The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering amendments (1) to (36) on sheet JP186, moved by Senator Cormann.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:31): These amendments moved by the government will essentially make it impossible for the banks to take advantage of the tax cuts. I just wish to speak briefly on my position regarding that. As a general principle, it is not at all good policy to regulate banks or any sectors of the industry via tax policy. The idea that you can discipline the banks or somehow teach them a lesson about their misbehaviour, as exposed in the royal commission, via tax policy is extremely bad policy. It is an extremely bad idea. Nonetheless, it is not quite as bad as the idea that a company with over $500 million in turnover should also be denied the advantage of lower taxes. That policy, which emanated, I gather, from Senator Hinch, is cockeyed—like many ideas that emanate from Senator Hinch—and I certainly can't be supporting that under any circumstances. That would be a tax on success. It would be signalling to companies: 'Don't get too big, otherwise we will punish you.'

On the other hand, while the idea of exempting the banks from the tax reduction is a bad policy, I am willing to support it. I am willing to support it on the basis that the banks are big enough and capable enough of looking after themselves. The difference between the rate of taxes that the banks pay and the rate that other large businesses pay would only kick in in about 2026. I can envisage a situation where the banks are facing that scenario of paying 30 per cent tax, while all other companies are paying 25 per cent tax, and the banks would say: 'We can't sustain this. This is not acceptable.' So one bank one week would say, 'All right; that's 2,000 people who are now going to be made redundant.' That would gather quite a lot of headlines, and people would say: 'That's pretty bad. Maybe we've made a mistake.' Then a week later another bank might retrench 2,000 people. By that stage, people would be saying, 'That's really quite bad. I don't think we can continue with that.' And, if a third bank then says, 'Okay. We've got 2,000 people who we don't need either because of this high tax rate,' even if it was a Labor government in coalition with the Greens and they were inviting us to celebrate the socialist nirvana, they would find it politically unacceptable to be witnessing redundancies at that sort of rate.

I guarantee any government would back down and say, 'Okay, you can also have the tax cut.' On the basis that the banks are capable of looking after themselves—and I've just suggested one way in which they could look after themselves—I am prepared to accept that amendment from the government and vote for it. However, I signal that I absolutely will not be supporting the other amendment, which we'll be considering later today, which is to have a threshold for the tax reductions of $500 million in turnover—that is totally unacceptable.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:35): I want to get a few comments on record in relation to these amendments. Firstly, the Greens have made it obvious from the start that we will be opposing any corporate tax cuts in this place. We have campaigned very strongly for tax cuts for small business in Australia. We took a policy to the 2013 election for tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million. We were proud to be part of the vote in this chamber that actually saw that happen. We did get tax cuts for hardworking, struggling Australian small businesses. That's something that we led on and we're proud that we actually legislated on. But we've made it very clear that we won't be supporting tax cuts for any business over $10 million, and our position hasn't changed.

The fact that we have two amendments before us today will not change our position. We will not be voting for either amendment to exclude the banks or to make tax cuts over $500 million, for the simple reason that we won't be doing anything to encourage the passing of these bills through the Senate.

Let me say on the banks, no-one has worked harder in this place than the Greens to hold the banks in this country to account. We were the ones who started a campaign for a royal commission in 2014. We pushed that hard. It took us a few years, but we got the Labor Party on board going into the 2016 election. We put a parliamentary commission of inquiry bill, which became the Trojan horse in this place, to actually get the numbers to force the Prime Minister's hand. We worked with The Nationals, we worked with One Nation, we worked with the crossbench, I worked with the Katter's Australian Party, I worked with everybody to get this in place, and that royal commission has done a great job so far. There's still a long way to go, and we're hoping for some substantive changes to the banking sector.

There's no problem at all with us stinging the banks for more revenue. We campaigned since 2010 for a levy on the big banks. We got a levy on the banks in this government, and I'm proud that another achievement the Greens have been leading on has been passed into law. It wasn't big enough. We'd like to see it at least another 20 basis points to account for the too-big-to-fail implicit and explicit guarantees that we've seen in this country since the GFC to pay the Australian people back for some of the insurance that they've provided to the banks that have allowed the banks to earn super normal profits—excessive returns on capital and massive CEO bonuses. We'd like to see more money given back to the Australian people, and we think it's a consistent approach to increase that bank levy, at least 20 basis points, and raise revenue off the banks. While, in principle, we might support excluding the banks from having tax cuts, we're sticking with raising the bank levy as the best place to go.

I did mention yesterday very quickly, it does seem incongruous that we have a $500 billion cut-off for a large ADI in this legislation, whereas, in the bank levy legislation, we levied that on the big banks at $100 billion. I'm not quite sure why this arbitrary figure has been chosen at $500 billion. It excludes Macquarie Bank, for example, which is very disappointing. I'd like to see them also forgo their tax cut if that was to come into law.

On the issue of tax transparency, once again I'm very proud to have been part of a party and a charge that was led by Senator Milne when she was here into tax transparency and tax justice, a very far-reaching Senate inquiry into this issue that we initiated. We worked very hard, once again, across party lines to get legislation passed in this place, including the MAAL bill and a number of things around tax transparency to actually make corporations pay their fair share. I don't think any of us in this building—and I certainly don't think any of the stakeholders we talked to or the Australian Taxation Office, which is still fighting to get money off big corporations—would agree that they're still paying their fair share of tax, because they're not. So how is cutting tax on companies that still aren't paying their fair share of tax a fair thing to do? We should be keeping up the fight. That should be our focus. We've been very clear about that in this debate. Our focus should be on getting money off these corporations in the first place. We'll continue to ask questions at estimates of the ATO about how they're going in their campaign to get tax justice through the courts and other measures. This needs to be the key focus of this chamber.

We have completely disputed the evidence that somehow a race to the bottom on cutting tax is going to improve our economy. I've heard Senator Cormann talk about this ad nauseam in the last 24 hours. The evidence is not there in the US. There have been a number of people criticise and debate the Treasury modelling that has been put out or other government modelling that the government has shown. I asked Senator Cormann yesterday what would be the cost to the economy of excluding the banks, under the assumption that somehow this tax cut is going to grow revenue and cause economic growth. Of course, that wasn't even in the explanatory memorandum. That modelling hasn't been done. This is a pipedream.

This country needs to raise revenue. We can actually increase economic activity in other ways. At the last election we as a party put together a comprehensive plan for a government owned infrastructure bank and a financing mechanism to drive an infrastructure revolution in this country, which would create jobs and growth and set this country up for the next century. All this stuff is a blueprint and a plan to press reset for this country. The government have completely ignored that. They have completely squibbed infrastructure spending in this country, just like they have squibbed so many other things.

I say to Senator Cormann, through you, Chair, that now is not the time to be voting on tax cuts for big corporations. The government are very likely to change in the next week and completely change their focus. Senator Cormann, you can laugh, but history tells us that this is very likely to be the case. This policy has no evidentiary basis. It is built on ideology. It is built on the donations by large corporations to the Liberal Party. We are debating this at this sensitive time because the Liberal Party want to be seen to be in this place fighting for their big backers. That's their lifeline in this place. Without those donations, they can't function effectively and run big election campaigns to continue to get re-elected.

This tax bill has been dead from the start. It has never had support. Senator Cormann yesterday came in here and said that it's inevitable that this Senate will one day pass big corporate tax cuts. I say to Senator Cormann: there may be situations where I could see that happening—when we don't have a shortage of revenue in this country; when we don't have a government attacking the poor and vulnerable in Australia, trying to take money off those who desperately need it and our social safety net; when we are able to raise Newstart to help those on the poverty line live a better life and actually reinvest that money in our people; when we are not cutting funds to schools and hospitals; and when we don't have the same ideologically driven approach to attacking the vulnerable in this country. That might be a time when we can consider cutting corporate taxes, but now is not the time. There's so much more that we can do to increase economic growth in this country. We have made enough speeches and been on the record. I'll finish by saying that we won't be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

The committee divided. [09:48]

(The Chair—Senator Lines)

Question negatived.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (09:50): I want to make sure everybody understands what just happened. The Labor Party just voted to keep tax cuts for the big banks inside the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. The Labor Party just voted in favour of tax cuts for the big banks. The Labor Party just voted against carving the big banks out of our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. That is what just happened. The Labor Party, One Nation, Centre Alliance, Senator Storer and the Greens all voted for tax cuts for the big banks. That is what the Australian people need to understand. Only the Liberal and National parties, Senator Anning, Senator Burston, Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Hinch—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the right to be heard in silence.

Senator CORMANN: I think it is very important for the Austrian people to understand that the Labor Party in the Senate today voted in favour of tax cuts for the big banks. To the eternal credit of Senator Hinch, who has been consistent with his publicly stated position all the way through, he voted in favour of this amendment put forward by the government. To the eternal credit of Senator Leyonhjelm, who I know had policy reservations for good reasons in relation to this particular amendment, because he saw the bigger picture he voted for better opportunities for working Australians to get ahead by helping businesses around Australia be internationally competitive and so supporting our economy, supporting jobs and supporting opportunities for families to get ahead. He voted for this amendment. Senator Burston and Senator Anning are senators who are men of their word, and they voted in favour of this particular amendment. Of course, all of the Liberal Party and National Party senators in this chamber voted in favour of carving out the big banks from these corporate tax cuts, because we thought it was so important to secure a lower globally more competitive business tax rate for all of the other businesses around Australia that employ millions of Australians. Those who voted on this side of the chamber care about the opportunity for working families to get ahead, because we understand that their future job opportunities, future job security, future career prospects and future wage increases depend on the future viability, competitiveness and profitability of the businesses that employ them. That is why we voted in support of this amendment.

The Labor Party has lost all credibility. Mr Shorten actually knows that a lower globally more competitive business tax rate is in our national interest. Mr Shorten knows that a lower globally more competitive business tax rate will actually be in the best interests of workers—none other than Dr Ken Henry, as Treasury secretary to Treasurer Swan, said so, none other than Mr Shorten himself said so, and none other than Mr Bowen said so, until we decided to put this proposal into a budget. The only reason the Labor Party is opposed to business tax cuts now is that they believe that is going to be the pathway for Bill Shorten into the Lodge.

My message to the Australian people is: if Bill Shorten is elected Prime Minister on his antibusiness, anti-opportunity politics-of-envy socialist high-taxing agenda it will hurt the economy, it will cost jobs and it will hurt working families around Australia, who will end up with less opportunity to get ahead. We will continue to fight for the best interests of working families around Australia. The Labor Party can continue to play politics. They voted, just now, in favour of tax cuts for the big banks. It shows how completely bereft you are of any credibility and any integrity. It is absolutely unbelievable. After the campaign that Mr Shorten has been running in Longman and everywhere else around Australia, the latest Bill Shorten lie is that he's opposed to tax cuts for the big banks.

Let me say this again very clearly and very slowly: every Labor senator in this chamber just voted in favour of tax cuts for the big banks. So you are now in favour of tax cuts for the big banks, instead of more money for hospitals, more money for schools. That is the position of the Labor Party. You are absolutely all over the place. Nobody can trust a single word that Bill Shorten has to say on anything. He lied about 'Mediscare'. He lied about the citizenship status of his own MPs and, of course, he lies when he says—

The CHAIR: Minister, resume your seat. I do remind you it is unparliamentary, firstly, to refer to those in the other place by their first names and, secondly, to directly accuse someone of being a liar. I would ask you to withdraw those comments.

Senator CORMANN: I withdraw. Mr Shorten clearly misled the Australian people in relation to 'Mediscare', he clearly misled the Australian people in relation to the rolled-gold guarantee that he gave to the Australian people that there was 'nothing to see here' in terms of the citizenship status of his MPs, and he misled the Australian people when he said he actually cared about jobs. If Mr Shorten cared about jobs, he would help ensure that businesses around Australia have the best possible opportunity to be viable, competitive and profitable into the future.

Today, the Labor Party has failed a test of character. With the Labor Party having campaigned, supposedly, against tax cuts for the big banks, every single Labor senator today voted in favour of tax cuts for the big banks. The people of Australia can form their own judgements.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (09:57): We know it's not been a good week for the coalition, but this really puts the icing on the cake. This is a leader in this place who has actually argued for tax cuts for the banks, has argued against a royal commission into the banks and has supported the banks all the way along. And now this government is in so much trouble and in terminal decline. We understand that Senator Cormann is committed. This is Senator Cormann's signature economic policy down the drain, like this government is down the drain. This is a bad week for the Australian public because this government is collapsing, and we need a government that can actually get decent economic policies, decent financial policies and look after working people. And that performance we've just seen from Senator Cormann demonstrates how much trouble this government is in.

It is only a few weeks ago that Ross Greenwood said to Senator Cormann:

The question is, really, if the public does not, with a Royal Commission on, like the idea of handing out big tax cuts to banks and others, why on earth would the Government persist with this?

What did Senator Cormann say? What did the Leader of the Government in the Senate say? He said, 'Because it's the right thing to do.' Talk about wibble-wobble. He said:

Because it is the right thing to do by working families around Australia. If we put businesses in Australia at a competitive disadvantage with businesses in other parts of the world by imposing significantly higher—

taxes—

then that puts workers here in Australia at a competitive disadvantage with workers in other parts of the world.

So it was the right thing to do; then it was changed. This is a government that just cannot keep a policy for two hours. After two hours, their policies are changing, like the front bench is changing. We don't even know who's on the front bench in this government. We don't know what—

Senator Cormann: I'm here!

Senator CAMERON: You're here! How long are you going to be here, Senator Cormann? The question is: when is Senator Cormann going to join his great mate, Peter Dutton? When is he going to join him? And when is the end of this government going to actually happen? I hear that it's today. I hear that it's on again today. What we really should be doing is concentrating on the issues that are important for working people, not handing $80 billion to the big end of town while working people in this country need access to decent health systems and decent education systems. We want to rebuild the TAFE system in this country. That's where the money should be going—looking after working families, not $80 billion to the big end of town.

What do these amendments do? It would have kept Goldman Sachs in there. Why do we want Goldman Sachs in there? You've got the answer to that. You've only to got to look at the linkages between Goldman Sachs and this government. This is a government that really is dead. This government is dead. What we need is a government that can actually look after the best interests of Australians. The performance that Senator Cormann just put on demonstrates how bad this government is and how desperate it is. They're at each other's throats. We don't even know who's on the front bench. We don't even know if Senator Cormann will be there this afternoon. This is the correct decision. The big dummy spit that we've just seen from you, Senator Cormann, does you absolutely no justice. And I suppose you're sitting there looking at your phone now, seeing where the numbers are. They're falling away from Prime Minister Turnbull. We know that. We know this government is in such a bad state.

What Labor and Bill Shorten in government will focus on is health, education, the TAFE system and making sure that we look after working families in this country, that workers in this country can bargain with their employers and that we stop wage stagnation. These are the issues that are important for working people in this country, not your internal disputes, not your fights, not your squabbles and arguments that have destroyed this government. We understand how important unity is. What we stand for is a unified government, a unified Labor Party that can deal with the issues, not handing $80 billion of taxpayers' money to the big end of town on some crazy ideological theory that trickle-down economics will work. You guys have lost the plot. You opposed the banking Royal Commission. You want to cuddle up to Goldman Sachs. You want to cuddle up to all those big businesses that hand over money to you guys for your election campaign. I think you're going to be about a million and a half dollars down, because I don't think this Prime Minister, when he has been knifed completely, will be handing any money over to the coalition.

This is a desperate government. This is a government that has gone. This is a government that shouldn't be there any longer. We need a change of government in this country, because the performance we've seen at the highest levels of this government is that they've lost the plot. They've lost the plot completely. This was the best decision today for the Australian public, the best decision economically, the best decision so that when we are in government we can continue to look after the working people in this country and make sure that the big end of town pay their fair share of taxes and that they make a contribution to building a better society in this country, not a divided society. We've got a divided society under you lot. We've got a divided government. We've got a government incapable of governing. And the performance that Senator Cormann just put on demonstrates how desperate and how bad they are.

