Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:31): I rise to speak in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. People are not entitled to welfare. It is charity. It's the gift of taxpayers, and most taxpayers would like their gift of welfare to be provided in kind rather than in cash. So, while calling the cashless debit card a trial is wearing a little thin, I continue to be comfortable with the continuation of the expansion of the cashless debit card. But let me propose another expansion. Let's provide remuneration to parliamentarians through the cashless debit card, and let's work on their incentives by adjusting their remuneration according to how well they look after the government's finances. All parliamentarians who vote for increasing government spending can compensate us by accepting a hit to their remuneration. A single downward adjustment to their debit card balance would do it. Attempting to shepherd the unemployed into employment through programs such as the cashless debit card is laudable, but the ballooning budget deficit is only part of the government's financial problem. So let's extend the cashless debit card to the parliamentarians who've got us into this financial hole so they can put their money where their mouth is.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (09:33): I speak this morning on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, once again dismayed to hear the discriminatory and absolutely factless rhetoric around those who access and utilise their right to access the social safety net that we are once again descending to. We don't seem to be able to have a conversation about the nature of our social safety net, about the realities of being vulnerable in modern-day Australia, about the true nature of poverty in this country, without indulging ourselves in the most disgraceful rhetoric. If I hear once more in this place that the best form of welfare is a job by those who have sat in this place and not worked any semblance, in the last 30 years, of what the vast majority of the Australian public would consider to be an everyday regular job then I will puke.

We are so disconnected in this place. With the average income of those who sit here, the privilege from which we so often descend to take up these places and the absence in our everyday life of interactions with the realities faced by the vast majority of the Australian people, we do not know or experience—and we block our ears when people come before us and tell us about—the realities of life. This bubble in which we exist and this profound sense of unreality by which we are surrounded, combined I am sure with a wilful ignorance, are the only factors which can explain a legislature's desire to enact such a destructive, corrosive and fundamentally baseless policy as the cashless welfare card.

My esteemed colleague Senator Rachel Siewert has on more occasions than I can remember elucidated to this house in great detail each individual element which is so flawed and wrong about this proposed scheme, and yet it has fallen on deaf ears. It has been ignored, because fundamentally those in the government who propose this way forward do not care. They do not believe that poverty, vulnerability and economic struggle are the result of systems failing. They subscribe to the absurd belief that poverty is the result of moral failing and that success and living in wealth and comfort are the result of moral virtue. This is the world view to which this government subscribes, and it has the cheek, the audacity and the bloody-minded ignorance to suggest over and over again that the most vulnerable, those who are most struggling, must pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that if they cannot then that is their own fault. I notice at this moment that the honourable Father of the Senate, Senator Macdonald, is exiting the chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, it's not appropriate to reference whether senators are in or out of the chamber. You don't have any idea of the commitments or otherwise of other senators. I'd ask you to withdraw that.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: Apologies. I withdraw that. I would note that certain members of the government have on many occasions advocated the continuation of—and set forth why they believe it is right that they should receive—previous parliamentary remuneration schemes that are quite generous in nature and, in the same breath, turn around and support schemes such as this.

My state of WA has been subjected to this experiment, this act of social engineering, that is the cashless welfare card. I observe that it is not, however, communities of great wealth in WA where this scheme is being trialled. It was not to Peppermint Grove that the government turned to trial this scheme. It was not even to metropolitan WA. No, they turned to rural communities. It just shows, once again, the disdain that the government has for communities who are struggling.

Make no mistake—this House can be under no illusion that the trial sites that have been set forward are the end. This is not an aberration; this is the beginning. This is what conservatives in this place would like to see our social safety net become. They look at the entrenched disadvantage and look at the intergenerational poverty, as seen in places such as the United States, and they think it right. They think it preferable. There they see a society where members of their establishment are not held back and don't have their wealth diverted for those as unworthy as people struggling. It is a disgraceful ideology. As somebody who comes proudly from an area of WA that experiences these things in reality, I do not speak against this bill today in the absence of lived experience of what it is like to experience poverty and fear and to not know what the next day will bring.

This chamber, this building, has been consumed for the last week with the most disgraceful forms of self-interested, self-obsessed naval-gazing. The nation is united in disgust with this legislature, with this parliament and with this government. We have seen a decade of an endless process of repetition and of replacement, of polls ruling political discussion and of weak-willed cowardice on behalf of leader after leader and minister after minister. This is all while extolling the urgent need to return to the business of government. What a joke that is. What a joke that is on mornings like today, when the business of government—if we bothered to return to it—would be the implementation of a scheme for which there is no evidential basis, the brainchild of a witless billionaire who manages to get the ear of Liberal policymakers because he makes quite sizeable donations. What a farce. What an absolute joke.

I cannot believe that the business of the Australian legislature is currently occupied, again, with the consideration of a scheme that is the brainchild of one of the wealthiest billionaires in this country, because he believes—unique among all other voices in this space—that he has the solution to entrenched poverty in this country. I cannot believe that a government which so often ridicules members of my party for pursuing policies, which they themselves characterise as idealistic and without an evidence base, pursues a policy approach, embodied in this idea—something which has been tried and tested over and over again and proven to be utterly useless. But not only that: not only didn't it work; it wreaked havoc in the lives of those were subjected to it.

The reality is that it is well-known exactly what things must be done to alleviate poverty in Australia: we must raise Newstart; we must ensure a living wage; and we must strengthen our social safety net and give it the people and skills that are needed to help people in times of crisis. It is the right of every Australian to know that we, as a society, have collectively agreed that poverty is unacceptable, that homelessness is unacceptable and that the hunger of children is not something which we are willing to walk past. It is their right, it is their human right, to access services for the prevention of those societal ills without being made to feel like criminals.

I wonder how long it is since any member of this government was forced to interact with Centrelink services. I do wonder. I wonder if you have experienced the shame, the fear and the self-loathing that is induced by having to admit that you need help. And why do people feel these things? They feel them because this government and previous governments—and the Labor Party is not innocent in this: though they may vote against this bill today, they have participated over the last 20 years quite happily in the demonisation of vulnerable people. They have, when it has suited them electorally, given credence to the idea that the best form of welfare is a job.

I'd like to remind both sides of this chamber that there are hundreds of thousands more people in this country who are out of work than there are jobs for them to go into. This is not a question of moral failing; this is a question of mathematics. Yet, you would condemn these people, both of you, either actively or passively, to a feeling of shame and of failure, the likes of which we, in here, probably cannot comprehend simply because it will win you some votes in Western Sydney, simply because it will swing a crucial seat in Queensland, simply because it will stem the losses in Victoria or maybe it will make you competitive in WA. And, God, don't we get a good headline if we go on about dole bludgers in this country. The Daily Telegraph will love us. The Australianwillgive us a go, and it might just be what's in it to win.

How cold, how cruel this place becomes when it talks about these issues. One side says, 'Let's bash 'em over the head,' and the other side says, 'Maybe not so hard' or 'Maybe we'll keep things exactly the same as they are.' And every single day thousands of people go to sleep on the streets of this nation. Every single day thousands of people go without food—kids go to school hungry. But, God knows, if you're a charity, if you're an NGO, one side will cut your funding and the other side won't guarantee your funding beyond the next bloody election cycle. But if you've got Great Barrier Reef Foundation in your name, well then, hundreds of millions of dollars fall from the bloody sky. What an absolute disgrace. I thank the chamber for its time.

(Quorum formed)

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (09:51): I rise today to add my support to the previous comments already made so eloquently by my colleagues here in this place on the Greens' crossbench, which is, of course, led by Senator Siewert, who has been a tireless advocate against these nasty initiatives that force some of the country's most vulnerable people into further poverty. The Greens have opposed the cashless debit card since its inception. We've submitted dissenting reports on the various pieces of legislation, including the debt card trial in 2015. We expressed deep concerns regarding compulsory income management and recommended that the bill not pass. We have always been opposed to the introduction of this scheme. The idea that it be expanded is just abhorrent.

We subsequently submitted dissenting a report on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, highlighting that the flaws of the so-called independent evaluation of the first two trial sites, undertaken by ORIMA, that was being relied on as the justification for the expansion of the card to the Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions. That was just a flawed process—flawed data and flawed justification—and the Greens said so at the time. The 2017 bill did not pass the Senate in its original form allowing only the Goldfields area trial to commence, which is why we are here again today debating whether or not this card should be expanded. We are absolutely opposed to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. We are very concerned that some of the most vulnerable Australians are used as whipping bags for a nasty government agenda.

As I stand here today, we've just heard that the Prime Minister has lost the support of key members of his front bench in exchange for the nasty politics and agenda of Mr Peter Dutton. I think it is an incredibly dark day for the nation that we are about to see a sitting Prime Minister rolled to put in place somebody whose politics are ugly, nasty and have a history of pushing down the most vulnerable and being race baiting. This is a man who walked out of the apology to the stolen generation. This is a man who gloats over the imprisonment of young children on Nauru. This is a man who does not believe in the biggest threat to the world right now—that, of course, is global warming and climate change. He is singing and dancing to the tune of Mr Tony Abbott—a prime minister who was roundly opposed by the Australian people only a short number of months after being elected Prime Minister because of these nasty policies, such as those we are debating in this place today.

The Greens will oppose this bill all the way through and all the way down the line. We will oppose it, whether it is under this government or under a Dutton government. This bill is absolutely appalling. I can't say strongly enough how opposed to this piece of legislation and this nasty politics the Greens are.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:02): I move:

That the motion be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:04): This attempt to expand the cashless debit card trial is mendacious, cruel and deeply unnecessary. So much of this legislation is objectionable, but the idea that this is a trial is, perhaps, the greatest untruth embedded in this bill. The Liberals, with little to no opposition, want to expand this card to every person on a social support payment. Make no mistake. That is what is at stake here. Of course, a genuine trial would mean that you test something in order that you can examine the evidence. Well, the evidence is in. These cards and this program do not work—unless, of course, the government's aim is to demean and further isolate and to further impoverish some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I have to say, if that's the government's aim—to demean and to further impoverish some of the most vulnerable members of the Australian community—they have been stunningly successful.

I want to pay tribute to the work done in this area, the power of work done in this area, by my colleague Senator Siewert. She has been an absolutely tireless advocate against this program. Time after time, she's pointed out the flaws in these so-called trials, the flaws in the design of the program and the counterproductive nature of these proposals. This card, this program, is born out of a political party that has nothing but loathing and contempt for people who are struggling financially. And it is born out of a party that has an arrogant need to inflict pain and so-called discipline on people who are struggling to make ends meet.

I genuinely believe that members of the Liberal Party in this place—having rarely, if ever, experienced the kind of financial hardship experienced by the people who are recipients of unemployment benefits and other social services in Australia, the people that this program will impact on directly—simply cannot conceive of the financial pain and the resultant psychological stress and suffering that those people are going through. Through the robo-debt saga, through a chronic failure to properly resource call logs inside the Department Of Social Services, we have seen again and again the Liberal Party failing to understand how difficult it is to make ends meet.

As I said in my inaugural speech to this parliament, I spent time in my very young years on unemployment benefits. I've spent time unable to find a job. I've spent time where you actually have to make a decision about whether you're going to put a decent feed on the table or whether you're going to pay the power bills or the rent. These are terrible decisions to have to make. I genuinely think that if the Liberal Party senators in this place had any real lived experience of what that is like they would not be proceeding with this proposal, because they would understand that it further demeans people who are impacted by the cashless debit card. It further demeans people who are amongst those people in this country who are struggling under the most financial hardship.

I want to compare the Liberals' contempt for those on Newstart with their own self-regard. This was laid bare in a recent article in the Fairfax papers under the headline 'It would take a 'miracle' to save Malcolm Turnbull'. There was the following quote:

"A lot of our people are facing the fact that they are in the last six months of their political careers"—

(Quorum formed) As I was saying, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, before your attention was drawn to the state of the chamber, I want to compare the Liberals' contempt for those on Newstart with their own rampant self-regard. This was laid bare in a recent article in Fairfax. Under the headline, 'It would take a 'miracle' to save Malcolm Turnbull,' there was the following quote:

"A lot of our people are facing that fact that they are in the last six months of their political careers," says one worried backbencher. "They've got houses, school bills, cars that they've set up for themselves on the basis that they're earning $200,000 plus. What do they do if they're suddenly out of work?"

Well, pardon me if I don't shed a single tear for someone who is on $200,000-plus who might find themselves out of work because it turns out that their political party is so out of touch with the struggles that so many Australians are facing. Does that backbencher mean that unemployment is difficult? Well, hallelujah! Finally, a ray of light breaks through those serried ranks of entitled Liberal MPs who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to be on Struggle Street in Australia. Are they saying that being thrown out of work can upset their life plans? Well, hallelujah! Is this the dawn of a great new understanding from the Liberal Party that it's actually pretty tough out there in the real world? Is the Liberal Party backbencher saying that sometimes you can have your employment terminated before you've had the capacity to make plans for the future? Well, hallelujah! Are we finally seeing some level of acceptance from the Liberal Party that it can be bloody tough out there when you lose your job, that it can be tough on people's families, on their kids, and that choices about whether to pay the school levies or the rent or the power bills or put a decent feed on the table for your family can be difficult, agonising choices? Imagine if the Liberal Party showed one per cent of the sympathy for people on Newstart that they are showing for their own backbenchers on $200,000-plus a year. Just imagine the difference that we would see. But, instead of sympathy, what we get out of the Liberals is contempt for people on Newstart. They've consistently demonstrated that fact, time after time. Throughout the trial period for the cashless debit card that contempt was shown again and again.

