the Northern Territory by any of the ministers or members of your party at the time prior to the election? You listed a whole heap of activities that happened post the election, after you had already made the decision. I was just wondering if you would be able to provide information about the visits to the four cashless debit card sites and the Cape York site. If you could provide us with information as to the consultations that occurred at those four sites and Cape York prior to the decision being announced by the now government, when they were in opposition?
Thanks, Senator Ruston, for your question. You are right. We did extensive consultation after the election. I outlined that in very considerable detail in one of my earlier answers. I still think you don't quite get this concept. We took the abolition of the cashless debit card to the Australian people. Why did we do that? Because people like Senator McCarthy went around the Northern Territory for days, for weeks, for months, for years in advance of the last election. What was she being told by the people who were on this scheme, these people who were compulsorily forced to go on this scheme? She was being told, 'We don't want the scheme.' I couldn't tell you how many people Senator McCarthy spoke to but it was a damn a lot of people. For days, for weeks, for months, for years she went around the Northern Territory, and the rest of our MPs and our candidates did the same. Shadow minister Burney did heaps of that. Marion Scrymgour traipsed up and down Lingiari talking with people about this.
Luke Gosling, who got a 10 per cent swing to him at the last election, went up and down the seat of Solomon talking to people. Our candidates in other states, wherever the cashless debit card might apply, did the same thing. We talked to people around the country. What did they tell us? They said, 'We don't want the cashless debit card.' We took that to the Australian people. You might not like it but we took that to the Australian people, and what did they do at that election? They elected a Labor government. And what are we doing here tonight? Well, we're implementing the policy that we took to the last election. You might not like it, and you might not accept that the Australian people have made a decision about this, but they did. They did make a decision about it, and it's time for you to accept it.
Look, the coalition will never move on if you don't accept that the Australian people made a decision at the last election to reject your government, which had forced upon them the cashless debit card, and elect a government that was going to take that cashless debit card away—and that's us. Minister Rishworth has brought to this place—it's already passed the lower house, and tonight or tomorrow morning, sometime, it's going to pass the Senate—this legislation. And you've got to get over the fact that the Australian people rejected you at the last election. They elected a Labor government and what they want us to do is what we told them we were going to do, and that is abolish the cashless debit card.
I was just wondering whether the minister might be able to tell me, within 1,000, how many people in the Northern Territory were consulted who had been forced onto the cashless debit card.
I can repeat the last answer I gave, but I won't. Senator McCarthy, Mr Gosling and Ms Scrymgour went out there and consulted and consulted and spoke and spoke and spoke. And there was a single message coming back from those people who were forced onto the cashless debit card: 'We want you to change this and in order to do it we're going to elect an Anthony Albanese government.' And that's exactly what they did.
I'm just wondering whether the minister could tell us how many people in the Northern Territory are on the cashless debit card who did not go onto the cashless debit card voluntarily.
Thank you, Senator Ruston, for the question. I went through in quite some detail the data that I had, in terms of both the numbers and the number of Indigenous First Nations people on it, and that is the information I'm providing tonight.
I'm just going to try one more time, Senator Farrell, but I'll give you a hint. There is nobody in the Northern Territory who is on the cashless debit card who has not voluntarily chosen to go on the cashless debit card. So, there is nobody—and I mean nobody—in the Northern Territory who has been compulsorily forced to go onto the cashless debit card. So, I think for the minister to come in here and make statements about thousands and thousands being consulted in the Northern Territory who told Senator McCarthy and Mr Gosling and other people about the cashless debit card and how they hated the fact that they'd been forced onto the cashless debit card—I would ask whether Senator Farrell wishes to correct the record and actually put on the record that there is no-one in the Northern Territory who is on the cashless debit card who hasn't voluntarily chosen to go on it.
Senator McCarthy is here. We can ask her all about the people she spoke to in the Northern Territory. She can answer for herself. But I can tell you that what she will say is exactly what I told you: Senator McCarthy, Mr Gosling and Ms Scrymgour travelled around the Northern Territory; they spoke to people about what they wanted. We put a proposition to the Australian people. There was no equivocation about the proposition that we took to the Australian people. Shadow Minister Burney, as she was then, made it unequivocally clear: 'If you vote in a Labor government, then we will abolish this card.' Why did they do it? Because they spoke to people in the Territory and other parts of the country, and that was the message that came back to us: 'We want you to abolish the cashless debit card.' We spoke to the Australian people. We said, 'Will you support us on this?' The unequivocal answer was, 'Yes, we support you.'
Senator Farrell, you have been in this place for quite some time, a lot longer than I have been. You will know that it is a standard convention that you do not mislead the Senate by providing false information. You are on the record tonight, and I will ask the President and the Deputy President to review the record tonight. You have gone on the record and you have knowingly lied to the Senate. You have said that you and your colleagues have consulted with people in the Northern Territory who have said to those people that they were compulsorily forced onto the cashless debit card. In the absence of you being able to provide any information or evidence whatsoever that any person in the Northern Territory has been forced onto the cashless debit card, I would ask you to reflect on your comments and perhaps come back to this chamber at another time and address the chamber about the fact that you continue to mislead the chamber, even though I have advised you that there is no way that anybody in the Northern Territory has been forced onto the cashless debit card.
I will move on specifically to some questions directly around the amendment. Is it the intention of the government for the FRC to determine the percentage of funds quarantined or will they be required to meet the fifty-fifty rules as outlined by other amendments?
I absolutely reject the proposition that I have lied to the Senate. I take my integrity extremely seriously, and I absolutely reject your proposition. You may not like what I've said and you might not like the result of the last election, but the reality is the Australian people voted for a Labor government that was going to abolish the CDC. As to this question, the answer is that it will be up to the FRC to determine that issue.
Thank you very much for answering the question. What certainty have you provided the Family Responsibilities Commission that your enhanced technology will be able to be used at all sites where the CDC is currently able to be used by those people—that is, that it will be able to be used at all EFTPOS places, all online and overseas transactions? Have you given an undertaking to the FRC that the current accessibility of service and outlets by your enhanced technology will be—that they will be able to use it at every outlet that currently they can use the CDC card?
We can do even better than that, Senator Ruston. The FRC have examined the amendments and have indicated that they can comply with everything they are required to do.
Could you then confirm that your advanced technology will be able to be used at all places that the cashless debit card can currently be used at.
I'm not sure why the senator wants to ask the same question over and over again. I've explained to you that the FRC have looked at the amendments and they can meet all of the requirements under the amendments as proposed.
Thank you. I heard your answer very, very clearly, Senator Farrell. What I am seeking for you to answer is whether the enhanced technology that you are proposing will be able to be used at every site that currently the cashless debit card is being used at. It's a pretty simple question.
It's a pretty simple answer; I've given it to you two or three times now. The FRC are going to do everything. I don't know how I can be clearer. I just can't be any clearer than what I've already said.
Senator Farrell, I can only assume by the fact that you are refusing to answer my question that your enhanced technology will not be able to be used at all of the outlets.
A point of order. That is totally incorrect. Senator Farrell answered those questions earlier this evening. He has answered those questions.
Senator McCarthy, that is not a point of order.
Perhaps, Senator Farrell, you might take on notice the specifics of my question. That is: will your enhanced technology be able to be used at all sites that the cashless debit card can currently be used at? You don't have to give us the other answer that didn't answer the question again. If you'd like to take it on notice—because clearly either you do not have the answer, or the fact is that your enhanced technology won't be able to be used at all the sites the cashless debit card can be used at.
I'm just wondering if the minister might be able to advise us as to whether the government has made any commitments to either the Cape York Institute and Mr Pearson or the Family Responsibilities Commission in relation to ongoing income management in Cape York outside of what you've advised the chamber of today?
Our amendments protect the role of those organisations. Yes, that's the answer.
Can I take it from your answer, Senator Farrell, that you have made no additional undertakings to either of those two organisations in relation to income management going forward?
Our legislation is our response to those organisations. They've had a look, they support it, and in due course, sometime tonight, we're going to pass that legislation.
I would like to put on the record that I would like the senator maybe to come back and answer the question as to whether there are any other commitments that have been made to either the Cape York Institute, Mr Pearson or the Family Responsibilities Commission that have not been advised by either the minister tonight or the actions of this legislation.