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (10:04): Senator Cormann deserves his moment in the sun. He did today. When it comes to performances, Senator Cameron, you just voted in favour of the banks getting a tax cut if this bill goes through. I know it was a tactical deal, but you were there blustering away in your Scottish brogue at Senator Cormann—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator HINCH: Excuse me. Amendments were put forward by the government to exclude the banks, something I have been suggesting in this chamber and elsewhere since March of this year. The government today, through Senator Cormann, put forward amendments that would exclude the big four banks, the robber banks—whom you and the Greens oppose—and stop them getting the tax cuts if this bill goes through. Senator Cameron, you and Labor voted in favour of the banks getting tax cuts. You can dress it up as you like, but that's what you did this morning. That's what Senator Wong did. That's what Centre Alliance did. That's what the Greens did. One Nation have voted in favour of the banks getting a tax cut. I know it's tactical, but, on the record, you voted this morning in favour of the big banks getting tax cuts.

When the bill comes up, I will vote against it too, but at least the government's being consistent on my suggestion that they cut out the banks, the robber banks who've been stealing money from people for years. Yes, the government did oppose a royal commission. The royal commission, thanks to the Greens and Labor, was a great idea. With what they're pushing out there now and what the banks are being exposed for, they deserve to be punished over it. They are paying a levy. But, in terms of this morning's effort, put it on the record: the Labor Party, the Greens, One Nation and Centre Alliance voted in favour of the big banks getting a tax cut.

I'm hoping that, having rolled back on the banks, the government will now take the second half of my suggestion—that we should restrict the tax cut now to companies with turnovers of up to $500 million. If they want to give it to the other companies—to Goldman Sachs, as you mentioned, to Qantas, to Rio Tinto, to BHP—if they want to do that, if they think that's such a great idea, they should take it to the federal election. If they get re-elected when the election comes up, either tomorrow or next year—if the people vote in favour of the government and they get re-elected—I will look again at increasing the tax cuts for other companies. But that's down the track. In the meantime, I suggest that we go for the $500 million and then take it to the election if it's such a great idea.

That's why I say that I was sitting here quite surprised. Why the heck didn't Labor vote to knock back the banks this time round and then cross the floor again when it comes to the final vote? You're not being pushed into anything. For months you've said you don't want them to get the tax cuts. The Greens have said they don't want them to get the tax cuts. And yet you are now on the record as saying that the banks should not be excluded. There was an amendment that was quite specific that the four major banks should not get the tax cuts, and you voted in favour of the banks.

On that note, I think it might be time for me to move the amendments on sheet 8439, which say that these tax cuts for companies should be restricted to companies with turnovers up to $500 million. Last year the government agreed to this. I don't believe in a two-tier system. If Labor get to government at the next election, they're going to punish the small-business people by taking away their tax cuts that have already been legislated. They want companies with more than $2 million not to get those tax cuts. They may edge up towards $10 million. I think that's on Senator Wong's—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Marshall ): Senator Hinch, you will actually need leave if you want to move all those amendments together.

Senator HINCH: I won't go on anymore. People have talked about this enough. We all know where we all stand. I seek leave to move the amendments on sheet 8439.

Leave granted.

Senator HINCH: I move amendments (1), (7) and (9) to (27) on sheet 8439:

(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3 (table), omit the table, substitute:

(7) Schedule 1, item 41, page 13 (lines 12 to 25), omit subitems (4) to (8).

(9) Schedule 3, page 19 (line 4), omit the heading.

(10) Schedule 3, item 1, page 19 (lines 5 to 15), omit the item.

(11) Schedule 3, item 2, page 19 (line 19), after "Company A", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(12) Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 12), after "Company E", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(13) Schedule 3, page 20 (after line 23), after item 3, insert:

3A Subsection 36 ‑55 ( 2 ) (example)

   After "company E", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(14) Schedule 3, items 6 and 7, page 20 (line 28) to page 21 (line 8), omit the items.

(15) Schedule 3, item 8, page 21 (line 11), after "company", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(16) Schedule 3, item 9, page 22 (line 5), after "Company A", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(17) Schedule 3, item 10, page 22 (line 30), after "Company E", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(18) Schedule 3, items 13 and 14, page 23 (lines 13 to 16), omit the items.

(19) Schedule 3, item 15, page 23 (line 19), after "company", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(20) Schedule 3, item 16, page 24 (line 5), after "Company A", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(21) Schedule 3, item 17, page 24 (line 30), after "Company E", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(22) Schedule 3, items 20 and 21, page 25 (lines 13 to 16), omit the items.

(23) Schedule 3, item 22, page 25 (line 19), after "company", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(24) Schedule 3, item 23, page 26 (line 5), after "Company A", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(25) Schedule 3, item 24, page 26 (line 30), after "Company E", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

(26) Schedule 3, items 27 and 28, page 27 (lines 13 to 16), omit the items.

(27) Schedule 3, item 29, page 27 (line 19), after "company", insert "(which is a base rate entity)".

I oppose parts 4 to 8 of schedule 1 and schedules 2 and 4 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 7 (lines 1 to 4), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, Part 5, page 8 (line 1) to page 9 (line 20), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, Part 6, page 10 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 1, Part 7, page 11 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 1, Part 8, page 12 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.

(8) Schedule 2, page 14 (line 1) to page 18 (line 4), to be opposed.

(28) Schedule 4, page 28 (line 1) to page 29 (line 9), to be opposed.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:08): I thank Senator Hinch for his contribution and for his support of our previous set of amendments. The government will not be able to support those amendments. Senator Hinch talks about going to an election. Well, we went to an election in 2016, with our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan, proposing to lower the business tax rate for all businesses to 25 per cent over the 10-year period to 2026-27.

We understand the politics in relation to the banks, in particular in the context of the royal commission inquiry currently underway, but we maintain that it's critically important for our future economic security, our future economic prosperity and the job opportunities of millions of Australians today and into the future that we ensure that businesses here in Australia are competitive with businesses in other parts of the world. Imposing significantly higher taxes here than in other parts of the world puts businesses here and their workers at a competitive disadvantage with businesses overseas and their workers. You're right; that argument has been prosecuted for some time. But, as Bill Shorten eloquently argued when he was the Assistant Treasurer—he was right then—if you put in such a cap, which will become a permanent cap the way you are proposing to do it, at $500 million, you are providing a perverse incentive for business to downsize in order to stabilise the cap. The effect of your amendment is that, if a business which already has a track record of success approaches the $500 million threshold, it would be exposed to a five per cent increase in tax on 100 per cent of its profits as soon as its turnover goes above $500 million. That provides an incentive for bigger businesses either to become smaller businesses or for businesses below $500 million in turnover to remain below $500 million in turnover.

What we need to do through our tax system and through our policy settings generally is ensure that smaller businesses have the right incentive to become bigger businesses so that, as they grow and expand and pursue further opportunities to sell more of their products and services here and overseas, they hire more Australians than they otherwise would. As they hire more Australians than they otherwise would, the competition for workers across the Australian economy increases and that drives up wages. The additional capital investment that we attract on the back of a lower globally more competitive business tax rate helps drive productivity improvements which in turn also help to finance—help business to afford—the wage increases that we all want to secure. So, for all of these reasons, the government will not be able to support these amendments.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:11): I just want to go to a couple of things here. Let's deal with this rant from Senator Hinch. Senator Hinch, it's got nothing to do with my accent; this is about policy. It's got nothing to do with where I come from. It's about policy and it's bad policy, and that's exactly what we are voting against here. We are voting against an $80 billion handout to the big end of town, to companies, some of them, that may not pay tax anyway. And the nonsense that we hear from Senator Cormann simply continues that argument—the argument that, if you provide tax cuts to big business, then workers will get a wage increase. It didn't happen in Canada; it didn't happen in the United States; it won't happen here. The only way workers will get a decent wage here is if we get decent industrial laws and workers can bargain effectively. That's the bottom line here.

This government are simply about looking after their mates in the big end of town. That's why they refused to have a banking royal commission. That's why they defended the banks constantly and for a long time. That is just not a proposition that the community are prepared to accept. If you want to defend, Senator Hinch—through the chair—the coalition on their key issues, you should just join the Liberal Party. You vote with them constantly. On all the key issues, you vote with the Liberal Party. You are not an independent on these issues; you are simply parroting the lines from the coalition. Just join them. Stand next time as a senator for the Liberal Party if you can get in. They are always looking for blokes. They don't do much with women so they will be okay with another bloke in there.

This is not a proposition we are prepared to agree to. We don't want Goldman Sachs to get a tax cut. We don't want the banks to get a tax cut. We don't want to give the private health funds a tax cut. We don't want to increase the executive salaries in this country, because we think the executive salaries are out of whack as it is. All this will do is fatten the wallets of the executives in this country. There will be no trickle-down to ordinary working people, absolutely no trickle-down. We take the view that there are other priorities that we, as the Labor Party, want to address—that is, to get proper funding into public schools, to make sure that we rebuild the TAFE system in this country so that we can become globally competitive in our manufacturing sector and to make sure that the health system can look after people when they need it. Yet this government wanted to hand $80 billion over to the big end of town.

We don't want to do that. We don't want to support what you are doing as a supplicant to the Liberal Party, simply pushing the line for them, trying to help them out. We don't want to do that either. We want to make sure that money in this country is spent on the priorities that are needed to build a decent society. And those priorities are the health system, the education system, looking after those that have fallen on hard times, making sure that workers can bargain effectively in this country, making sure that we deal with climate change and making sure that we deal with energy policy—energy policy that is pulling this mob apart, that has seen the demise of this government. Let's not kid ourselves—this government's gone; this government's finished. That's only epitomised by the former Minister for Home Affairs, out again this morning, from the back bench, saying that the company tax rates are dead; he will not support them.

What it looks like at the moment is that Senator Cormann's great mate, Mr Dutton, could be the next leader of the Liberal Party. Who knows what that's going to lead to. Already we're hearing that we could end up in a situation where some Nationals would split from the Liberal Party and deny supply. That would probably be a good thing. But, really, I take the view that if Malcolm Turnbull had any courage, any backbone, then what he would be doing is actually going to an election now: 'Don't have the humiliation of the extreme right—Senator Cormann's mates—knocking you off. Why don't you just go to an election now and give the public a choice about who they think should be doing the right thing?' And probably, Senator Hinch, you should actually ask whether you can stand on the Liberal Party ticket at the same time.

I take the view that there is such chaos. We've got a government which cannot do what a government should do, and that is govern. They're just not governing. They're too busy carving each other up. If you look at it this morning, not a Liberal or Nationals member have their head out of their mobile phones. They're seeing who is resigning next, where the numbers are going now and when is the next party room meeting to knock off the sitting Prime Minister. That's what's going on. This government has got no economic credibility. Senator Cormann has got no economic credibility as a minister, because his good mate, who's probably going to be the next leader, doesn't agree with his signature policy.

We are not going to hand money to big business to fatten executive salaries and do share buy-backs in this country, as has happened in Canada and the US, when we need to spend money on health, we need to spend money on education and we need to spend money on the VET system. We want a competitive economy, an economy that can actually compete with the rest of the world. That's what the focus should be on: a decent society with a strong economy. This government has got no capacity to deliver that—absolutely none. We don't even know who's going to be on the front bench. Even if we wanted to negotiate, who would we negotiate with?

Would we negotiate with Senator Cormann, with Malcolm Turnbull or with Peter Dutton? Nobody's got a clue what's going on. I think it speaks volumes that the majority in the Senate do understand that the Australian public don't want this to happen.

For Senator Hinch to stand up here and say that all Labor is doing is giving a free kick to the banks is absolute nonsense. We have been consistent in our position. We don't want the $80 billion tax cuts. Senator Hinch has been on one side, then the other side, supporting, then not supporting, saying, 'I'll do $10 billion,' then, 'I'll do $50 billion,' and then, 'I'll do $500 billion.' Who knows where Senator Hinch is going to go? You would fit in with the Liberal Party really well, because you don't know what you're doing. You've completely lost the plot and you'd fit in there pretty well. I'm sure they'd even take you on, because they're so desperate. But it would be desperation, I think, to take you on.

But this is not about personalities. This is about policies and the future of this country. The future of this country means that we have to set our priorities. Our priorities are health, education and infrastructure, and making sure we don't hand $80 billion to the big end of town and that we don't get conned. We would never be conned by the coalition, unlike some on the crossbench, who have been conned. Earlier in the piece, One Nation were going to back this because they were going to get 1,000 apprenticeships in regional Australia. We want apprenticeships in regional Australia, but you don't do it by doing a deal with the government to get an extra 1,000 apprenticeships, and then sell out health, education, infrastructure and the functioning of government. You don't do that.

We have the view that to be competitive we have to have the skills in place. We don't have the skills. We have the view that for people to actually engage in the country you need to be able to get a roof over your head. The problem we have here is that this government has cut $500 million out of support for Indigenous people around the country. They did that in 2014, under Senator Cormann. They have not renewed any support for Indigenous housing, except in the Northern Territory. It's crazy. Under Senator Cormann and this government, we've gone from the position of an austerity budget, which would have cut pensions by $80 a week over a decade. He ticked off on that. They would have made young people in this country who can't get a job survive for six months with no income. They came after family tax benefits. That austerity budget was an absolute disgrace, yet Senator Cormann thought it was so good. This economic theory, his political antenna, was that it was so good that you crack the champagne with the then Treasurer and you get out the Havana cigar and celebrate an austerity budget. We don't thing that's the right thing to do. Then the desperation kicked in—this has been a government of desperation from day one. When the desperation kicked in and they changed leader, with Malcolm Turnbull becoming the Prime Minister, we had increases to the GST. That was going to be the economic policy of the government. Then they were going to hand taxation rights to the states. I think both of them lasted about a week. Their last position was trickle-down economics—hand money to your mates at Goldman Sachs, hand money to the big banks and hand tax cuts to the private health funds, and everybody's going to be better off. It doesn't work. The theory's a bad theory, and it's only the ideologues and the extremists in the Liberal Party that think this can work. Look at what happened in the US. Look at what happened in Canada. It didn't deliver more wages. It didn't deliver more jobs. The analysis I've seen in Canada, where they gave tax cuts to the big end of town, was that actual employment increase was less in the companies that got the tax cuts at the big end than anywhere else in the country. So the theory has been disproved, not by another theory but by practical observation about what happens in the rest of the world.

Senator Cormann, to his credit, has been in here pushing his ideological obsession. He just pushes it and pushes it and argues for it—credit to him. But I just think it's the wrong thing to do, Labor think it's the wrong thing to do, the majority of this Senate think it's the wrong thing to do and now the majority of your own party think it's the wrong thing to do. You talk about wibble-wobble. Well, let me tell you: the wibble-wobble is so much that, if this government were a pushbike, you'd be on your side now with the wheels spinning. The wobble is so big that it is irrecoverable. This government is finished. This government has no economic credibility and no social credibility. You are disunited. You don't care about what's happening to working people in this country. You only care about your economic theories. You are an absolute disgrace.

Senator Hinch, you shouldn't be backing them in. You should be doing the same as I'm doing now: calling for an election so the public can make a decision on these issues. You should stop fiddling around with this government trying to get a fix for them. You should do the right thing by the Australian public and support what we're doing.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:26): I also want to get on record a quick response to Senator Cormann's statement and Senator Hinch's statement that somehow the Greens and Labor had supported tax cuts to the banks. I think there are many of us in this chamber that lament the state of politics in this country and how everything's dumbed down, with the emphasis on the word 'dumb'. But, for those who are following this debate, I made it very clear in my last statement that we oppose both these amendments because these amendments are designed to help enable the passage of the entire package of the bill. They're designed to split off a couple of crossbenchers on some kind of deal that's been done and give the government the numbers to pass the entire package of tax cuts to big corporations in this country

The Greens have been very clear: we oppose tax cuts to big corporations, including big multinationals. We oppose tax cuts that will be used, as the evidence in the US shows us, to buy back shares. And what do share buybacks do? They push up the price of shares, which is great for CEOs, because that means they get bigger bonuses, and their options are often in the money, and that means big packages and happy days. It's not so good for the workers. There's very little evidence that that money has been passed on to workers or that it's been used to hire more workers, which is this government's proposition on what tax cuts will do.