As members would be aware, the Australian Greens put in a dissenting report to the inquiry into this legislation, which, in its conclusion, stated starkly that the Australian Greens recommend that the bill not be passed. That report made it very clear that the Australian Greens do not support the majority report on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 and that we reject the committee view contained in the majority report that the research indicates fewer incidents of antisocial behaviour. This so-called research is not based on reliable sources of evidence. Not only has the research been widely criticised by numerous social scientists and academics for not adhering to academic standards; it's been criticised for having major flaws in its methodology and in the way it was reported. And it's worth pointing out that the committee also heard, at the inquiry hearings and through written submissions from people on the ground, evidence that contradicted the findings of the so-called research.

We also made it clear in our dissenting report that we reject the view enshrined in the majority report that extensive consultation was undertaken with the Kimberley and Ceduna trial sites as well as the proposed new sites of the Goldfields and Hinkler. The evidence presented to the committee showed that the consultation process was fundamentally flawed, and it's the view of the Greens, as informed by the tireless and outstanding work of Senator Siewert, that the government's lack of consultation with the community members who would be subject to the card shows starkly that the proposal ought not be supported and demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for people receiving income support. As I said previously in this contribution, it's no surprise that a process run under the auspices of a Liberal government and a Liberal minister demonstrated a fundamental lack of respect for people receiving income support.

I want to be very clear about the Greens position here. We retain concerns about the operation of the cashless debit card and we have very significant and meaningful concerns about the impact of the cashless debit card on people who are being forced to participate in the program. We're not satisfied with the view of the government and the majority of the committee that the department's continued consultation will ensure that the proposed new sites are prepared to implement the card and able to provide the appropriate services, because the previous consultation processes, which were sporadic at best, were so poor, and the implementation of support services was equally sporadic. We also have significant concerns that this bill limits human rights, and we've seen those concerns raised through the committee process and also through the process of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

We've made it very clear in our dissenting report that we reject the majority view of the committee that the cashless debit card has had a positive impact on the trial sites. That is simply not true, and the so-called independent evaluations that the majority committee report is relying on as justification for recommending a further implementation of the cashless debit card have been widely rejected by researchers and social policy experts. In fact, it is the view of the Australian Greens that those claims and those justifications simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

As I said, this proposal has been evaluated by the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to be a member of. The report, which is report No. 8 of 2018, makes clear that concerns had been raised as to whether the measures contained in this legislation are rationally connected—that is, effective to achieve—and proportionate to the objective of the legislation. It is right that those concerns be raised. To be clear: the Greens do not believe that the measures contained in this proposal have a rational connection to the objective of the proposal, and we certainly do not believe that the measures contained in this proposal are proportionate to the objective.

I mentioned the ORIMA Research report. That report states:

… with the exception of drug driving offense and apprehensions under the Public Intoxication Act (PIA) in Ceduna, crime statistics showed no improvement since the commencement of the trial.

The ORIMA report also notes:

… 32 per cent of participants on average reported that the trial had made their lives worse …

So a third of the people who were directly impacted by this proposal said it had made their lives worse. I thought governments were about making people's lives better—well, not in this case. The report goes on to say:

... 33 per cent of participants had experienced adverse complications and limitations from the trial, including difficulties transferring money to children that are away at boarding school and being unable to make small transactions at fundamentally cash-based settings (such as canteens) …

Report No. 8 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also found at 2.23:

Of particular concern, as has been discussed in previous reports, is that the cashless debit card trial would be imposed without an assessment of individuals' suitability for the scheme.

It also raised at 2.24:

As the cashless debit card trial applies to anyone below the age of 35 residing in the trial location who receives the specified social security payments, there are serious doubts as to whether the measures are the least rights restrictive way of achieving the objective. … this concern is heightened insofar as the trial applies not only to persons whose usual place of residence 'is or becomes' within the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, but also applies to a person whose usual place of residence was within the area.

There were other critiques in that report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights that I won't have time to go through during this contribution, but I do want to go to some of the committee's responses to this proposal.

The committee raised its opinion that the measures contained in this legislation ' may not be compatible with the right to social security, the rights to privacy and family, and the right to equality and non-discrimination '. The committee also found:

The preceding analysis in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 applies in relation to the determinations. That is, broadly, that concerns remain as to whether the cashless debit card trial is effective to achieve its stated objectives and is a proportionate limitation on human rights.

This is the key here. For members who may not be familiar with the way that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights operates, it assesses legislation and legislative instruments against a whole range of human rights conventions and protocols that Australia is a signatory to. Part of that assessment is forming a judgement as to whether a particular piece of legislation or a particular instrument is rationally connected to those covenants, protocols and conventions that the Australian government has signed up to in the international human rights framework; whether the legislation or instruments are effective to achieve their stated objectives; and, importantly, whether or not they are a proportionate limitation on human rights—that is, is it the least rights-restrictive way of achieving the objective of the legislation or the instrument?

Finally in relation to that report, it finds:

… the determinations may not be compatible with the right to social security, the rights to privacy and family, and the right to equality and nondiscrimination.

That is a very strong finding from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it's one that ought to resonate in the minds of all senators as they consider their position on this legislation. (Quorum formed)

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:27): I just wanted to, as a Queensland senator, make a very brief contribution. I have a meeting of the Privileges Committee starting shortly, so my contribution will be very short.

Senator Farrell: Tell us where you're really going!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I'm going to a meeting of the Privileges Committee, chaired by your colleague Senator Collins, at 10:30. As a Queensland senator, I do want to express my support for the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. I know the local member in the area is very keen to see this bill introduced for constituents in his area. I've heard all of the fine words from particularly the Greens political party. They always amuse me!

Senator McKim talks as if only parliamentarians on this side of the chamber get a salary. He forgets, always, to mention that he gets a salary of some $200,000. It's $200,000 for Senator McKim. Not long ago, he was a minister, heaven forbid, in the Tasmanian government. He would have been receiving $350,000 a year. His leader, Senator Di Natale, what's he on as the leader of a tiny political party? He gets an extra $50,000 or so. That's almost $300,000. Whenever Senator McKim talks about these things he gives the impression to anyone who might be foolish enough to listen to Senator McKim that it is only government members who get paid for being here and the Greens come and do it as a matter of charity. That is when he, as a parliamentarian for most of his life, would have been on almost $300,000 a year. Senator McKim, please spare us the hypocrisy and humbug when you speak.

Senator McKim also suggests the Liberals are always from wealthy families and born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I don't know Senator McKim's background, but I challenge him to say that, as a 14-year-old child, he was out picking beans and tobacco to earn a few dollars, as I did. I'm sure he didn't do that. As a schoolkid, I was out there picking tobacco—not an easy task in those days—and picking beans.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Senator McKim: On relevance: I make the point that in my first speech I did talk about my fruit-picking experience.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On relevance, Senator Macdonald is directly addressing your contribution to this debate. It is relevant to the debate.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator McKim always likes to give it out, but he never wants anyone to be heard when they have a view different to his. I was out there as a 14- and 15-year-old picking beans and, as I say, it's not an easy task, down on your knees. As a kid, of course, I guess it was much easier than it would be for me now. Picking tobacco was pretty tough work, because you ended up with tobacco leaf stains all over you.

Unlike Senator McKim, I didn't have parents who could send me to private schools or to universities, and I've got wherever I've got through hard work. Again, as I say, I don't know Senator McKim's background, but I suspect he went to university, thanks to the taxpayer—it didn't cost him a cent, I would suggest. Whereas, in my day, I didn't get a Commonwealth scholarship; I wasn't quite that bright. My parents couldn't afford to send me to university, nor could they send me to a private school, as I suspect Senator McKim went to. I know a lot of his colleagues in the Greens political party went to private schools, as I think did most of the Labor senators as well. Good luck to them; I don't hold that against them, but I just get a bit annoyed when you get people like the Greens accusing Liberals of being born with silver spoons in their mouths when, for many of us who share my background, that's simply not the case. We've achieved whatever we've achieved by hard work, and that's why I sometimes wonder that people who do receive government welfare from other taxpayers are not able to get the work that is available.

At every place I go to around remote Australia, particularly remote Queensland, the only people I run into at service stations, at stores out in the middle of nowhere and at pubs around various towns are Irish, English or German backpackers. I often wonder where the Australians are who claim they can't get work, and it seems very easy for these foreign backpackers to get work—admittedly, it's in places like Normanton or Croydon. On the way to the cape a few years ago—it's very, very remote territory up there—some of the service stations had plenty of work, but it was all being filled by foreign backpackers because Australians, apparently, don't want those jobs.

This proposal for this cashless credit card is not taking away anything. It's not reducing the value of the contribution that the taxpayers are giving to people who need assistance and need welfare. It's just that a certain proportion of it can only be spent on the necessities of life. I cannot understand why anyone objects to that. As for this being a breach of human rights, that's something that I, and I must say most of my constituents in Queensland, cannot understand. How can that be a human right? They are getting a certain value, and they'll continue to get a certain value.

As Senator Leyonhjelm, quite rightly, said, receiving welfare from the government is not a human right; that is something that every other Australian chooses to do to help people who cannot help themselves. That's one of the tenets of the Liberal Party and something we've always been very firm and concentrated on, that our society should help those who cannot help themselves. We do that in many ways, and I'm proud to be in a government that has, not just now but all through history, provided assistance for those who could not help themselves. I repeat, for the benefit of Senator Steele-John and, I think, Senator Hinch, that the best form of welfare is a job. There are jobs available. I don't know the circumstances of individual people. I know there are some people who can't take those jobs, and they are being looked after by every other taxpayer in Australia, as they should be. That's a basic tenet of the Liberal Party.

This cashless debit card gives the recipients the same amount of money. I heard people from the other side saying: 'It makes them second-class citizens. People look down on them for handing across a debit card that has the bulk of their contribution from other taxpayers on it.' People who suggest that are simply being disingenuous. These days, almost everybody pays for everything by tapping a credit card, even a cup of coffee. If you go around the coffee carts even in this building, and certainly around Australia, people buy even something as cheap as a cup of coffee by a tap of their credit card. I'm not sure what the embarrassment of handing across a card is. As I say, everybody does it, and I suspect that those who promote that sort of argument would be the sort of people who buy a cup of coffee, tap their credit card and walk away. I'm sure others around them don't say, 'Aren't they a second-class citizen because they've tapped their credit card?' The arguments being promoted against this bill are simply ludicrous, as was the speech we heard from the previous speaker.

As a Queenslander and as a representative of the area where this further trial is going to be in place, I think it's a good idea. I know the local member of parliament thinks it's a good idea, and, for that reason, I'll certainly be supporting the bill.

Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (10:37): My contribution will be brief today. I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. This bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to expand the cashless debit card arrangements to provide for a further trial in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area to run until 30 June 2020. It will specify the class of trial participants for the area and increase the total number of trial participants overall to 15,000. It also provides an exemption from the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for merchants that implement product-level blocking systems, firstly, to identify that a cashless debit card is being used for payment, and, if any restricted products are being purchased, decline the transaction, and secondly, to limit the use of the restricted portion of the payment to prevent that portion being used to obtain cash-like products which could be used to obtain alcohol—or drugs, for that matter—or be used for gambling.

Let me be clear: I fully support this bill to expand the trial sites for the cashless debit card. The more information we can gain from on-the-ground use of this program the more we can evaluate its effectiveness. It's my understanding that the cashless debit card does not change the amount of money people receive from Centrelink; it only changes the way in which people receive and spend their fortnightly payments. Those on the cashless debit card receive 20 per cent of their welfare payment in their usual bank account and 80 per cent of their welfare payment on the cashless debit card.

There is already evidence from the current trial sites of the cashless welfare card being successful. I know others have quoted the Mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, John Bowler, but I'll repeat what he said. He said that, while the cashless debit card trial in the Goldfields only started this year, all indications were positive, with police reporting to a liquor accord meeting last week that the level of anti-social behaviour on the streets was clearly down over the last couple of months and that bottle shop retailers also reported to the meeting that disturbances around their premises were considerably less.

I recall a number of senators on the opposite side quoting Andrew Forrest last week and thanking him for his input regarding the marine park disallowance debate. I ask those same senators to heed his advice on this bill. Mr Forrest has championed this program as a means of tackling substance abuse and gambling in predominantly Indigenous communities, and savaged those who voted down the expansion of the scheme earlier this year. He said after the vote:

The feel-good merchants who vote against the cashless debit card, who have never visited a vulnerable community of white people who can't get off welfare, or the indigenous people who have never had a crack … those people who think the only way to improve a person's life is to throw more money and have no idea that they're throwing it through them to a drug dealer, those soft, goodhearted persecutors of vulnerable Australians, those people keep vulnerable Australians and indigenous Australians down …

I implore the Senate to support this bill to expand the trial for this cashless debit card.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (10:40): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. This legislation sums up everything that is wrong with our current government. It's basically an attack on poor people. It's trying to make life harder for poor people. It's telling poor people that it is their fault that they are poor. Why should we be surprised? This government has such a track record of absolutely putting the screws on people who have the misfortune to not have much money, while at the same time supporting the very wealthy in our community and the large corporations. We saw only yesterday their attempt to get big tax cuts to the big end of town through. Fortunately, enough members in this place saw that was not what we needed to be doing in Australia today. We saw $144 billion of cuts to income tax, rather than seeing that there is a need to spend that amount of money, those hundreds of billions of dollars, on services to give everybody in Australia the opportunity to live a good quality life.