Minister, in your evidence before about the consultation that has been done in the Northern Territory, and the overwhelming evidence that people wanted to abolish the cashless debit card, I'm interested to know whether that consultation said that they wanted to abolish the cashless debit card in order to go back onto the BasicsCard or an enhanced BasicsCard, or whether they wanted to have the cashless debit card abolished altogether and compulsory income management abolished altogether.
Sorry, could you repeat that question, please, Senator? Senator Farrell's popped out for five minutes; he will be back.
Thank you, Senator McCarthy. In fact, given that his evidence was that it was you that did a lot of the consultation in the Northern Territory about people wanting to have the cashless debit card abolished, it would be good to get your response to this. The evidence that Senator Farrell gave was that people in the Northern Territory who were consulted with overwhelmingly wanted to see the abolition of the cashless debit card. What I asked was: in that consultation, did they say people wanted to stay on the BasicsCard or be transitioned from the cashless debit card onto the BasicsCard, or was the overwhelming evidence that they wanted to see the end of any form of compulsory income management altogether?
This began quite a number of years ago, prior to the 2019 election, where First Nations organisations across the Northern Territory either met with me personally or travelled here to Canberra. You have groups like APO NT—Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory—the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council and AMSANT—the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT. They came here to the parliament on numerous occasions. We even had, from Central Australia, I think it was, the Tangentyere women's group come down, in 2018.
I was able to take a couple of senators up north. I thank Senator Lambie, who was one of those, and former South Australian senator Rex Patrick; they both came up. From the House—I'm trying to think who it was—one of the staffers from Rebekha Sharkie's team travelled up as well. In Central Australia we went out to Papunya. We also visited communities around Alice Springs and then went up to Darwin and out to North-East Arnhem Land, to Yolngu country, and spoke with people from Milingimbi. There was also an opportunity—I think it was only with former senator Rex Patrick—to go to Nhulunbuy; we were able to go that far as well. On all those occasions, First Nations people raised their concerns. They obviously wanted to talk about the BasicsCard. They were trying to understand what this new cashless card was and what it would mean.
That was important in the lead-up to a debate we had here in the Senate in late 2018 or early 2019 that went to all hours of the morning. That debate was about trying to make some changes to the cashless debit card further going across the country. That's why First Nations and Northern Territory advocates came down—to make sure that then shadow minister Linda Burney was consulted. The opposition to the cashless debit card coming to the Northern Territory was made clear.
To be specific: was that opposition to the cashless debit card coming to the Northern Territory, meaning they were happy to stay on the BasicsCard, or did that include opposition to compulsory income management altogether?
There was certainly a view against compulsory income management. There was also the concern in terms of the cashless debit card. The BasicsCard has a history. That didn't begin with grassroots people, as was raised in one of the meetings here; it began with the former Prime Minister and Senator O'Sullivan's former boss, the Forrest family. The BasicsCard came in with the Intervention, and then the CDC came in after the review, the Twiggy Forrest report, and proceeded from there.
To answer your question: people were still unsure about the BasicsCard. There are grannies and women who want to have that, and that was made clear. I certainly know from my own experiences in the Gulf Country that some of them like it; they choose to be on it. But people didn't like the idea of being forced to go onto something. They also raised through those consultations the need for further jobs, concerns around the CDP and the lack of jobs. They also raised the need to have extra services that would give them support, whether it was around care for their children or extra school programs—certainly there were issues around extra housing. They were asking for other things that helped the social lifestyles of families in these communities, but it was very clear from those meetings I've mentioned that compulsory income management was something that they did not want.
or LAMBIE () (): I want to go back to the BasicsCard. It is an income management card, which you are now keeping in. We know it was brought out in 2007 by the Howard government, and Labor expanded it to a wider cohort of jobseekers, and not just Aboriginal people, in 2010. Please tell me why you did that in 2010, yet we still have the same social problems around and you don't want income management now, apart from the BasicsCard. Tell me why that is, because I don't understand it.
I think what I have to do, Senator Lambie, is perhaps give you my understanding of that journey with the BasicsCard. It came in in 2007 and was imposed on many thousands of people across the Territory. From memory, there was no review of that card until between 2010 and 2014. So the next decision was made in 2012. That was by, obviously, going to the election here. Federal Labor took it over from the coalition. I was not in the federal parliament at the time, but I remember, from a personal point of view, that we were lobbying our colleagues in Canberra to have a good look at the BasicsCard and wanting them to review it.
I think all people in politics go into it in the hope that they can influence change for the better. So when I came in in 2016 and that position was still the same, it was a deep concern for me. Here we had laws governing the people of the Northern Territory, but this parliament hadn't sought to review its own legislation, to review and look into what was going on with the BasicsCard. That's something that is very close to my heart.
Even with this particular legislation, which is on the cashless debit card, I know that there was no work done by the previous government to look into the BasicsCard. That has always troubled me. So I would certainly like to say that, should this legislation pass through tonight, this parliament must look into the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. Half those families may say: 'Don't touch it. We want to stay on it. We like it. It suits us. It works for us in our communities.' That's what they may say, but they've never really been asked because every focus has been on the cashless debit card.
My problem is that I think we all know why those cards were issued in 2007 by the Howard government. Those issues are still around.
They're around in Australian communities all over the country.
Yes, we understand that. I want to know why you're ripping the card off others and giving them a choice. You're going to put these people on a new beaut card if they want it; they're on income management too. Income management is the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card. It's income management. Actually, as a matter of fact, they're slightly different because one's 20-80 and the other's 50-50. I want to know what angle you're playing at here as a government.
I can certainly tell you the way I see it, Senator Lambie. It's this. If the previous government for nine years did no reviews whatsoever on the BasicsCard, yet this Senate did six inquiries on the cashless debit card, it shows where the priority was for this parliament. There was no priority on the people of the Northern Territory. So why would we make a decision to do something with the BasicsCard when no work whatsoever has been done by the previous government? So we have to do it carefully and cautiously and, yes, that will take time.
But in the meantime the previous government had a flawed card, and you know how flawed it was because the Yolngu people told you when you came up to the Northern Territory. That's why, when this parliament does not follow its own due process—yet it does six inquiries into the cashless debit card—that is the only information we had to go on as to what was not working with this flawed card. These senators on the other side had the chance to fix that up, and you know it. You stood in this Senate and you called them out for it, so don't backtrack now.
I'm not backtracking. You don't—
You remind them. You remind them of that. You need to remember that.
You can check us, and keep us in check, and that's fine. You can keep us in check, Senator Lambie, because, let me tell you, I certainly will. But for now, the only information that is sufficient information for those Australians across the country is that this card—the cashless debit card—has to go.
I have a few questions. Is the government aware of any deposit-taking institution in Australia that allows for bank account number portability—that is, the ability to keep the same account number, the same BSB number, and shift to a different bank? Say you're a Commonwealth Bank customer and your number starts in 016, or whatever it is, and you keep that same number if you transfer to ANZ or any other deposit-taking institution—aka bank—in Australia.
I've answered this question already this evening.
We've spent 2½ hours and haven't progressed an amendment, so I'd like to move that the amendment be put.
The question is that the question be put.
Question agreed to.
The question is that amendments (1) to (4), (6) and (8) to (13), be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that amendments (20) to (26) and (38) of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
We now move to further government amendments.
I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (16) on Sheet ZA181 together, noting that the question on some items will be put separately to enable the question that some items stand as printed.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (16) on sheet ZA181 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:
(2) Schedule 1, items 2 to 6, page 3 (line 12) to page 4 (line 4), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 7 and 8), omit subsection 123UCA(4).
(4) Schedule 1, items 8 to 10, page 4 (lines 18 to 29), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 3 and 4), omit subsection 123UCB(5).
(6) Schedule 1, items 12 to 14, page 5 (lines 14 to 25), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 28 and 29), omit subsection 123UCC(5).
(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 6 (lines 9 to 16), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (lines 19 and 20), omit subsection 123UD(4A).
(10) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (line 30) to page 7 (line 3), to be opposed.
(11) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 6 and 7), omit subsection 123UE(5).
(12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 8 (lines 12 to 19), to be opposed.
(13) Schedule 1, item 28, page 8 (lines 22 and 23), omit subsection 123UFAA(3).