We've been very clear: we don't want to give more money to electricity companies that have been gouging customers in this country, or the big oil and gas companies that we've talked about in this place in recent days that aren't even paying tax, the Chevrons and ExxonMobils of the world who have got hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits clocked up through the petroleum resource rent tax, which is a complete rort. We don't want to be giving any big business in this country a tax cut when we desperately need revenue to pay for our social security, to pay for our safety net and to invest in our communities and our country's future. We believe that money should be going to investing in infrastructure and other ways of building the industries of the future—a real plan for a sustainable jobs and growth. We don't believe in hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on defence industry rorts, pork-barrelling in marginal electorates for this government for the next election. We don't believe in turning Australia into a top 10 global arms dealer as a way of generating money. We have been very clear about what our propositions are for the Australian people for a future for all of us—a future for the whole country that actually looks after the planet and looks after communities.

I wanted to make it very clear today that this amendment that Senator Hinch has now put up is another amendment that is designed to get the deal done, designed to give the government the numbers. Fine, if Senator Hinch is happy to be giving tax cuts at a $500 million threshold. The Greens have been very clear that we are happy to give tax cuts to small business. We've led on that issue. We've supported it. It has been passed. Small business are the ones in this country that desperately need a hand. We don't believe that giving handouts to big business is the right thing to be doing. I think the Australian people agree with us. That's been very clear. I think we absolutely should be holding the government to account in this place, this house of review, which is the Senate. I think we should be taking these propositions to the next election and that's the message from the Australian Greens.

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (10:30): I thank the senator for his career advice—thank you, Senator Cameron. I will not be joining the Liberal Party. I have supported it on many occasions. I think I have supported the government in 62 per cent of the votes, and often that has happened with Labor Party amendments, which you have crafted and I've agreed with you to get it through.

I have voted with the government on the exclusion of the banks. It's not a position I have wibble-wobbled over or gone up and down and over and back over. For six months, Senator Cameron, I have held the position, having gone to $50 million turnover last year. I suggested back in March on Sky News that the government should go to $500 million and I would support them. The only change I've made is that I've said: 'If you want to give the tax cut to smaller companies a bit earlier, I'll go along with you on that. Apart from that, I will not.' The amendments put forward by Senator Cormann would exclude the banks and I believe in that. I was happy to vote with them. I will vote against the total bill. I will vote against total tax cuts and the government knows that. I've told them that. I've made no deals with them. I've made no side issues, no side bills, at all. I've told them how far I would go and that is to $500 million.

I know my amendment will fail. I've done the best that I can. That is in the interests of the Australian people, because companies do need company tax cuts. In Britain, in the UK, in Canada, in Europe and in Singapore they have 17 or 19 per cent company tax. It's 20 per cent here and 21 per cent there. But I do agree with you, Senator Cameron, that much of the cuts in the United States under the Trump presidency, as I said yesterday, have gone to share buybacks, increased dividends and very high salaries for the executives. I agree with you on that. I will be voting against the bill. I recommend my amendment but I suspect—or know—it's going to lose.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Ketter ): The question is that parts 4 to 8 of schedule 1 and schedules 2 and 4 stand as printed.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Cameron: Can we cancel that division?

Senator Kim Carr: There weren't two voices.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hinch?

Senator Hinch: I'm not calling for a division.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Ketter ): Thank you, Senator Hinch. For the benefit of the chamber, the division was cancelled and the question, which was that parts 4 to 8 of schedule 1 and schedules 2 and 4 stand as printed, was resolved in the affirmative. There was no division. There is another set of amendments to deal with. Those are consequential amendments, so we won't be putting those to the chamber.

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill stand as printed.

The CHAIR (10:43): The question now is that the bill be reported. Are you seeking the call, Senator Wong?

Senator Wong: I am. The Senate has just voted against a motion that the bill stand as printed. Given that was somewhat unusual, although I think it has occurred before, it might be useful for the chair to advise the Senate what the status of the next vote signifies so senators can be clear what they're voting on and whether there will, in fact, be a third reading.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Wong. The next part that we would vote on is that the bill be reported. We do need to report out of committee that the bill standing as printed has been rejected. That would then mean that, subsequently, there would be no third reading. So I'm going to put that. The question is that the bill be reported.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (10:51): The committee has considered the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 and has negated the question that the bill stand as printed.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Finance, Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (10:52): It's great that we have been able to finish this debate on a unanimous consensus in the Senate.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:53): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. This bill proposes to extend the cashless debit card trial to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. If this bill is successful, all recipients of Newstart, youth allowance and parenting payment in the electorate of Hinkler who are under 36 will be forced to become trial participants. The cashless debit card quarantines 80 per cent of an income support payment onto a special debit card which cannot be used to purchase alcohol, to gamble or to buy gift cards which could in turn be used to purchase alcohol or gamble. It's expected that about 6,700 people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay would become trial participants.

Labor do not support this bill. As we have said many times now, Labor support genuinely community-driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse. We believe they must be genuinely community driven, not top down. Labor do not believe in a blanket approach to income management. We do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. We understand that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. We understand that, for many people, indeed most people, income management simply isn't necessary. We've said all along that we will talk to individual communities, and that we will make decisions on a location-by-location basis.

The evidence presented to the Senate inquiry and the feedback from the people in Bundaberg is very clear: the community in Bundaberg do not want to trial the cashless debit card in their town, full stop. The mayors in both the local government areas in the trial region, Bundaberg and the Fraser Coast shire, oppose the introduction of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The mayor of Bundaberg, a former LNP stalwart and Queensland state minister, Jack Dempsey, says his community has turned against the cashless debit trial after learning of the cost. Key groups from Bundaberg said they felt ignored by government's consultation process on this issue. Representatives from the Gidarjil Development Corporation explained:

Gidarjil is probably considered the largest Indigenous organisation in Bundaberg, and there hasn't been any approach from the federal minister in regard to this or in fact anything.

Representatives from a community advocacy group in Bundaberg explained to a Senate inquiry:

… there has been little to no public consultation. What has taken place has been behind closed doors …

Labor will consider the introduction of a new trial site only if the Liberals can show that they have an agreed formal consultation process, which includes an agreed definition of community consent, with the community. The Senate inquiry into this bill exposed the serious lack of meaningful consultation with local communities, and the anxiety of the residents who would become trial participants, about the impact that the trial would have on their budget and their ability to meet existing ongoing financial obligations. They also raised concerns about their access to lower-cost options for food, clothing and other essentials which are available only with cash. The third thing canvassed by the Senate inquiry was the lack of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these trials effectively deliver positive outcomes for communities.

Perhaps the most damning element in all of this—and it has been canvassed in other debates in this place in the last fortnight—is the lack of robust evidence. The government's own evaluation conducted by ORIMA into the effectiveness of the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley is utterly inconclusive at best. The evaluation has been criticised by leading academics, and there is insufficient credible evidence at this point to support the establishment of further trials. Janet Hunt, the deputy director at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at ANU, said that the evaluation showed that the cashless debit card had not actually improved safety and reduced violence, despite that being one of the trial's key objectives. She's very critical of the methodology used by ORIMA to conduct the evaluation. She argues:

People interviewed for the evaluation reported that they drank less than before the trial began. However, such recall over a year is not likely to be very reliable. And, because respondents had to give their ID to the interviewer, they may have said exactly what they thought the interviewer wanted to hear, and certainly would not have incriminated themselves …

This is particularly true for Aboriginal people, who, for historical reasons, are likely to view authority figures with deep suspicion. Last year the former Minister for Human Services described the cashless debit card trials as a huge success. The Prime Minister himself asserted:

It's seen a massive reduction in alcohol abuse, in drug abuse, in domestic violence, in violence generally …

But Janet Hunt made it absolutely clear that this is not the case, and she said:

Someone needs to tell them that the report does not say that.

This is hugely important. The government's argument for expanding the rollout of this card rests very heavily indeed on this evaluation, and when participants were asked about the impact of the trial on their children's lives only 17 per cent reported feeling that their children's lives were better as a result. The ORIMA evaluation was substandard. We don't believe that any government should be making significant policy decisions off the back of such a poor-quality evaluation. Labor will only consider the further expansion of cashless debit card trial sites when there is much greater evidence, and credible evidence, of the card's effectiveness.

These same concerns were confirmed last month by the Auditor-General. His report indicated very real problems not just with the evaluation but with the rollout of the trial more generally, including the very high cost of the trials, budget overruns and flawed procurement processes. The report exposed not simply a flawed method of evaluation but also findings in that evaluation that were either unsubstantiated or false. For example, the government's evaluation said there was a decrease in ambulance callouts, but the ANAO found there had been an increase. The government's evaluation said there was an increase in school attendance, but the ANAO found Indigenous school attendance had decreased after the introduction of the card. The report also found that the trial ran over cost and that there were less-than-robust procurement processes. The ANAO has completely undermined and discredited the government's claim that there is evidence that this policy is working. I want to quote from the report. It says:

… monitoring and evaluation was inadequate. As a consequence, it is difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach.

What a joke! The entire point of having a trial is to generate an evidence base on the basis of which decisions can be made, yet this evaluation has been botched from the very beginning.

I want to turn to the cost, because the cost of the rollout of the cashless debit card is a further important consideration in the debate. What do we know? We know that the government has already paid $7.9 million of that to the debit card provider, Indue, and almost $1.6 million to ORIMA Research to provide a poor-quality evaluation. We understand that the current accrued cost of the cashless debit card trial is around $24 million for just two sites to 15 March this year. What it means, practically, is that the cost per head of the trial across the two sites is well over $10,000.

It is extraordinary that we debate this legislation today without any indication from the minister about how much it will cost taxpayers to roll out the card at Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. Budget emergency? Not, apparently, when it comes to pursuing ideological preoccupations. In fact, the government still hasn't revealed how much the trial at the Goldfields is costing, despite the fact that the trial has been operating there since early May. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a local council in Bundaberg did a survey that showed that, when locals were told how much the trial program would cost to administer, support for the trial in the community dropped to just 26 per cent. The government are deliberately avoiding telling us the cost per head for political reasons, and that is simply unacceptable. We are committed to dealing with the evidence, but you must present an evidence base, including the cost-effectiveness of the approach that you are recommending. The government needs to say how much the trial at Bundaberg and Hervey Bay will cost, and it needs to say what the cost of the existing trial is in the Goldfields in WA.

The committee inquiry also heard a lot of evidence about the personal and negative impact that these trials would have on participants. Prospective participants talked about the importance of being able to make certain payments by direct debt and the fact that this card would not allow or accept direct debit. Some of them were concerned it would deprive them of a car, because car financing often requires a minimum direct debit payment. Participants were concerned about the ability to purchase fresh food and groceries, because it is often the case that roadside fruit and vegetable stalls only accept cash, and they are very cost-effective options for people in regional areas. DSS in their evidence explained that people would have to apply to the department for a regular transfer of cash to meet regular direct debit payments for approved items such as car repayments. Cash plays a vital role in the local economy. Restricting the access of people in this area to cash could jeopardise their ability to participate in that community. That's especially the case for low-income community members, who often use cash to access cheaper goods and services, including second-hand goods.

Residents in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, as I have already mentioned, did not believe that adequate consultation had taken place. As far as we're aware, the local federal MP has failed to hold any kind of consultation, and when DSS did so community members said it was less of a consultation and more of a case of attendees being told that the debit card was coming, irrespective of their views. There's a key distinction between briefing people about what is about to happen to them and genuinely consulting and engaging people with their perception of problems and their perception of solutions that may work in response to problems. That is what community engagement means. It's not a series of PowerPoint slides flashed up with a bureaucrat standing out the front.

We supported the initiation of trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley. We support them continuing until to mid-2019 to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful. It is predicated on community involvement. In April last year, the then shadow minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, and the then shadow minister for human services, Linda Burney, went to East Kimberley to meet with community leaders in Kununurra and Wyndham. The feedback they received in East Kimberley, if we're honest, was mixed. Some people were in favour of the card, others were very strongly opposed and many people thought the card was just worth trialling—willing to give it a shot. The common sentiment that Labor heard was that things are so bad in the local community that people are willing to give anything a go. Essentially they support the cashless debit card not out of hope but out of despair.

We take a very clear-eyed view of this issue. We're not being ideological in our approach. We have a guiding set of principles founded on the notion of community consent and evidence, and that determines our position in this debate. We don't support the bill. We don't support the expansion of the card to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The evidence presented to the Senate inquiry as well as our own conversations show that people in the community of Bundaberg do not want to trial the cashless debit card in their town. Mayors of both local government areas in the trial region, Bundaberg and Fraser Coast, publicly oppose the introduction of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The ORIMA evaluation into the effectiveness of the existing trials, which the government relies on heavily in their arguments, has been slammed by the Auditor-General as inconclusive.

The government is unable to produce evidence of community consent and engagement. It is unable to produce robust evidence that the existing trials are working. In that context, further trials simply cannot be justified. Clear and credible evidence is needed before any decision can be made about the expansion of the current cashless debit card trial to any other areas. We will consider the introduction of a new trial site only if the government can show that they have an agreed formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of consent. We oppose the bill, and we encourage other senators to do the same.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:08): I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. The Australian Greens oppose this bill. That should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody who has been taking an interest in income management in this country. We've opposed the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012, the first two trials of this card, the third trial and now this. We will continue to reject income management as a punitive, top-down, controlling approach to the way we address social security in this country and the way we assume that people on income support can't manage their money and that they abuse the very low payments that they get.

This bill will extend the cashless debit card to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, defined as the Division of Hinkler, on 31 May 2018, and it will continue until 30 June 2020. It will raise the participant cap across the trial sites from 10,000 to 15,000—in other words, it will cover the current three trials and this trial. It will also introduce an exemption to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for merchants who decline transactions that use the funds in a welfare restricted bank account to purchase restricted products, including alcohol, gambling and cash-like products. Cash-like products are defined in the bill, and their inclusion as a restricted product will affect all trial sites. They are products like gift cards and things like that.

The Greens, as I said, have opposed the cashless debit card since its inception. We submitted a dissenting report on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, expressing deep concerns regarding compulsory income management and recommending that the bill not be passed. We subsequently submitted a dissenting report on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, highlighting the flaws of the so-called independent evaluation of the first two trial sites undertaken by ORIMA Research that was relied on to justify the expansion of the card to the Goldfields and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions—and didn't the ANAO report put paid to the reliance on that flawed report! The 2017 bill did not pass the Senate in its original form, allowing only the Goldfields trial to commence, which is why we are here again debating whether or not to extend the trial to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area.

In the intervening period, the Australian National Audit Office released its report, TheImplementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial, which contains the findings of its independent performance audit of the Department of Social Services. On the first page of the summary and recommendations of the report, it said:

The CDCT—

the cashless debit card trial—

was selected for audit to identify whether the Department of Social Services … was well placed to inform any further roll-out of the CDC—

the cashless debit card—

with a robust evidence base.

Bear that in mind. That's what they were doing it for, and that's what we're talking about here. The report found:

… it is difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach.

Additionally, the report found:

There was a lack of robustness in data collection and the department's evaluation did not make use of all available administrative data to measure the impact of the trial …

Further, and finally, the report found:

… the trial was not designed to test the scalability of the CDC and there was no plan in place to undertake further evaluation.