The other key thing is that it is very clear from the reviews of the trials that have been done so far that this approach doesn't work. Not only is this crackdown going to make life more difficult for poor people but it is also ineffective at achieving the outcomes that the government wants to achieve. The evidence we already have today is that this approach—quarantining people's money to deal with issues such as substance abuse, gambling and other behaviours which we genuinely want to address in our community—doesn't work. There is so much evidence across the board that there are other ways to address issues like substance abuse and gambling, but you have to ask some questions and dig deeper to see why people have drug and gambling problems. It's not because they get to spend their money whichever way they want; it's because they are quite reasonably struggling to survive in life without education, support, housing and money, or due to family violence issues. When you're in those sorts of circumstances, life's pretty tough and stressful. You are often trying to see the way out. There is then the temptation to abuse drugs or to throw what money you have into gambling, hoping it might actually give you something that will enable you to improve your life. They are the measures that people feel they have to resort to in order to deal with those pressures.

There are other ways of going about dealing with these pressures—rather than absolutely attacking poor people, actually giving them the opportunities, giving them high-quality health care and education and, in particular, increasing the rates of benefits so that people have actually got the ability to live. We should increase Newstart payments, youth allowance and other welfare payments so that people don't feel that life is just one eternal struggle of trying to just hold it together. If we did that, people would then be able to get their lives back on track, engage in education and know that they're not going to be thrown out because they can't pay the rent on their house.

These are the sorts of things that, as a society, we can afford. We are a rich country. We know that, rather than giving massive tax cuts to the big end of town, we can afford to support everybody in our community and to give them the opportunities to live a good life. But no. Just because of, basically, the fundamental approach of this government of saying, 'Those who have should get more, and we should just grind those who are struggling into the ground,' we have these very appalling punitive measures being imposed upon people.

So then we say, as I referred to: does this approach work? Does this populist attack on poor people—this populist appeal saying, 'Oh, well, you've just got dole bludgers, so you've just got to stop them spending their money'—work? Is there the evidence to say that it works? It's very clear that there isn't. That goes to my second main point: the community would think that governments should be making their decisions based on evidence and that, where there is evidence to support a course of action, we should be following that evidence. It's very clear that the evidence from the trials so far, where the cashless welfare card has been used, is that it doesn't work. It's not just random Greens or random members of the community who are saying it doesn't work. It's not just people pulling things out of the air to say it doesn't work. It's one of the institutions that we depend upon to conduct good-quality, objective research. That's the Australian National Audit Office, who of course have done a report on the implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial. You would think that, if the Audit Office have done a report on the trial as it's gone so far, you would listen to what they have to say. You would think that, in the interests of good governance and evidence-based decision-making, you would pay attention to what they're saying before proceeding to roll out this measure.

The summary of the audit report which I have here lays out what the Audit Office aimed to do in their report. They say:

The Cashless Debit Card Trial (CDCT or the trial) aimed to: test whether social harm caused by alcohol, gambling and drug misuse can be reduced by placing a portion (up to 80 per cent) of a participant's income support payment onto a card that cannot be used to buy alcohol or gambling products or to withdraw cash; and inform the development of a lower cost welfare quarantining solution to replace current income management arrangements.

They say:

The CDCT was selected for audit to identify whether the Department of Social Services (Social Services) was well placed to inform any further roll-out of the CDC with a robust evidence base. Further, the audit aimed to provide assurance that Social Services had established a solid foundation to implement the trial including: consultation and communication with the communities involved; governance arrangements; the management of risks; and robust procurement arrangements.

So what did they find in their conclusions? They found:

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.

So you would think, with that overarching conclusion, now is not the time to extend, massively extend, this trial to another major part of Australia. You would think, before you go any further, given that you've got trial sites that are already underway, you would go back and do more monitoring and evaluation until you knew that you had a robust evidence base from the areas where the cashless debit card is already in use. That would be the evidence based thing to do. But, no, instead we've got this government, on the basis of populism, attacking poor people, saying they're going to go on and roll this trial out to thousands and thousands of more people—young people, poor people, people on Newstart, people on youth allowance. Rather than listening to the most credible agency that looked at the effectiveness of the card, they're saying: 'No. We're just going to continue to roll it out somewhere else.'

The ANAO further concluded:

… it—

Social Services—

did not actively monitor risks identified in risk plans and there were deficiencies in elements of the procurement processes.

They said:

Arrangements to monitor and evaluate the trial were in place although key activities were not undertaken or fully effective, and the level of unrestricted cash available in the community was not effectively monitored … and … they did not cover some operational aspects of the trial such as efficiency, including cost. 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.

It is extremely concerning that the ANAO are saying that Social Services did not make use of all available data. You might be forgiven for thinking that Social Services had some preconceived ideas, in terms of its conclusions as to the effectiveness of the trial, and that it wanted to show that the trial was effective, even though it wasn't. Again, I go back to the issue of good governance. The people of Australia want to see good governance. They want to see decisions being made on the basis of evidence. For Social Services to undermine and not use the evidence that's available is extremely disturbing. It's an appalling way to run major parts of our social policy.

The ANAO continued:

Aspects of the proposed wider roll-out of the CDC—

the cashless debit card—

were informed by learnings from the trial, but the trial was not designed to test the scalability of the CDC and there was no plan in place to undertake further evaluation.

And yet here we are being asked to vote and support a bill that would expand the use of the cashless debit card in a major way to thousands and thousands of more people in another part of the country. This is not the way that we should be doing government here.

This is a very comprehensive report, and there are many areas that were identified for improvement. Some of the findings included: some identified risks were not actively managed; aspects of the procurement process to engage the card provider and evaluator were not robust; the department didn't document the value-for-money assessment; and, in terms of monitoring and analysing the card, Social Services didn't complete all the activities identified in the strategy, including the cost-benefit analysis. So, not only did it not use the data to determine whether the card worked, given it didn't do that cost-benefit analysis either, one could presume that maybe the trial wasn't an effective way of trying to achieve what it was trying to achieve, and that it's not only attacking poor people for being poor, but it's a really expensive way to attack poor people for being poor—and it's being done just to suit the populist agenda, to appeal to people who have this belief that all the problems of Australia could be solved if we had fewer people on welfare. And yet we know that the reason that people are on welfare, the reason that people are on unemployment benefits in areas of regional Australia, is not because they are dole bludgers or because they are sitting back and not wanting to work; it's because the work isn't available.

We also know that there are so many other ways in which we could be providing work. Again, there is so much good work that the government could be funding and putting the billions of dollars into, instead of giving— (Quorum formed) As I was saying, the issue is with people who don't want to be on welfare, who don't want to be guinea pigs in these trials, who want to have the freedom to spend money where they wish to. They don't want to be in this situation. And the reason they are there isn't that they are dole bludgers, that they don't want to work; it's because the work is not available. There are so many opportunities that government could be providing. They could be providing funding for these people to undertake work that is to the benefit of society, to the benefit of our community, as well as to the benefit of individual people. I'm thinking about things like rolling out Indigenous ranger programs across the country. You'd then have Indigenous people looking after country and looking after our natural environment. There's a massive amount of employment that could be provided through resources being put into that. And it's very cost effective, because it means that we're tackling some of the really key natural resource problems that we face, such as pest animals and plants and dealing with erosion and land degradation. All of these things could be tackled by actually providing the resources to employ people to tackle these problems in our natural environment.

There are other employment opportunities that people are crying out for in regional communities—communities where, for example, they haven't got adequate health services. There are opportunities to support community health services, supporting the rollout of health services across regional Australia so that everybody has the opportunity to access high-quality health services. That means employing people to work in those services, to be there as nurses. It means employing more people in aged-care facilities. And then there are the opportunities in educational settings—employing more teachers' aides in schools, employing more people to be working with people with disabilities. There are things from across the whole of society where we know there is so much potential to spend money in employing people to do jobs with really good social and economic benefits. It would pay for itself over and over again and would give employment to the sorts of people who are being attacked, who are being pilloried, by being in this proposed trial that will be rolled out through the legislation we have before us today.

They are some of the findings of the Audit Office. So it's pretty clear that we should not be expanding this trial while these key questions of the Audit Office about the existing trial sites remain unaddressed. The Queensland Council of Social Service, who are deeply concerned about expanding the trial in the areas of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland, where the rollout is proposed, did a comprehensive review of the cashless debit card trial and evaluation. Their findings are well worth noting. In summary, they said:

there is insufficient evidence of success to warrant any further expansion of the trial at this stage

there is a lack of clarity on the key goals and outcomes of the trial …

the evaluation methodology is questionable and the outcomes inconclusive. In addition, the two new sites represent a markedly different environment and Trial scope which has yet to be tested and evaluated

that operating in complexity requires testing of multiple options, preferably options that are supported by evidence and expert opinion …

Again, this comes down to the fact that the evidence goes against expanding the trial. Certainly, the evidence is not there to expand the trial. Just because Senator Macdonald happens to say, 'I think it should go ahead because I think it's a good idea,' that's not evidence. We need to have the evidence base to justify such a major expansion of the cashless debit card. In particular, they say:

The CDC Trial is currently the only option being considered to address these complex social issues and is not supported by the evidence of what works …

They go on to say:

community support has not been clearly evidenced …

So, again, not only doesn't it work, but the community actually don't want it. They want to see options that would really address some of the underlying social issues that people are concerned about—putting more money into drug rehabilitation, putting more money into drug counselling, putting more money into supporting young families who are struggling, and supporting families who are really having difficulties. Putting the resources into those support services is a much more effective way of dealing with the issues that we are facing in Australia, rather than these punitive measures designed to attack people.

The final dot point of the Queensland Council of Social Service's review is:

accountability for public funds would recommend that there is clear articulation of costs and benefits of the trials prior to any further expansion.

That's pretty clear, and that's what the Greens are actually saying: we are an evidence based party. We say: put the evidence in front of us. And the evidence so far does not support the expansion of this trial. The evidence in front of us says there are other things and other measures that we should be using to address the issues that we're facing as a society. An expansion of the cashless debit card is certainly not that.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (11:01): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. The Australian Greens oppose this bill. The Greens have opposed the cashless debit card since its inception. The bill before us today intends to establish the Hervey Bay and Bundaberg trial site and, if this bill passes, this new trial site will continue on until 30 June 2020. In this trial, the cashless debit card would only be forced on those under 36 and receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance or parenting payment. The bill also raises the cap on the number of trial participants across the board to 15,000. The bill also introduces provisions that allow merchants to block restricted goods at the point of sale, and expands the list of restricted products to include a cash-like product that could be used to obtain alcoholic beverages or for gambling.

The Greens have been opposed to this type of punitive legislation from the very beginning, because this is entirely about penalising and demonising people on welfare. Let's be clear: this is a particular attack on young people—young people who are already suffering from the policies of this government, because there is a real lack of employment and a real lack of opportunity and there is the increasing cost of living. And, as my colleague Senator Rice pointed out, there is a real lack of services, no matter what area you look into.

We know that there is no evidence that this is even an effective scheme. The Ceduna and East Kimberley trial sites were examined by the Australian National Audit Office, and it is crystal clear there is no effective impact evaluation. The report said it was 'difficult to conclude' whether there had been a reduction in social harm such as alcoholism and violence, because 'there was a lack of robustness in the data collection'. The same goes for these expanded trial sites.

But, amid the concerns about the trials and the scope of the process, the lack of evidence and the lack of data, we should not forget the terrible human impacts this kind of social policy has. Let me just share the words of a domestic violence survivor who was part of the cashless debit card trial. She said she would not have been able to escape her abusive marriage under this shameful scheme. This is the story of Jocelyn Wighton, from Ceduna, South Australia. We know that Ceduna is a remote town and has a cash based economy, and many household items are bought in second-hand shops, which do not always have the facilities for this card. Jocelyn said:

If I was on this card when I escaped from my husband, I would not have made it. I bought secondhand furniture down to the plates and knives and forks. You can't do that on the card.

This is what the cashless card does to people. It causes real people real harm.

The ABC also reported on the shame and stigma caused by the card in Western Australia, and I quote from that report:

Ms Asusaar is a single mother, and her family's income is reliant on Centrelink payments for her son's disability as well as for her role as his carer.

This year, she was enrolled in the latest trial of the cashless welfare card in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia.

She said:

We've had people who try to [put] stickers over part of the card, literally hiding it up their sleeve.

The article continues:

Sam Harding, a Kalgoorlie resident who receives the disability support pension, said she had endured multiple incidents of abuse in public associated with her card.

"I was doing some shopping and a transaction went through incorrectly … I think [the cashier] made about 10 to 15 attempts but it didn't work," Ms Harding said.

"People just started saying 'oh that's one of those … card people' … by the time I was ready to leave, I was in tears.

This is the real impact on the real people living in these towns and in communities. So I ask the Senate: is this really what we want to be forcing onto already vulnerable people, people who already don't have the services that everyone in Australia deserves?

When these deeply flawed trials were being developed in 2017 and again this year, my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert worked tirelessly in committees to prevent this gross violation of human rights from proceeding, and I really, deeply thank her for her work and wish to draw the chamber's attention to some key points the Greens made in our dissenting report on one of those committees. This is what we said then, and this is absolutely relevant now:

The Australian Greens reject the committee view … that extensive consultation was undertaken … The evidence presented to the committee showed that the consultation process was flawed. The Government's … consultation with the community members who would be subject to the card was almost non-existent and showed a fundamental lack of respect for people receiving income support.

We said:

Unlike the view expressed in the majority report the Australian Greens are deeply concerned that this bill limits human rights. As outlined in many submissions to the inquiry the circumstances in the trial site are not so extreme or exceptional as to warrant an approach that infringes on the human rights of income support recipients and the Australian Greens reject the committee view that this approach is warranted and legitimate.

Our dissenting report also said:

The Australian Greens oppose Compulsory Income Management. It is a failed measure as can be seen in the final evaluation of the NT Intervention.