(14) Schedule 1, item 40, page 12 (lines 14 to 26), to be opposed.
(15) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 8), after Part 1, insert:
Part 1A — Stage 1A amendments
National Emergency Declaration Act 2020
48A Section 10 (paragraph (zba) of the definition of national emergency law )
After "section 123SJ", insert "or 123SM".
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
48B Section 123SA
After:
insert:
(a) the person meets the criteria relating to disengaged youth and the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory; or
(b) the person meets the criteria relating to long-term welfare payment recipients and the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory.
48C Section 123SB
Insert:
balance of the qualified portion, of acategory D welfare payment, means:
(a) if a deduction is to be made from, or an amount is to be set off against, the payment under:
(i) section 61, 61A or 238 of this Act; or
(ii) section 1231 of the 1991 Act; or
(iii) section 84, 84A, 92, 92A, 225, 226, 227 or 228A of the Family Assistance Administration Act;
the amount of the qualified portion of the payment less the amount of the deduction or the amount of the set-off; or
(b) in any other case—the amount of the qualified portion of the payment.
category C welfare payment means:
(a) youth allowance; or
(b) jobseeker payment; or
(c) special benefit; or
(d) pension PP (single); or
(e) benefit PP (partnered).
category D welfare payment means:
(a) a social security benefit; or
(b) a disability support pension; or
(c) a carer payment; or
(d) a pension PP (single); or
(e) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance; or
(f) double orphan pension; or
(g) family tax benefit under the Family Assistance Act; or
(h) family tax benefit advance under the Family Assistance Administration Act; or
(i) stillborn baby payment under the Family Assistance Act; or
(j) carer allowance; or
(k) child disability assistance; or
(l) carer supplement; or
(m) mobility allowance; or
(n) pensioner education supplement; or
(o) telephone allowance under Part 2.25 of the 1991 Act; or
(p) utilities allowance under Part 2.25A of the 1991 Act; or
(q) a distance education payment under the scheme known as the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, where the payment relates to a child or children at a Homelands Learning Centre; or
(r) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as pensioner education supplement; or
(s) a social security bereavement payment; or
(t) an advance payment under Part 2.22 of the 1991 Act; or
(u) an advance pharmaceutical allowance under Part 2.23 of the 1991 Act; or
(v) a mobility allowance advance under section 1045 of the 1991 Act.
exempt welfare payment recipient has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
qualified portion, of a category D welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SM.
unqualified portion, of a category D welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SM.
48D After section 123SC
Insert:
1 23SD Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Northern Territory
Disengaged youth
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:
(a) immediately before 6 March 2023:
(i) the person was a program participant under Part 3D; and
(ii) the person's usual place of residence was within the Northern Territory; and
(b) at the test time, the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory; and
(c) at the test time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment; and
(d) at the test time, the person is at least 15 years of age and under 25 years of age; and
(e) at the test time, the person is not an exempt welfare payment recipient; and
(f) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and
(g) the person was an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment for at least 13 weeks during the 26-week period ending immediately before the test time.
(2) If:
(a) a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (1); and
(b) paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply in relation to the person; and
(c) at the time of that cessation, paragraphs (1)(c), (d), (e) and (f) apply in relation to the person;
then the person remains subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (1) until the earlier of the following:
(d) the time paragraph (1)(c), (d), (e) or (f) ceases to apply in relation to the person;
(e) the end of the period of 13 weeks beginning on the day that paragraph (1)(b) ceased to apply in relation to the person.
Long-term welfare payment recipient
(3) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:
(a) immediately before 6 March 2023:
(i) the person was a program participant under Part 3D; and
(ii) the person's usual place of residence was within the Northern Territory; and
(b) at the test time, the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory; and
(c) at the test time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment; and
(d) at the test time, the person is at least 25 years of age but has not reached pension age; and
(e) at the test time, the person is not an exempt welfare payment recipient; and
(f) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and
(g) the person was an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment for at least 52 weeks during the 104-week period ending immediately before the test time.
(4) If:
(a) a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (3); and
(b) paragraph (3)(b) ceases to apply in relation to the person; and
(c) at the time of that cessation, paragraphs (3)(c), (d), (e) and (f) apply in relation to the person;
then the person remains subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (3) until the earlier of the following:
(d) the time paragraph (3)(c), (d), (e) or (f) ceases to apply in relation to the person;
(e) the end of the period of 13 weeks beginning on the day that paragraph (3)(b) ceased to apply in relation to the person.
48E After Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 3AA
Insert:
Subdivision B — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Northern Territory
123SM Category D welfare payment to be split into qualified and unqualified portions
Payments by instalments
(1) If an instalment of a category D welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD:
(a) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is qualified (the qualified portion) is 50%; and
(b) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is unqualified (the unqualified portion) is 50%.
Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).
Pa yments otherwise than by instalments
(2) If a category D welfare payment is payable, otherwise than by instalments, to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD, 100% of the gross amount of the payment is qualified (the qualified portion).
Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).
Variation by Secretary
(3) For a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD, the Secretary may make a determination that:
(a) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(a) to 0%; and
(b) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(b) to 100%; and
(c) varies the percentage applicable under subsection (2) to 0%.
(4) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (3) only if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's BasicsCard bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:
(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or
(ii) a natural disaster; or
(iii) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or
(b) the person's category D welfare payment is payable in instalments and the Secretary is satisfied that any part of the payment is payable:
(i) at a time determined under subsection 43(2), where that determination is made because the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances; or
(ii) under a determination under subsection 51(1).
(5) A determination under subsection (3) takes effect on the day specified in the determination (which must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made).
(6) A determination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.
123SN Payment of balance of qualified portion of category D welfare payment
If a category D welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD, the Secretary must pay the balance of the qualified portion of the payment to the credit of a BasicsCard bank account maintained by the person.
123SO Recipient's use of funds from category D welfare payments
A person who receives a category D welfare payment:
(a) may use the balance of the qualified portion of the payment, as paid under section 123SN, to obtain goods or services, other than:
(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or
(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services; and
(b) may use the unqualified portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's discretion.
48F Paragraph 127(4)(ad)
Omit ", 124PGC(9) or 124PGE(10)", substitute "or 124PGC(9)".
48G Paragraph 144(lc)
Omit ", 124PGC(9) or 124PGE(10)", substitute "or 124PGC(9)".
(16) Schedule 1, item 63, page 16 (lines 21 to 24), to be opposed.
The government's amendments allow for an enhanced technology option to provide a modern user experience for Northern Territory participants. It does not move any new people in the Northern Territory onto income management that otherwise wouldn't be the subject of the BasicsCard.
Could I ask the minister—just to try and get some clarity around some semantics here—as we're sitting here today, could you advise me whether the amendment that you've just put forward on Sheet ZA181 will mean that people who are currently on income management and have the cashless debit card will remain on the cashless debit card until such time as your enhanced technology option becomes available on 6 March?
Yes.
Is it possible for people in the Northern Territory who are currently on the BasicsCard to continue to transition to the cashless debit card in the time period between now and when your more permanent form of income management comes into place on 6 March 2023?
No.
I ask the minister: will the people in the Northern Territory currently voluntarily on the cashless debit card keep that card for the next six months?
They will keep that card until 6 March next year, when they will be transitioned.
Is it the intention of the government to offer access to the CDC in other sites that currently have the BasicsCard income management in place?
We're not offering the CDC; we are abolishing the CDC, and that's what this legislation does.
Can I seek some clarification from the minister? You're saying that the legislation that's before us abolishes the cashless debit card, yet I thought that in a previous answer that you'd given me you actually said that the cashless debit card would remain available to people who were on the cashless debit card until the new form of income management came into place.
Perhaps Senator Ruston doesn't get it, but there's nothing equivocal about my previous answer.
Perhaps I could just run through a couple of questions. Income management has been operating in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands in Western Australia for some time.
Where?
The NG Lands. They're next to the APY Lands. What happens now to those people who are on income management, following the passage of this bill?
This bill doesn't deal with that situation.
Income management has been operating in Perth in Western Australia. What happens now to the people on income management in Perth? Does this bill impact on them?
No.
Income management has been operating in the APY Lands in South Australia. What happens now to the people on income management in the APY Lands? What effect will this bill have on them?
Nothing.