I'll come back to that further evaluation issue. But the evidence isn't there to justify the expansion of this trial based on those evaluations. The Greens have said that all along. We've said right from the start that there isn't the evidence there to show that income management works—and that is clearly the case in relation to the Northern Territory intervention and the subsequent Stronger Futures legislation.

Clearly, here, not only do you have the flawed information from the ORIMA report but you have the ANAO saying, 'it is difficult to conclude whether there has been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach'. There isn't the evidence to justify the expansion of this card. Of course, none of this information in the ANAO report was a surprise to me. The Australian Greens have been pointing out flaws in the evaluation reports since each was released—that is, the wave 1 and wave 2 ORIMA reports—and we've been questioning their reliability as a basis for continuing the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and for the rolling out of trials in the additional locations. The Australian Greens want to see the government turn its focus to evidence-based policy, including community wraparound services.

While it's now known that there will be a further evaluation of the current trials, including of the Goldfields area, it beggars belief that there was consideration of not undertaking any further evaluation. I must say, that undermines the next evaluation right from the start, because it starts later—and late. Why would the government continue to call the scheme a trial if it wasn't going to measure the outcomes and inform itself of the results? It just illustrates the government's long-term intention to roll out the card far and wide, and penalise people on income support—who are struggling to find work, due to a lack of available jobs, and living in poverty, which is a barrier to trying to find work.

Compulsory income management, of which this card is one example, is a failed measure. Bear in mind, the Northern Territory intervention evaluation showed that income management met none of its objectives. How many times do I have to say this in this place? None. Yet the government still has an ideological commitment to this flawed, punitive approach. Income management is ineffective. It disempowers people. It stigmatises and humiliates people on the card, and those are the words of participants who are on the card. It causes social harm; it does not repair social harm. It harms those who need help the most. It also imposes significant costs on government—billions, over the years. It's time that it was abandoned as a policy mechanism.

We are particularly concerned that the government is attempting to roll out the card in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area when there is no evidence that the community is supportive of its introduction. I know the government will argue that there is support, but I have been there. I have held a public meeting and spoken to residents in this area. The committee inquiry was as short as a couple of hours and was not even held in the area. As the deputy chair of the legislation committee, I know that we didn't have the capacity to actually hold a proper, full inquiry into the bill in the time frame within which the government wanted to push this bill through. That's why it was restricted to a couple of hours and why it was not on site—which is what the local community would have wanted.

The government's consultation with regard to this trial was tokenistic. They'll stand here and say, 'We did this, this and this.' But that was giving information, not asking people their opinion of the card. That's very different. The same thing happened in Kalgoorlie. They'll say there were hundreds there, but when you go and actually talk to the people who were going to be subjected to the card because they're on income management, those people will tell you that there were very few meetings they were invited to, I'm told by them, or that they knew about—which is very important. If you don't adequately tell people that you're going to be giving information on the program that you're going to be rolling out—if you don't tell people it's on—they can't very well turn up to participate. The government were providing information, which I'm sure is useful, but that doesn't mean they hear back from the people who are going to be on the card whether they think it's a good idea. Talk to the people who are going to be on the card. It hasn't been done in any of those sites, not prior to the rollout of the card.

I might add that, in Kalgoorlie, people were getting the card before they got the letter telling them they were going to be on the card. So much for consultation and working with the community to help this to be effective, and actually listening to them! The consultation was tokenistic and not representative of the people that will be placed on the card. The voices of those that will be affected are not being heard.

The 'Say No Cashless Welfare Debit Card Australia/No Cashless Debit Card Hinkler Region' submission to the inquiry into the bill said, among other things, that there was concern about the lack of public consultation from the local member and about the costs associated with the card—both monetary and social costs—for those who would be subject to the trial. They said:

The stigma attached to the card through the constant demonising of the people on social security , the media 'welfare bashing' has already changed our local community language and the way people on social security are being treated.

Further, they said:

This card will further divide our community, excluding so many people in so many ways, from community events, school events, charity events, cash economy, secondhand economy, but also the banking economy.

They go on to say:

Just like the people on the card in the other regions, our residents do not deserve to be treated as a sub class citizen with their human rights removed, their freedoms removed, their ability to travel, decided for them …

Instead, they want to see the money that would be spent on the trial going to funding services such as homeless and domestic violence shelters, and to funding education pathways and creating jobs for local young people.

Turning now to our concerns about the bill, it will see those under 36 years of age who are receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance (jobseeker) or parenting payment and whose usual place of residence is or was or becomes a place within the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area becoming subject to the cashless debit card. This is the first time the trial of a card will be limited to a particular age group. The Australian Greens are concerned that targeting a young cohort will further marginalise this group of people, who are already facing high unemployment in the area.

We are also concerned that there is still no way in which individuals can transition off the card, now or into the future. Once they are on the card, they will remain on it, even if they leave the trial area. In relation to the trial applying to those whose usual place of residence was within the area, the Australian Human Rights Commission said in its submission to the bill's inquiry:

The Commission considers that this over-inclusive application of the cashless debit card trial is unnecessary and notes that the statement of compatibility with human rights does not provide a compelling justification for the proposed amendment.

There is also provision for an optional community panel to be established. We are concerned about the inclusion of the community panel model for the proposed new trial area. This concern is exacerbated by the recent ANAO report that researched the community panels in the Ceduna and East Kimberley trial sites. The report indicates that the effectiveness of the community panels was reviewed by the department, which determined:

… that the Community Panels were not as effective as envisaged, resulting in lengthy delays in making decisions and that they would not be introduced into new localities.

Later, the report said:

Social Services did not refer to the evaluation of the trial, which noted other factors that impacted on the effectiveness of Community Panels, including the '…delay in establishing and commencing the Community Panels from the start of the trial' and that '…the panel process was not adequately known and communicated' to the trial participants and communities.

The community panel model raises issues regarding the privacy of participants and the potential for bias, conflicts of interest and discrimination, particularly in small communities, where neighbour may be judging neighbour. The lack of independent review of their decisions also raises concerns. The Australian Greens are concerned that the bill amends how the authorisation of community bodies will occur for the new site. Instead of authorisation being by legislative instrument it will be by way of notifiable instrument, which removes the ability for parliamentary scrutiny, which I have been using very strongly in this process.

We are also concerned about safeguards. While the government may argue that there are safeguards in place to protect vulnerable individuals from the impacts of the card, due to the wellbeing exemption, the bill qualifies this exemption, saying:

The Secretary is not required to inquire into whether a person being a trial participant under this section would pose a serious risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

This means that, unless the secretary is informed of a participant's wellbeing by either the participant or another source, the participant will be forced onto the card—an ineffective mechanism. While this aligns with other trial sites, it is concerning to us that the burden of proof is placed onto the income support recipient. In addition, the ANAO report, in its assessment of the evaluation of KPIs, identified that the wellbeing exemptions, along with other administrative and operating aspects of the first two trial sites, were not measured with KPIs.

The bill seeks to exempt the declining of a transaction from the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, if it involves money from a welfare-restricted bank account and the purchase of alcohol, gambling or cash-like products that could be used to purchase alcohol or for gambling. This will affect all trial sites. Cash-like products are included in the definition of the bill as follows:

(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. The National Social Security Rights Network said in its submission to the inquiry on the bill: 'This amendment will unnecessarily expand the gambit of the control exercised over the restricted portion of a cashless debit card.' Under this measure a person will be restricted from buying a gift or store card from a merchant that does not even sell any of the target prohibited items. This provision will further act to disempower cardholders and limit their economic and social participation in their communities.

ACOSS pointed out that this exclusion could lead to a situation where a participant would be unable to pay their bond or send money via post, for example, to their child at boarding school.

The Australian Greens also have concerns regarding the contingent amendment in the bill, item 20, which will come into effect if the applicable amendments in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 have commenced, at the time these amendments commence. The contingent notice would uphold the deletion of the current section 124PM(b) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which allows participants to spend the unrestricted portion of their payment as they wish. It also expands the restrictions placed on the restricted portion of the payment to include cash-like products that could be used to obtain alcoholic beverages or gambling. The Australian Human Rights Commission said in relation to this amendment:

... by removing the safeguard for persons to use the 'unrestricted' portion 'at their discretion' and by further restricting the uses to which the 'restricted' portion can be directed, both Bills are therefore detrimental to the economic freedom of trial participants.

In plain speaking, this means that of the 20 per cent cash—which is so important if you are on income support, because you have to transact so much in cash; for example, buying secondhand goods—the government's bill says, 'We are going to use the 20 per cent that we said you could have in cash to pay your rent.' It doesn't come out of the 80 per cent; it comes out of the 20 per cent if you're in social housing. That means it has even more of an impact on people who are struggling to survive on income support.

So there is now in place a mechanism for the government to set aside perhaps nearly all of your income support. Why not put the rent—not that we support that bill—in the 80 per cent? I'll tell you why: because the government is ideologically driven to tell people on income support, who are some of the best money managers in the country, how to spend their money. This is a top-down, punitive approach that takes away people's agency. One of the most important things for people in maintaining their dignity is their ability to make those day-to-day life decisions around how they spend their money and how they look after their children. Now the government want to do this to people under the age of 36, who in some cases are still developing these skills. Now they are going to take all of their agency away. This is discriminatory. It's ideologically driven. It humiliates and stigmatises people. It should stop in this country. We are better than this. I'm glad the opposition are opposing this legislation, but I hope they have finally seen the light and will also help us to stop these appalling trials in the East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Ceduna. You can probably tell that we oppose this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. We oppose income management, and we will continue to campaign against it.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (11:28): I rise to speak very briefly on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. I made a more extensive contribution just a couple of days ago, when the disallowance motions on regulations related to the cashless debit card trial were defeated. I want to make a few points in my contribution. One is that this is a different trial. It's a different trial site and it has a different set of assessment criteria. The persons living in the area will be under 36 years of age, receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance, jobseeker payment and/or parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered. This is the cadre of people who would be transitioned onto the cashless debit card. This will involve about 6,700 people and will take a different approach to that taken in the current trial sites of Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields. What the government is trying to do with this new site is look at how the cashless debit card will work with a different cadre—a younger and more urbanised cadre—of people and also one which does not have as high a proportion of Indigenous participants as the existing trial sites. So it is a very different trial. It involves a very different cadre of people.

Just briefly on the consultation issue, I saw personally the level of consultation that occurred within the Goldfields region. There was extensive consultation. We've heard, through the Community Affairs Committee, of the consultation that has occurred in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. There were 188 meetings between May and September 2017. I'll quote from the minister:

These [meetings] canvassed views from a very broad range of stakeholders, including the community sector, service providers, community members, church groups, the business sector and all levels of government. These meetings demonstrated a clear need for support and intervention in the areas of youth unemployment, young families and intergenerational welfare dependency.

I'll also quote from the Community Affairs Committee report, from Mr Steven Beer of IMPACT Community Services, one of the community service organisations working in the local area. He talked about what the consultation meetings were and the impact they had on people. This is one of the things he said:

Once they've got information about what the card is and is not, what it looks like, how it operates and works et cetera, whilst those younger people came into those sessions with some fairly negative points of view and some great questions, most of them left thinking that it was a fairly good thing to proceed with.

Finally, I will raise the issue of the evaluation. The government has announced a second evaluation of the cashless debit card across all three current trial sites, and that would include the Hervey Bay and Bundaberg trial sites if this legislation is successfully passed. The second evaluation will use research methodologies developed independently by the University of Queensland and will draw on baseline measurements of social conditions in the Goldfields, developed by the University of Adelaide. Their findings of the second evaluation will be published in late 2019.

As I've stated in this place before, nobody believes that the cashless debit card is a silver bullet. Nobody believes that the cashless debit card will work by itself. It needs to be supported by other measures. But the cashless debit card is a way of trying to break some of the negative behaviour, trying to stop a cycle of addiction, dependency and lack of control over peoples' funding. And, yes, whilst it is anecdotal, there have been very significant reports of positive outcomes in the current trial sites. The evaluation is important and necessary, and the evaluation is something that will be legislated if and when, hopefully, we pass this bill.

(Quorum formed)

Senator WATT (Queensland) (11:34): I'm only going to make a short contribution to join with my Labor colleagues in opposing the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. I participated in inquiries concerning the terms of this bill. From Labor's perspective, we continue to have concerns with the rollout of the cashless welfare card. We're aware that it is up and running in a couple of sites; I'm thinking in particular of Western Australia. There are ongoing concerns about the rollout of the cashless welfare card in those sites, but we accept that community support has been demonstrated in a couple of sites, and on that basis we have been prepared to support the trials going ahead in those locations. The same cannot be said of the proposed trial that is envisaged by this bill to roll out the cashless welfare card in the Hinkler region, around Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland.

As I said, I participated in the Senate inquiry into this bill. It is fair to say that the views of the community are mixed in relation to this proposal. From a Labor perspective, we don't think that it is wise to proceed with this trial in an area where community opinion is split and, in fact, where there is substantial opposition to it going ahead. I recognise that there are some people within the community in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and the surrounding region who want this to go ahead—in particular, the federal member, Mr Pitt. But I don't think that he or the department have adequately consulted with the local community to a point that they can demonstrate there is community support for this going ahead. We think the only way in which such a radical measure can possibly work is if it is done with widespread community support. That has been demonstrated in a couple of sites where the trial is up and running, although there do remain problems, in our view, about the rollout. But it cannot be demonstrated to our satisfaction that there is the level of community support in the Hinkler region for this measure to justify it going ahead.

The other concern that Labor has with this trial in general is the very poor evaluations that have been conducted to date. The government have, in the past, pointed to evaluations that have been commissioned by the department which they say demonstrate that the trial is working and, again, that it has community support. I won't go into it in a whole lot of detail, but those who are interested can refer to the Senate inquiry and Labor members' reports on this cashless welfare card. But we have very significant concerns about the quality of those evaluations and their reliability. In short, we don't think that this measure is working anywhere nearly as successfully as what the government claims and, again, we think that for it to proceed it needs a lot more community support than has been demonstrated, particularly in the Hinkler region.

The other thing I might say is that, if you believe the government's arguments, the reason that this is needed is to, as they put it, break the cycle of welfare dependency. There is no doubt that the region of Hinkler, which covers Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and surrounding towns, has extremely high unemployment and extremely high youth unemployment, and that is not a new thing. That is something that the area has suffered through for decades—I might say, decades when it has been represented by members of the National Party. I think that it would be very wise for the government, before it imposes radical measures like this, to actually put a bit more effort into job-creation projects in the Hinkler region to try to overcome the level of unemployment that has been there for many decades now. We do not see the level of investment from this government in the type of infrastructure that creates jobs in the actual construction of that infrastructure and obviously improves economic efficiency in the region. They should be investing more in infrastructure, but they also should be doing more to work with the local community and local industry to identify genuine industry opportunities and employment opportunities that can be built in that region.

Too often from this government we see a very hands-off, laissez-faire attitude towards the running of the economy. They're happy to sit by while particular regions in our country languish with extremely high levels of unemployment. That is certainly the case in the Hinkler region, and I know it's a problem in many other parts of Australia as well. But I think that to only undertake quite punitive measures, similar to those that are proposed in this bill, without putting any genuine effort into creating jobs for people and helping them into work really isn't tackling the problem in the right way. For those reasons, I'll be joining with the opposition to oppose this bill.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:39): I would like to make it clear at the outset that Centre Alliance will not be supporting this bill. As we stated in February when the Senate passed the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2017, we were happy to allow the government to roll out trials in the three sites as it originally planned. We also supported an extension of the trials until June next year to allow more time for evaluation, but we said then that we would not entertain any further extensions until we had seen robust results of the trial. This bill prematurely attempts to add in a fourth trial site before we have all the data to properly assess whether the existing trials have achieved their harm-minimisation aims. That's partly because the trials are still underway and partly because the initial evaluation process was very much flawed. We accept that the government has now changed the evaluation process to utilise all available data sources and collect baseline data from Goldfields participants; however, this does not change the fact that we were quite clear about our limits in February this year.