To not have learnt from this sorry chapter in our history is also pretty saddening—a chapter that enjoyed bipartisan support and whose impacts are still being felt in those communities. As we said:

Compulsory Income Management impacts negatively on individuals and the community and imposes significant costs on Government.

Evidence that was provided through submissions and through hearings to this inquiry did show the fundamental and very deep flaws in this approach. We all know that income management has proved to be a completely ineffective policy that totally disempowers and harms those that need our help the most. As we said:

Submissions to the inquiry by peak social service bodies and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations from across Australia expressed deep and fundamental concerns with Compulsory Income Management.

… Despite the history of its imposition, there is no clear evidence that compulsory income management works, or improves the lives of those it affects.

There have been and still are vocal and consistent concerns raised by those who will be subjected to this card in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area. A number of submissions were received from individuals who will be subjected to the card if this bill passes, and a number of these individuals also provided evidence at the hearings for the inquiry. I'm really concerned that their views have not been heard through those consultations, and they're definitely not reflected in the bill that we are debating today. Accordingly, Senator Siewert again highlighted some of their concerns, which I am going to talk about below.

Say No to the Cashless Welfare Card Australia/No Cashless Debit Card Hinkler Region group was concerned, among other things, about the lack of public consultation from the local member and the costs associated with the card, both monetary costs and costs for those subjected to the trial. They said in their submission:

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.

They continue on to say:

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.

…   …   …

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

Let's not forget that these are communities, as I said earlier, and these are people who are already suffering because they don't have the services; we haven't provided them with the services. I've lived on the Mid North Coast for many years. That is where my children grew up. I did see the impact of the lack of services that are available in regional areas, and it is much more so in the areas we are actually talking about.

The Department of Social Services, in the Auditor-General's report Implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial, concluded a number of points that I would also like to highlight today to this chamber. The conclusion of that report says:

The Department of Social Services largely established appropriate arrangements to implement the Cashless Debit Card Trial, however, its 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.

Why would we keep pushing a policy that has been seen to have been a complete failure?

Social Services established appropriate arrangements for consultation, communicating with communities and for governance of the implementation of CDCT. … However, it did not actively monitor risks identified in risk plans and there were deficiencies in elements of the procurement processes.

The conclusion of the report goes on to say:

Arrangements to monitor and evaluate the trial were in place although key activities were not undertaken or fully effective, and the level of unrestricted cash available in the community was not effectively monitored. Social Services established relevant and mostly reliable key performance indicators, but they did not cover some operational aspects of the trial such as efficiency, including cost. 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. Aspects of the proposed wider roll-out of the CDC were informed by learnings from the trial, but the trial was not designed to test the scalability of the CDC—

And here we are, increasing the number of people by the thousands. I just cannot understand how this policy should pass this chamber, should become concrete, when there are so many missing gaps and so many flaws that have been highlighted again and again by so many different groups.

Locals who will be subjected to this trial want to see the money spent more usefully. They want to see the money that would be spent on the trial go on to fund services such as for homelessness, for domestic violence shelters, for education pathways and for creating jobs for local young people. That's how we will get a vibrant economy that actually does work for everyone. That is the kind of social policy that we should be pursuing, not this disgusting, patronising and violating policy from the coalition.

And it is not just the citizens and the Greens who have concerns. A long list of expert submissions have opposed this bill and continue to oppose this bill. Since the last inquiry into the cashless debit card the Australian National Audit Office, or ANAO, has released its report The implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial. And in its submission to the inquiry the Accountable Income Management Network gives a really blistering assessment that I think some opposite would benefit from hearing, if you haven't heard it already. The ANAO report on the CDC has explicitly condemned both ORIMA's evaluation process and its final report. The ANAO undertook an audit of the CDC trials to identify whether the Department of Social Services was appropriately informed and positioned to justify a further rollout of the CDC. The ANAO's report concluded that the department's approach to monitoring and evaluation was inadequate, as I said earlier. This report highlighted the same risks and the same issues that all the other reports have highlighted before.

So, how can the coalition go ahead with such a policy, which has the support of literally no-one and which is going to be harmful for the most vulnerable of people and which does not actually set up and use the massive amounts of wealth that we have in Australia to help and support people and get them out of poverty? This legislation is no good for anyone. The Greens vehemently oppose this bill.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (11:16): The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 will allow for the expansion of the cashless debit card program to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas. There's a fourth trial site under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and the trial will be extended to this site until 30 June 2020, providing sufficient time to implement the trial and for it to operate for at least 12 months. The bill updates the current limitations on the number of participants from 10,000 to 15,000, recognising the increase that would come from implementing the cashless debit card to this area. The bill also moves the provisions in the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018 into primary legislation, or, in uncontentious cases, such as the authorising community bodies, into a notifiable instrument. This will mean that for all four sites, including the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay sites, the trial parameters will be embedded in the legislation, providing greater legislative consistency across all sites and improving parliamentary oversight over the cashless debit card legislation.

These amendments specify trial participants for each site, including any exceptions and specifying wellbeing exemptions where being a participant in a cashless debit card trial is determined to pose a serious risk to an individual's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing. In the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay trial site, trial participants are defined as persons under 36 of age receiving Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment, or single or parenting payment, partner. The selection of the cohort in this area has occurred in response to significant consultations with the impacted community, recognising the need for supporting interventions in the areas of youth unemployment, young families and intergenerational welfare dependency. In the current operating sites of Ceduna in South Australia and the East Kimberley and Goldfields regions of Western Australia, all persons living in the trial area and in receipt of a working-age income support payment are defined as trial participants, which is enshrined in the primary legislation. This aligns with the current arrangement at these sites but provides greater certainty for these communities around the trial arrangements.

For each site, amendments in the bill allow the secretary to make a determination that will vary the restricted percentages for a cashless debit card participant in the event of an unforeseen circumstances, such as a natural disaster or technical failure of the card or the account. The bill also allows the option to establish a community panel by notifiable instrument and clarifies who can be voluntary participants in the current trial sites. Persons living in Ceduna or the East Kimberley or the Goldfields trial sites who are receiving a trigger payment as defined in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 or an aged pension and are not otherwise trial participants may volunteer to be part of the cashless debit card trial. However, persons in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay trial site who are outside the class of persons identified as a trial participant cannot volunteer. This will allow the opportunity to test the effectiveness of the program on a targeted cohort in the context of a larger urban population with high levels of welfare dependence. The Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area also has a different cultural composition with a much lower proportion of Indigenous Australians in this site compared to the three current trial areas.

The cashless debit card aims to reduce the devastating effects of alcohol, drugs, and gambling abuse. The card operates like an ordinary debit card with the primary difference being that it doesn't work at liquor stores or gambling houses, and it cannot be used to withdraw cash. Consequently, illicit products cannot be purchased with the card. To further this extent, the bill also introduces provisions that allow merchants to block restrictive goods, like cash-like products, at the point of sale, to keep in line with the intent of the program by preventing participants from circumventing the program to spend the welfare payments on alcohol, gambling and drugs. This bill will support additional card functionality at merchants in each of the trial sites and could allow trial participants to access additional merchants. It's important to note that the trial does not detract from the eligibility of a person to receive welfare payments nor reduce the amount of the person's social security entitlement.

The cashless debit card trial has been operating in Ceduna, South Australia, and the East Kimberley, Western Australia, for more than two years, and it was recently expanded to a third site—the Goldfields region in Western Australia in March 2018. Results from the evaluation of the cashless welfare card found that a benefit of the card is that it can increase motivation to find work. A final report evaluating the Ceduna and East Kimberley sites shows feedback from some card participants in 2017 which indicate almost a quarter of people on the card were spending several hours a week looking for work. This was an increase from 11 per cent in February 2017.

By limiting spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling, the cashless debit card can help stabilise people's lives, particularly young people, in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, with the potential flow-on impacts of improving chances of finding employment or successfully completing education and training. The government has also announced a second evaluation of the cashless debit card across all three current trial sites to assess the ongoing effectiveness of the program. The second evaluation will use research methodologies informed by the University of Queensland and draw on the baseline measurements of social conditions in the Goldfields developed by the University of Adelaide. Findings for the second evaluation will be published in late 2019. The initial positive finds of the impact of the cashless debit card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have been encouraging. The expansion to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay will help test the card and the technology that supports it in more diverse communities and settings. This will build on the evidence available to further evaluate the impacts and outcomes of the cashless debit card on all participants.

In drafting the bill, the government has carefully balanced community support for the cashless debit card at existing and proposed sites with the concerns raised in parliament around allowing additional time for the gathering of evidence to further evaluate impacts and outcomes. The government remains committed to the continuation of the cashless debit card to provide a strong social welfare safety net through reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and supporting vulnerable people, families and communities.

Just briefly—I'm pleased that Senator Faruqi is still in the chamber—can I just make some short comments on her contribution. In her maiden speech she indicated her interest in Indigenous affairs, and I thank the senator. I normally rely on Senator Siewert in these matters, but it's tremendous to have someone else with that interest. However, I can see early in the piece that some of our views will move. Senator Siewert knows my strongly-held views on this. I come from the Northern Territory where the effects of the first cashless debit card, which was the BasicsCard, was trialled. I can remember a Northern Territory with many communities simply awash with grog. I appreciate more services so that when people are getting bashed we just have to build more domestic violence services. I'm not suggesting any mischief in your approach. The approach we took was that alcohol was causing so much dysfunction to communities, tearing down a culture. If somebody else could have pointed to a way in which we could reduce the amount of alcohol consumed in communities—because I don't think the results of that consumption can be controlled—we would have been more than happy to listen to that. I've been in this place for a while since then and have been listening carefully to Senator Siewert and others, but there is no alternative. This isn't doing something because it is something to do. This is a very important matter.

I understand that one of the groups in Ceduna that have been really, really badly affected—in fact, I understand that their small to medium-sized business has been completely interrupted and they've moved out of Ceduna—has been those people who are purveyors of methamphetamine. They have complained bitterly and effectively don't think there's really a market in town. The pubs, those people who run the poker machines, have said that this is absolutely outrageous: 'Look at the amount of money that we've lost through our pokies. We should have people from Ceduna here.' A lot of the poor people come into Ceduna and put all their money through the pokies. Those who run the pokies were adamant. They were saying, 'This is a terrible thing to happen to us.' But I don't share that business model and I think the cashless welfare card is an important tool.

In the Territory, while people will say, 'No, no, you can't find a person in the Territory that will support the card,' let me tell you, it's a bit like the privacy of the booth: you can't get women to say too much publicly because the guerillas and thugs are out there to make sure that you don't speak up about domestic violence. 'You don't speak up about the cashless welfare card. We've decided, the community'—mostly men in the community—'that we don't want the cashless welfare card because it stops my life, my life of making sure that I'll go and gamble, I'll go and drink and I will take the money and I can take it in cash. But I can't now.' And, in the Territory, it's only 50 per cent, so 50 per cent of the money is still spent in whatever discretionary way we have. Some of the trial sites are indicating movement to 80-20. This is a debit card. Whatever you want to point to—second-hand shops, anywhere—you can buy what you want. The only thing you can't get is cash, and you can't go into a place that serves alcohol. They're normally separated, like in Woolies. They separate those places.

I think these are very good initiatives. These initiatives have been at the behest of the leaders in the community. Of course, there'll be those who say, 'Oh, no, he's not the leader,' and, 'We don't really like her,' because they might differ. But fundamentally the leaders of the communities have been very supportive of this. In terms of meeting with the women's groups, if you said, 'Let's get rid of the BasicsCard—we'll just pay you all cash again,' there would be an outrage in the Northern Territory. The women would say, 'Please don't do this to us. Don't take us back to those bad old days.' I think that in and of itself is very much a voice worth listening to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:35): Well, what a shame that this place has, unfortunately, voted to pass the second reading, given—

Senator Bernardi: Is that a reflection?

Senator SIEWERT: No, I'm not reflecting; I'm just giving a personal opinion. There were some things said during the debate which, quite frankly—given that I'm not allowed to say somebody's lied in this place—did not exactly correlate with the truth. Claims that were made to say this card is working are just not true. I'm sorry, they are just not true. Go to the ANAO report. We were told that the card is working to reduce social harm. The ANAO report hasn't said the government can't claim that, but it's said that the trials have not shown a reduction in social harm. But what we have seen is senator after senator who supports this card come in here and propagate that myth—that this has reduced social harm—and it hasn't. The evidence isn't there. Some senators quoted the mayor of Kalgoorlie and pointed to media releases from the mayor that said there had been a reduction—

Senator Georgiou: It's right there.

Senator SIEWERT: Yes, I've got a copy too. I've got a copy too, and guess what it says? Mr Bowler said that 'as well as the cashless welfare card, another factor in the reduction of antisocial behaviour was the increased police patrols in recent months in both CBDs'. For those that don't know Kalgoorlie, there's Kalgoorlie and Boulder.

So here we have another example, just like we had in the East Kimberley, where the government is bringing in the card at the same time that there's another measure in place. In the East Kimberley it was the restrictions on alcohol sales. That was operating at the same time, and that came up in the evaluation. In Kalgoorlie, we had extra police patrols, just coincidentally at the same time as the cashless welfare card was introduced. Yes, it could be a coincidence; it could have been they were worried in case there were some additional concerns around the introduction of the card. But the fact is it happened. So you can't measure the impact of the cashless welfare card without comparing it to the impact of the extra police presence—the police operation is called Operation Fortitude. Yes, they say that there has been a reduction, they think, in antisocial behaviour, but police cannot comment on whether it is linked to the cashless welfare card. I've also heard other people quote that in the media. In other words, the police themselves cannot comment on whether it is because of the cashless welfare card or Operation Fortitude. So much for Mayor Bowler's opinion that it's just the cashless welfare card that has been responsible. I'd go as far as to say that of course Mr Bowler would back in the cashless welfare card, given that he was the one who was lobbying for it in the first place. So I don't think that media release is worth the paper it is written on. Maybe you should give credit to Operation Fortitude, or do you think that the police operation has been completely ineffective?