Income management has been operating in the greater Adelaide area in South Australia. What happens to people on income management in greater Adelaide? Will they have any effect from this bill?
No.
Income management has been operating in the Kimberley in Western Australia. What happens to people on income management in the Kimberley? What will the effect of this bill be?
The answer is no.
Income management has been operating in Playford in South Australia. What happens to people on income management in Playford? What will be the effect of this bill?
The answer is no.
Income management has been operating in the greater Shepparton area in Victoria. What happens now to people on income management in greater Shepparton? What is the effect of this bill?
Thank you, Senator Ruston. Nothing.
Income management was operating in the Kilcurra area in Western Australia. What happens now to the people on income management in that community? What effect will this bill have on them?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Nothing.
Income management has been operating in Bankstown in New South Wales. What happens now to people on income management in Bankstown? What is the effect on them from this bill?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Nothing.
Income management has been operating in Logan in Queensland. What happens now to people on income management in Logan? What is the effect of this bill on those people?
I thank senator Ruston for her question. Nothing.
Income management has been operating in Rockhampton in Queensland. What happens to the people on income management in Rockhampton and what is the effect of this bill on them?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The answer is, as she knows, is no.
Income management has been operating in the Northern Territory. What happens to the people on income management in the Northern Territory? What is the effect of this bill on them?
I thank Senator Ruston. I think that completes your list of questions. As the other answers have been, the answer is no.
The cashless debit card has been operating in Ceduna in South Australia since March 2016. What happens now to the people in Ceduna? What is the effect on them of this bill?
I thank senator Ruston for her question. As I've said on previous answers, they will be offered the enhanced technology that this legislation provides.
The cashless debit card has been operating in the East Kimberley in Western Australia since 26 April 2016. What happens to the people in the East Kimberley on the cashless debit card? What are the effects of this bill?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The answer is the same as the previous one.
The cashless debit card's been operating in the Goldfields in Western Australia since 26 March 2018. What happens to the people in the Goldfields as a result of the passage of this bill?
I thank Senator Ruston. The answer is the same as the two previous answers I have given.
The cashless debit card has been operating in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay Queensland since 29 January 2019. What happens to the people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay who are on the cashless debit card as a result of the passage of this bill?
I thank Senator Ruston. The answer is the same as the three previous answers.
I thank the minister for his direct and short answers to the questions. What we have just heard from the response that we received from the minister is that the sum total of the effect of this bill on recipients of income management across the whole of Australia is the fact that there will be an offering of an enhanced technology to people in four sites—Ceduna, East Kimberley, Goldfields, and Bunderberg and Hervey Bay. Apart from that, this bill does absolutely nothing. The people of Cape York, we found out through prosecution of the previous amendment, will remain on the cashless debit card. The people of the Northern Territory who have transitioned from the BasicsCard to the cashless debit card will remain on the cashless debit card. Those people in the Northern Territory who are currently on the BasicsCard will be forced to remain on the BasicsCard because of the extension of instruments that is being undertaken by this government this week as well.
In all of the other income management sites across Australia that I listed in my previous questions, there will be no change. Every single person currently on compulsory income management in those sites will remain on compulsory income management in those sites. So what the minister has basically just done is bell the cat. What we have seen is that this bill is basically a shell of what they promised when they went to the last election. They went to the election and they promised that they were going to abolish the cashless debit card. This bill is called the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. The cold hard fact is that this bill should read social security administration amendment (extension of the cashless debit card and other measures bill), because what we have heard from the minister tonight is that there is no effect whatsoever on compulsory income management as it is currently outlined under the income management legislation, and that all we are seeing is a so-called transition onto enhanced technology. We've heard, in answers given to other members in this place, that people will still have the cashless debit card. Even when they have supposedly been transitioned over onto this new technology they will still have a card with exactly the same number on it as is currently on their cashless debit card. As we all know, you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you like, the fact is that the cashless debit card is going to remain in place. This is one of the most embarrassing backflips I've ever seen.
The only thing I can say is there are some small mercies by what has happened here tonight. Obviously the government has been forced into listening to a community like Cape York. We've seen an amendment that has enabled Cape York to be able to continue with the functionality that they have fought so long to be able to have, despite the fact that this government, without consultation, went to the election and said they were going to abolish the cashless debit card in Cape York. They clearly hadn't spoken to the members of the Cape York community, because of course they would've told them at the time that they didn't want the card to be abolished, which they've subsequently told them. They have backflipped on it. I am pleased that they have backflipped on that, because the community of Cape York clearly have worked very hard to try and deliver good outcomes for the members of their community.
It is extremely disappointing that, despite all the fanfare and all the con that we have seen from those opposite, the cold hard facts are that this particular bill does very little. They've tried to cloak this as some sort of amazing decision and delivery on an election promise. They have delivered very little by this legislation tonight.
The opposition is not going to stand in the way of the amendment that is before the chair, because we believe that it is appropriate for people to be able to have some continuity and some consistency. We are happy that the government is making the decision to allow people who are on the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory to remain on the cashless debit card.
We look forward to seeing what the government comes back with, with its enhanced technology option. I will make you a fearless prediction in here that the government will come back with the cashless debit card technology. They will probably pop it in a different act. They'll probably give it a different name. But the cold hard reality is that what they will come back into this place with is the cashless debit card dressed up as something else.
If those opposite would like to disagree with me, I'm more than happy for them to do so. You can be assured that every single person in this place will be watching what you're doing, because this has been nothing more than the most monumental con of the Australian public. You have not sought to abolish the cashless debit card. You have actually sought to extend it in some places. You have not sought to get rid of income management. You are intending to extend income management by the extension of instruments that put in place income management across the Northern Territory, and all of those sites that I have just listed here where you have said there will be no change to income management.
As I said, the opposition will support this amendment. The opposition will support this amendment, because we believe it is the right thing to do. We thank the government for actually listening to the people in the Northern Territory. Despite the fact that Senator Farrell has continuously misled this place by saying that there are people in the Northern Territory who have been forced onto the cashless debit card there are none. But at least you have given those people who voluntarily chose to go onto the cashless debit card the opportunity to remain on the cashless debit card. I look forward to seeing the legislation that you intend to bring back into this place to put what you are proposing for income management going forward.
I put you on notice: if you think that you can bring back the cashless debit card technology under some other different name and pop it into a different act and think that we're going to believe for one minute that you have done anything apart from extend the cashless debit card in this country, you are sadly mistaken. You need to come clean with the Australian public about what your intentions are. I think it's been very clear from all the amendments you have put forward, and very clear from the $50 million that you reannounced on Saturday to go towards drug and alcohol services, that you know that, due to the removal of the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card in the four sites that are going to the voluntary cashless debit card, there is a very, very high chance that we will see significant increases in social harm, significant increases in domestic violence and significant increases in police presentations, hospital presentations and child neglect. You know that's the case, and that is why you have put this bandaid of additional funding onto it.
As I said, the opposition will not stand in the way of this amendment because we believe that it is appropriate for people to at least be able to have some sort of consistency going forward. Your decision that you put to the people at the election was ridiculous. You have obviously realised that yourselves, so we will be supporting this amendment.
We appreciate the support from the opposition in the interests of progressing the bill. I move:
That the amendment be put.
Question agreed to.
The CHAIR: There are two questions. The first question is that amendments (1), (3), (5), (7), (9), (11), (13) and (15) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The CHAIR: I now put the question that items 2 to 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14, 16, 18, 27, 40 and 63 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet TK326 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (before table item 3), insert:
(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 12 (line 30), omit "the closure day", substitute "6 March 2023".
(3) Schedule 1, item 44, page 13 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item, substitute:
44 Paragraph 127(4)(aa)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(aa) a decision to give a notice under subsection 123SE(3); or
(4) Schedule 1, item 46, page 13 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute:
46 Paragraph 144(l)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(l) a decision to give a notice under subsection 123SE(3);
(5) Schedule 1, page 15 (before line 1), before Part 2, insert:
Part 1B — Stage 1B amendments
National Emergency Declaration Act 2020
48H Section 10 (before paragraph (zc) of the definition of national emergency law )
Insert:
(zbb) section 123SP of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999;
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
48J Section 123SA
Before:
insert:
48K Section 123SB
Insert:
balance of the qualified portion, of acategory G welfare payment, means:
(a) if a deduction is to be made from, or an amount is to be set off against, the payment under:
(i) section 61, 61A or 238 of this Act; or
(ii) section 1231 of the 1991 Act; or
(iii) section 84, 84A, 92, 92A, 225, 226, 227 or 228A of the Family Assistance Administration Act;
the amount of the qualified portion of the payment less the amount of the deduction or the amount of the set-off; or
(b) in any other case—the amount of the qualified portion of the payment.
Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area means the area within the boundaries of the Division (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) of Hinkler, as those boundaries were in force on 31 May 2018.
category F welfare payment means:
(a) a social security benefit; or
(b) a disability support pension; or
(c) a carer payment; or
(d) a pension PP (single); or
(e) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance.
category G welfare payment means:
(a) a category F welfare payment; or
(b) double orphan pension; or
(c) family tax benefit under the Family Assistance Act; or
(d) family tax benefit advance under the Family Assistance Administration Act; or
(e) stillborn baby payment under the Family Assistance Act; or
(f) carer allowance; or
(g) child disability assistance; or
(h) carer supplement; or
(i) mobility allowance; or
(j) pensioner education supplement; or
(k) telephone allowance under Part 2.25 of the 1991 Act; or
(l) utilities allowance under Part 2.25A of the 1991 Act; or
(m) a distance education payment under the scheme known as the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, where the payment relates to a child or children at a Homelands Learning Centre; or
(n) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as pensioner education supplement; or
(o) a social security bereavement payment; or
(p) an advance payment under Part 2.22 of the 1991 Act; or
(q) an advance pharmaceutical allowance under Part 2.23 of the 1991 Act; or
(r) a mobility allowance advance under section 1045 of the 1991 Act.
C eduna area means Ceduna within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial AreaCeduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015 as in force on 15 March 2016 and includes the Surrounding Region (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).
East Kimberley area means East Kimberley within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination 2016 as in force on 26 April 2016 and includes the areas of each of the Included Communities (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).
Goldfields area means the following Local Government Areas as at 7 February 2018:
(a) the Shire of Leonora;
(b) the Shire of Laverton;
(c) the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder;
(d) the Shire of Coolgardie;
(e) the Shire of Menzies.
Local Government Areas means areas designated by the Governor of Western Australia to be a city, town or shire, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).
qualified portion, of a category G welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SP.
unqualified portion, of a category G welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SP.
voluntary enhanced income management agreement has the meaning given by section 123SF.
48L Before section 123SI
Insert:
123SE Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — volunteers
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time on or after 6 March 2023 if:
(a) at that time, a voluntary enhanced income management agreement is in force in relation to the person; or
(b) immediately before 6 March 2023, the person was a voluntary participant under section 124PH.
Cessation former section 124PH voluntary participants
(2) If paragraph (1)(b) applies to a person, the person may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime under this section. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.
(3) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime under this section. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).
(4) A notice under subsection (3) has effect accordingly.
(5) A notice under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.
(6) Subsection (3) does not prevent paragraph (1)(a) applying in relation to the person at a later time.
123SF Voluntary enhanced income man agement agreement
(1) A person may enter into a written agreement with the Secretary under which the person agrees voluntarily to be subject to the enhanced income management regime throughout the period when the agreement is in force.
(2) An agreement under subsection (1) is to be known as a voluntary enhanced income management agreement.
(3) The Secretary must not enter into a voluntary enhancedincome management agreement with a person unless:
(a) the person is an eligible recipient of a category F welfare payment; and
(b) the person's usual place of residence is within the Ceduna area, the East Kimberley area, the Goldfields area or the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area; and
(c) if the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B).
(4) The Secretary must not enter into a voluntary enhanced income management agreement with a person if:
(a) the person is subject to the income management regime under Part 3B; or
(b) during the 12-month period ending when the voluntary enhanced income management agreement is to come into force, there were 4 occasions on which previous voluntary enhanced income management agreements relating to the person were terminated under subsection 123SH(3).
123SG Duration of voluntary enhanced income management agreement
(1) A voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person:
(a) comes into force at the time specified in the agreement, so long as:
(i) at that time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category F welfare payment; and
(ii) at that time, the person's usual place of residence is within the Ceduna area, the East Kimberley area, the Goldfields area or the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area; and
(iii) if, at that time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and
(iv) at that time, the person is not subject to the income management regime under Part 3B; and
(b) remains in force until:
(i) it is terminated under section 123SH, unless subparagraph (ii) applies; or
(ii) if the agreement specifies a period (which must be at least 13 weeks) during which it is to remain in force, and the agreement has not been terminated under section 123SH before the end of that period—the end of that period.
(2) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement (the original agreement) in relation to a person is in force, subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary from entering into a new voluntary enhanced income management agreement with the person, so long as the new agreement is expressed to come into force immediately after the original agreement ceases to be in force.
(3) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person has ceased to be in force, subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary from entering into a new voluntary enhanced income management agreement with the person.
123SH Termination of voluntary enhanced income management agreement
Termination by request
(1) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person is in force, the person may, by written notice given to the Secretary, request the Secretary to terminate the agreement.
(2) However, a person may make a request under subsection (1) only if the agreement has been in force for at least 13 weeks.
(3) The Secretary must comply with a request made in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) by terminating the agreement as soon as practicable after receiving the request.
Other ground s for termination
(4) If:
(a) a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person is in force; and
(b) either of the following events occurs:
(i) the person ceases to be an eligible recipient of a category F welfare payment;
(ii) in a case where the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime or ceases to be subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B);
the Secretary must terminate the agreement as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the event.
Limit on new voluntary enhanced income management agreements
(5) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person is terminated under this section, the Secretary must not enter into another voluntary enhanced income management agreement with the person within 21 days after the termination.
48M Before Division 4 of Part 3AA
Insert:
Subdivision C — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — volunteers
123SP Cat egory G welfare payment to be split into qualified and unqualified portions
Payments by instalments
(1) If an instalment of a category G welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE:
(a) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is qualified (the qualified portion) is 50%; and
(b) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is unqualified (the unqualified portion) is 50%.
Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).
Payments otherwise than by instalments
(2) If a category G welfare payment is payable, otherwise than by instalments, to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE, 100% of the gross amount of the payment is qualified (the qualified portion).
Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).
Variation by Secretary
(3) For a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE, the Secretary may make a determination that:
(a) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(a) to 0%; and
(b) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(b) to 100%; and
(c) varies the percentage applicable under subsection (2) to 0%.
(4) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (3) only if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's BasicsCard bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:
(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or
(ii) a natural disaster; or
(iii) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or
(b) the person's category G welfare payment is payable in instalments and the Secretary is satisfied that any part of the payment is payable:
(i) at a time determined under subsection 43(2), where that determination is made because the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances; or
(ii) under a determination under subsection 51(1).
(5) A determination under subsection (3) takes effect on the day specified in the determination (which must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made).
(6) A determination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.
123SQ Payment of balance of qualified portion of category G welfare payment
If a category G welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE, the Secretary must pay the balance of the qualified portion of the payment to the credit of a BasicsCard bank account maintained by the person.
123SR Recipient's use of funds from category G welfare payments
A person who receives a category G welfare payment:
(a) may use the balance of the qualified portion of the payment, as paid under section 123SQ, to obtain goods or services, other than:
(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or
(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services; and
(b) may use the unqualified portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's discretion.
I indicate that the government's amendments allow for an enhanced technology option for any participants wanting to voluntarily stay on income management in the other four cashless debit card sites—that is, Ceduna, East Kimberley, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and Goldfields.
I didn't get a chance to speak to the last lot of amendments, but I'm very happy to speak to these amendments and the Greens' support for these amendments, which allow for voluntary income management for people who find income management to be of value to them. I've spoken to people for whom indeed that is the case. I've heard many stories and many examples of people who say that it's a useful thing for them to have, so we are happy to support that.