The government needs to prove that quarantining 80 per cent of participants' income support can make a positive difference for participants and their communities before it is rolled out to more people than the 10,000 already permitted. We're also concerned that the government's reasons for implementing the trial seem to keep shifting. In the initial trials the aim was to reduce harm and violence from alcohol, gambling and illicit drugs and to 'encourage socially responsible behaviour'. Now the argument has morphed into an attack on intergenerational welfare dependency. In his media release, the Minister for Social Services, Dan Tehan, said that this fourth trial in the Hinkler electorate would 'help break the cycle of welfare dependency'. Unlike in the other trial sites, which apply the card to everyone of working age on income support, in this electorate the bill seeks to limit the cashless debit card to people aged under 36 who are on Newstart, youth allowance or parenting payment. It will target young unemployed people and young families. The minister said:

Intergenerational welfare dependence is ruining families, there are some young people who have never seen their parents, and even their grandparents, hold down a job.

I agree that we need to help young unemployed people get into suitable employment. But in areas where jobs are scarce, income management isn't going to suddenly get people trained and right up and into work. I'm sure the member for Hinkler in the other place is sincere about the challenges in his community. But using the cashless debit card to tackle the particular social ills of the regions seems to me to be very much a blunt instrument. It will not make negligent parents into better parents. It will not train the unemployed for work. It will not tackle disadvantage or improve social skills. It imposes a burden on families who may have no substance abuse or gambling problems whatsoever. In short, I can't see how it will address intergenerational welfare dependency as the minister seems to hope it will.

The unemployment rate in the electorate is high. In the Bundaberg council area it was around nine per cent in the March quarter. It is stubbornly stuck around that level and is significantly higher than the unemployment rate for regional Queensland, at six per cent, and compares with a national rate of 5.5 per cent. In the neighbouring council area covering Hervey Bay the unemployment rate was even higher, at more than 10 per cent, for the March quarter. So, it is clear that the Hinkler electorate needs much more than the cashless debit card to get its young people off welfare and into work. It needs more jobs, first and foremost. If the government is going to impose this card on more people, particularly on young families, it should do it with conclusive, consistent data to demonstrate its case.

In his second reading speech the minister referred to the findings of the August 2017 final evaluation report on the initial trial in the Ceduna and East Kimberley region to make his case for the current trial. However, we now know that those findings were very much flawed. I said in my speech in February that Centre Alliance had concerns about the quality of the outcome data for the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. This has been borne out by the Auditor-General's recent report, The implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial. The National Audit Office found that key monitoring activities:

… were not undertaken or fully effective, and the level of unrestricted cash available in the community was not effectively monitored.

The Audit Office also said:

There was a lack of robustness in data collection and the department's evaluation did not make use of all available administrative data to measure the impact of the trial including any change in social harm.

These flaws will hopefully be addressed going forward, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we will wait to see the outcomes of the evaluations due next year before we're prepared to consider any further extensions of this trial.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (11:45): I hold serious concerns about this proposed legislation. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 seeks to extend the cashless debit card to an area in Queensland that includes Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. It would also make changes that affect the cashless debit card scheme as a whole, including provisions to ensure that merchants are able to decline cashless debit card transactions where the cardholder tries to use the card for gambling, alcohol or gift cards and other cash-like products.

Let me remind you of the significant impacts of the existing CDC trial on many Australians. It works by quarantining 80 per cent of a recipient's welfare payments on a special debit card that cannot be used on alcohol or gambling, or to withdraw cash. This leaves only 20 per cent of benefits able to be used as cash. Participation is mandatory for all working-age payment recipients who live in the selected trial sites. Make no mistake: this card has a deeply profound impact on peoples' lives. Because of this, it must be rolled out using evidence meeting the most rigorous standards, and it should only be expanded beyond existing sites if the evidence shows that there have been some real and tangible social benefits to those who are forced to use it.

We've been told by Minister Dan Tehan that the implementation of the trial in the existing trial sites, Ceduna and the East Kimberley, has been a raging success, but he has scant evidence upon which to base this. An independent audit by the Australian National Audit Office, published on 17 July this year, shows it has some serious concerns. We were assured in this parliament, when the cashless debit card trial commenced, that there were plans for the most rigorous analysis, monitoring and evaluation of the cashless debit card trial, but the ANAO says that this simply has not happened. Those plans, including a cost-benefit analysis and post-implementation review, never eventuated. The department also failed to properly measure baseline data, making it difficult to know what impact the trial has had. The conclusion to the ANAO report stated:

… its—

the Department of Social Services'—

approach to monitoring and evaluation was inadequate. As a consequence, it is difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach.

It's extraordinary that the coalition government would now seek to extend this trial to a new site when the ANAO has been unable to conclude whether there has been a reduction in social harm in the existing sites. Have a think about that: this program is costing in the millions to run in these trial sites, and we cannot even evaluate whether it's working.

In addition to the ANAO report, the recently completed Senate inquiry raised more questions about the existing trial sites than it answered. It was made clear during the course of that inquiry that there had been insufficient consultation with the community of Bundaberg about the proposed expansion of the cashless debit card there. Leanne Donaldson, the then member for Bundaberg, told the committee that the consultation process has been selective and secretive. Representatives from the Gidarjil Development Corporation explained that Gidarjil is probably considered the largest Indigenous organisation in Bundaberg and that there hasn't been any approach from the federal minister with regard to this—or, in fact, anything. All of this is really concerning.

Further, the Senate inquiry revealed mixed evidence about the effectiveness of the trials. The inquiry heard evidence that the evaluations undertaken by the company ORIMA Research of the trial in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna were unreliable, and that no empirical judgements about the effectiveness of the trials can be made on the basis of the information collected. Dr Janet Hunt of the Australian National University expressed significant and serious concerns about the reliability of the ORIMA evaluations. She said:

My assessment, based on my extensive experience as a social scientist, is that the evaluation reports do not present adequate evidence of the trial leading to successful outcomes for participants.

This view by this eminent academic is shared by the ANAO.

I also note evidence to the inquiry that the cashless debit card is not effective alone in solving the social issues in the trial communities. What is needed is support and funding for existing and new services in those communities to help those in need. Ms Zell Dodd, the CEO of the Ceduna Koonibba Aboriginal Health Service Aboriginal Corporation, explained during the inquiry:

… regarding alcohol and other drug support services, which were funded as part of a cashless debit card trial in the Far West Coast region. It is not about the cashless debit card itself; it is about the support services and its consequences, such as little or no investment in social and emotional wellbeing services as part of the trial. Rather than reducing the need for alcohol and other drug support services, the view is that the trial is likely to increase the demand for alcohol and other drug services as well as social and emotional wellbeing services and, in fact, mental health services.

What is needed from government is a commitment on the delivery of wraparound services before any trials are extended. It is totally inappropriate to extend the cashless debit card to a new location when there are serious doubts about the benefits of the trial in the existing sites. The trials in East Kimberley and in Ceduna have not been going on long enough to properly ascertain whether they have been effective. There is mixed evidence about the effectiveness of the trials to date, and a far more rigorous evaluation of the trials should be carried out.

I'd also like to note the cost of implementing the cashless debit card. For the first 12 months of the cashless debit card trial in Ceduna and Kununurra, the estimated maximum cost of the trial was $18.9 million, approximately $10,000 per person. Have a think about that. It cost $18.9 million for a trial that hasn't been adequately evaluated and whose reports haven't been done. The department has failed and the minister is failing to adequately find out what is going on in these communities. $18.9 million—seriously? And we want to roll this out to another community? The cost of the scheme for the Goldfields has not been publicly released. There has been no independently verified costing released for the proposed new trial sites in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region in Queensland, so we are being asked to vote on the expansion of the trial in the complete absence of financial costings for that trial.

There are no costings of what this could be and what it could mean, yet we only have to look at what's going on already in WA and at the $18.9 million that is being spent in WA and South Australia. It is expected that around 6,700 people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay would become trial participants. So if we base it on a similar number, the $10,000 per person in WA and South Australia, and say it's maybe 6,700 times $10,000 per person, that might give us a fair idea. But they're not the official costings from that site. Those opposite haven't given us anything. As of March 2018, in Hinkler there were 8,108 Newstart recipients, 764 parenting payment (partnered) recipients, 2,518 parenting payment (single) recipients and 1,501 youth allowance (other) recipients. I hold serious concerns about the large numbers of single parents who will be subjected to this scheme.

As with my previous speech on the expansion of the card, I do draw reference to Calla Wahlquist's piece in The Guardian in which she detailed the harrowing experience of a domestic violence survivor. The victim, who was from Ceduna, expressed the view that the cashless welfare card would have stopped her from being able to escape a violent and oppressive marriage. It is a story we heard too often in the Senate committee inquiry as we travelled listening to evidence in relation to this card.

I note that the Prime Minister has raised the question of possibly expanding the trials to remote communities in the Northern Territory. Well, hold up there, Prime Minister! Let me say stop to that. We've got some questions to ask. Many Indigenous welfare recipients in the Northern Territory, particularly those in regional and remote communities, are already subjected to income management systems through the BasicsCard, and I fear that the implementation of further welfare management systems will only further restrict their autonomy and individuality. There are issues with income management more broadly in its failure to meet some of its purported objectives. Again, the Australian National University's research paper released in 2016 highlighted the mixed, if not outright detrimental, effects of new income management in the Northern Territory. While the BasicsCard model applies across the board, in reality it is Indigenous Territorians who represent 91 per cent of people under the regime. Really? This counts for everyone? Yeah right!

Intergenerational poverty remains evident. What is the scenario if further compulsory income management is extended to a selected community like Tennant Creek, where the BasicsCard is already in force and where they are subjected to further deeply flawed programs, such as the Community Development Program? This approach to income management and the implementation of the cashless card on the presumption that it will reduce some of the negative aspects of life in regional and remote communities fails to consider more prevalent barriers to meaningful employment, consideration of which would ultimately dismiss the need for such policies in the first place.

During the inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee into the government's disastrous Community Development Program, Labor examined the true foundations for why people in regional and remote communities struggle to gain and maintain employment. As part of the report that followed the inquiry, the committee made reference to several papers which highlighted barriers to employment for people in regional and remote communities. In a 2010 paper, McRae-Williams and Gerritsen explained the unique economic and employment challenges within remote communities. They said:

There are limited employment opportunities with a significant gap between the size of the labour force and the number of jobs generated in the local economy as well as inadequate physical infrastructure for many economic development proposals.

Similarly, a 2014 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that Indigenous Australians generally experience multiple barriers to economic participation, including lower levels of education; poorer health; and more difficulties with English, which in many cases, particularly in the Northern Territory, is not the first language of First Nations people. Other barriers include high rates of incarceration, inadequate housing and accommodation and lack of access to social networks that may help to facilitate employment, as well as practical challenges, such as needing to travel to buy groceries and attend medical appointments. Have a think about travelling to get groceries, buy fruit and vegies and attend medical services. Appointments are either too expensive or simply not available and are often not accommodated as part of CDP, let alone the implementation of the cashless welfare card. These are the challenges that communities in our regions across Australia face.

There are many people who are advocating for the cashless debit card, in particular around Tennant Creek, but what information has the community been given about the implementation of the card, the lack of evaluation of it, and the lack of any evidence to show results in those towns where it already exists? What information? How tied is the card to the much-talked-about but, again, short-on-detail regional deal proposed for Tennant Creek—proposed by, perhaps, the Prime Minister on his recent visit. If people in Tennant Creek want a cashless debit card, then they have a right to advocate for that, but they need to be fully informed of what the card involves, including the restrictions and some flow-on consequences that we have seen in other towns. Similarly, people in Hinkler need to be fully informed about the potential impacts of the cashless debit card, and this government just is not in a position to do that. I have heard from people in the East Kimberley who have said, 'It didn't do what I thought it was going to do, and I don't believe it has had the effect that I thought it would.' They've also gone on to say: 'I feel powerless right now. I'm seeing that there is more drinking. There's a lot of sly grogging. I'm seeing a lot of kids late at night when I go to the shopping centre.'

Throughout the committee process of examining this bill, it became very clear that there had been insufficient consultation with the very communities subjected to the expansion and very little consultation with the very people you want this to be imposed on. Witnesses at the Kalgoorlie hearing, in particular, expressed serious dissatisfaction with the consultation process that was undertaken prior to the announcement of the Goldfields trial site, describing that process as very lacklustre. I have real concerns that the cashless debit card isn't reaching the end goal in addressing poverty and disadvantage. If anything, people are feeling that they are staying exactly in that place of poverty and disadvantage. As the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation stated in its submission to the inquiry around the expansion of the CDC:

We also note that Aboriginal people are disproportionately affected by the trials and that they are in and proposed for locations where the majority participants are Aboriginal. Whilst it is not the stated intent of the trials, its impact is discriminatory.

The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation is saying, in effect, that it's discriminatory. When we see that a large proportion of those on the card are First Nations people, can we really say that we are trying to improve the lives of First Nations people? Can we really say in this parliament that we are about enabling people to rise above poverty and disadvantage and enabling people to take their place in this country with full rights and full access to the services that they require?

This government is intent on pushing and punishing welfare recipients. That's what it looks like. That's what it feels like for people—ignoring your own evidence or lack thereof. Seriously, $18 million on a trial that you have not been able to evaluate in the true sense of the word! There is a huge irresponsibility in all of that.

Labor supports community-driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse. Labor does not believe in a blanket approach to income management. We will not support the extension of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg, Hervey Bay or any further trial sites unless the government establishes a formal framework for consultation, including establishing community consent for a trial and a sufficient evidence base demonstrating the success of the trials. The bill should be opposed.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12:05): The proposed legislation before us, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, is fairly unusual in the sense that it solely affects people just in one electorate or one part of my home state of Queensland—parts of the electorate of Hinkler and, most significantly, the communities in and around the towns of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. That being the case, I want to put on the record again how deeply disappointed and, frankly, disgusted I am that the government-controlled Senate committee did not take the time to go to the communities directly affected by this legislation. It simply held a derisory phone hearing, packing in a small number of witnesses, all within a brief half-hour period. I'm sure each of us in this place knows those types of so-called hearings. The nature of the consultation was token in the extreme.

Of course, this issue of the cashless debit card trial is not new. There was legislation relating to this at the start of this year and a Senate committee inquiry into the wider idea of the trials at the end of last year. But, again, the committee did not go to Queensland. They did go and hold a hearing in Kalgoorlie, in an area that was going to be affected by the legislation, but they did not come to Queensland. The Senate quite rightly rejected the attempt at that time to expand the trials to parts of Queensland, and I very much urge the Senate to do the same again now.

Nothing has changed since then. The only thing, really, that has changed is that there is even more information about how badly designed the trial is. There is the very damning Auditor-General report into the trial to date, which I spoke to in this chamber last week, as well as the clear condemnation of the farcical assessment that was released by the government to try to justify the so-called effectiveness of the trials that have occurred to date. Other speakers on this legislation have already gone through the very strong and very valid criticisms of that so-called assessment, a classic case of an assessment designed to deliver what the government wanted to hear based on flimsy or flawed underpinnings. It delivers what I think, frankly, is a false picture of the reality of the impact of the trials where they're already happening. So, if anything, the Senate's got far more reason now to reject this attempt to expand the trial of the cashless debit card than it did when it rejected that aspect of the legislation earlier this year. I repeat my plea to fellow crossbenchers to consider this issue very carefully and to vote against it. It is clear that the numbers on this legislation are very tight, so I urge senators, particularly Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm, to please consider voting against this legislation.