Minister Scullion was in here not long ago making claims around the reduction in social harm. He cannot use the evidence to claim that. He wishes that, but the evidence is not there. He spoke about speaking to women and said that they overwhelmingly support the card. I'm glad he brought up the BasicsCard, because I've been talking about the intervention a lot. He talked about speaking to women in the Northern Territory and about their support for the BasicsCard. Well, the women he's been speaking to are obviously different to the women I have been speaking to—a lot—in the Northern Territory, who don't support the BasicsCard.

What's more, the BasicsCard has been operating in the Northern Territory for over 11 years, and the government keeps falsely quoting—I've said this repeatedly—that it's worked up there. Yet the evaluation of the cashless welfare card showed really, really clearly that it had met none of its objectives—none of its objectives. In fact, there's some evidence in the report to suggest that it has had the reverse effect on some behaviours in terms of further entrenching welfare dependency. It's met none of its objectives. In fact, we still, unfortunately, have a great deal of social harm up there, and I don't think that the government should constantly be going around saying, 'Oh, the BasicsCard's worked fantastically in the Northern Territory,' when we still have an escalating number of children going into out-of-home care.

The Northern Territory government in the past has refused to implement measures around alcohol control to the extent needed, because of pressure from the alcohol industry. I'm really pleased to see that the Northern Territory government has—I think it was yesterday—introduced a floor price on alcohol, on wine. Fantastic! Do you know how long the community has been asking for that measure? Since way before the intervention started. Yet, after all the years of the intervention, we're only seeing that action now. We had the banned drinker register come in. It started operating, but then the conservative government came in and got rid of the banned drinker register.

When the minister stands up there and says, 'We haven't heard Senator Siewert talk about any of those measures,' that is not the truth either. I have been in here week after week, month after month, year after year advocating the measures that should be taken. What do they do? They stick plainly to: 'It's got to be income management. It's got to be income management. It's got to be income management.' It hasn't worked! Now the government in the Northern Territory is taking some measures to restrict the flow, the supply, of alcohol. Expert after expert has also made that point: restrict the flow of alcohol.

Let me come back to the women that I've been talking to, not just in the Northern Territory but in the East Kimberley—the emails I've had from Ceduna but also, most recently, from Kalgoorlie, where the women talked to me about the shame they feel when they have to go into the supermarket. These are women that are on carer payments, for example, who feel this when they go into the supermarket. The minister stood there and said, 'It's just the same as any debit card.' It is not! Everybody in these communities knows what an Indue card looks like. If they don't to begin with, they certainly do when other people start pointing out they've got an Indue card and they're trying to use it, particularly if it fails for some reason and they can't complete their shopping.

The women also talked about having to queue up at the Indue office to try and access the card—just like I would have to do if I wanted to buy something on my credit card online! I would of course go and queue up at my bank to say, 'Could you please switch on this online site so I may buy the necessary medical equipment that I've been trying to buy on my'—so-called—'fantastic, works-like-everybody-else's card.' That's what I do every time I want to use my debit card or credit card. Of course I don't have to do that! I can quite happily use my credit card online whenever I want. You cannot do that automatically with the Indue card.

We had Senator Macdonald in here talking about the gift—sorry, I'm maligning Senator Macdonald; that particular comment, I think, was Senator Leyonhjelm's. He talked about 'the gift of income support'. No, there is a right to income support, and we have international obligations around social security. I'm so over the conservative side of politics talking about the taxpayers—

The CHAIR: The time for this debate has expired.

Progress reported.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:45): I present the ninth report of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Report No. 9 of 2018

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 7.13 PM.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Implementation) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the Freedom of Information Legislation Amendment (Improving Access and Transparency) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 November 2018 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) the provisions of the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 be referredimmediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 October 2018 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(f) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2018 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(g) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving the Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2018 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018.

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bill to its next meeting:

Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018.

(David Bushby)

Chair

23 August 2018

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Implementation) Bill 2018

(to be originated in the House of Representatives on Thursday 23 August 2018)

Reasons for referral/prin cipal issues for consideration:

Further scrutiny by non-government Senators.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

AFTINET, ACTU, The Australia Institute, Friends of the Earth, Productivity Commission, Australian Medical Association.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislative Committee

Possible reporting date:

18th October

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018; Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Concerns regarding the Federal Circuit's ability to absorb the functions of Family Court

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Legal and family rights experts and advocates

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

3-4 October 2018; 7-8 November 2018; 31 January-1 February 2019

Possible reporting date:

15 April 2019 (after Professor Helen Rhoades delivers her report on the Review by the Australian LawReform Commission of the Family Law System, on 31 March 2019)

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions)Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To understand the impacts on families across Australia by the sweeping changes to the family courts that would be brought about by these bills, and which have not been the subject of any exposure draft or public consultation;

To hear the views of court officers, legal experts, stakeholder groups, and members of the Australian public, including from regional areas, who may have used the family courts, about the merits of the government's proposed reforms.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

The Law Council of Australia;

State and Territory Bar Associations'

Women's' groups

Parents' groups

The Attorney-General's Department

Community Legal Services

Members of the public who have experience with the family courts

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

15 April 2019

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Freedom of Information Legislation Amendment (Improving access and transparency)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Impact and benefits

Affect on OAIC resources/processes

Possible submissions or evidence from:

OAIC/Attorney/Law Council/Media Organisations

Accountability Roundtable

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional

Possible reporting date:

30 November 2018

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Intelligence Services Amendment

(Enhanced parliamentary oversight of Intelligence Agencies Bill 2018)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The need for operational oversight and the best mechanisms for achieving this.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

AFP, DIO, ONA, AGO, ASIO, Defence, IGIS, DFAT, ASIS, ASD, Home Affairs

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration (Intel Service coordinated from PM's Office)

Possible reporting date:

18 November 2018

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Intelligence Services Amendment (Enhanced Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence Agencies) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To understand:

The impact of the proposed changes on the quality of parliamentary oversight;

The views of the national intelligence community, affected agencies/departments, legal experts and members of civil society and the wider Australian community with an interest in the oversight of our intelligence and security agencies;

The interaction of the proposed changes with the ongoing reorganisation of the national intelligence community, and the recommendations of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Intelligence agencies

Department of Home Affairs

Department of the Attorney General

Law Council of Australia and other members of civil society who regularly submit to the PJCIS

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee is the appropriate committee because:

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ultimately has oversight of intelligence matters.

The Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 would establish the ONI as an independent statutory agency within the Prime Minister's portfolio reporting directly to the Prime Minister.

Appointments to the PJCIS are made by the Prime Minister (and the leader of the government in the Senate)

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

12 November 2018

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Range of privacy and security concerns about the implementation of the My Health Record (particularly the opt out system) and the adequacy of the bill in addressing these concerns

Possible submissions or evidence from:

See attached list

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the Committee

Possible reporting date:

Monday 8 October 2018

Australian Digital Health Agency

Department of Health

Department of Human Services

Digital Transformation Agency

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

ACON

Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists

Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine

Australian College of Nurse Practitioners

Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine

Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Healthcare

Australian Dental Association

Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association

Australian Medical Association

Australian Network on Disability

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation

Australian Primary Health Care Nurses Association

Australian Privacy Foundation

Breast Cancer Network Australia

Bupa Australia

Catholic Health Australia

Children's Healthcare Australasia

Choice

Consumers Health Forum of Australia

COTA Australia (Councils on the Aging)

Diabetes Australia

Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia

HCF

Health Consumers' Council

Health Issues Centre

Institute for Urban Indigenous Health

National LGBTI Health Alliance

Medibank Private

Mental Health Australia

Menzies Centre for Health Policy

MS Australia

National Asthma Council of Australia

National Farmers' Federation

NIB Health Funds Ltd

The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation

National Rural Health Alliance

National Seniors Australia

Palliative Care Australia

Pharmacy Guild of Australia

Public Health Association of Australia

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Impact on Community Development Program participants

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ACOSS, Ms Lisa Fowkes, Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, Dr Elise Klein, Dr Janet Hunt, Jobs Australia, Professor Jon Altman, Human Rights Law Centre, Australian Human Rights Commission, National Social Security Rights Network, National Employment Services Association, National Congress of Australia's First Peoples

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible reporting date:

12 November 2018

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To provide CDP providers, academics and community leaders with an opportunity to scrutinise the legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

CDP providers

Academics

APONT

Land Councils

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

12 October 2018

Appendix 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving the Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018.

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill is fundamentally an environmental measure. Therefore, the Bill is appropriate for review by an environment committee rather than an economics committee. Principal issues for consideration are policy options for how energy bills and energy demand can be reduced, specifically a) whether this policy is a robust and responsible first step to that end; and b) what steps should be taken for more ambitious policies to be successful.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Building Sustainability Association

ClimateWorks Australia

CSIRO

Low Carbon Living CRC

Australian Sustainability Built Environment Council

Energy Efficiency Council

Property Council of Australia

Pro Clima Australia

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Green Building Council of Australia

Australian Institute of Refridgeration, Airconditioning and Heating

Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand

Australian Window Association

ACOSS

University of Melbourne

RMIT University

University of Adelaide

University of Wollongong

Real Estate Institute of Australia

Department of the Environment and Energy

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

October.

Possible reporting date:

23 November 2018.'

Senator BUSHBY: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:45): I move the amendment circulated in my name in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family court of Australia Bill 2018 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 15 April 2019".

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:45): I move the following amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Collins:

At the end of the amendment add:

"and, in respect of the Social Security Legislation (Community Development Program) Bill 2018, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 12 November 2018"

That extends the reporting date, which is currently 12 October. We consider that to be too short a time frame to look at that particular piece of legislation that has some significant reforms to the Community Development Program. We think more time is needed to enable the Community Affairs Legislation Committee to review the proposed amendments and to allow the committee to adequately consider the legislation.

The PRESIDENT: I will put the question on Senator Siewert's amendment to Senator Collins's amendment, and then we'll deal with Senator Collins's amendment. The question is that Senator Siewert's amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (11:47): I move the following amendment to Senator Collins's proposed amendment:

Omit "15 April 2019", substitute "1 November 2018".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston to the amendment of Senator Collins be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:54): We now return to the amendment in the original form, moved by Senator Collins. The question is that that amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:58): At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 September 2018:

Allegations concerning the inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers, with respect to the visa status of au pairs, and related matters.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (12:05): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator RUSTON: 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 RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (12:05): I present an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today I rise to speak to one of the most important priorities in my portfolio and to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that I meet and engage with every day in this job.

When I travel around remote Australia, I see people standing up and participating, building daily routine and establishing social norms.

Communities are strong when adults are engaged in work or meaningful activities that contribute to the benefit of their community.

Since its introduction in July 2015, the Community Development Program or CDP has improved employment and participation outcomes for remote job seekers. The CDP has supported remote job seekers into more than 26,200 jobs and on more than 8,800 occasions, they have stayed in a job for at least six months.

The CDP turned around the failings of the Remote Jobs and Communities Program which had replaced the successful Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) and allowed the return of the misery of sit down money and engagement dropped to just 7 per cent.

The CDP has worked because it ensures job seekers have real mutual obligation requirements and because communities are increasingly at the heart of the delivery of the program.

Job seekers tell me that they feel a renewed sense of pride, as people feel they are improving themselves, building a future and contributing to their community.

While the CDP is successfully getting job seekers off welfare and into work, I recognise that there are areas of the system than can be improved.

We have listened to the outcomes of the Senate Inquiry process, including the submissions and public hearings, where many stakeholders took the opportunity to voice their views and concerns, including the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory. We have also taken on board the Australian National Audit Office's performance audit outcomes.

My Department released a discussion paper in December 2017, receiving 40 public submissions which provided a range of constructive views and suggestions. I have personally visited around 200 communities since becoming Minister, and I have heard what people want. The messages I am hearing are clear and consistent.

People are asking for:

more jobs in remote Australia;

access to real wages;

reduced complexity in the income support system; and

simplified interactions with Centrelink.

I hear the consistent message that job seekers need to be engaged to ensure that there is a clear pathway to a job and that the misery of passive welfare does not return.

Communities want to bring back the best parts of the old CDEP. Well, the community spoke and we listened.

Community Development Programme reforms

On 8 May 2018, the Government announced reforms to CDP as part of the 2018-19 Budget.

The key changes to the program, include:

Reducing income reporting requirements to Centrelink for job seekers who have a mutual obligation of less than 15 hours a week.

Improving the assessment process so barriers to employment are better identified and local health workers can provide the medical evidence needed to reduce the required participation.

Reducing required participation from up to 25 hours a week to up to 20 hours a week.

These changes will commence from February 2019 and will support local control and decision making through a more community based approach. We are strengthening community say in how CDP is delivered locally, by contracting with more Indigenous service providers and linking with local governance arrangements.

12 months ago I stood before Indigenous organisations and made a commitment that the CDP would be locally delivered. I must say, there was a fair amount of doubt from those in attendance. But we have delivered, and from July this year, Indigenous organisations now have to be involved in the delivery of CDP.

And importantly, the Government will also work with local communities to support 6,000 subsidised jobs across remote Australia. Providing access to real wages, and moving people off welfare and into work.

These will be jobs in community, identified by community and delivering for the community needs.

Housing managers, local government workers, community health support, teaching assistants, construction or aged care.

These jobs will only be available to CDP participants and will grow the size and capacity of the remote labour market and support the development of more local businesses.