There is a very big difference between choosing to use something as a tool that helps people—when a person individually chooses to say, 'This is going to be helpful to me in terms of managing my finances,'—and having income management forced upon people with absolutely no choice. We're very happy to support this, but we reiterate that big difference between voluntary income management, choosing to be able to use this, versus having compulsory income management forced upon people, blanket across the board, which is still the case. As the opposition have just stated, there is going to be ongoing compulsory income management in far too many places across the country, despite the fact that it has been shown to fail. It does not work. It does not address the social problems that it is aimed to address. There has been so much research that shows that in fact compulsory income management could even have a negative impact. Recent research has shown that it has a negative corollary with birth weight, for example. For all of the talk about the value of the cashless debit card in a compulsory way, the evidence for it just does not stack up.
What we need to be doing, as well as having one voluntary tool like this one, is give people much more support, particularly to people who are living on inadequate income support. We need to increase the rate of income support. So many of the problems that so many people around this country have in managing their income, if they are living on income support payments, is that it is just far too little. It is way below the poverty line, and the impact that has on people is absolutely dire. Such people just cannot afford to eat three meals a day, even two meals a day. People cannot afford to pay the rent. People cannot afford to put clothes on their kids, to put shoes on their children's feet. People can't afford medication. In fact, people can't afford to go off and see medical practitioners if there is a gap fee involved. We need to tackle the fundamental issues that are at play here, and increasing the amount of income support to above the poverty line is an absolutely fundamental part of that.
We had evidence of this during the COVID lockdowns, when the rate of income support was doubled. There was absolutely wonderful research that showed that so many people were able to get their lives back on track, were able to participate in the workforce, were able to pay to get their washing machine fixed, were able to pay to get their car back on the road, were able to go off and have their medical problems treated because they had enough money to live on.
We will support this measure that says, yes, here is one tool that people might find useful, but it needs to be put in the context of all of the other things that need to be done. The fact that the government is choosing not to do them is a choice. Keeping people in poverty is a political choice.
We would urge the government, as well as taking measures like this one, to give people the ability to opt in for income management, to take all of the other factors that need to be taken and, in particular, to raise the rate of income support so that people are no longer living in poverty.
I appreciate Senator Rice's comments. I note that they are not particularly relevant to this particular piece of legislation, but can I say that the Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to building a welfare and social security system that is a strong safety net that protects vulnerable Australians and doesn't stigmatise anyone for needing income support. The government knows that those who are receiving income support are facing cost-of-living pressures, and that is why we are acting to provide relief across the government. This month has seen the largest indexation increases to government allowance in this country in more than 30 years, seeing 4.7 million Australians receive a much-needed boost to their payment, including to JobSeeker.
The opposition will be supporting the amendments on sheet TK326, which have just been moved by Senator Farrell. Before we give our support to these formally, I want to ask a few questions of the minister. Has there been any contractual cost incurred by the government to move from the compulsory cashless debit card scheme at these sites to the voluntary scheme that is being proposed by this amendment?
As Senator Ruston would know, these matters are commercial in confidence, and I'm not proposing to answer them here tonight.
I respect the fact that you are not going to give me an exact amount. I was merely asking you whether there had been any cost. I didn't ask you what that cost was. I was wondering whether maybe you could advise us if there has been any cost at all?
Look, the answer is the same. These are matters of commercial in confidence. As a minister under the previous government, you would be well aware of that, and I don't propose to answer that question.
Can I just give you notice that I will be asking these questions in estimates, and you would probably need to have your public interest immunity ready to go as to why you think an answer as to whether you incurred any cost in any way could not be in the interest of the public. On Saturday, the Minister for Social Services made an announcement in relation to funding to go towards drug and alcohol services in the sites that are going to go voluntary. I was just wondering when the services that were being proposed by the minister will actually be on the ground in those sites?
I thank Senator Ruston, and I point out that we don't need her gratuitous advice on how to answer questions in estimates. Could you clarify, in respect of your last answer, what particular services you are referring to?
I was referring to the $50 million or $49.9 million in the announcement that was made by Minister Rishworth on Saturday in relation to drug and alcohol services that are set to go into the sites where the cashless debit card is going to move from being a compulsory tool to being a voluntary tool. I was just wondering when those services would be available to the people in those sites?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. As we previously pointed out, your government committed all of that money but never spent a zack of it in all of the time that you were in government. We've made a commitment, and Minister Rishworth has made a commitment, that we will spend that roughly $50 million. We will be talking to the communities where the money is going to be spent, and I can assure you that we will be rolling out the assistance that that money will provide as quickly as we can.
Can you outline the services that will be available at ascension to people who transition off the card when they are able to go from compulsory to voluntary cashless debit card in these sites. When this actually occurs, what supports will be in place for those people?
I thank Senator Ruston for her questions. I did make the point that you were in fact asking questions that didn't relate to the particular amendment that was before us. I did answer this question earlier and I would refer Senator Ruston to my earlier answer. She is obviously looking up the Hansard for a whole range of other things. You can dig up that Hansard and you will be able to understand everything I've previously answered this evening.
I feel I will never understand every answer you have given me this evening because I don't even think that God himself would understand the answers you have given tonight. I am just wondering whether the department has done any modelling as to the number of people it believes are likely to seek to come off the cashless debit card? Have you done any modelling or do you have any figures in relation to the number of people in the four cashless debit sites that this particular amendment refers to? How many do you believe are going to come off and how many people do you think will voluntarily stay on?
I thank Senator Ruston for the question. Perhaps Senator Ruston was out of the room, but Senator Rice did ask that question earlier in the evening, and I don't wish to repeat myself again. I make the offer for you to grab Hansard at your leisure and you'll be able to read the answer to that question.
I'm just wondering whether the government has any modelling as to the likelihood of increasing social harm activities that are going to occur in each of these four sites, such as domestic violence, child protection et cetera. Have you done any modelling? I'm not asking you for the numbers. I'm just asking whether you have done any modelling.
Thanks, Senator Ruston, for the question. We committed previously to Senator Lambie to do a review, which will be published, and that's what we intend to do.
N (—) (): Can I just quickly confirm—I heard you say that to Senator Lambie—I was just asking: have you done any modelling to date as to the kinds of services that may be required in these communities when the cashless debit card is no longer compulsorily incurred in those communities?
With all due respect, I thought Senator Ruston had jumped up again and I was respectfully listening to any other question she might have been seeking to ask me.
My last question on this amendment: has the government offered the four trial sites—the Kimberley, Ceduna, Goldfields and Hervey Bay/Bundaberg—the opportunity to retain income management by version of the cashless debit card in the same way that you have allowed Cape York to retain the cashless debit card? Has that offer been made to community elders in those communities?
Look, I can probably say this over and over and over and over again, Senator Ruston, but we are not offering the cashless debit card.
I'm just seeking clarification on your answer. You've just said that you are not offering the cashless debit card, yet in a previous answer you said that the cashless debit card will still be available to people in Cape York and people in the Northern Territory and voluntarily in the trial sites around Australia until 6 March 2023. Could you confirm which of your answers is correct?
I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Look, I've answered this over and over and over and over again.
I just foreshadow that I've got a series of questions here, so perhaps I could keep the call, if that's okay. The government have said throughout this debate and even in the lead-up to it that the transition for participants needs to be staged—it needs to be slow—with individual support, which makes sense. My questions really go to the mechanics now of how people are going to transition. If someone chooses to move to voluntary income management, how will that process work and how will it be staged?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question, and thank you for your endorsement of our bill in your last question—
No, I appreciate that. I didn't think I'd hear it tonight, but I very much appreciate your endorsement of the legislation and look forward to your voting with us on this very sensible proposal. But in answer to your question, people will be able to opt out of the CDC from the day after the bill receives royal assent, which we expect to be 4 October 2022. There are no processes or exit applications required to do this. CDC participants, with the exception of those in the Northern Territory or Cape York, who want to leave the CDC program can simply call Services Australia and say they no longer want to participate.
Once they've called Services Australia, how long will it take for them to transition off the CDC?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his sensible question. A maximum of seven days.
Seven days does seem rather quick, given the changes individuals will have to make—arranging new bank transfers, regular deposits and transfers that people have. How will you facilitate that rapid transition?
We're just a much more competent government than you ever were!
Wait and see!
Yes, the proof is in the pudding! When we say that's the time frame, that's what we are committed to. I go back to the $50 million that you said you put aside for drug and alcohol abuse—not a cent spent. When we, this government, say we will do something, that's exactly what we'll do.