I have been to Hervey Bay and spoken with many people there. I went there last year, before I was back in this place, with my colleague Senator Siewert, and again just a few weeks ago. I also went to a public meeting in Bundaberg on a Monday night, attended by over 50 people, and not just people who are going to be directly affected by this trial. In an effort to get the Senate to agree to this trial, the government has wound it back and reduced the number of people it would apply to—only people under 35 who are on Newstart and parenting payments, including sole parents. That shouldn't matter. There's no logic as to why it should do that. The only so-called logic is political logic: an attempt to try to make it more politically saleable, to reinforce the disgraceful, longstanding myth that people on unemployment and social security payments and sole parents somehow or other are bludgers and unable to manage their money. That should not be a reason to now vote to extend the trial; it should be another reason to vote against it. People receiving Newstart payments are amongst the best money managers in the country. They have to be, because their payments are so low.

The government is handing money over to a private financial company, rather than spending it on assisting people in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, particularly young people, to get jobs or on creating economic activity in those regions. The youth unemployment rate in those areas is significantly above the national and state averages. That's a reason to put more resources into stimulating the economy there with training; it's not a reason to waste money so that a financial corporation can make life even tougher for people receiving those social security payments.

Even just as a matter of principle—that a Senate committee refused to go and listen directly to the community the government wants to impose this on—I'd urge Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm to oppose this legislation. The mayor of Bundaberg, a former LNP state MP, has said on the record that he opposes this measure coming into his community, because the money would be better invested on services and job-generating activity. People can benefit from assistance to address substance abuse or gambling problems and any consequential financial challenges, but that should be personalised for those who need it, not a massive straitjacket imposed upon every single person solely on the criteria that they receive certain social security payments or are of a certain age.

There's no rationale whatsoever for discriminating in that way, other than the supposed political benefits of further demonising the unemployed and those people who receive social security payments. That is something this government specialises in. They don't have terribly many ideas, but the ones they do have usually involve demonising some of the least powerful, poorest parts of the community. They're very good at demonising and dividing. Make no mistake: this is another measure to do that. All you need to do is look at the public debates and some of the online commentary around the card, and you will see what is motivating it. That type of commentary appears whenever this issue is brought up. It's all about reinforcing the myths and stereotypes of people on social security payments as, somehow, bludgers—when, in so many cases, they are people who merit more support and assistance, rather than things that make their life harder.

I mentioned the mayor of Bundaberg before; I also mention the mayor of Hervey Bay, Councillor George Seymour. He was deputy mayor when I went to Hervey Bay last year; he's mayor now. He has spoken out quite eloquently against this card, not only the fact that it won't work for those people it's supposedly meant to assist but also the fact that it would be harmful to his community more broadly. I think, initially, Hervey Bay was seen as a place people went when they retired, but it's changed enormously in recent times. It's grown quite significantly as a community. Its local economy is very much driven now by tourism, by attracting people to the area because of its magnificent natural environment as well as its general attractiveness as a location. The last thing it needs is singling out as a community that has some sort of specific, unique social problem that merits this sort of measure, because it simply doesn't.

As many people who work in this field—with people on social security payments, and with younger people who need assistance because of substance abuse issues—have said: if anything, this is likely to increase related crime. Further restricting people's control over their own income is hardly going to assist them to better manage their situation.

It will impact on some of those small businesses that rely more significantly on the cash-based economy. There is no doubt about that. That is self-evident. The last thing we need is another measure that will somehow or other make it harder for small businesses but easier for the bigger companies and bigger retailers. We need to be encouraging diversity in the local economy, not further restricting the way that it operates.

I mentioned the public meeting I went to in Bundaberg. Many of the people there were not people who are going to be affected by the measure directly. In fact, the majority of them weren't. There were many there who are social security recipients; though they won't be subject to this trial because of their age, or because they're on disability or carer payments—at least at this stage, they aren't subject to this measure. But they know that measures like this reinforce the discrimination that they already face as people on social security payments, so they will still cop the public abuse. They will still cop the increased public cynicism that comes when these myths are reinforced by political leaders. And, of course, they know that the more this is rolled out, the more chance there is that it will become entrenched, and that it will become a measure that is slowly wound out to more and more of them and will eventually, potentially, catch them in its net.

Many of the other people at these meetings that I went to, in both Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, were people who worked in schools—for example, guidance officers. The supposed benefit of this card would be that it would help parents on Newstart or parenting payments to manage their money and, therefore, better able to have money available to feed their kids—those sorts of ideas. As I said, people on social security payments are amongst the best money managers in the country because they have to be. If there are challenges for people to get by, those challenges are magnified because of the inadequacy of the payments.

Many of those people at those meetings were from other local, not-for-profit organisations and support services that work in areas with low-income people. I mentioned that the mayor, George Seymour, had a background in youth work and working with people in the community around social issues. All of those who were there not only said this measure wouldn't work but that it would make things worse for the majority of people. There'll be a group of people who will be fine: they'll adapt, they'll work with it and all of that. It will just be another piece of unnecessary bureaucracy and a waste of government money for no great purpose. But there will be a group of people for whom this will make it harder—it will make it more challenging for them to get by. Part of how people do get by when they're on very low incomes is through the cash-based economy. It is through finding bargains at op shops and markets, or paying friends to do maintenance, and those sorts of things. This will make it more difficult for them to make those dollars stretch out as far as possible.

If the government want to assist people with managing their finances, and want to put money into this, how about they fund not-for-profit financial counselling better?

I had a visit yesterday from people from the financial counselling field, who pointed to the significant problems faced by people who need to manage their debt. I'm sure any of us here who had to get by on just the amount of Newstart would find it extremely hard not to end up in significant debt and having to juggle that. Household debt for people of all incomes is at record levels in Australia, and more and more people are becoming vulnerable to for-profit debt management firms that prey on people who have low incomes. I'm not talking about just payday lenders and the like; I'm talking about professional debt management firms, who advertise. I'm sure we've all seen the advertisements. They actually charge people and further exploit them, and there's no regulation around that industry.

If the government want to help, how about they better regulate the for-profit debt management organisations to ensure they don't exploit people in the way many of them do? How about they use the money that is being used on this card to properly fund financial counselling more generally—not-for-profit financial counselling? The federal government currently spends about $20 million to fund financial counselling services, and the states spend an estimated $26 million. There's certainly a significant and growing need there. More funding would go a long way in assisting people who do have genuine issues with managing their money and in protecting them from being exploited. We could put a levy on the industry to fund financial counselling, as happens in the UK and as already happens here regarding an industry levy to fund ASIC, for example. Those are the sorts of measures this government could use if it actually wanted to assist people who are having challenges with managing their income, rather than just putting a punishing straightjacket around an entire group of people and a using a measure that reinforces the stereotypes, the false prejudices and the myths around people who are unemployed.

We all know—and we've talked about this in different contexts in this place in recent weeks—how much responsibility we have as public leaders in the language we use, in making sure that we do not further divide the community, that we do not demonise and single out parts of the community. This is another group of people who are deliberately demonised and have been for a long, long time. Because of those debates we have acknowledged that it is damaging and harmful to people both as individuals and as a group—to our community and the general social fabric—when false myths and stereotypes are reinforced and peddled, or even if they're allowed to flourish without being countered. But that is what is going on here. That is why the government, even though they got part of their measures through at the start of this year, rolled this one out again straightaway, had a sham Senate committee inquiry and didn't bother going to the communities that they are actually going to target with this and are trying to push this up again.

It's a speciality of this government, whether in this type of area, in regard to social security recipients, or whether in other sections of the community, to demonise, single out and create division. That is the overarching goal of this measure. All the independent evidence and the experts in the field say it won't work, it won't deliver the supposed benefits that the government said is their motivation. So many of the people in the communities that are directly affected say they don't want it and that it will be harmful to their community in general, let alone to the individuals there. It's expenditure of public money that would be far better spent to create benefits on the ground in those communities, whether that be direct economic stimulation and employment or funding for some of the social services that work directly on the issues that the government says it's trying to address.

It is also, of course, a massive Big Brother measure. I would appeal to Senator Leyonhjelm—perhaps on those grounds, given his general dislike of red tape and regulation—that he not support the government in spending money to enforce more regulation and red tape, particularly in a discriminatory way against a particular part of the community in a particular part of the country. I again repeat my appeal to him and to Senator Storer to please vote against this legislation. Their votes will be the critical ones with regard to a piece of legislation where the government has made no effort to consult with the community and has made no effort, frankly, to work constructively on so many issues. There is Senator Leyonhjelm's experience of the government breaking the commitments that it had given him. This is a chance to demonstrate his unhappiness about that as well. There are many, many reasons to vote against this legislation, but perhaps the simplest one is that it won't work. Why waste more money on something that isn't going to work?

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:25): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. I have spoken before, in earlier debates on the cashless debit card, of my support for quarantining cash payments made to welfare recipients. I have done so after meeting with and listening to members of the communities where trials have been in place. I took part in the Kalgoorlie hearing of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and listened to the views of those directly and indirectly impacted by the scheme. I heard and evaluated the arguments both for and against. As a result, I voted in favour of the extension of the scheme to the Goldfields region of Western Australia and remain in favour of the cashless debit card.

The argument against the card is that quarantining welfare payments so that only 20 per cent is paid in cash is a human rights issue. I fail to see how ensuring that 80 per cent of a welfare support payment can't be spent on alcohol or drugs in any way impacts on an individual's human rights. The amount of payment they receive is not reduced; it is simply paid in a different way. Limiting the amount of money which can be spent on alcohol and be available to access illicit drugs means that there is more money for essential everyday items. Foremost, there is more money for adequate, decent food for the family. I have been told that the effect of the change in the Western Australian Goldfields is very noticeable. Parents are seen shopping at supermarkets for food for their children instead of hanging around, waiting for the pub to open.

The proposed expansion of the scheme to introduce a new trial to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions of my state is intended for a different purpose. It will apply only to persons aged 35 or less who receive Newstart allowance or youth allowance, apart from those who are new apprentices or full-time students or are on parenting payment. In doing so, it aims to address the high level of youth unemployment in the area, and especially the high level of intergenerational welfare dependency. It will not affect anyone who receives a disability payment and it will not apply to pensioners. There will be other exemptions, including young people who are on a new apprenticeship or are full-time students.

This area also has a high level of alcohol consumption and drug dependency among young people. In other words, the proposed trial will target the specific dual problems of youth unemployment and substance abuse in the region as a way of breaking intergenerational welfare dependency. Drug dealers depend on the cash economy. If we can reduce the amount of cash flowing in a community, it has to hurt the drug trade and reduce the high level of drugs which are available. Lessening dependence on alcohol and drugs will provide an opportunity for young people with drug or alcohol problems to address these problems and hopefully get on top of them.

This country provides wonderful opportunities for young people who are prepared to work and contribute to their community to prosper. It is of great concern to me that so many of our youth and young people in the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region are on welfare—either on youth allowance or on Newstart, or in receipt of parenting payments. It is appalling that this area of Queensland has the highest rate of intergenerational welfare dependency in the country. Something has to be done to address this for the benefit of the young welfare recipients themselves and the future of the region. Let's give them a chance by making welfare less appealing and encouraging them to get a job and become contributing members of their communities. The Bundaberg-Hervey Bay trial is intended to continue until 30 June 2020 to allow time to evaluate the scheme and decide whether it should be rolled out to other areas.

Having just listened to Senator Bartlett's comments, I just see it as bleeding heart, and so do a lot of other Australians. At the end of the day, this money is taxpayers' money. It is taxpayers who actually have to go and work, and abide by rules and regulations, either with the company they're working for or by guidelines under government policies, to earn their money. Out of their hard-earned money, they pay their taxes, and, because they do that, we're able to have these Newstart and youth allowance payments made to people who are not working. I think the taxpayer would dearly love to see that their hard-earned dollars are spent wisely and not just wasted. People on these welfare payments do have an obligation to the taxpayer. This is saying to these people: 'Okay, you're going to get 80 per cent of your cash payments put into an account and you can only use that money to pay for rent or food. You can buy things with it—there are shops that will say, "Yes, you can go and buy that." But they're putting restrictions on it. You're not going to be able to have the cash in your pocket to go and pay the drug dealers, you're not going to have the money in your pocket to go and play the poker machines and you're not going to have the money in your pocket to go and buy alcohol or even cigarettes.' What is wrong with that? Everyone wants their rights, but with rights come responsibilities, and the responsibilities here are about taxpayers' dollars.

Senator Bartlett says that this will increase crime. What a load of rubbish! Actually, the facts show that where it has been put out—in Ceduna, in the Northern Territory, in the Kimberley and in the Goldfields now—crime has actually reduced. The statistics show that kids are now getting better fed, that parents are buying decent foods and that this measure is actually helping the communities. I've spoken to Aboriginal groups and organisations that have said it has benefited and is benefiting them. This is all I said—it's about a bleeding heart attitude of taking away people's rights.

The town of Kalgoorlie was just about to go under. Businesses were fed up with the problems they had on their streets and were crying out for help and for something to be done. It's not only about the businesses here; we're talking about peoples' lives. Enough money has been thrown out to organisations over the years and nothing's changed. We have high youth unemployment in this country. There's no hope whatsoever. We see more and more younger kids turning to drugs, and you've got to ask yourselves why. We are one of the highest drug-taking nations in the world and more people are coming from overseas to peddle their drugs in this country. Senator Bartlett also says that it's harder to make dollars stretch further. This enables them to manage their moneys. It does enable them to spend their money in much better ways. To say that they've got to stretch their dollars further—what do we want? We give people a welfare payment, Newstart or youth allowance. We've got to stop the attitude that it's a way of life. It's not a way of life; it is a helping hand that is set up to help these people. We've got to encourage kids to get out there and look for work, to give them back their self-esteem and self-respect. Do you think that you're protecting them, paying out these welfare payments and saying we can't tell them what they can or should spend their money on? That's not helping them.

Talking about jobs in the area—that's why One Nation has been pushing for the apprenticeship scheme, which I know businesses will be very interested in taking up. This is something that both major political parties have let slide in this country, by shutting down the TAFEs and apprenticeship schemes. You haven't helped the youth in this country at all. When you have unemployment rates of even 25 and 30 per cent in some of these rural and regional areas then we have a real problem. I say to the people out there: I will be supporting this bill, as any commonsense person would. If you listen to Australian taxpayers, they are thoroughly behind this, because they have to abide by the rules and regulations. Don't forget: it's their hard-earned dollars. Why shouldn't restrictions be put on people to make sure they spend that money wisely?

Welfare recipients should be fully appreciative of this. They should be saying 'Thank you' to the taxpayers: 'Thank you for the opportunity to give me some money so that I can pay my bills and put food on my table.' Why shouldn't we ask that the money not be wasted? Why shouldn't they have an obligation to the taxpayer? But we have members and senators in this parliament saying, 'No, they shouldn't, because you're taking away their human rights'. I say that's a load of rubbish; it's absolute bunkum. We have a responsibility, not only to the taxpayer but to the youth, to ensure that we do our utmost to try and get them off drugs, to stop them wasting their money, to ensure they spend the money in their pockets wisely, and to ensure they are looked after to the best of their ability.

I will be supporting this bill, and I am pleased to see that the government have proceeded with it. Congratulations to them for bringing this forward, because I know it will help the people in the long run. There might be resistance initially, but I know that, in the long run, as has happened in the other areas, it will help the communities and it will help those young people.

Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (12:37): I've listened to the drama and hysteria coming from the other side of the chamber in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, and, I've got to say, it's melodrama at its finest. Honestly, some of you in here are worthy of an Oscar. The theatre in here is first-class. Right now, there are three trial areas for the cashless welfare card: one in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, one in Western Australia's Goldfields and the other in Ceduna in South Australia. I wonder how many of you in here have been to these trial sites. I've been to Kalgoorlie-Boulder a few times, once with Senator Hanson for a Senate hearing into the card, and, in all my dealings and all my conversations with community leaders, they've done nothing but hail and praise the cashless welfare card. In fact, Senator McAllister, who spoke earlier, may be interested in this. I have a media release from the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder where the local mayor, John Bowler—who, I might add, is a former state Labor minister—said the card 'is a success'.