The subsidised jobs package is part of a pathway to employment and will provide real workplace experience for job seekers, while also paying real wages. Job seekers will also continue to access support from employers and CDP providers to help them stay in a job for the long term.

These jobs will provide meaningful employment, and participants will be subject to the same pay and conditions that would otherwise be attached to that position. Many participants who are placed in these jobs will continue to qualify for a reduced rate of their income support payments after the applicable income test is applied.

Some of these participants may not have had a job before, or may have been unemployed for a long time, and may need additional support in making the transition into the workplace.

We want these participants to succeed in making the pathway to meet their career goals and aspirations. Which is why we are removing them from all the other requirements that would usually apply under social security law.

This subsidised job program complements what is in the legislation before the Senate today but will be at the heart of the CDP going forward and the pathway to a job.

Under the CDP going forward, there will be 6,000 remote job seekers being supported into a job at any time.

This is an exciting change and one that allows communities to support more jobs for locals. To ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not only engaged in work, but also more engaged in the delivery of services in their community.

The reforms build on the success of CDP to continue to drive employment in remote Australia by improving the skills and employability of job seekers, and increasing their participation through a greater range of work-like activities in their community.

The CDP Bill

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Community Development Program) Bill 2018, will amend social security law to support the introduction of the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF) in remote Australia, consistent with the arrangements across the rest of Australia.

Following the passage of this Bill, CDP participants will be subject to the TCF. This means that there will be one national job seeker compliance framework for all job seekers, both remote and non-remote.

The TCF commenced across jobactive, Parents Next and Disability Employment Services 1 July 2018. It will commence for CDP from February 2019, subject to the passage of this Bill.

CDP job seekers will see considerable changes in how they interact with providers and Centrelink.

The new TCF has additional protections for vulnerable job seekers, reduces interactions with Centrelink and builds in more check points to ensure all job seekers are fully capable of meeting their requirements. There will be a greater role for local CDP providers to work with CDP participants in the application of the TCF and there will be less interaction with Centrelink compared with the current framework.

The reforms will see a significant reduction in the number of penalties applied to CDP job seekers. The introduction of the TCF will remove penalties for one-off breaches of mutual obligation requirements. Financial penalties will focus on those who are persistently and wilfully non‑compliant.

To assist CDP participants in meeting their requirements, mutual obligation hours will be reduced from up to 25 hours per week, to up to 20 hours per week, depending on a job seeker's assessed work capacity.

Alongside the application of the TCF, the reforms include a number of changes to increase the role of local health service providers to support participants in their communities.

Changes include provision for local health workers to supply evidence for the Department of Human Services to use when deciding whether to reduce a participant's mutual obligation hours.

The Bill also introduces specific exemptions for participants in subsidised employment, removing interactions with Centrelink and focusing on engagement with employers. Participants in subsidised employment will be exempt from activity test requirements and will not incur mutual obligation failures under the TCF. This seeks to emulate one of the positive aspects of the CDEP where participants were paid wages outside the income support system.

Entry into a subsidised job will be voluntary. Therefore, CDP participants who refuse an offer of subsidised employment will not incur a work refusal failure. This provides CDP participants with the freedom to determine whether the subsidised employment opportunity available suits their personal commitments, career aspirations, skills and experience. CDP participants will continue to have appropriate job search requirements as part of their mutual obligation requirements, as determined by their provider.

Similarly, participants in subsidised employment will not be subject to a work refusal failure if they refuse an offer of suitable unsubsidised employment.

Participants in subsidised employment will also not be subject to an unemployment failure if they voluntarily leave their position, or are dismissed due to misconduct. This approach provides participants with the opportunity to leave subsidised employment without penalty if, after commencement in the position, they determine the role is not suitable for them or their personal circumstances (for example, due to relocation or family violence). As each subsidised position is funded for two years, this will also free up the subsidised job opportunity for a job seeker who may be better suited to the role.

This Bill ensures the local community is at the heart of our remote employment services.

It listens to local views and local priorities, it will be delivered by local community organisations and it will ensure local job seekers are engaged, better supported and provided a clear pathway to a job.

Without this legislation, the Government will not be able to fully deliver the subsidised employment program as participants will still be subject to compliance under Social Security laws.

Without this legislation, CDP participants will continue to be subject to a different compliance model than the rest of Australia.

This legislation ensures remote job seekers have the support they need to move along the pathway to work.

Conclusion

The package of reforms to the CDP are in direct response to feedback from communities and will increase support to vulnerable job seekers in remote Australia, while providing more pathways to jobs. Moving more people off welfare and into jobs and improving outcomes across remote Australia.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate adjourned.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:10): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Multicultural Commission, and for related purposes—Australian Multicultural Bill 2018.

What a great time to introduce such a bill.

Question agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE: 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 DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:11): 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 DI NATALE: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Australian Multicultural Bill 2018 (the bill) will enshrine the principles of diversity and multiculturalism in federal legislation. Enshrining the principles of multiculturalism in law is consistent with state legislation and ensures multilateral and ongoing support for multiculturalism.

The bill establishes a federal multicultural commission, to be named the Australian Multicultural Commission (the commission). The commission will provide a single coordination point for integrated responses to the government on issues associated with cultural diversity.

The commission will also have responsibility for researching, reporting and making recommendations to the Minister on community issues relating to its objectives, as well as developing and maintaining partnerships between community organisations.

In addition to establishing the commission, the bill stipulates annual reporting requirements for Commonwealth entities. These include:

summaries of actions undertaken by the entity during the reporting period to promote the achievement of Australia's multicultural policy;

the use of interpreting and translating services by the entity during that period; and

communications in languages other than English made by the entity during that period.

Other reporting requirements would include the extent to which people from diverse backgrounds were represented during the period on boards and committees established by the entity, or for which the entity had responsibility. It would also include the collection of statistical data during the period to enable the development of policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural character of Australia.

Independent research tells us that individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds face a series of structural barriers, both in the workplace and when accessing a range of services. This includes, but is not limited to:

representation of culturally diverse individuals in positions of leadership;

language barriers when accessing essential services; and

participating in programs and services which have been designed in a manner which is not culturally sensitive to the practices or needs of multicultural Australia.

The bill plays a role in addressing the structural barriers which multicultural communities face, while embedding the value of multiculturalism in federal legislation. Enshrining in legislation clear guiding principles, and the steps that Commonwealth entities must take to promote multiculturalism, will provide greater protection for these values, regardless of which political party is in Government.

Senator DI NATALE: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:29): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1011 standing in my name for today, which concerns an order for the production of documents relating to a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, be taken as a formal motion.

The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:46): Labor is supporting the Farm Household Support Amendment (Temporary Measures) Bill 2018 and the government amendment to its own bill. The bill will allow eligible farm household allowance recipients to receive a supplement payment of up to $12,000 and will increase the farm asset limit from $2.6 million to $5 million. These are temporary measures, because the government has finally decided to review the farm household allowance, something that Labor believes should have been done a long time ago.

The Senate should also note that Labor is disappointed that the Turnbull government rejected in the other chamber proposed Labor amendments to this bill which would have given struggling farmers the opportunity to receive the farm household allowance supplement payment as a $12,000 lump sum. To be clear: this amendment was put by Labor in the other chamber but rejected by the government. The reality is that many farmers won't have access to cash payments for up to 10 weeks. During this time, daily living expenses and debt will continue to accumulate. Farmers should be given the option of receiving the supplement payment as a lump sum. They need this money and they need it now.

The current drought has been severe in many parts of the country, and there are farming families who desperately need assistance with putting food on the table, paying school fees and other important daily living expenses. There's no logic or rationale behind this system of split payments on 1 September 2018 and 1 March 2019 that the government has constructed. Contrary to Mr Turnbull's comments to David Koch on Sunrise—that 'March is not that far away'—Labor is fully aware that farmers need cash assistance as soon as possible. Labor supported all the drought measures that the government has put forward and is not seeking to politicise assistance to our farmers; however, Labor remains concerned that the current government is more interested in looking after itself than in assisting our farmers.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (12:49): One Nation will be supporting this bill, but I'd like to make a few comments. The purpose of the bill is to increase the number of farmers entitled to temporary fortnightly income support payments as well as provide assistance for their farm business. As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Minister Littleproud, said:

… the bill proposes to pay a supplement to all eligible farm household allowance recipients that is in addition to their fortnightly income support payments.

In his speech he went on to say:

Australian agriculture is a story of success, resilience and prosperity.

Am I missing something? Or maybe a lot of Australians are? There is success in some sectors, but over the years we've seen the destruction of many farming families who have actually been destroyed by drought and a lack of assistance by governments, not only this one but previous Labor governments as well—and I will add to that the government's reluctance to have a banking royal commission. Now we are in the process of that commission, we are finding the problems the farming sector has also had in its dealings with the banks—loss of properties, devastation, suicides and everything else that has happened.

And what about the permanent changes being made by foreign ownership? The problem is foreign ownership of key agricultural assets. Asian countries are not satisfied buying food from Australia; they want to own the means of production and turn our farmers into subcontractors. Since the 1990s overseas companies have been buying up food-production assets in the form of dairy cooperatives, egg farms, meat processing works, fish canneries, sugar mills and grain businesses with the result that much of our produce is being exported. There is no legislation to prevent shortages of Australian primary produce, for example, shortages of baby formula are common, and Coles has a limit of two cans of baby formula per customer. In 2016 Chinese interests bought 17,000 hectares of dairy production in Tasmania. They now lease two Qantas flights a week to take fresh milk directly to China. Foreign purchase of dairy farms in Australia has changed the industry. We now have significant foreign ownership of our dairy production, and the remaining smaller family-owned dairy farms are struggling and leaving the industry because of the low farm gate price being paid to processors.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, has found that supermarkets selling Homebrand milk for $1 a litre are not to blame for the low prices paid to dairy farmers, and the ACCC has called for a code of conduct to strengthen farmers' bargaining power and improve their share of profits. The ACCC has recommended a code of conduct be legislated for dairy farmers. I remember when I was in this parliament, in the other place, back in the late 1900s—1997 and 1998—the deregulation of the dairy industry had brought it to its knees. Farmers were suiciding. Both sides—both the coalition and the Labor Party—have been charged with holding the reins and have done nothing about it. That's why we see the demise. We're down to under 300 dairy farmers in Queensland, and we're importing about a million litres of milk from Victoria. We are going to be importing milk from New Zealand if we don't protect our farming sector.

We've seen the demise of the pork industry; we've seen the demise of the orange growers. This is because governments in this place have not done enough to look after them. At the last minute when our farmers are on their knees you actually want to throw them a pittance. That's all it is. It's an absolute pittance. Too much of what I see in this chamber is people getting up and talking about what is happening in other countries around the world. Here we have our farming sector which provides food for our tables and you are not doing anything about it, and then you stand up and criticise because the other side hasn't done enough. You both have to take responsibility for this, because both sides have not done enough to actually protect the farming sector.

We have the land. We don't have the water. What has either side done about allowing more dams to be built—the Bradfield water scheme, which will bring water down from the Ord River to water inland Australia? That will actually give people hope that we are not going to continue to go through drought year after year. When they're on their knees, you throw millions of dollars out there, but that money could be put into building more dams and pipelines to give us the water to grow the food that we need. But then again, if we do that, you'll probably just sell the water into foreign ownership anyway, so we won't own the water. That's exactly what you've done.

I'll talk about food security. We've allowed foreign ownership of too much of our farming land. Now they are actually sending most of the product to their own countries—not only the farming products but also the gas. We've lost to foreign ownership in gas, electricity, dairy products, milk powder and hay for fodder. We're going through a hard time here and we will not have enough feed for our own farmers, but we've got 1.2 million tonnes of feed in storehouses or already on its way to China, Japan and Korea. Are you worried about feeding their stock? The government should step in and say, 'We're not going to see that feed leave our country.' And that goes for all other products. If we have so much foreign ownership of farming land, which produces our food, we can do nothing to intervene and stop them exporting that food to their own people. We cannot stop it. We've allowed this to happen, and that's why Australians are so angry with both the major political parties—they're not dealing with the real issues that concern them. Australians do not want foreign ownership of our land. I'm sick of hearing about your excuses that they can't take it away. The fact is it's going from paddock to plate—paddock to plate. That means they own everything. They own the land, they own the trucks, they own the ports—as they do with Darwin Port—and they're moving in more and more to take up the assets that should be in the hands of the Australian people.

I want to offer congratulations to the Australian people, the hundreds of thousands of people, who have rallied around to donate to the farming sector. I'd like to congratulate those farmers who have given their feed—their crops, their hay—to help their counterparts in other states. They themselves have gone through extremely hard times and they know what it's like. That's why they're actually giving—not selling but giving—their hay to those struggling farmers. I take my hat off to them. That's what the Aussie spirit is all about. They are doing the job that the governments in this place should have done. It's been too little, too late.

I will support this bill. I do support the farming sector getting the helping hand that they need. But I'm warning this parliament and the government: start looking after our food producers, the farmers out there, because we're losing them. They're walking off the land, they're willing to sell it into foreign ownership, and you're allowing it to happen because you're not giving them any hope or any vision for the future. You've sold them out, and it's a shame on you.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (12:57): This bill demonstrates the government's responsiveness to the needs of farming communities in rural and regional Australia. The farm household allowance program provides additional support for farmers and their partners facing hardship, including drought. The government knows that some farmers are doing it tough and that's why, from 1 August 2018, we will increase the farm household allowance from three to four cumulative years. This bill proposes two temporary changes to the FHA program. We're increasing the net farm asset threshold to $5 million and we're providing a lump sum payment to all farmers and their partners on FHA. This is in addition to their fortnightly payments. The bill also pays a supplement, paid in two instalments, of up to $12,000 to a couple, where both recipients are on the farm household allowance, and up to $7,200 for single recipients.