With respect, that seemed to be quite a flippant response. This is quite a significant change for people to make, so I'm interested in what sorts of services will be there. Will Services Australia be on the ground to help people with this transition?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for another sensible question. The answer is yes.
O'SULLIVAN (—) (): I sat through the inquiry into this bill. We heard from a number of witnesses who spoke about the shield that compulsorily being on the CDC has provided to them. Frankly, when they were hassled—or humbugged, as some would call it—by other members of the community to hand over cash, they were able to hold up their card physically or figuratively and say, 'It's not me; it's the government that's put me on this card.' There's been a shield for them to deal with the coercion that often occurs within these communities—this is mainly from women and elderly people in the community. What measures is the government putting in place to ensure that cardholders are protected if they choose to voluntarily stay on the cashless debit card—bearing in mind that members of the community and their family and others could put extra pressure on them, now having voluntarily made this decision?
I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. The bill provides—
Have you thought this through?
Yes, we've thought it through. Obviously you weren't here a little bit earlier in the evening when I explained the extent to which we have consulted with the communities that are affected by the cashless debit card. We have said to those communities that we are going to give back to them what they've told us they want, which is choice. You made it compulsory. We are offering Australians a choice. I'd be confident that, hopefully, the sorts of issues you've raised won't present themselves once we get back to a situation where people can make their own decisions about their own financial management.
I consider the word 'hopefully'. Can the minister guarantee that no-one will be harmed or feel any coercive pressure from others in the community as a result of their voluntary decision?
I just hope, Senator O'Sullivan, that you're not seeking to scaremonger here. I said this earlier tonight and I'll say it again: we consulted with communities. I went through in some exhaustive detail the amount of effort that Senator McCarthy and her colleagues in the Northern Territory in the Labor Party went to to consult with people about this issue. We went to the last election with this policy. The Australian people, including the people in the Northern Territory, voted for this government, and what we're doing here is implementing the promise that we took to the Australian people. I understand that you don't like that result, but the reality is that that's what the Australian people voted for, and we intend to do what we said we would do, and that is to pass this piece of legislation, which, hopefully, we'll do sometime tonight or tomorrow morning.
Minister, you mentioned the Northern Territory and the result of the election there. You've mentioned that several times now throughout this debate. You've not mentioned the seats of Hinkler, O'Connor, Durack or Grey. These are seats that were all able to see the return of coalition members—members who have been very vocal in their communities about their support of the cashless debit card. Their position on the cashless debit card was very clear to people who were voting ahead of the election in those electorates, and they were all returned. Can the minister explain that difference, please?
I don't have the results of all of those seats in front of me, but my guess is that, in all of the seats that you just mentioned, Labor got a swing to it, and one of the reasons we're now on this side of the chamber rather than the other side of the chamber is that we got a majority of seats at the last election. So the Australian people voted in an Anthony Albanese government, obviously for very good reasons. We've seen over the last three months what a terrific job Prime Minister Albanese has done. He's been a fantastic example of what a prime minister ought to be and what a prime minister ought to do. I think that when this legislation passes, either tonight or early in the morning, the Australian people will once again know that, if an Anthony Albanese government says they will do something, that's what they will do.
I'll be very short. In fact, I want to seek the indulgence of the minister, because this is a question that's actually related to the last amendment that was moved, but I couldn't ask it because the question was put, which I didn't complain about. It is basically whether, in the Northern Territory, when people are being moved off the cashless debit card and onto enhanced income management, people who are on the BasicsCard will also have the choice to move onto the enhanced card.
We're currently looking at all of those issues and all of those options at the moment. The moment that a final decision is made, I will come back to you with an answer.
My second question is: it looks like in the Northern Territory we're going to continue to have these two different types of income management; we'll have the enhanced card and then we'll have people on the BasicsCard. One of the differences between the cashless debit card and the BasicsCard was that there were different provisions as to how people could get off it or apply to get off it. With the cashless debit card, exemptions from the cashless debit card were if people were able to make the case that participation would pose a serious risk to their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing or if they could demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their affairs. For the BasicsCard, the ability to get off the BasicsCard—people have told me—is much more limited. In particular, if a program participant on the BasicsCard is in the category of being a vulnerable welfare recipient, it's almost impossible for them to get off the card. So what I wanted to know is: in this new enhanced income tool, which people from the cashless debit card are being moved onto, what are the criteria going to be for people to be able to apply to get off that card?
We are, of course, happy to answer questions that are related to a previous amendment. I suppose the truth of the matter is that this legislation doesn't specifically deal with the issues that you've just raised. But I will say this: some people are able to apply for an exemption from income management through Services Australia. If granted, an exemption means a person is exempt from income management for 12 months unless their circumstances change.
Circumstances where exemptions can be granted, if you don't have dependent children, include: if you are either a full-time student or apprentice, had less than 25 per cent of your basic rate of payment for at least four of the last six fortnights, or get the special benefit and are 16 or older.
Are the criteria for these exemptions going to change for people who are being moved off the cashless debit card onto the new enhanced technology, or will there be the same criteria for exemptions?
You're asking questions that don't particularly relate to this piece of legislation, but I'm happy to come back to you at a later date and provide you with some answers to the questions that you're asking.
With all due respect, this legislation shifts people off the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory onto a new technology. So I'm happy for you to take it on notice and get back to me. But I think the question is very valid as to whether the same conditions are going to apply for people who are then compulsorily on this new enhanced card compared to when they were on the cashless debit card. The connection with my previous question is: if people on the BasicsCard are able to apply to go onto the new enhanced card, then the conditions may be easier for them to get off it, which I think is of great significance because we know that there are a lot of people who are currently on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory who do not want to be on it. So, if they have an easier mechanism to actually apply to get off the BasicsCard, that would be a very big step forward which could be implemented immediately.
I don't have anything further to add.
I move:
That the question be put.
Question agreed to.
The question is now that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1612 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 18 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2 — Obligations of Minister: Local services plan
1 Definitions
(1) In this Schedule:
plan area means any of the following:
(a) the Ceduna area;
(b) the East Kimberley area;
(c) the Goldfields area;
(d) the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area.
publication deadline means the day that is 6 months after the day that this Schedule commences.
(2) An expression that is used in Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before this item commences, has the same meaning, when used in this Schedule, as in that Part.
2 Local services plans
(1) The Minister must, for each plan area, prepare a written plan (a local services plan) for:
(a) improving community services in the area; and
(b) addressing social issues in the area.
(2) In preparing a local services plan for a plan area, the Minister must:
(a) have regard to the principle that the plan should prioritise evidence-based local investments; and
(b) cause consultation to occur with the following:
(i) community organisations, including First Nations organisations, that operate in the area;
(ii) health services that operate in the area;
(iii) businesses that operate in the area;
(iv) the State in which the area is located;
(v) each relevant local council.
(3) The Minister must cause the local services plan for each plan area to be:
(a) published on the Department's website on or before the publication deadline; and
(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the plan is published under paragraph (a).
(4) A local services plan:
(a) is not a legislative instrument; and
(b) does not affect any legal rights, liabilities or duties.
(3) Page 18, at the end of the Bill (at the end of proposed Schedule 2), add:
Schedule 2A — Obligations of Minister: Cost of scheme
1 Definitions
(1) In this Schedule:
cashless debit card scheme means the cashless welfare arrangements established by Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
publication deadline means the day that is 6 months after the day that this Schedule commences.
(2) An expression that is used in Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before this item commences, has the same meaning, when used in this Schedule, as in that Part.
2 Cost of cashless debit card scheme
(1) The Minister must prepare a written estimate of the full cost to the Commonwealth of the operation of the cashless debit card scheme.
(2) The Minister must cause the estimate to be:
(a) published on the Department's website on or before the publication deadline; and
(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the estimate is published under paragraph (a).
This Greens amendment requires a transition plan from the government in the four trial sites where the cashless debit card is being abolished. We want to have some certainty about the services that will be provided to support people in the transition. We've heard consistent evidence through the inquiry process that while compulsory income management is a failed program and does not work, what does work is actually being able to have services provided to people to support them, to help them overcome the disadvantage that they face and to help them to do the best they can if they are relying on income support payments that are below the poverty line. They deserve support from the government.
This amendment requires the government to prepare and publish a written plan within six months of the passing of this bill that would show that they have consulted with the local communities to prepare that plan and that would improve community services and address the social issues in each area. It would require the minister to publish this plan on the department's website and to be tabled in each house of parliament in six months time. I'm pleased to be able to support that.
It's important, in terms of transparency and accountability, to make sure that these communities, which are suffering a lot of social problems, which need a lot more support, are each going to have a really well-documented and transparent plan so that we can see what levels of support across what services are being provided.
I thank Senator Rice. I indicate that the government will support this amendment. The amendment causes the minister to prepare and table in parliament six services plans for each CDC site. We welcome the Greens amendments to table the costs of the cashless debit card program, given the significant investment made by the former government without evidence supporting the effectiveness of the cashless debit card. Similarly, we welcome the opportunity to further demonstrate our commitment to supporting communities through the development of the local services plans for the cashless debit card sites. As I said before, the government supports this amendment.
r RUSTON (—) (): The opposition will be supporting this amendment as well because we do believe that it is necessary, for transparency, that there are plans in these transition sites. The opposition obviously remains extremely concerned about the removal of this card and the so far inadequate demonstration of the necessary supports that are being put in place and the fact that the minister tonight has either not been able to or has refused to answer questions with any great clarity as to the kinds of supports that will be in place and when they'll be in place in these particular sites.
We think it is absolutely essential that the amendment moved by Senator Rice be put in place, and we also believe that the costs need to be tabled in this place. We would also request that, if the government is prepared to support this particular amendment, they be a little more transparent about the costs of the measures that are contained in this bill, because so far all we've heard tonight is that apparently it's commercial in confidence and is not able to be made available. The opposition will be supporting these amendments because we believe it's in the best interests of those people that are affected by this piece of legislation.
The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1612 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1656 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(3) Page 18 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Cessation of income management
Part 1 — Amendments
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
1 After Part 3D
Insert:
Part 3E — Ceasing to be subject to income management or cashless welfare arrangements
124PT Definitions
In this Part:
program participant has the same meaning as in Part 3D.
subject to the enhanced income management regime has the same meaning as in Part 3AA.
subject to the income management regime has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
124PU Ceasing to be subject to the enh anced income management regime
(1) A person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.
(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).
(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.
124PV Ceasing to be subject to the income management regime
(1) A person who is subject to the income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.
(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).
(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.
124PW Ceasing to be subject to cashless welfare arrangements
(1) A person who is a program participant may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be a program participant. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.
(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be a program participant. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).
(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.
124PX This Part has effect despite other provisions etc.
This Part has effect despite anything in:
(a) any other provision of this Act; or
(b) the 1991 Act; or
(c) the Family Assistance Act; or
(d) the Family Assistance Administration Act.
Part 2 — Repeals
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
2 Section 123SB
Repeal the following definitions:
(a) definition of balance of the qualified portion, of acategory B welfare payment;
(b) definition of balance of the qualified portion, of acategory D welfare payment;
(c) definition of category A welfare payment;
(d) definition of category B welfare payment;
(e) definition of category C welfare payment;
(f) definition of category D welfare payment;
(g) definition of exempt welfare payment recipient;
(h) definition of qualified portion, of a category B welfare payment;
(i) definition of qualified portion, of a category D welfare payment;
(j) definition of Queensland Commission;
(k) definition of unqualified portion, of a category B welfare payment;
(l) definition of unqualified portion, of a category D welfare payment.
3 Sections 123SC and 123SD
Repeal the sections.
4 Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 3AA
Repeal the Subdivisions.
5 Section 123ST
Repeal the section.
6 Transitional rules
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Schedule.
(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:
(a) create and offence or civil penalty;
(b) provide powers of:
(i) arrest or detention; or
(ii) entry, search or seizure;
(c) impose a tax;
(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;
(e) directly amend the text of the Act.
(4) Page 18, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:
Schedule 4 — Obligations of Minister
1 Definitions
(1) In this Schedule:
compulsory income management area means an area in which persons are:
(a) subject to the enhanced income management regime within the meaning of Part 3AA of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999; or
(b) subject to the income management regime within the meaning of Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
publication deadline means the day that is 6 months after the day that this Schedule commences.
(2) An expression that is used in Part 3AA or 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as in force immediately before this item commences, has the same meaning, when used in this Schedule, as in that Part.
2 Local services plans
(1) The Minister must, for each compulsory income management area, prepare a written plan (a local services plan) for:
(a) improving community services in the area; and
(b) addressing social issues in the area.
(2) In preparing a local services plan for a compulsory income management area, the Minister must:
(a) have regard to the principle that the plan should prioritise evidence-based local investments; and
(b) cause consultation to occur with the following:
(i) community organisations, including First Nations organisations, that operate in the area;
(ii) health services that operate in the area;
(iii) businesses that operate in the area;
(iv) the State in which the area is located;
(v) each relevant local council.
(4) The Minister must cause the local services plan for a compulsory income management area to be:
(a) published on the Department's website on or before the publication deadline; and
(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the plan is published under paragraph (a).
(5) A local services plan:
(a) is not a legislative instrument; and
(b) does not affect any legal rights, liabilities or duties.
These amendments would go to the heart of what we have been talking about in the whole debate about compulsory income management right back from the very beginning—right back to the Intervention, through the imposition of the cashless debit card—which is that compulsory income management doesn't work. There are social problems that need to be addressed, but compulsory income management is not the way to address them. We have heard so much evidence, and there is so much evidence on the public record, of how compulsory income management is a failed tool.
So we're supporting this bill tonight because it goes some way to moving some people off compulsory income management: the people on the cashless debit card in the four trial sites. But we are particularly concerned that that leaves over 20,000 people in the Northern Territory, and overwhelmingly First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory, still having to suffer being under compulsory income management. As we've previously discussed, if it's voluntary, that's fine, but if it's being imposed on people as a blanket measure, it is inappropriate. It doesn't work. It's harsh, it's punitive and it's a failed measure.
This amendment would allow anybody in the Northern Territory who is on the BasicsCard or being transitioned off the cashless debit card to apply to be off compulsory income management. Just as people in the trial sites who are being moved off compulsory income management can apply—they can pick up the phone and ring Services Australia a week after royal assent—we reckon that should be available to people in the Northern Territory as well. If people want to stay on income management, fine. But if this amendment were passed, what it would mean is that anybody who is suffering and has said, 'We do not want to be on compulsory income management. It is a failure. It is impacting our lives,' would also be able to pick up the phone and ask to be off compulsory income management, and within a week they would be off it.
This is what we are hearing from across the country. This underpins our commitment to the fact that compulsory income management is having a massive, punitive, destructive impact on people and that it needs to be abolished. While we welcome the government's commitment to do an 18-month consultation process with a view to be ending compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, we think that is taking far too long. There are many people who are now languishing under the impost of compulsory income management who should be allowed off it. Our amendment would allow them to pick up the phone and to say, 'Take me off income management, please,' and that would happen.
I thank Senator Rice for her contribution. Unfortunately, the government won't be supporting her amendment.
The opposition seeks the advice of the clerks about whether it would be possible for us to vote on item (4) of the amendment separately to the rest of the amendment. We're seeking to vote separately in relation to the minister being required to cause the local services plan for compulsory income management areas to be published on the department's website on or before the publication date and for it to be tabled in each house of the parliament within seven days of that house after the plan is published under paragraph (a) of the schedule which this amendment applies to.
Senator Rice, we will not be supporting the remainder of your amendment. But if it was possible for us to be able to support part 4, we would do so if the amendment can be split.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We are seeking advice from the Clerk. Senator Ruston, while we are seeking the Clerk's advice on this, can I please go back to the opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1639. We were seeking clarification about whether you could confirm about withdrawing those?
Yes, we are.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The Clerks' advice is they can be split but (1) and (3) have to be dealt with together, and (2) and (4) have to be done together as well because (2) relates to (4). To clarify, if they're split, (1) and (3) could be done together, and (2) and (4) together. The question is that amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 1656 be agreed to.
We now move to amendments (2) and (4) on sheet 1656.
I seek leave to withdraw amendments (2) and (4) on sheet 1656. They are redundant. They were dependent on amendments (1) and (3) getting up to be relevant.
Leave granted.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that the bill be read a third time.
Pursuant to order, the Senate now stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow.
Senate adjourned at 23:12