The thing to remember here is that the cashless welfare card trial is exactly that: it's a trial. Labor and the Greens want to pour cold water over it, but let's hear from the horse's mouth about some of the successes of this card in some of these areas. Police are reporting that the level of antisocial behaviour on the streets is clearly down. Bottle-shop retailers report that there are considerably fewer disturbances around their premises. Mr Bowler, the mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, went on to say that loopholes, whereby card recipients were finding ways of obtaining cash or liquor on the cashless part of the welfare card, were being shut down and that the number of complaints was falling as the cardholders themselves learnt that in most cases the level of inconvenience was minimal. A media statement also refers to one liquor retailer who reported that the card had seen a decrease in sales of liquor in general through his bottle shop and that this measure, combined with the responsible service of alcohol, had seen a decline in store incidents and street drinking in the vicinity. This is a statement from the Mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder only five days ago. He has heaped praise on the welfare card. I'd be more inclined to believe the local leader than some of the antics that go on in here, especially from those senators who are always pandering to their ideological agendas.

Senator STORER (South Australia) (12:40): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. This is an issue that has troubled me deeply. The most recent data indicates that close to three million people, more than 13 per cent of all Australians, are living below the poverty line, despite a quarter of a century of continuous growth. More than 700,000 children are living below the poverty line, and the number has been growing. I find this unacceptable.

With regard to the cashless debit card, I am alert to the claims of restrictions on the autonomy of people to live their own lives. I'm aware of the deficiencies in the evaluations so far conducted. I noted in my first speech my concern about the failures revealed in the latest Closing the Gap statement. Ten years after COAG agreed on the strategy, the results are patchy at best and scandalous at worst. A decade later, four of the seven targets are nowhere near being met. The target to close the gap on school attendance is not on track, the target to halve the gap in reading and numeracy is not on track, the target to halve the gap in employment is not on track, and the target to close the gap in life expectancy is not on track. The government now wishes to extend these trials to an area with a distinctly different demographic to the East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Ceduna, and to a different cohort focus. That is what this bill specifically deals with.

The Department of Social Services noted in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee:

Bundaberg and Hervey Bay has a high level of long-term and intergenerational welfare dependency … Ninety per cent of the people in this region under 30 and on Newstart or Youth Allowance, had a parent or guardian who received income support at some point in the last 15 years. Further still, of that cohort, around 13 per cent had a parent or guardian who received income support at least once each year for the past 15 years.

I have already declared my support for an immediate and substantial increase to the rate of Newstart and, related to that, parenting payments, and I have supported motions calling for an increase of $75 a week to Newstart.

The objective of this trial is to learn more about whether limiting the proportion of welfare payments available to be spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling will lead to a reduction in community-level harm. There have been improvements in the implementation of the card in the Goldfields trial, compared with the initial two trials. I am seeking assurance that the evaluation of the trials will meet the highest standards of best practice so that, after the trials have been completed, the parliament will seek an independent review of the evaluation of the evidence and the data to see whether this drastic approach can work and win broader community support. I noted that the Audit Office found significant issues with the evaluations of the original trials. This is why I believe that the Senate and the parliament need to have an additional safeguard designed to bring about better evaluation of the trials and to benchmark their quality or deficiency.

I have always said that I will treat each piece of legislation on its merits and on the basis of evidence and data. With that in mind, the amendment that I'm proposing would require the minister and the government to conduct an independent review of the evaluation of the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay trial. The review would have to be undertaken by independent evaluation experts with significant expertise in the social and economic aspects of welfare policy. It must begin immediately; after the minister receives its initial evaluation, it must be completed within six months; and it must be conducted by an independent panel with expertise in the social and economic aspects of welfare policy. The experts would consult participants in the trial and make recommendations as to whether the cashless welfare arrangements in the trial were effective and should be implemented elsewhere. This process means—

Debate interrupted.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (15:04): Under standing order 74(5), I ask Senator Michaelia Cash, the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, for an explanation as to why Senate order for the production of documents 954, relating to documents concerning the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, has not been complied with.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Jobs and Innovation) (15:05): Yesterday, I tabled with the President a letter of explanation, and I will read it for the Hansard record: 'Dear Mr President, I write with regard to the Senate order for the production of documents 954, relating to documents concerning the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Given the short period of time since the order was made and the wide scope of the order, encompassing a Commonwealth department and agency, further time will be required to respond. A response will be provided to the Senate as soon as possible. I have copied this letter to Senator Cormann and Senator Carr. Yours sincerely, Michaelia Cash.' That is dated 21 August 2018—that is, yesterday—and I have confirmed with my office that Senator Carr's office was provided with a copy of this response.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (15:06): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

It's an extraordinary claim by the minister that simply providing the President with a letter to say that she needs more time should be satisfactory to this chamber. This is a proposition that is not just a matter of a few days; it was first moved two months ago—two months ago. In the first iteration of this proposition, it was directed at both the CSIRO and AIMS; and, in that case of the first iteration of this, the CSIRO had no difficulty responding. But this minister accepts the nonsense that AIMS should be exempted from this proposition.

There's a simple explanation here. The minister's office is absolutely more chaotic than the rest of the Turnbull government. Now, that's saying something. Equally, it's quite clear that this minister is preoccupied with what the Australian Federal Police are doing. She's not concentrating on doing her job. She's not concentrating on actually fulfilling her obligations to this chamber. She's preoccupied with what the Federal Police are saying to her and about the prospects of being charged for what is clearly a criminal offence—the actions that were taken in regard to the AWU raids. It is abundantly clear now: the actions of this minister, who's not able to even manage her office, let alone manage the affairs of the statutory authorities for which she is of course responsible.

What is equally clear is that there's been a botched arrangement in regard to half a billion dollars being allocated to the Prime Minister's very, very wealthy mates—arrangements that have been entered into because the Prime Minister effectively panicked. He panicked because President Obama, in November 2014, made the observation that he wanted the Great Barrier Reef to be there for his grandkids to see. Some two years later, nothing had been done. This is a government that had a windfall advantage in terms of its receipts. Instead of going through the normal processes of procurement, or through a normal appropriation, for public good research by a public sector research agency, it chose to hand out half a billion dollars, under the most extraordinary of circumstances, to a group of incredibly wealthy men and women that happen to be directly connected with the Prime Minister.

What we sought to do was get information from the CSIRO and from AIMS, and two months ago we asked the Senate to agree to an order for the production of documents. The Senate agreed. The CSIRO was able to respond, but AIMS was not, according to this minister. So I reduced the scope of the request, to assist the minister. What do we find even there? That, instead of doing her job, this minister gives us a lousy letter and says 'Well, that should satisfy you.'

Under the normal arrangements in the Senate, the normal courtesies were extended. I waited a little while and then got my office to ring up the minister's office and say 'Well, when will they be available?' In a very offhand way, her office replied 'Well maybe in the next sitting period.' With this government, you wouldn't be certain there will be a next sitting period, because this government is, of course, preoccupied with its own survival, not with meeting its obligations to this parliament. With all the attendant speculation about an early election, I think we are entitled to see what's been going on with the allocation of such an extraordinary amount of money. I understand that the Liberal Party is somewhat distracted this week. I understand that this has been an extraordinary set of difficulties, with the Prime Minister about to be dismissed, probably as early as tomorrow. But I don't think that's any excuse for the minister to allow her office not to do any of its work.

But, of course, that assumes that you've got a functioning office. In the Industry portfolio, we know that people are flat out even getting an appointment, let alone meeting elementary requirements for the production of documents for this chamber. We know the really basic reason for that is that the AFP takes up so much of this minister's time. We know that this minister has made a great pretence that there's been no fallout from that raid or from her obsession with playing politics with this parliament. But now we know that, over the last 300 days, about all she has done is try to defend her indefensible position, in terms of the fact that there has been such an extraordinary abuse of power by this government in regard to its pursuit of the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party, and in regard to her behaviour.

Senator Cameron: Six hundred grand.

Senator KIM CARR: Six hundred grand—$600,000, as Senator Cameron makes the point here. We know what the real anxiety is here. It's not doing your job. It's actually trying to protect yourself against the criminal charges that are now in the offing.

This OPD was a very simple proposition: the production of documents in regard to the Great Barrier Reef, one of the great international symbols of the future of the environmental questions that face this country. We have the most extraordinary and unorthodox disbursement of the taxpayers' money in the granting of the $444 million to this private charity, with no regular process and nothing resembling due diligence. We know that within the scientific agencies—the people we rely upon in this country to provide that patient science, that public accountability and that expertise, and who can do so on the basis that they understand that the public is behind them and their expertise in being able to deliver the advice to this nation about how to protect one of our great national assets, and indeed one of the great international assets—people have been talking to one another about the consequences of this government's actions. We also know that this grant—which was announced on 29 April and included in the May budget—was made under the most extraordinary of circumstances. We know what is happening in the CSIRO. We know that the officers there said that this was an amazing level of duplication, of waste and of extraordinary capacity to actually frustrate the work of our scientists. We know that this was an outrageous abuse of proper processes, and I think we're entitled to see what AIMS, the other great public research agency in this country, says.

The Australian Institute of Marine Science, along with James Cook University and various other research agencies in that part of Queensland, have had an amazing reputation for the quality of their work.

To think that funding a private organisation—a private organisation that has beach parties as, essentially, its key function, and an annual beach party as its main level of activity, for which you pay a subscription to network around a helipad—is the basis on which we should now conduct fundamentally important environmental research about such a massively important public asset strikes me as an extraordinary proposition. The lack of transparency involved with this measure highlights the fact that this government essentially panicked. The Prime Minister's mates at the big end of town thought, 'We can get away with this and no-one will really notice'.

We also know what is a pretty simple proposition: this is a government, whether it be under Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull or perhaps someone else now—we don't really know but it's probably Dutton—that has had an appalling attitude towards science, and this minister demonstrates that in spades. We started with the position under Tony Abbott where there was no science minister at all—none whatsoever. Then there was an outcry and Minister Macfarlane came onto the scene. Then there was Minister Pyne. Then there was Minister Hunt. Then there was Minister Sinodinos. Then, of course, the parliamentary secretary, Senator Seselja. We don't know whether he's in or out of the government. We don't know if he's actually sworn a new declaration of allegiance to the Prime Minister or not. But, given he's the numbers man for Mr Dutton, it's unlikely that any commitment he has given at the moment to be thoroughly loyal to the Prime Minister could mean anything, so we don't really know whether he's in or out. He's certainly not a minister for science: he's a parliamentary secretary and assistant minister. We've gone back to the old position of no minister for science. Every nine months or so, we've got a new person in charge of science in this government. We went from Tony Abbott, where the concept of climate change was not to be discussed at all. The word was a bit like 'innovation', it was to be banned. We went to Mr Turnbull who then said, of course: 'The word innovation has to be used in every sentence, irrespective of the context'. We can only imagine what it would be like with Mr Dutton.

What we do know is this is not the way to deal with the big issues with regard to the Great Barrier Reef—handing out half a billion dollars to some rich mates, so they can have a beach party once a year. We have to deal with these questions in a substantive way. When this Senate asks for basic documents, we're entitled to see them. Or, the minister should come in here and give a proper explanation, not hand a letter to the President and say, 'I need more time', and think that that will be enough. That's essentially what we've got at the moment. This is a minister that, frankly, is not interested in her job. She's not interested in actually fulfilling the functions of a minister, and ought to resign, along with the rest of this government. We ought to be able to go to the Australian people and let them decide. Let them decide about the future of this country, because, clearly, this government is not capable of it.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:18): What a rambling, pathetic, nonsensical speech—not a speech, a shouting match from Senator Carr. Perhaps the worst minister that even the Labor Party has produced, he presided over the failure of the car industry in Australia and he did nothing, absolutely nothing, for marine science during the time he was in charge of it. And, more or less, with all his political comments, this is the guy who—I understand—the Labor Party didn't want to endorse. The guy who Mr Shorten removed from his front bench, and he only put him back when there was a bit of a revolt amongst Senator Carr's three or four supporters. This is the guy that couldn't even turn up to the preselection of the former Deputy President—the guy who supported Senator Carr, but Senator Carr couldn't even respond and help his mate out at the time of his preselection.

Those who listened to that rambling tirade—that shouting match, that irrelevant speech—mightn't have bothered, because Senator Carr has little credibility in this place and within his own party. I enter this debate only because of some of the outrageous smears that Senator Carr indulged himself in—which should have been addressed by the chair, I might say. The comment that Senator Cash is facing criminal charges is just an outright lie. As has been said in this chamber so many times, Senator Cash is not under investigation. If there is anyone under investigation, it could be a former member of Senator Cash's staff. Whilst the Labor Party rail on about that, we forget what that raid was all about. It was all about Mr Bill Shorten, as the leader of the AWU some years ago, wrongly appropriating some funds to his own benefit. The police investigation is not about Senator Cash but about misconduct by Mr Bill Shorten before he entered this parliament—or perhaps as he was entering this parliament, because he is alleged to have misappropriated money to himself from other sources for his election campaign.

Madam Deputy President, you and members of the Labor Party may not like these comments—which, as you know, are accurate—but when Senator Carr gets up and makes the outlandish, untrue, lying accusations he did then they have to be responded to. I know the Labor Party are fixated with police investigations, because Senator Keneally is in this place now, and two of the ministers from her government are now serving jail terms for real criminal offences. Senator Keneally put these ministers into her cabinet when she was the Premier of New South Wales. These two men were great friends with Senator Doug Cameron. I don't like raising these matters, but when the Labor Party is continually carrying on in a lying way about Senator Cash and others then I have to respond in kind. To paraphrase what that former great Labor leader Mark Latham once said about Graham Richardson, 'If Senator Cameron wanted to go and meet his mates for a reunion party, he'd have to do it in jail,' because that's where the guys who protected Senator Cameron, and whom he subsequently protected, are now.

I could spend an hour speaking in this chamber about Labor members of parliament who are now in jail. Remember that Orkopoulos fellow, a minister from New South Wales who ended up in jail on paedophilia charges? Remember Gordon Nuttall from my state of Queensland, a minister in a Labor government, who ended up in jail for accepting bribes—proved and convicted in court? I don't like raising these things, but when the likes of Senator Cameron and Senator Carr continually raise lying comments about Senator Cash and others then they can expect this sort of response from me. I could go on with any number of Labor Party people. Remember Keith Wright, the leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, then a member down here, in jail for indecent dealings with children? Remember Bill D'Arcy, a member of the Queensland Labor government, in jail for similar offences? If you go through the annals of New South Wales Labor politicians, you'll find many of them in jail. You know why my namesake—

Senator Pratt: You are trying to justify your own failing to answer questions before this place with more examples of outright corruption—

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Pratt.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thanks, Senator Pratt, I'll take that interjection to get that on the record. As I said, Senator Pratt, for as long as the likes of Senator Cameron and Senator Carr will continue to lie about—

Senator Pratt: Madam Deputy President—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: We must be getting close to the mark here!

Senator Pratt: A point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Macdonald accused members on this side of continuing to lie, and accusing people of lying is against the standing orders.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: As I've said before, some of the allegations made by the likes of Senator Cameron and Senator Carr, they know are not true. They know they are lies. Yet they continue to make them. Senator Pratt, for as long as people on your side will continue to tell lies about Senator Cash and others, then you will get this response from me. I'll come next time with real details of members of the Labor Party, parliamentarians from the Labor Party, who are now currently in jail and have been in jail.

Senator Pratt: Should Senator Cash be in jail?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You clearly weren't listening, Senator Pratt. Again I'll take your interjection. As Senator Cash and everyone has known—and you know; you've been in the estimates committee with me when these outrageous allegations have been raised—Senator Cash is not under investigation. If anyone is, it is a former member of her staff, but related to what? It is related to a criminal investigation into whether Mr Bill Shorten, the current Leader of the Australian Labor Party, when he was trying to get into parliament, misused $40,000 of other people's money to fund his election campaign. That's what this is all about. That's what the police investigation is about; it is not into Senator Cash, not into Senator Cash's staff but into Mr Bill Shorten and the AWU. As I said, for as long as this continues to be raised by the likes of Senator Carr and Senator Cameron, you'll get the truth back from me about criminal activity—actual criminal activity, proven criminal activity—of Senator Cameron's mates.

Senator Cameron's mate Mr Eddie Obeid—why is he in jail? I don't have the exact details, but it was something like this, according to the media: he arranged with Mr Ian Macdonald—regrettably my name, but, as I always hasten to add, this was a member of the Labor Party in the upper house of the New South Wales parliament—the bad Ian Macdonald, to give some money to a union guy who could then get a preferential allocation of a coal licence which was worth millions and millions of dollars. It was all arranged by Mr Obeid and the bad Ian Macdonald, one of Senator Cameron's mates. You can understand why the Labor Party, Senator Cameron and Senator Carr particularly, are fixated with police inquiries, because there are so many police inquiries into members of the Labor Party that they obviously dream and sleep it every night.

The attack on the Great Barrier Reef Foundation that I think contained part of Senator Carr's allegation is, again, clearly as unsustainable as almost everything else that he said. The truth of the matter is that this government is determined to look after our marine environment. As I often say, even the conservation groups put out a glossy brochure titled A Big Blue Legacy: The Liberal National Tradition of Marine Conservation. That's not put out by the Liberal Party. It's put out by conservation groups, who go through in detail—and I invite people to have a look at it—all of the serious, actual advancements made in our marine environment by the Liberal and National governments. I've been here a long time and I know the Labor Party have never done anything. The Greens talk about it all the time and do nothing except send their former leader, Bob Brown, in his Sea Shepherd boat up to Cairns harbour and into the centre of the Great Barrier Reef, dropping oil all over Cairns harbour. That's the Greens' contribution to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef!

This government, in April this year, announced an additional $500 million investment to secure the future of the reef. That included $443 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. If you listened to Senator Carr, you would think the foundation—what he calls 'Malcolm Turnbull's rich mates'; this is how Senator Carr described them—put $444 million in their pockets and went out and bought a yacht, ran a big party, upgraded their house perhaps. That's what you'd think, if anyone believed Senator Carr. But I don't think there would be many people in Australia who would believe anything he said, let alone that accusation. This money went to a foundation with a track record in gaining other money from the private sector to contribute to the Great Barrier Reef. This foundation received that money. It all went through the proper processes and has been ticked off by all the relevant authorities.

The funding agreement is a robust one, and it sets out the terms of the partnership. That agreement is readily available for Senator Carr to read, if he could be bothered to do that. But, of course, he doesn't want to do that because then he would know the truth of the matter and would know that everything he says is an absolute and outright misrepresentation. The agreement requires the foundation to implement a strong governance framework, including safeguards to provide assurance over the funds, including against fraud, unlawful activities and other inappropriate conduct. It's all there in the agreement. The department undertook a thorough risk assessment of the grant proposal. The agreement requires a detailed planning and design process in the early stages to address the identified risks and successfully deliver this new investment into the Great Barrier Reef.

What the government was looking for was a partner who could leverage off government funding, and the foundation has a proven track record on this. It attracts substantial funding from the private sector. It's raised more than $90 million for the reef and, of this, about $87 million has come from corporate, philanthropic and other non-government sources. It's demonstrated its ability to deliver benefits to the reef and deliver government funding appropriately. An example of that is the Raine Island Recovery Project, which it did in partnership with BHP Billiton. The foundation engages some of Australia's leading philanthropists as well as scientists from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and universities. The foundation will deliver funds to a range of partners experienced in delivering reef protection action, and it will drive a new capacity and partnership for the reef.

I suspect that Senator Carr, even when he was the minister responsible for science, has rarely been to the Great Barrier Reef. As I have said often in this chamber, I am one of the few senators, perhaps the only senator, who actually lives adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. I know the Great Barrier Reef. I've been there often. I interact with people in my home town of Ayr, in Townsville where my office is, and in Cairns, representing the people there. I know what happens on the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Carr has no knowledge of or interest in the Great Barrier Reef. All he does is get up in this chamber and make unfounded accusations against hardworking, honest and forward-thinking ministers in this government.

The money that the Turnbull government is putting into the Great Barrier Reef is for many, many purposes, one of which is the crown-of-thorns starfish. The Greens would have you believe that the crown-of-thorns starfish is simply a result of climate change in the last few years. Of course, the issue of the crown-of-thorns starfish has been going for, I think, about 100 years, but certainly for 50 or 60 years. I remember as a small child hearing about Ben Cropp and his first work to try and address the crown-of-thorns starfish. Part of the money that is being provided for the reef will be to increase the number of boats and the number of divers who go out and pick up the starfish. I'm not a scientist, but that seems to me to be not a terribly effective way of addressing the crown-of-thorns starfish. I have raised it with people from AIMS, the universities and GBRMPA. I've said, 'Is that an effective way to do it?' and they've told me it is. We are going to increase the number of boats that go out and the number of divers who go out and pick up the crown-of-thorns starfish.

In so many ways, this government and our predecessor government are the ones that look after the Great Barrier Reef. I remember when I was fisheries minister that it wasn't much welcomed in the fishing community—although they eventually did accept the sense of this—when a coalition government set up the green zones in the Barrier Reef. Yet you never get a word of thanks from the Greens political party about the real work that has been done to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

I have responded to Senator Carr's untruthful accusations and I will do so every time they are raised. I know that the Senate wants to get on with other matters. There is an agenda before us, which the Labor Party often disrupt with these questions about answers taken on notice and documents that have been asked to be produced not being produced. Senator Cash gave a very reasonable explanation of why it has not been possible to give the answers that are required at this time. As I understood Senator Cash, the answers are being sought but they do require a lot of work by a lot of different agencies. She was asked why they weren't. She gave a very clear, reasonable and short explanation of it. That was followed by a 15-minute tirade from Senator Carr about nothing—about nothing that was relevant to the question before the chamber.

For as long as the Labor Party think they can get up and make these sorts of unfounded accusations, besmirching the good character of the ministers of this government, they'll get me responding for 20 minutes to explain the truth of the matter. So, I would hope that they don't continue to waste the time of the Senate with these unfounded accusations and these political tirades being shouted at those of us who have the misfortune to stay in the chamber. But, for as long as they do, they will have me responding to them, because I'm not going to let—I won't use the description I would like to—some senators of Senator Carr's standing besmirch honest, hardworking ministers in the way he often chooses to do.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:14): At the request of Senator O'Neill, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 995, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to NBN Co, be taken as a formal motion.

The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

Senator O'Sullivan: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: There is an objection to the motion being taken as formal.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:15): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to freedom of information, and for related purposes—Freedom of Information Legislation Amendment (Improving Access and Transparency) Bill 2018.

Question agreed to.

Senator PATRICK: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and now be read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator PATRICK: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The purpose of this Bill, the Freedom of Information Legislation Amendment (Improving Access and Transparency) Bill 2018 is to introduce measures that make government more transparent and accountable, and assist citizens and the media to access information under the law.

The Bill amends the Archives Act 1983, the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010, and the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Bill reflects amendments that were moved to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018.

These amendments are designed to significantly improve the effectiveness of Australia's freedom of information (FOI) laws. Freedom of information provides the lawful means for citizens, the media, and parliamentarians to obtain access to information that ultimately belongs to the public.

These changes are designed to address the considerable dysfunction that has developed in our FOI system which is now characterised by chronic bureaucratic delay and obstruction, unacceptably lengthy review processes and what appears to be an increased preparedness by agencies to incur very large legal expenses to oppose the release of information.

The Bill also seeks to restore the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) with the appointment of three independent Commissioners as was the intention of the Parliament.

As Senators will be aware, the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 (AIC Act) establishes three independent statutory officers; the Information Commissioner, the FOI Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner.

Currently, the Information Commissioner, Mr Timothy Pilgrim, is also acting as the Privacy Commissioner while the FOI Commissioner's role is vacant because Mr Pilgrim does not hold the appropriate legal qualifications.

Soon after the passage of the AIC Act, Professor John McMillan was appointed as Australian Information Commissioner, Dr James Popple was appointed FOI Commissioner and Mr Pilgrim was appointed Privacy Commissioner. All were appointed for five-year terms.

However in 2014, the Abbott Government introduced a Bill which sought to abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This Bill was rejected by the Senate and after the prorogation of the 44th Parliament, the Turnbull Government decided to keep the office open. However, the vacancies made by the departure of Professor McMillian and Mr Popple were never filled.

Mr Pilgrim performed all three Commissioner roles and was charged with the additional task of implementing the 'Open Government Partnership' which the Turnbull Government committed itself to. However he could not fill the FOI Commissioner's role because he did not have the necessary legal qualifications required by the AIC Act.

Instead he made FOI decisions through a loophole in the legislation that permits the Information Commissioner, a position that does not require legal qualification, to make such decisions.

Following Mr Pilgrim's departure in March this year, the three hats of the OAIC have been worn by Ms Angelene Falk who as Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner also leads the agency's freedom of information function.

The Government has advertised the position, making it clear that it intends to continue the practice of having a single Commissioner perform all three functions.

It is hard to credit the Government with a very deep commitment to freedom of information while it leaves the office of the Australian Information Commissioner hamstrung in this way.

The specific changes contained in this Bill include:

Requiring the government to fill all three offices of the Australian Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Freedom of Information Commissioner.

Allowing FOI review applicants to elect to have their matter bypass the Information Commissioner, who can take more than a year to make a decision on controversial issues, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Granting an FOI applicant the right to switch a review into the AAT, without charge, in the event that the Information Commissioner takes, or indicates he or she will take, more than 120 days to make a decision.

Preventing agencies from making submissions to FOI decision reviews that have not been advanced by the agency in its internal decision making, so that they can't switch exemptions half way through a review as often happens now. This would prevent a current practice that, in effect, this allows an agency to remake decision half way through a review, something not normally permitted in merits reviews being run in superior jurisdictions.

Preventing the Information Commissioner from making FOI decisions if he or she does not hold the legal qualifications required of the FOI Commissioner (as happens now).

Preventing agencies from publishing information released under FOI until at least 10 days after the applicant has received his or her copy of the information.

Requiring an agency to publish its external legal expenses for each Information Commission or AAT FOI matter that has concluded. This would apply in relation to agency FOI legal expenses and to expenses incurred by the National Archives in respect of applications made for access to information under the Archives Act 1983.

This is a comprehensive array of reforms that reflect the practical experience of constituents, journalists, researchers and members of Parliament seeking information under Freedom of Information.

The passage of this Bill will significantly improve access to government information and with that improve scrutiny of the accountability of government to the Parliament.

Freedom of Information is an absolutely vital part of efforts to ensure that the executive government is accountable to the Parliament and the people.

As a Senator, and previously as a staffer working for former Senator Xenophon, I have found FOI enormously valuable, if at times equally frustrating.

It is a pity that more Senators and Members do not take advantage of our FOI laws, flawed as they may be. I would urge them to do so, both in Opposition and in Government, and urge them to look positively at the reforms proposed here.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Senator PATRICK: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:17): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century be extended to the second sitting Tuesday in February 2019.

Question agreed to.

Senator STORER (South Australia) (16:18): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, and for related purposes—Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving the Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018.

Question agreed to.

Senator STORER: 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.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:31): I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that the following orders for the production of documents have been directed to the Minister for Defence, and as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Payne:

(a) on 9 November 2016, for documents relating to the Future Submarine Design and Mobilisation Contract – while a redacted version of the contract was provided on 1 December 2016, on 8 February 2017, the Senate rejected the public interest immunity claim made in relation to contractual intellectual property rights and the documents remain outstanding;

(b) on 4 September 2017, for documentation relating to the Future Frigate tender process – the Senate rejected the minister’s claim of public interest immunity, but the documents were later released under freedom of information legislation;

(c) on 12 February 2018, for documents relating to the Australian Industry Capability Plan, submitted by DCNS to the Department of Defence in its response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process – the minister was required to attend the chamber on 10 May 2018 to make a statement, and the documents were later released under freedom of information legislation; and

(d) on 20 June 2018, for documents from the Final Cost Estimate Template that DCNS submitted in response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process – the Senate rejected the minister’s claim of public interest immunity on 28 June 2018 and the documents remain outstanding.

(2) The Senate orders that:

(a) the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry be required to attend the Senate on 17 September 2018, at 10 am, to explain why the minister has not complied with the order numbered 862 for the production of documents; and

(b) any senator may move a motion to take note of the minister’s statement and any such motion may be debated for no longer than one hour, and have precedence over all government business until determined.

(3) If, at the completion of the debate any senator is not satisfied as to the explanation, and noting the minister has consistently defied the will of the Senate in respect of its rulings on public interest immunity, the senator may move a motion in the following terms: That the Senate resolves that, until such time as the Senate resolves that it is satisfied that the order for the production of documents numbered 862 has been complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry shall be prohibited from sitting on the frontbench seats reserved for ministers, and be allocated a seat by the President in another seat.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator PATRICK: My motion relates to a $100 billion expenditure on submarines that has had very little scrutiny. I have moved the motion in circumstances where there have been three orders for the production of documents and the Senate has insisted on the provision of the documents but the minister has refused to do so. On two of those occasions, I then went and got an FOI whereby the documents were released to me as a regular citizen. That tells you there's something very, very wrong going on here.

This motion provides an opportunity for us to debate the minister's latest explanation and to impose a modest sanction if the Senate is not satisfied. This is a lesser motion than a censure but one with symbolic and practical effect. I understand Labor may move to separate this motion. I just ask Labor if they could provide some explanation as to why they wouldn't support enforcing the orders of the Senate?

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (16:32): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator KIM CARR: On behalf of the Labor Party, I seek leave to separate the motion so that section (3) be voted on separately. In doing so, might I explain that the Labor Party's view is that the orders for the production of documents should be taken seriously and that the proposition as advanced provides for the minister to provide a proper explanation to the Senate as to why this has not been complied with and whether or not additional information can be provided that has not been provided to date, particularly given that the minister is representing a minister from the House of Representatives and that material has been provided to the financial review which hasn't been provided to the Senate. As a party of government, we don't support actions being taken as outlined in section (3) of this motion and we will be voting against it. We would ask that the government take note of that, because what comes around goes around in these circumstances.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:33): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government maintains its public interest immunity claim on the basis that the final cost estimate template prepared by DCNS, now trading as Naval Group, as part of its response to the Future Submarine competitive evaluation process contains material that is commercially confidential, including fee and price details and special terms unique to the Future Submarine program. The disclosure of this may adversely affect the Commonwealth's ongoing contractual negotiations with Naval Group and the future supply of information or services to the Commonwealth. The release may also affect Australia's international relations, specifically with France.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:34): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: The Greens will be supporting this motion for an order for the production of documents. There is already too little transparency around defence spending in this country. In the last two years, we have seen from this government a record increase in defence expenditure since the Second World War. We've seen a new plan for Australia to become a top 10 global weapons exporter. To use a submarine analogy, it's not a good enough excuse for the Labor Party to come into this place in lock step with the Liberal Party under silent running, not being able to be scrutinised because you're going to be a party of government. That's the whole problem: being in lock step on national security when we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on critical projects that the Australian people need information about. The more transparency the better, and we applaud Senator Patrick for bringing this motion forward today.

The PRESIDENT: Following the wish expressed by the senator, I will be putting paragraphs 1 and 2 of motion No. 981 separately to paragraph 3. So the question is that paragraphs 1 and 2 of motion No. 981 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that paragraph 3 of motion No. 981 be agreed to.