The allowance is not about paying for feed and fodder; it's about putting food on the tables of our farming families and affording them the dignity to buy other essentials in life. In turn, this spending injects cash into local businesses, who are also doing it tough. When farmers stop spending, everybody feels it.

The government understands many farmers are experiencing tough times due to ongoing poor climatic conditions and it's not easy to ask for help. But FHA is more than just a social security payment. It provides an additional $1,500 to help develop a farm financial assessment; access to activity supplements of up to $4,000 for professional support, advice and training; access to a dedicated case officer; and assessment for allowances such as a healthcare card, pharmaceutical allowance, rent assistance, telephone allowance, an energy supplement and remote area allowance. The temporary measures provided for this in bill are designed to help our farmers in the short term while we undertake an independent review of FHA. The review will be completed in the first half of 2019 and it will provide further guidance on the design of FHA into the future.

This bill demonstrates the government's continued responsiveness to the needs of farm communities and rural communities and is part of our $1.8 billion package of assistance to our farmers who are currently suffering hardship. I thank the members for their contribution and I commend this bill to the house.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) ( 13:02 ): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:01): Labor supports the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:01): I very much appreciate the support from the Labor Party. Can I say that primary industries levies have been a very vexed issue for everyone. For people in the industry it is pretty hard going, so if they're ever having to pay a levy they want to make sure that it goes to something important, that it is spent very efficiently, usually in the area of research and development. I commend everybody who's been involved in the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2018. I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:02): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:03): Labor supports the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I thank everybody who's been involved in the Migration and Other Legislation (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017. Obviously the government supports this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:04): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:05): Labor supports the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:05): The government takes this opportunity to thank everybody who has been involved in all the processes in ensuring the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 is put before this place, and the government obviously supports the bill.

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:06): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:06): Labor supports the Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:06): I take this opportunity to thank those involved in this very important process of ensuring we upgrade our biosecurity legislation, so very important not only to primary producers but to the environment. I commend the bill to the house.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:07): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:08): Labor supports the Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:08): The government takes this opportunity to thank all those members and senators who have been involved in the construction of this bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (13:08): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:09): Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill of 2018.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:09): I thank those opposite for their contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) (13:09): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:12): Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017. This bill clarifies eligibility for the lower corporate tax rate for small and medium businesses. It is a legislative fix to an unintended outcome of the government's tax plan. Labor have clearly stated that we will deliver tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses, but we will stop Mr Turnbull's tax handout for the big banks and properly fund schools and hospitals. Doubtless that project will continue no matter the outcome of the negotiations which are presently taking place in every back room of this building on the part of the coalition members and senators.

That said, in relation to this bill, clear rules on eligibility for the lower rate are important for all parties. However, we would be remiss not to note that the government has been forced to introduce legislative fixes such as this as a result of their own slapdash approach to policymaking. Bodies such as the Tax Institute and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, whilst welcoming the clarification, have recommended a postimplementation review of the legislation, possibly by Treasury or by the Board of Taxation. We hope that the government heeds their calls.

Support for this technical amendment has no further implications for Labor's position on the threshold at which a lower corporate tax rate applies. This is simply about giving clarity about the operation of tax laws as long as a two-tiered company tax rate system stands. Under the measure contained in this bill, if more than 80 per cent of a company's assessable income is income of a passive nature—for example, rents or dividends—it will not be eligible for the lower rate. Many of these entities are known as bucket companies associated with discretionary trusts.

This legislative patch-up is a result of the government's poor implementation of their intended $80 billion corporate tax giveaway. In fact, it is rather embarrassing that, with government debt soaring ever higher, the Turnbull government continued to pursue its plan to give big business that multibillion dollar tax cut for so long—and there is no assurance that they won't try it again under another leader or if they were to win the next election.

Eligibility for lower tax thresholds was intended to be contingent on carrying on a business, with the receipt of passive investment income not having been regarded as enough for a taxpayer to be able to demonstrate that. The government claims that, during the phase-up of company revenue thresholds eligible for lower tax rates, there was no intention for passive companies to receive lower tax rates. Passive income entities would only be eligible for the same tax rate as other corporate entities if and when the corporate tax rate was uniform for all entities—the 2023-24 income tax year, if the second phase of the companies tax plan is passed.

Interestingly, the government are silent on why they exclude passive income entities during the intended phase-in of the tax cut but include them at full implementation. No policy case has been given, which is telling. Thankfully, the Australian public has a temporary reprieve from this ill-conceived plan. In July last year, despite months of tax practitioner consternation since 2016 about the test for carrying on a business, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services finally commented on the issue of eligibility by describing concerns as premature. But, instead of fixing the issue, the government was so focused on ramming through half of its tax plan before the 2017 budget that detail was not a priority. Draft legislation to fix this mess finally arrived in September 2017.

Despite these delays, Labor will support the legislation to provide clarity to business and tax practitioners this year in order to avoid the chaos that permeated last year's tax time. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:16): Firstly, I thank those opposite for the contribution that they've made to this debate. The amendments in this bill will clarify the eligibility criteria for the lower company tax rate under the enterprise tax plan. The bill will introduce a new bright-line test to exclude passive companies. Under this test, companies that generate more than 80 per cent of their income in passive forms will not have access to the lower company tax rate. This test will replace the test for carrying on a business. The new test will operate from the 2017-18 income year and will help companies identify their applicable tax rate. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McCarthy ) ( 13:17 ): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:19): I move:

That the committee agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:19): Labor supports this bill as amended in the House. It is essential that the parliament sends a very clear and specific message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is just not acceptable. Three years after Labor introduced a private member's bill to criminalise image based abuse, the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 is now finally set to pass and introduce both the civil and the criminal offences that are necessary for image based abuse. Labor welcomes the government coming to the party on the need for a specific criminal offence that sends a strong and clear message to the community that the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material is not acceptable. Labor's commitment to tackling this pernicious form of abuse has been unwavering. We are pleased the government has finally accepted the evidence and followed Labor's lead on this issue.

For years, Labor and community stakeholders have called for a specific criminal offence, and yet, until now, the Turnbull government has maintained that existing criminal law is enough. All this time the government, including the Minister for Communications, has justified the failure to introduce a specific Commonwealth offence for image based abuse on the basis that there's an existing offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code for the misuse of telecommunications services to menace, harass or cause offence. The minister and I had a lengthy back and forth on this very question the last time this bill was before the Senate. The Turnbull government has wasted a great deal of time, insisting that Australia doesn't need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. We're pleased they have finally accepted the evidence, changed their tune and followed Labor's lead on this issue.

Labor will support the bill, as amended in the House, to introduce criminal penalties, given the amendments adopt Labor's clear and longstanding position on this issue. In October 2015, Labor first introduced a private member's bill into the parliament to criminalise the sharing of private sexual material without consent. Labor took a policy to criminalise image based abuse to the 2016 federal election, undertaking to do so within the first 100 days of being elected. In October 2016, Labor reintroduced its private member's bill into the current parliament, but the bill lapsed in 2017 because the government refused to call it on for debate. In June 2017, Labor moved a second reading amendment calling on the Turnbull government to criminalise the sharing of intimate images without consent.

RMIT research indicates that four in five Australians agree that it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission and that there is broad agreement within the Australian community as to the seriousness of the issue regardless of whether someone has experienced it personally. The experts agree that the sharing of intimate images without consent is a serious form of abuse that can cause significant and ongoing harm. A number of Labor MPs have prosecuted this issue over the years, in particular Terri Butler MP, Tim Watts MP, Clare O'Neil MP and Mark Dreyfus QC, MP.

Labor pays tribute to the efforts of a range of stakeholders in the community. With the passage of the bill through parliament, it brings the victims of image based abuse some comfort as they see the results of their advocacy. We trust this bill will help protect Australians from this serious form of abuse.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (13:24): Before I commend this very important piece of legislation to the Senate, I will put on the record a couple of things that have been said by those opposite, particularly in relation to the delay on the passage of civil penalties. There have been some rather misleading comments. It has erroneously been asserted that the government has backflipped in relation to bringing forward additional criminal penalties. It makes laughable a claim that Labor had provided leadership by promising to legislate criminal penalties within 100 days of being elected. The government stood ready to legislate a civil penalty scheme in February this year, and we said, at the same time, that we wanted to separately examine the introduction of criminal penalties. In our view, it would have been better, in the interests of victims of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, to legislate the civil penalty provisions. Had that happened, they would have been in force now for several months, and they would have been delivering active, practical protection to victims of this conduct for several months. The political grandstanding that we've seen has been a matter of some regret, and I'm sorry that we are here today when we could have been here some time ago. That said, I thank those opposite for their support of this bill. We can now move forward with these very important pieces of legislation with the support of the opposition. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (13:26): I speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 today with a certain amount of happiness in my heart, which is a rare thing in these particular times. On a day when this place is descending into chaos and when the Australian people would rightly look at us in disgust, this is an example of what the legislature should be spending time on—what we can and must do to safeguard the people we serve and to ensure that the rights of community members are protected. I am thrilled to see this bill back before us. It has taken too long not just for this bill to go through the relevant processes but for this government to answer the call of all those who, for so many years, demanded that the parliament must turn its mind to this reform.

This afternoon, I would like to pay tribute to Noelle Martin and to all those activists, all those incredible human beings, who took moments of extraordinary suffering when they were subjected to the type of abuse which no human being should have to endure and found strength and courage and demanded that this place act. They demanded a comprehensive reform in this space. I am very glad to see that the legislation before us builds on some of the best work in this area, particularly work done by the ACT Greens last year in putting forward a bill with a broad definition of consent within it, which took into consideration, and expanded to include, issues of cultural context. I am also thrilled that this legislation is supportive and contains within it a definition of consent as something which must be expressed, voluntary and informed. The people of Australia deserve these kinds of achievements from the legislature. They need and demand that we come together and do those things which are necessary to build a better future for them, to better safeguard their rights and promote their aspirations.

As we come to the end of our sitting period, and perhaps the end of this government, I would ask those watching, particularly those in the gallery this afternoon, to look upon this moment and action and see that which your governments should be providing to you. If you are filled this afternoon with confusion, maybe frustration, then you are right to feel those things. But in these moments there is also hope. Thank you to all those who worked so hard to bring this moment to fruition. I am sorry that it took so long. I am sorry that you had to experience what you did before we acted. I support this motion in the fervent hope that it will go some way to ensuring that such experiences are not endured in the future.

Question agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:32): I'll continue my remarks on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018, after question time interrupted me last week. Well, what a week we've had, in more ways than one! We had former Minister Fifield, Mr Morrow, Mr Rue and even Mr Turnbull complete an almighty backflip. And, despite Mr Rue's gaffe, the board of the NBN Co, with the blessing of the government, appointed him as the next CEO of the NBN Co. Less than a day after NBN Co let the cat out of the bag that it had a plan to charge regional telecommunication users $20 more to access broadband than consumers in the city, the then Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, made a humiliating retreat.

Last Wednesday evening the NBN Co's CFO, Mr Rue, revealed plans to charge regional customers $20 a month more for a 50 megabits per second plan than a customer in the city would pay. On Thursday morning, the NBN Co's Tasmanian spokesperson, Mr Russell Kelly, doubled down on the position during an ABC Hobart radio interview. Mr Kelly was asked, 'Is it fair that customers, who just by, I guess, where they live, have to pay more for a service that's available in the city?' Mr Kelly responded, 'Well, this is one of the realities of the internet'. What galling language. This is from the NBN Co that crows about how Tasmania is the first state to be connected, when we know that there are hundreds of homes across the state and families and small businesses on the edge of towns that are having to wait until at least the end of this year to get connected. Instead of working through the issue with the community, with its end users, NBN Co is simply saying that it's a reality that people in the bush need to pay more.

Labor quickly signalled that we would not have a bar of that. Minutes after the press conference, our shadow ministers for communications, Ms Rowland and Mr Jones, held a media conference calling on the government to intervene. We called on the National Party's Senator McKenzie, as the Minister for Regional Communications, and Senator Martin, as one conservative senator who supports a full-fibre NBN, to stand up to the Liberals and to stand up to NBN Co and demand that the regions get a fair go. Later that day, the capitulation was on, with the embarrassed former Minister Fifield declaring that NBN Co would engage in 'a fresh round of product consultations'. I'm sure we can all predict what regional consumers would have told NBN Co during those consultations. Except it's now been revealed that those consultations are a mirage, a smokescreen, or, as Senator Cash might phrase it, a whiteboard.

The respected communications industry online news website itnews.com.au included an updated report that the $20 slug on fixed wireless users had been outlined at an industry briefing on the Wednesday afternoon—a briefing that had been planned for at least a week. It was reported by iTnews that the new plans were presented along with the three-year road map. The briefing went for four hours, after which NBN Co's Mr Rue, the CFO, and Mr Ryan, the chief engineer, fronted the parliamentary committee hearing. The iTnews website reported that it understood the $65 price was presented to industry as a done deal. Industry were told on the Wednesday afternoon they would be sent paperwork about the new framework. It was also reported by iTnews that the new $20 charge would begin from Monday, 20 August, the Monday just gone. The next day, the NBN Co's CEO tried to mop up the mess. He said that it wasn't a 'foregone conclusion' that NBN Co would slug regional fixed wireless users $20 per month more for the same speed that their friends and colleagues in towns and cities on fixed lines were receiving. It can't be both a done deal and a consultation. If it was said to be a consultation, you have to ask why industry wasn't asked on the Wednesday; rather, they were told.

Listeners can draw their own conclusions. But, for me, this latest NBN debacle clearly suggests the minister has lost control over the NBN Co and that the NBN Co have lost an understanding of what is actually palatable to consumers. NBN Co began virtually pretending there was no hearing of the joint standing committee on the Wednesday night, that the CFO's comments had been a figment of everyone's imagination, and claiming no decision had been taken. They sought to wash the records, step back from their bungled admission and hide their secret charge. I understand the charge would have affected nine out of 10 regional households on a fixed wireless network if they chose to order a 50-megabits-per-second service—nine out of 10, which is 584,000 premises across the country.

Most of the time with the NBN, I hear cases of individuals who are disadvantaged. This is a huge cohort of Australian households, businesses and families, and often it is pot luck if you're on fixed wireless or fixed line. We've heard some shocking examples of people at the end of a street being assigned to fixed wireless, or whole new subdivisions being moved to fixed wireless instead of the NBN and the developer rolling out fibre to the home within the development. This then creates congestion on the network, so we've got an inferior network that will cost people more than the alternative. There is no consideration for fairness and no consideration for equity of access. And it is a step that will only increase that digital divide between the city and the bush, between those lucky enough to live in a full-fibre suburb and those nearby stuck on an inferior, more expensive fixed wireless service.

The backdown is welcome in the short term. But what it exposes is the calamity that the NBN has become under Mr Turnbull as communications minister and then as Prime Minister. A minister who was given the task of destroying the NBN is doing his very best to achieve Mr Abbott's task. It's ironic that this week, with the leadership speculation around energy policy, based on the differences between Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull, the government refuses to take a principled stance on the NBN. Instead of doing what the country needed and fighting Mr Abbott's wrecking ball against the NBN, the government capitulated and oversaw the crass politicisation of what should have been a bipartisan nation-building project. The NBN was manipulated, stretched, pushed and shoved into a model colloquially known by many as the multitechnology mess, a mess that combined the technology from three simple alternatives—fibre to the premises for 93 per cent of the population, and a mix of satellite and fixed wireless for the remainder—into a mishmash of fibre to the premises for the lucky; fibre to the curb for the somewhat unlucky; fibre to the node for the downright unlucky; fibre to the basement for those in apartment buildings and the like; overcrowded fixed wireless for many, many more than was originally predicted, including whole towns; and satellite for those in remote parts of the country or for those who find themselves out of sight of a congested fixed wireless tower. Under Mr Turnbull, Mr Abbott and Senator Fifield, the NBN has gone from the key infrastructure bridging the divide between our cities and our regions to a rollout that divides neighbourhoods, incentivises freeloading, punishes the regions and prices regular consumers out of fast broadband.

We had a charge last week that came about because we have weak Liberal and National parties bitterly divided by infighting and personalities that are incapable of adequately representing rural and regional Australians at the cabinet table. It is remarkable that we have a cabinet Minister for Regional Communications that allowed this charge to be floated. What is the point of being in office if you can't represent regional Australians, the people you claim so often to be the champions of? Under Labor, we have uniform wholesale pricing between the cities and the regions. The Prime Minister should not force regional Australians and regional businesses to pick up the bill for his mess. It is bad enough that the government created a digital divide based on technology. Now he wants to create one based on price, and his rural and regional MPs and senators will sit by in complete silence. If it were not for Labor, the charge would have been implemented from Monday, 20 August.

The problem is that this Prime Minister cannot comprehend what $264 a year means to regional families. If he could, he wouldn't allow it, but he has no idea. This is a policy decision permitted by a Prime Minister who is just so out of touch and a government that is completely out of touch. We're not talking about a few hundred households or businesses either. The best estimate we have is that 584,000 premises will be affected by this charge: 4,000 in the Northern Territory, 40,000 each in Tasmania and Western Australia, 60,000 in South Australia, 125,000 in Queensland, 150,000 in Victoria and 160,000 in New South Wales. In every corner of this country, people on the urban fringe and in our rural communities will be impacted by this charge, a charge necessitated because, under Prime Minister Turnbull, we have a second-rate NBN that is $20 billion over budget and four years behind schedule. We've got a second-rate NBN that's over budget and out of control because we've got ministers and a Prime Minister who have no control over their own corporation.

It is difficult to believe the minister had no idea what NBN Co were planning, especially given the duration of the consultation on these changes. Whoever the communications minister is should outline exactly what the government knew and when, and exactly what their office knew and when. Former Minister Cormann should outline what he knew and when, and what his office knew and when. Likewise, Minister McKenzie, while not a shareholder minister of NBN Co, is a minister within the Communications portfolio whose constituents include a vast number of people affected by these proposed changes. Each minister must outline what they knew, what their offices knew, and what they didn't do to stop NBN Co slugging fixed wireless users with a $20-a-month charge.

On this bill specifically, Labor has serious concern that this bill has been brought on to prop up the NBN corporate plan. The legislation has been conspicuously delayed for nearly two years. Just last week this bill was brought on for debate with a new implementation date of 1 July 2019. The upcoming release of NBN Co's corporate plan might offer a clue as to why the dysfunctional Turnbull government is in a sudden rush to pass its $7.10 per month internet tax. It's because NBN Co is required to release its pre-election corporate plan before the end of August 2018. The corporate plan will contain forecasts out to financial year 2022, but it will not disclose the assumptions that underpin financial forecasts beyond that year. If the government passes its internet tax in August 2018, not only would the price increases come into effect in the next term of parliament but it would also permit the government in this term of parliament to add the revenue from this internet tax onto the NBN corporate plan from 2022 out to year 2040. If the legislation does not pass the parliament in August 2018, that is no longer possible. Should the legislation conveniently pass the Senate this week, we will have learned two things about the minister: (1) his motivation was not about serving the broadband needs of regional Australia but rather the pre-election NBN corporate plan; and (2) he does not believe in his own policy, and that this is why the government delayed implementation of price increases until after the next election. All of this is being driven by a simple reality: Turnbull's second rate NBN is $20 billion over budget and four years behind schedule. It costs more and does less.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): I remind you to address the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Senator URQUHART: The government should come clean with what they knew about the $20 charged on fixed wireless users, they should come clean on what other surprises are in their communications policy, and they should stop the secrecy about the NBN rollout.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:46): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018. These telecommunications bills before us today impose a $7.10 charge per month per premises on certain broadband wholesalers, excluding the NBN. This is a massive tax representing more than a quarter of the wholesale price for broadband. This tax is designed to ensure a government owned monolith, the NBN, can completely dominate a market, crushing small, privately owned businesses. Can anyone suggest what the position of the Liberal Democrats on this might be? I suspect you can, and in case you don't know, the Liberal Democrats are a low-tax party. The Liberal Democrats believe that government businesses should be privatised so the rigours of competition can provide better services at lower cost without risk to taxpayers. Obviously the Liberal Democrats oppose this tax of $7.10 per month, designed to prop up a bumbling, government owned monolith. Unfortunately the coalition government has been captured by the NBN, despite criticising the NBN when in opposition. Labor has criticised the coalition government about this $7.10 tax, but at the end of the day I fear that Labor, like a frazzled parent of a petulant child, will still feel that it must give the NBN whatever it wants. Unfortunately it seems that we will be stuck with this new tax of $7.10 per month. We need more Liberal Democrats in this place to hold back the folly and crony capitalism of the major parties and to ensure that more money stays in the pockets of everyday Australians.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:49): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2018 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2018. I acknowledge the National Students Leadership Forum for these wonderful young people here who, I'm sure, will have a great deal of interest in these two pieces of legislation.

These bills, which work in conjunction with each other, do two key things. One is to legislate certainty that all premises in Australia can continue to access high-speed broadband infrastructure beyond the NBN rollout. This obligation already exists, but this gives it certainty, and Labor supports this. The second thing they do is to introduce a telecommunications levy that will add $84 per year to the bills of up to 400,000 consumers and businesses on the non-NBN network.

Before moving on to the broadband levy, I wish to note that Labor supports schedule 3 of this bill. The proposed statutory infrastructure scheme will provide certainty as we move beyond the initial NBN rollout in 2021. The community will continue to have certainty about their ability to get access to broadband services at their new home or business. Schedule 3 largely codifies an obligation that already exists in the NBN statement of expectations. Labor supports this and considers it to be a sensible and natural step.

The original commitment by Labor in 2009 was historically significant, particularly for regional and rural communities. Our National Broadband Network was established to ensure every Australian would have access to high-speed broadband, irrespective of where they lived or worked. As a result, nearly three million homes and businesses across regional and rural Australia will have access to high-speed broadband, a sizeable portion of whom had no access to any broadband after 11 years of inaction under the Howard government. This was the single most important initiative to bridge the city-regional divide when it came to broadband in this country. Labor is proud of this achievement, and those who supported it in the Senate should be as well.

On the other hand, the government has nothing to be proud of in terms of what we uncovered last week. Last week, before the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, the NBN Co admitted to plans to charge regional Australians on the fixed wireless network $20 more per month than customers on the same 50-megabit speed who lived in the city. Simply put, a regional consumer could pay 44 per cent more than someone in the city for the same 50-megabit speed under this plan. This is an extra $65 per month, or $240 a year, that regional consumers would have to fork out. This is how this government views regional Australians. It takes them for granted. It doesn't view them as being as important as the city dwellers.

Where were the Nationals on this? Sitting on their hands as usual. The Nationals, as we all know, are the doormats for the Turnbull government. They were quite happy to sit there and let regional Australia pick up the bill for the Prime Minister's NBN mess. They come in here and cry crocodile tears but do nothing when it comes to standing up for regional Australia on these important issues.

Two hours after Labor called on the government to drop its regional broadband price hike, NBN Co reversed their decision, and so they should. The ABC has also revealed that the NBN sought to modify a record of their own opening statement to the committee on their website to include passages that were not in the original statement and were not spoken by the NBN executives.

The minister has also been pretending that no decision was ever made. In fact, he has claimed that consultation on the pricing changes was ongoing. The minister's argument began falling apart on Friday when an iTnews article, citing documents belonging to the NBN Co, noted that the $20-per-month increase was presented to the telecommunications industry as a done deal, not as something under consultation. The iTnews article also noted that the regional broadband price hike was due to come into effect on 20 August. That was this week. Had it not been for Labor, regional consumers would be paying more. This could have been a disaster for my home state of Tasmania, where up to 40,000 households could have been slapped with an extra $20 per month just to order the same 50-megabyte service as someone who lives in the city.

The intention of the NBN was always to bridge the digital divide between regions and the cities, not create a new one. We need to ensure these levies do not deepen the digital divide and make broadband less affordable for regional households and businesses. We need to make sure that regional communities have access to a broadband network that is fit for the future so that they can participate in the digital economy. Under this plan, if you live in Point Piper, the wholesale charge for the 50-megabyte plan will be $45 per month, but, if you live in regional Australia and want to order the same speed over the fixed wireless network, the NBN has proposed to charge $65 a month. This $20 per month is an extra $240 a year that regional consumers would have to fork out. Thanks to Turnbull's NBN shambles, a regional consumer could be paying—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! Senator Polley, I remind you to address members in the other place by their correct titles.

Senator POLLEY: Thanks to the Turnbull government's NBN shambles, a regional consumer will be paying 44 per cent more than someone in the city. There's one rule for Mr Turnbull in his Point Piper mansion and another for rural and regional consumers. At the same time as energy prices are going up and cost-of-living pressures are increasing, a broadband price hike by this government is the last thing people in regional Australia want to have to deal with. Regional Australians and regional businesses should not have to pick up the bill for the mess created by this Turnbull government.

Now I'll turn to the broadband levy currently before the Senate. The introduction of this poorly designed levy is highly regrettable, but Labor will not be opposing it outright, given the economic deterioration of the government's multitechnology mix. Rather, Labor will be seeking an amendment to the bill to reduce the scope and impact of it. This will ensure it is fairer, more targeted and better aligned with the sensible policy objectives. I recall years ago when Mr Turnbull talked about the NBN like an excited child at Christmas. He doesn't do that anymore. In fact he doesn't speak with any excitement on anything anymore, unless, of course, it's about giving a $17 billion tax cut—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Polley, resume your seat. Senators on my left, one of your own colleagues is on her feet and I can hardly hear her speech because of your interjections. I ask you to extend to your own colleague the courtesy of allowing her to be heard in silence.

Senator POLLEY: The Prime Minister doesn't speak with any excitement on anything, unless, of course, he's giving a $17 billion tax cut to his mates and the big banks, and a $60 billion tax cut to multinationals and corporate Australia.

Mr Turnbull thought he would be the great savour of the NBN. Instead he's been a great disappointment. The NBN has turned into a shambles under this government, and, as we can see, there has been leaked report after leaked report. The lack of transparency in relation to the NBN and the denials and consternation of the NBN Co reflect the paranoia that has gripped the Turnbull government and the NBN infrastructure program. In fact, this would seem to be behind the times if I were to note the deterioration of this government. This government is in paralysis, and who can blame the Australian people for not listening to it anymore. You can only let someone down so many times before they switch off and stop listening.

Over the past few years, Labor has held NBN consultations with consumers and small businesses across the country. I can tell you that the Australian public is dismayed that the Turnbull government abandoned Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN under the false pretence that switching to a multitechnology mix would be faster and cheaper. The bungled installation of the NBN is costing local businesses in my home state of Tasmania, where Mr Turnbull made the callous decision to leave Tasmanian businesses and households off the map. Consequently, Tasmanians are still crying out for better NBN services so they're not left behind and can operate and take advantage of the digital economy. None of the Turnbull government's pledge of 1.5 million premises to be connected to the new fibre to the curb will be in Tasmania.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Polley, you will be in continuation upon the resumption of the debate. It being 2 pm, I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham.