Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (09:31): I table, on behalf of Senator Cormann, a response to the order for the production of documents No. 59, moved by Senator Waters, relating to ministerial correspondence.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (09:31): I rise again to continue my contribution on the Health Insurance Amendment (Bonded Medical Programs Reform) Bill 2019, which will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 by introducing a statutory scheme to administer the reformed bonded medical programs from 1 January 2020.

There are currently 9,406 program participants studying at medical schools or in prevocational training under the older programs—the Bonded Medical Places Scheme and the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme—with a further 623 participants undertaking their return-of-service obligations. These participants will have the option to opt in to the new arrangements from 1 January 2020, and those who choose to stay under the existing arrangements will also be able to do so.

As the program matures, up to 700 doctors are expected to commence their return-of-service obligations in rural, remote and regional Australia each year over the next five to seven years. To be eligible to participate in the reformed bonded medical programs, a person must have accepted a bonded Commonwealth-funded place in a course of study in medicine at an Australian university. They must be an Australian citizen or permanent visa holder and agree to participate in the program using a web portal maintained by the department.

Under the new statutory scheme, participants will be required to work as a medical practitioner in eligible locations for a total period of three years. The three-year return-of-service obligation is half of the six years required under the previous Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme and a reduction of between one and three years for previous bonded medical programs scheme participants who entered the scheme in 2015 or earlier. Participants in the bonded medical programs scheme who entered the scheme in the years 2016 to 2019 agreed to a 12-month return-of-service obligation. These participants will retain their 12-month return-of-service obligation under the new statutory scheme should they voluntarily opt in.

Under the new scheme, the return-of-service obligations must be completed within 18 years from when the participant completes their course of study in medicine at an Australian university, but they may be completed by a series of periods. The period of 18 years to complete the return-of-service obligation may be extended in limited circumstances only where a participant or a family member has a medical condition that prevents that participant from completing their return-of-service obligation within the time frame. A participant will be subject to a number of conditions, including that they must complete their course of study in medicine at an Australian university. The return-of-service obligation must be completed in accordance with the rules, and the participant must give their information or documents to the department in particular circumstances. These are necessary safeguards to protect our investments in these participants.

Should a participant withdraw from their course of study in medicine after the census date for the second year of study, that participant will be liable to pay the Commonwealth the cost of the participant's course of study for the year or part year—semester—of study undertaken, plus interest. Where a participant does not complete their return-of-service within 18 years from completion of their course of study or an extended period, that person will be liable to pay the Commonwealth the cost of the person's course of study that was funded by the Commonwealth, less a pro rata proportion of the return-of-service completed.

Under the new statutory scheme, medical benefits will not be payable to an MRBS participant who becomes a participant under the new statutory scheme and does not complete their return-of-service within 18 years. Medical benefits will not be payable for six years from the day that breach occurs. Further, under the new statutory scheme a participant may be liable for an administrative penalty of $10,000 if the person fails to comply with the condition to provide the department with information or documents. This administrative penalty is considered to be a debt due to the Commonwealth and may be recovered, if needed, by the Commonwealth.

A participant will be able to withdraw from the bonded medical programs at any time by notifying the department using the web portal maintained by the department.

As I said earlier, these are necessary safeguards to protect our investment into these doctors, and they will protect the integrity of the scheme. However, the changes being made to the bonded medical programs are welcome. They will encourage young people interested in a career in medicine to work in more remote, rural and regional areas of our beautiful country. It will expose them to a different kind of medical practice and give them valuable experience for wherever their career may take them.

Doctors in rural and regional areas often become integral members of their communities, particularly in those small towns, often many kilometres from the nearest hospitals. Their families live in the community. Their children go to the school in the local area, and they go to the local church. They are members of the local sporting teams. They get involved in their community. Their days are not just nine to five working days; they work long hours and they're always on call. They can be exposed to situations where their patients are suffering serious life-threatening conditions and it may be some time before emergency service personnel can assist them. They are often the unsung heroes of their town. In the small regional and rural towns in my home state of Tasmania—Deloraine, Westbury, Bicheno, Smithton, Ross, Strahan, Wynyard; the list goes on—they understand this and they truly appreciate and value their local GPs.

Through the return-of-service obligations, this bill will provide doctors with exposure to a regional, rural and remote location. My hope—and I am sure the intent behind this bill—is that these doctors will settle into their community and find a love for their community. The ultimate outcome may well be that they will understand and enjoy the value they bring to the people within the community and will then decide to stay and put some roots down for many years to come.

I referenced Senator Brockman's contribution earlier in my contribution last night, and I note his comment:

In Western Australia alone there are just over 300 medical vacancies, 115 of them being GP positions, in regional areas.

This situation is reflected across the country, with similar statistics in most states and territories. He also acknowledged:

GPs in those country towns are of absolutely vital importance. They're such a central part of a small town's life and existence. In the city it is easy to ignore or forget or not realise what a central component to life in the bush those GPs are.

I cannot agree more with Senator Brockman's sentiments. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to pick up the phone and ring the doctor's surgery and get an appointment that day and feel a huge sense of disappointment if we can't get in for a couple of days should reflect on the experiences those in the rural and regional areas of this country experience.

The coalition government has clearly demonstrated its support for the rural and regional communities of this country, particularly those in drought and flood affected regions. As I mentioned yesterday, the public health system in Tasmania is struggling under the increasing demand and increasing cost of delivering medical services. The coalition government is clearly working hard to make sure that we are helping people in the rural and regional communities of this country, and the changes to the bonded medical programs reform is a great initiative. I strongly urge all senators in this chamber to support this bill.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (09:39): Australia's Bonded Medical Places Scheme is a sensible system because it benefits the Australian people in rural, regional and remote areas that often, as a result of their distances from capital cities and major services, struggle to attract doctors. It also benefits the new doctors themselves by allowing them to attract government funding support for their studies by promising to work for a period for the people in those needy communities. On the face of it, it is a really sensible arrangement that has various beneficiaries, but I do think it can be improved.

Unfortunately, the lure of the bigger cities and the services they provide—the shopping, entertainment, restaurants and convenient access to professional services, as well as being near to family and friends—often outweigh the apparent attractiveness of the smaller country towns and communities. I think graduate doctors who are supported by the Bonded Medical Places Scheme should be more open to creating a life in rural, remote and regional areas and enjoy the unique offerings of country living and the people that call these places home, who deserve just as much access to professional medical and health services as those in the cities.

However, it is also important to recognise the professional aspirations of these doctors, who have often spent many years in study and professional development to become, for example, a GP. The pathway to becoming a doctor that is able to provide GP services and more in a remote community is not an easy one. The whole doctor training pathway sphere is demanding. It is very time-consuming in terms of the years that it takes from when a first-year medical student finishes their medical training, spends time in a training hospital and then completes his or her area of speciality. It's a significant commitment of at least a decade or more to become a fresh GP who can stand alone in a small community as their local doctor.

The bonded scheme has, since 2016, applied to about 28.5 per cent of first-year medical students in Commonwealth-supported places. It's a significant proportion of all medical students in Australia, and it should, on the face of it, result in good outcomes for country areas. Currently, in exchange for the support the students receive to achieve their medical qualifications, they are required to then work in an eligible non-metropolitan location in Australia for a total of 12 months, with that time to be completed within five years of attaining that fellowship. The Commonwealth provides 850 of these bonded medical places each year. It offers a subsidy of $22,000 per year of HECS or HELP support that does not need to be repaid if the terms of the scheme under which the bonded place was offered are met. The scheme should provide a win-win for the new doctors and also for the needy communities which otherwise would struggle to receive access to health services that are taken for granted in the cities.

However, a problem with this scheme is it's been apparently unable to come to a satisfactory time period for how long the medical graduates should spend in the remote locations and over what time frame that service should be fulfilled. In the past, there has been a requirement that graduates spend a period equal to the period of the medical studies, either four or six years, in these needy communities, but that wasn't successful. It's been turned back to now require graduates to fulfil a 12-month commitment in a needy community, with that service to be completed within five years of graduation. The shortcoming of this arrangement is that it could realistically mean that the new doctor could come and go from the community or communities, spending short times here and there and subsequently fulfilling the requirements of the bonded medical scheme but proving to be of no long-term benefit to the community, the local residents and their health needs.

The value of the Commonwealth support for the medical qualifications is of some $88,000 to $132,000, depending on whether it is a four-year postgraduate medical degree or six-year undergraduate degree. It's unacceptable that, after receiving so much financial support from the Australian taxpayer for a qualification that is well regarded and will lead to significant earnings in the private sector over the length of their career, the graduate spends such a relatively short period of time in a haphazard way repaying the Commonwealth and the taxpayer for their financial support.

This bill makes a further change by initiating a compromised time period, increasing the required payback service to three years to be completed within 18 years from when the formal medical studies are completed. This change would also fail in providing continuity of support for the needy communities. It fails to encourage the development of relationships between the members of the community and their doctor. We all know how important it is to have longevity of relationship with your doctor and to develop trust over time. The doctor-patient relationship is one that is intimate, very personal and vital as the patient negotiates the many ups and downs and challenges of their health and family relationships over time. It is absolutely more desirable to have a doctor in a community who has taken time to become part of the community, to develop relationships and to build trust. In some cases, they meet a local, fall in love, buy a house, get married and maybe start a family. To require just three years of payback service completed over 18 years is rather counterproductive.

If the three years are locked in as acceptable for the payback of financial support, I would prefer to see that time completed in one three-year stint, not a broken-up mishmash of some days here and a few weeks there. I personally would like to see the graduate spend a full five years in the community once again, but that may be difficult to introduce again. The reason I suggest these stricter ideas is that these medical graduates have been given a massive opportunity courtesy of the taxpayer. It's a support mechanism that is very generous and provides valuable support towards qualifications that can reap considerable career and financial benefits into the future. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there should be a fair contribution made to the needy rural, remote and regional communities in recognition of the support given.

If police are required to be posted in remote areas for at least two years after they graduate and teachers also have a similar program, with those who spend at least four years teaching in a very remote location over a six-year period also eligible to have their Higher Education Loan Program debt remitted, these should be taken into consideration.

As I have travelled around the country, I have spoken to many councils, mayors, communities and people living in those rural and regional areas who are crying out for doctor services. A lot of these communities are dying because they don't have the services available to them and they can't have access to health care, especially having doctors in their communities, or are spending an enormous amount of money with fly-in, fly-out doctors. Yes, something needs to be done about it—drastically. As I have said here, the taxpayer is going to be paying an enormous amount of money of between $88,000 and $132,000 in HECS fees for these medical students to get their practice. Surely it is reasonable to expect them to sign this contract in return, to give something back to Australian taxpayers by giving of their services.

It is a shame that the five-year scheme didn't work and a lot of people didn't sign up to it. But it is about working together to keep these communities alive, because when the older generations who live in these rural and remote areas can't get the health services they need they move out. They move to the cities, where they can get their health services provided to them. You have got less people living there. Less services will shut down because of less people living in the areas. It is going to have a flow-on effect. I do believe that extending it to a three-year period, from one year is more favourable. One Nation will be supporting the bill.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (09:50): I rise to sum up the debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (Bonded Medical Programs Reform) Bill 2019. This is one of the targeted strategic responses under the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, which responds to the challenge of ensuring primary health care is accessible and available to all Australians, no matter where they live. Under the strategy, a total of $20.2 million was committed to reform the bonded medical programs. The bonded medical programs are a long-term investment in the health workforce by the Australian government. These schemes are designed to address doctor shortages across regional, rural and remote Australia and in areas of workforce shortages. Participants receive a place in a medical course at an Australian university in return for a commitment to work in underserviced areas.

The bill introduces a statutory scheme, known as the Bonded Medical Program, which will come into effect from 1 January 2020. The statutory scheme consolidates the existing bonded medical places and rural bonded medical scholarship schemes under a single legislative framework to progress the government's long-term view to move towards a single bonded medical scheme. The statutory scheme is clearer about the conditions applied under the program and provides greater flexibility for participants to complete their return-of-service obligation. Participants of the statutory scheme continue to have the right of internal review and now will be able to seek review of administrative decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. From 1 January 2020, new participants will enter the program under the new statutory scheme, and existing participants will be able to opt in. The statutory arrangements will eventually replace the myriad complex contractual arrangements currently in place with individual participants. Statutory provisions will ensure that existing participants and future participants have access to the same suite of options and opportunities going forward. Legislative amendments will enable entrants to opt in to a statutory scheme without the need for individual contracts. It will make it significantly easier for bonded students and doctors to complete their return-of-service obligation by reducing and streamlining administrative requirements and giving more options as to when, where and how it can be completed. The reformed arrangements will provide earlier and stronger links with key professional support agencies for doctors.

These improvements to the program will encourage doctors to stay working in the community where they are undertaking their return-of-service obligation beyond their obligations and ensure there are more fully-qualified Australian trained doctors working in regional, rural and remote Australia and in areas of workforce shortage. More importantly, the reforms will also better target the future bonded workforce to locations of need as demographic and workforce demands change over time. The statutory scheme will enable the collection of data for reporting and effective evaluation of the programs. At this stage, it is too early to evaluate the program's success; however, it is critical that the government, the medical profession and the Australian public have access to robust evaluation of the program outcomes to inform policy decisions into the future.

Without legislative reforms, existing administrative arrangements will remain outdated and contractual provisions will continue to be required and will continue to obstruct the delivery of effective and responsive targeting of the bonded medical workforce into the future. The program will become increasingly outdated, with growing frustration experienced by participants and the key stakeholder groups which support them. It questions the benefit of retaining a program which, due to its administrative arrangements, is unable to maintain currency or prepare for the future needs of participants and workforce distribution.

It is the government's long-term view to rationalise the bonded medical programs to a single bonded medical scheme once all existing schemes have expired. It is envisaged this will occur around 2035, when all participants under the existing schemes have either completed their obligations under the program or have chosen to opt in to the new statutory scheme. The government is committed to implementing progressive and responsive administrative arrangements, which support both current and future-bonded doctors keen to make a substantial contribution to better access of medical services across Australia, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (09:56): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, does any senator require that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole? I call the minister.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (09:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (09:57): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator CASH: by leave—I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:58): I note here that normally the Greens do not support exempting most bills from the cut-off order, for reasons that I've articulated in this place before—to enable enough time to look at bills. Given the circumstances of this bill, which I will go into in more detail in the debate on the second reading, the Greens will not be objecting to exemption from the cut-off order. But I don't want that to be taken as a precedence for us changing our view on the rules around bills being exempted from the cut-off order.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (09:58): I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2019 WINTER/SPRING SITTINGS

SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (CASHLESS WELFARE) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The bill will amend the provisions in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 related to exiting cashless welfare arrangements, to provide for the Secretary to be the decision maker for all exit applications. It will also co-locate all the wellbeing exemptions and exit provisions from cashless welfare arrangements in the same Subdivision thereby simplifying the cashless welfare legislation.

The bill will also broaden the criteria to allow the Secretary to take into account a person's ability to manage their affairs generally, including their financial affairs.

Reasons for Urgency

The process to exit the Cashless Debit Card commenced on 1 July 2019. Amendments are required as soon as possible to allow applications to be processed and ensure consistency in the processing of exit applications. As community bodies are either not able or willing to make decisions on applications, it is not possible for some applications to exit the program to be considered in the Ceduna and East Kimberley sites. The amendments proposed in the Bill are urgent to ensure an equitable and consistent process for all Cashless Debit Card participants that apply to exit.

Question agreed to.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) (09:59): I 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—

SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (CASHLESS WELFARE) BILL 2019

Today I rise to speak on a Bill that continues the Government's work on one of the most positive developments in welfare for decades and demonstrates our commitment to make a real difference to the lives of all Australians.

The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 makes a number of important changes to the trial of the Cashless Debit Card that operates in the Ceduna, East Kimberley, Goldfields and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions.

The Cashless Debit Card program is delivering significant benefits for these communities. The program has the objective of reducing immediate hardship and deprivation, reducing violence and harm, encouraging socially responsible behaviour, and reducing the likelihood that welfare recipients will remain on welfare and out of the workforce for extended periods.

The program is showing positive results. The independent evaluation of the Cashless Debit Card trial conducted by ORIMA Research found that it had "a considerable positive impact" in the communities where it had operated.

The statistics back this up:

41 per cent of participants surveyed who drank alcohol reported drinking less frequently;

48 per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently; and

48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial reported gambling less often.

The Bill continues the operation of the Cashless Debit Card program but improves the processes introduced through recent non-government amendments for participants to exit the program.

The amendments were put forward by the Opposition to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Act2019 in April this year.

The Government agreed to include these Opposition amendments, however we recognised that more work and consultation was required to improve what the Opposition had put forward. The Opposition amendments allow Cashless Debit Card participants to apply for an exit from the program on or after 1 July 2019, if they can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their financial affairs as a primary consideration, taking into account a number of secondary factors.

The amendments also outlined that the local community body is the decision maker for those who live in a trial area where there is a community body. For other trial areas, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services is the decision maker.

Since this amendment was introduced, consultation in all four of the current Cashless Debit Card trial areas have identified concerns on the exit process.

The Government is introducing this legislation, following these consultations with communities, to ensure there is an effective, consistent and fair process for participants to exit the Cashless Debit Card program, whilst also continuing our commitment to provide the best support to people, families and communities in places where high levels of welfare dependence co-exist with high levels of social harm.

To improve the operation of processes for participants to exit the Cashless Debit Card program, the Bill proposes a number of reforms to the application process and decision making framework.

Firstly, the Bill provides that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services is the decision maker for all Cashless Debit Card exit applications. Community body representatives have stated that they do not support the exit process as it is currently designed, particularly the role of community bodies as the decision-maker.

While ongoing consultation and engagement on the impact of the new exit process will continue with communities including community bodies, providing that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services is the decision maker for all exit applications will ensure consistency and fairness for all participants of the program.

The Bill also broadens the criteria for the Cashless Debit Card exit provisions to allow the Secretary to take into account a person's ability to manage their affairs generally. For example, the Bill will enable the Secretary to require the person seeking to exit to not only meet the criteria based on financial grounds but can also take into account matters such as contact with authorities for non-financial reasons such as child protection or family violence issues.

The Bill also enables the Secretary to require the person seeking to exit the Cashless Debit Card program to be able to demonstrate that they are acting in the best interest of children, family and the community such as positive school attendance outcomes.

The development of this change followed consultations where stakeholders stated that any process to exit the Cashless Debit Card program should be based on a participant meeting social norms, consistent with the objectives of the program, as well as the current criteria that relates to the management of their financial affairs.

It is critical that we listen to this feedback and ensure that the Cashless Debit Card maintains its focus on reducing social harm and supporting vulnerable people, families and communities.

Finally, the Bill also clarifies that exit applications need to in a form that is approved by the Secretary, and makes a number of minor amendments to move the exit and wellbeing exemption arrangements for the Cashless Debit Card program under one subdivision in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, without any alteration to the existing wellbeing process.

The Bill will not change the effectiveness or day-to-day operation of the program. It simply proposes administrative amendments to the exit application process and streamlines legislative provisions around Cashless Debit Card exit and exemption pathways in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

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.

We are committed to supporting communities that stand up and promote positive change and better outcomes for children and families and we will continue to work in partnership to ensure the Cashless Debit Card program provides the best support for vulnerable individuals within those communities.

This Bill is another step in this Government's efforts to sustain the positive impacts of welfare management and support communities to tackle the negative effects of welfare dependency.

I commend the Bill.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (09:59): I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019. Labor has serious concerns about the cashless welfare card, and we have always opposed its rollout nationally. Labor supported the initial trial of the Cashless Debit Card in Ceduna and East Kimberley because the community leaders indicated their support at the time. Of course, the initial support offered by communities came against a backdrop of inadequate local services and inadequate local job creation and economic development programs—the investments that government should have been making in local social and economic wellbeing.

Labor did not support the further expansion of the trial to Bundaberg-Hervey Bay or the Goldfields, because of the lack of evidence and a lack of any clear community support. Let me be clear: Labor will not support the expansion of the cashless debit card to new communities unless the community wants the card and there is informed community consent. At the election, the rollout of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg-Hervey Bay was only partially complete. Labor committed to stopping the rollout of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg-Hervey Bay and to taking a case management approach to putting in place alternative support for people already on the card, as well as investing in support services and programs that work. Labor has not been able to satisfy ourselves through our own consultations that the community desire present in the other trial sites was present in Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay.

Labor successfully amended a bill in the Senate in April this year to allow people participating in the cashless debit card trial sites to get off the cashless debit card if they are effectively managing their affairs. Labor's amendment required community panels, which are established in some cashless debit card trial sites, to be the decision-maker. This was consistent with existing arrangements for reducing the portion of a person's income quarantined on the cashless debit card. The government's subsequent consultation with the community panels found that they did not want to be this decision-maker, out of concern for the pressure that could be placed on panel members by members of the community who apply to get off the cashless debit card. On this basis, Labor will not oppose this bill—it is consistent with the amendment we successfully made earlier in the year and it will give people a pathway off the card.

This bill will amend the exit criteria under current legislation to allow for a broader consideration of opt-out criteria for persons participating in the cashless welfare card. The bill will create a single administrative process for the Department of Social Services, DSS, to make decisions about people getting off the cashless debit card. The bill also combines the pre-existing welfare exemption which allows DSS to exempt a person from the cashless debit card if it is a threat to their physical, mental or emotional health, with the exit pathway established by Labor's amendment.

Further, the bill clarifies that exit applications need to be made in a form that is approved by the secretary of DSS and expands the wellbeing exemption provisions so they apply more broadly across all regions. This bill will ultimately assist participants who are managing their affairs well and who want to get off the card. We understand hundreds of people are seeking an exemption from the trial and have already approached DSS about the opt-out process. This shows there is strong community support for people being able to get off the cashless debit card.

Labor has some concerns about the operation of certain provisions in this bill, and we will move amendments to address some of these. The cashless debit card has been running too long. It is no longer a trial, and it is time the government produced some real evidence about the effectiveness of the card and reassessed community support in each trial area. That is why Labor moved a second reading amendment in the House calling on the government to: firstly, table a report in parliament by the end of the year, making clear whether or not there is continuing community support in any of the trial sites for the cashless debit card; secondly, table a wraparound service plan in the parliament by the end of the year, explaining how the government has boosted community services in the trial sites and what increased investment will be made in the future; and, thirdly, make the cashless debit card voluntary from 30 January 2020, unless there is clear local community support and consent for the card. This is an incredibly important point—the government simply cannot continue to impose this card on communities where there is not clear support and they cannot continue to impose it in the absence of evidence about the card's effectiveness.

In this context, Labor's future position on the cashless debit card is clear. We will not support the extension of the cashless debit card trial sites or the further rollout of the cashless debit card, unless the government can demonstrate there is clear and genuine local community support. The cashless debit card is over-simplified. Labor will move similar amendments in the committee stages in the debate in this bill, setting out a process for people to come off the card.

Since the introduction of the cashless debit card trials, the government has continually failed to be up-front about the full cost of implementing the cashless debit card. Hopefully, this is something the minister can shed some light on in the course of this debate. The government have already spent $34 million on the cashless debit card, and the budget papers show they're planning to spend $128.8 million over the forward estimates, including on new sites and the rollout of the cashless debit card across the Northern Territory. That's over $160 million that instead could have been allocated to employment and economic development, early intervention services, and to drug and alcohol treatment.

It was reported in mid-2017 that the cost per participant of the cashless debit card exceeded $10,000 per participant. The same year the Auditor-General found that the annual running costs of the cashless debit card would be over $3,700 per participant. The problem is that we have never had a proper evaluation into what better outcomes would be possible if this money was invested differently. This is incredibly concerning, particularly when you consider that the Auditor-General found there was no evidence that the cashless debit card was effective. In addition, Labor has become increasingly concerned about the government's reliance on the deeply flawed ORIMA evaluation to justify the cashless debit card. The Auditor-General's examination of the cashless debit card found that there was no evidence that the card was effective and found deep inconsistencies in the ORIMA evaluation.

At a Senate inquiry into the cashless debit card earlier this year, the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs heard evidence that in some trial sites the cashless debit card has now been in operation for so long that the opportunity for a proper piece of evaluation to be conducted has passed. There is clear evidence the card is not maintaining community support, even in areas where some people might have initially been in favour of the card. Indigenous leader and foundation chair in Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, Professor Marcia Langton, has said the cashless debit card is a failure. Professor Langton said, 'Because the local community is not involved in implementing the policy, the policy failed.' One of the community leaders who initially supported the introduction of the trial, Mr Desmond Hill, has since withdrawn his support. Mr Hill told the recent inquiry one of the conditions community leaders had when agreeing to the East Kimberley becoming a trial site was that people would be able to apply to leave the trial. Another Indigenous elder in the East Kimberley, Ian Trust, who remains a supporter, told the committee he was not opposed to people being able to come off the card in some circumstances. That is why it is important that people can get off the cashless debit card, even in areas where the trial may be supported by the community. This bill will allow people to come off the cashless debit card, and the fact is many of those people should not have been on the card in the first place.

In conclusion, why Labor will not oppose this bill because it implements an amendment we made some months ago and provides a pathway off the card. We will not support the extension of the cashless debit card trial sites or the further rollout of the cashless debit card, unless the government can demonstrate there is clear and genuine local community support. Labor will take an evidence based approach to this policy and to income management. We will not go down the US path of supporting essentially a food stamp system, where people are identified and shamed in public by the card as being on social security, where children are teased and ostracised at school, where people can't buy a second hand fridge on Gumtree, shop at a roadside farm stall or buy food at a market, all because this conservative government would rather hand out tens of millions of dollars to a private company to run the cashless debit card and to set up a privatised, parallel welfare system to be imposed by this government on people regardless of their circumstances or how they are managing their affairs. Australians have a right to adequate social security. It should be considered by all sides a basic characteristic of a fair and civil society. We will not demonise social security recipients, like this government does.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:11): I rise to speak on the Social Services (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019. This bill makes changes to the exit and wellbeing exemption arrangements for people to exit the cashless debit card trials. These are necessary because the current processes aren't workable. These changes relate to the so-called exit or opt-out provisions, which were rushed through the Senate by the government and the ALP together in return for the ALP's supporting the government's extension of the cashless debit card trial sites. That happened in April. There was no time to debate the bill itself or the amendments. It was obvious from the start, by reading the amendments that were rushed through, that the exit provisions wouldn't work. But that really didn't matter to the government or the opposition, because they just wanted to see the extension of the cashless debit card rushed through without adequate scrutiny so that they could extend the trials for another 12 months.

That was rushed through before the election. Unfortunately there was no way to debate those changes, as I said, because the gag was applied to a number of bills that were rushed through in April, before the election. The Senate did not have time to adequately scrutinise the amendments. I would hope that, if we had been given time, the fact that they weren't workable would have been realised. What has happened now is that we have a whole lot of people that are in limbo. I will come back to that in a minute.

We have here a bill that makes a number of changes, including removing the role of the unelected, hand picked community bodies in assessing a person's exit applications. It makes the secretary of the Department of Social Services the decision-maker for the exit applications. It also amends some of the exit criteria and clarifies that exit applications that are to be made through a form approved by the secretary of the department.

I will come to the discussion of the amendments shortly, but let me first be very clear: the Greens continue their opposition to income management and the cashless debit card trials and the cashless debit card. This is a punitive approach that unfairly discriminates against First Nations communities, particularly, and does not work, despite the government's rhetoric. Last night in adjournment I articulated and spoke about a number of accounts from people that are subject to the cashless debit card and how it's making their lives worse, not better. The cashless debit card is not supported by lots of people in the broader community and people in the trial sites.

I move a second reading amendment to the legislation:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to abandon compulsory income management and the Cashless Debit Card."

People on the card have articulated how they feel demonised, stigmatised. People have been spat on, called druggies and had their children bullied at school because their parents are on the card. The card restricts human rights and unfairly targets people on income support. We do not support the cashless debit card. We don't support income management.

The government falsely claim the success of the card and of income management. Their own evaluations, if read clearly and properly, don't support those claims, even if you ignore the fact that the methodology is flawed. I have, many times in this place, gone through the flaws in the evaluation process and the way the government falsely claim that those evaluations show the success of income management. They ignore the voices of the community such as those that I quoted last night in my adjournment speech. Those people, as I said, talk about being shamed, being demonised and the fact that they have a lot of problems with the card.

The Northern Territory, through the Northern Territory intervention, has had income management for 12 long years. Does anybody seriously claim that the situation in the Northern Territory has been stabilised, that it has improved, when we see an escalating number of children going into out-of-home care still and we still have outrageous youth justice interaction problems and problems with the youth justice system? No, of course they don't. In 2007 the then-Howard government made what turned out to be false claims about the situation in the Northern Territory, to justify the dog whistling of the Northern Territory intervention. Those claims have not been proved to be correct. None of the things that they claimed would happen through the intervention and income management have in fact happened, which the evaluation of the Northern Territory intervention clearly showed. The hearing into the rollout of the cashless debit card in Hinkler clearly showed something similar. The authors of that report highlighted the findings from the Northern Territory intervention evaluation, which does not support the government's claims of success.

The Greens remain strongly opposed to the cashless debit card and income management. However, there are now hundreds of people in limbo because the application process that was rushed through this place doesn't work, and there is actually no process in place to assess their applications. The wellbeing exemption process is a mess. My office has tried to help many people who have applied for the wellbeing exemption and been extremely frustrated by the process. The wellbeing exemption process has been in place for a long time. For opt-out and exit there are no processes in place, but we've helped a number of people through the wellbeing exemption process. One person was told, 'You need to be on the card first, so then you can prove that it's adversely impacted your mental health.' In other words, the department at the time was saying, 'You need to be sicker before we can take you off it.' It's ridiculous.

We are supporting this legislation, although I have some strong concerns about it which I will articulate. We will be supporting this process around exemption. I'm being really clear: we do not support the cashless debit card, but we support improving the exemption process, because we want to help what we've been told, through our community contacts, is about 400 people who have applied for the opt-out process and are in limbo. We want to make sure there is a process in place, so we are supporting this particular bit of the legislation. However, I have some amendments to the process, because we think it can still be improved.

I thank the minister for the way that she has undertaken the consultation to get this process fixed. I think that she's been very open to what we had to say. She didn't take everything on board, I must say, but it was a welcome process because it enabled us to look at the legislation and point at some of the issues that we had. Once the legislation was released, we listened very strongly to stakeholders, who have had things to say even in the short time since this legislation was tabled last Thursday. There are a lot of people who are keenly interested in the cashless debit card trials and income management, and they have responded very quickly to our reaching out for their comments.

Unsurprisingly, there have been a number of issues that have been raised with the criteria, and I will go through some of those issues that we have now with the process. Having said that, I will reiterate that I was pleased that we could talk to the government about some of these issues. I just wish they'd gone a lot further. I will say now, too, that I have a series of questions. Although these changes are in place to help the process roll more smoothly, I think there are a lot of questions about how the process will work, so I'd like to get the answers on record in order for people to understand how the process will work when they use this legislation to opt out and also for the wellbeing exemptions.

Some of the issues that I still think are problematic are under section 124PHB(3). It says that a person wishing to exit the trial will be assessed according to the following:

(a) the person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person's affairs (including financial affairs), taking into account all of the following:

(i) the interest of any children for whom the person is responsible;

(ii) whether the person was convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or was serving a sentence of imprisonment for such an offence, at any time in the last 12 months …

I acknowledge that this is a change from what originally went through this place, which was about whether the person 'has a likelihood of engaging in any unlawful activity'. That was totally subjective. It wasn't measurable. It was dependent on whether somebody in the community, because at this stage it was about the community panels and the community bodies, thought someone was going to carry out any unlawful activity. So I do acknowledge that that's an improvement on what was there. We do, however, have concerns that it's 'convicted of an offence' rather than 'convicted of a serious offence', so I do have an amendment to make to emphasise that it's about a serious offence.

The criteria also includes:

(iii) risks of homelessness;

(iv) the health and safety of the person and the community;

(v) the responsibilities and circumstances of the person;

(vi) the person's engagement in the community, including the person's employment or efforts to obtain work …

Anybody reading those will see that a lot of those are also very subjective, so that's why I wish to clarify these issues during the debate of the whole—so people are clear about how this criteria will be assessed. We actually want to take out the whole lot of the criteria and just leave the 'managing financial affairs' part there. That's another amendment that I'll be putting in during the committee of the whole process.

Now, let's look at these criteria. For a start, some of these criteria would well contradict the wellbeing exemption. If having poor mental health, for example, qualifies you for a wellbeing exemption, will it then qualify you for a wellbeing exemption, or does it mean that you are caught up under the criteria that talks about the health and safety of a person in the community? The problem here is that we are at risk of the criteria for the opt-out exemption contradicting the process through the wellbeing exemption, so we need to make sure that that is clarified.

Many, many people responded over the weekend to the criteria, telling us they thought the exit criteria were incredibly patronising and onerous and that they believe they're based on ideological grounds rather than on being workable. These exit provisions require trial participants to provide evidence that goes above and beyond the objectives of the trial. It is unfair that trial participants are being forced to jump through these hoops that no other income support recipients are subject to all because they are unlucky enough to live in the so-called cashless debit card trial sites. Let me say that people who are living on incredibly low payments, such as $277.86 per week on Newstart, are some of the best money managers around. It is objectionable that the government thinks that just because you're on income support, you can't manage your finances.

Many people on income support payments, especially on low payments, find it difficult to provide evidence that satisfies these criteria. Let's take the criteria for risk of homelessness. The chronic lack of housing, especially in remote communities, means that First Nation families often experience housing overcrowding. This will work against First Nation people wanting to exit the card. A person's risk of homelessness could also be exacerbated by being on the cashless debit card. I've heard repeated accounts of people's rent payments bouncing back into their accounts, because of the Indue card, and not being paid on time. How is it fair to assess a person on their risk of homelessness when the card itself makes it difficult to maintain a good rental history?

To exit the card, a person also needs to demonstrate they have not been convicted of any offences in the last 12 months. This could see someone charged with minor offences like jaywalking, petty theft or graffiti excluded from exiting the card. First Nation people will again be disadvantaged because of the institutionalised and systemic racism they experience through our justice system, and virtually every day of their lives. We know that First Nation people are 13 times more likely to be in prison than non-Indigenous people.

A trial participant's exit application will also be assessed against the health and safety of the person and the community. This is incredibly unfair. How can a person prove the health and safety of their community, and how can they be held responsible for it? Individuals cannot, and should not, be held responsible for the health and safety of their community in return for getting off the card. It also directly contradicts the wellbeing exemptions that allow a person to exit the card based on their physical and mental health issues. It begs the question as to whether, as I articulated earlier, a person's health will determine whether they stay on the card or exit the card.

I also have strong concerns about the criteria around a person's employment or efforts to obtain work. The cashless debit card operates in many regional areas that are suffering from thin or non-existent labour markets. The focus on proving employment also reflects the government's devaluing of unpaid care work. Unpaid care often takes place in private and is not able to be verified by documentary evidence.

Overall, the exit criteria are not measurable or objective and I will move an amendment to have these removed. If that fails, I've got a lot of questions to ask about how they will operate. The objectives remain open to interpretation and allow the secretary of the Department of Social Services to exercise extensive discretion over a person's exit application, and that remains a strong concern for many people.

Despite being fully aware of these flaws, the government has not moved to make significant improvements to the exit criteria. When we are discussing these during the committee of the whole, I will urge the minister to clarify how these criteria will be interpreted, what evidence will be acceptable and how will it be verified? There are also significant problems with the role of the health and community worker in the reconsideration of the exit applications. Section 124PHB(8) stipulates:

If a health or community worker considers that it is necessary for the person who is the subject of a determination under subsection (3) to be a trial participant for medical or safety reasons, the worker may request the Secretary to reconsider the determination.

While I think the way that is worded shows some improvement, I am concerned that it doesn't stipulate that the health or community worker has to have a professional relationship with the person that they're talking about. Otherwise, any member of the community who happens to be a health or community worker may register an issue with the department to say, 'We want that person reconsidered,' having no justification for that at all, other than it may be their opinion. I'm deeply concerned about the way this could be interpreted and seek clarification from the government that the worker will be expected to have a professional connection with the person they're working with.

Unlike some people, we are in fact pleased that the community bodies have been taken out of this process. Community bodies are unelected. The government has chosen the people there. Nobody knows who they are. I've said this repeatedly in this place and called for those names to be released so that people in the community can know who's judging them. It is totally unfair that the participants of this trial do not know who the people are that are making the decisions in either the community panel or the community reference group, where they exist, in both Hinkler and Kalgoorlie. We don't know if there are participants, for example, on the reference groups. We understand there are businesses. So businesses get a say over the control of people's lives? This is outrageous!

People in the government will continue to get up and say how fantastic the card is. They obviously haven't spoken to the people that are suffering under this card—being demonised, stigmatised, spat on and called druggies who can't manage their financial affairs, when they have proven that they can manage their financial affairs. Income management stigmatises people. It is discriminatory. It should be abandoned now. We will not support any continuation of the CDC.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:31): I rise to make a contribution on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019. I note with some trepidation that my new colleague from Western Australia Matt O'Sullivan, who gave an absolutely wonderful first speech last night and who is full bottle on this topic, is speaking after me. Hopefully, I don't mess up too badly, Senator O'Sullivan.

This is something I have taken an interest in, as a senator from Western Australia, since my time began in this place. I was fortunate enough as an incoming senator to be on the community affairs committee, and one of my first committee responsibilities was to travel to Kalgoorlie with the community affairs committee and talk to the local community about this very issue. One of the things that was very clear from that time in Kalgoorlie was the sheer desperation that parts of rural and regional areas in particular face in relation to issues of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, other addiction problems and social dysfunction in general. That desperation was voiced by so many people—people from non-Indigenous backgrounds, people from Indigenous backgrounds and, literally, the taxi driver who took me from the airport in Kalgoorlie to the hearing. The desperation and the desire to give people some hope was palpable. In working with the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, a good friend of mine, on the cashless debit card trial in Kalgoorlie—and I know that Senator O'Sullivan, in his previous role, also played a part in the development of the cashless debit card—we've seen that granting of hope. We've see people grasp the opportunity to improve their lives that is presented by the cashless debit card.

We understand those opposite have some ideological objections to the underlying idea of the cashless debit card. However, that granting of hope to people in those communities is something that shouldn't be diminished and shouldn't be put aside on the basis of an ideological view of the world. The cashless debit card is about giving people the chance to get control of their own lives again—of their own spending. Of the stories that have come to me from the Kalgoorlie trial, there is one of a young woman who has been able to get control of her financial situation and has been able to buy a car, for the first time in her life, and maintain the operating costs on that car. There are stories of shopkeepers in the town of Coolgardie who have seen families coming in and buying food for their children's lunch for the first time ever. This is an opportunity for people to take control of their financial situation in the face of the absolutely debilitating impacts of drug and alcohol abuse in particular.

This is a community led program. I think that is something that should not be ignored. I know the genesis, particularly in Kalgoorlie, in the Goldfields region, of the cashless debit card. This was not government in Canberra picking a spot; this was community groups in Kalgoorlie and the surrounding areas coming to their local member, Rick Wilson, advocating to be part of this trial. There was extensive consultation within the area involved. There was a postal survey that went out to 18,000 Goldfields households and came back with 85 per cent support for the trial. There was advocacy from local community groups. I spoke to the local mayor, I spoke to the CEO of the local shire, and to the Shire of Laverton and the Shire of Leonora—and I should point out that there is significant Indigenous representation in those local government authorities. These local communities wanted a circuit-breaker, they wanted something to change the dynamic in their community, and that is what the cashless debit card has provided.

Another point—and I have made it in this place before, but it is very important—is that we are looking here at amendments to the regime, and that is because these are trials. This is a process of constant improvement. We know that this is something we need to look at. We need to see what works, and we need to change what doesn't and try again. This is not something that we as a government, as a society, can afford to get wrong. There is too much at stake.

The government believe in a fair go for all and we believe in putting vulnerable people first, but we also have to spend taxpayers' money in a responsible way. We have high expectations of people who are on welfare and we know that those people, who are often in desperate circumstances, do want to regain control of their lives in the face of addiction and want to make a better life for themselves and their families.

The cashless debit card does look and operate like a regular EFTPOS card; however, it can't be used to withdraw cash, gamble or purchase alcohol. Recipients receive 80 per cent of their payments on the card, with the remaining 20 per cent placed in a bank account. The card can be used to pay for everyday expenses such as rent, mortgages and bills; to buy groceries; and to pay for medical appointments, car registration and similar things. The cashless debit card is a fee-free account. People can check their balances and transaction histories for free, and replace lost or stolen cards at no cost. The cashless debit cards provide effective usability for participants, with the ability to transfer funds between cashless debit card accounts and to access online shopping. It's accepted at something like just under a million EFTPOS terminals nationally. It is a user-friendly and innovative way for people to receive income support payments, and we continue to improve it all the time.

There are currently four trial areas: the Ceduna region in South Australia; the East Kimberley region in Western Australia; the Goldfields region, which I have spoken a little about, in Western Australia; and most recently the Bundaberg and Harvey Bay region in Queensland. All of these areas face very different challenges, which is why—again, this was community driven—the government chose them. In the Goldfields region, the card is often thought of as directly impacting more on the Indigenous community there. However, it is always important to note that, of the welfare recipients who are on the cashless debit card program, 50 per cent are actually non-Indigenous.

We have a situation where Kalgoorlie is different to the East Kimberley in terms of its demographic profiles. Bundaberg and Hervey Bay are different again. It's a much younger demographic and targeted as such. This is a government that is committed to seeing what works on the ground and making sure that the rollout is effective—that we monitor the rollout and that we act on the information that we are gaining back.

In the first of the three sites the program applied to all working age welfare participants, but in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg it targeted those under 35. So, again, we are seeking to gain the information on where this is most effective and how we can use this as a tool to help people take control of their own lives.

There are around 11,200 people on the cashless card trial across those four sites. Again, this has been developed in close partnership with community leaders and looks to address those devastating impacts of drug and alcohol that I've talked about.

The government has talked about and committed to expanding the cashless debit card to the Northern Territory and Cape York regions of Queensland in 2020. Again, that will offer another snapshot into another set of issues at the local level.

Why do we need this bill? This bill allows the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to be the decision-maker for all cashless debit card exit applications and broadens the criteria for the exit provisions to allow the secretary to take into account a person's ability to manage their affairs generally, including their financial affairs. The bill clarifies that exit applications need to be made in a form that is approved by the secretary and expands the wellbeing exemption provisions, so they apply more broadly across the regions.

Changes are needed to fix the exit process that was introduced by the opposition earlier this year as an amendment to legislation that extended the cashless debit card program beyond 30 June 2019. Following the passage of these amendments feedback from community representatives indicated a lack of support for the new exit process and particularly the role of community bodies as decision-makers. Community stakeholders also indicated that any process to exit the program should be based on a participant meeting social norms, as well as the current criteria relating to financial management. Without the critical support of the community bodies and agreement to make decisions on these applications it is not possible to implement the exit process as provided for under the current provisions.

The exit application process is accessible to all participants. The criteria to be considered by the decision-maker is outlined in the legislation. This criteria is applied to each participant's own circumstances, however, it may vary. Therefore, a phone interview will ensure that participants have an opportunity for a fair and equitable assessment by taking into account these differences at a time that suits them.

This bill will amend the exit criteria to allow broader consideration of a person's affairs, including their financial affairs. This allows full consideration of all factors, such as the impact on children and family safety. This change to the criteria is in line with the feedback from consultation with community stakeholders and is consistent with the broader social objectives of the cashless debit card program.

This bill will amend the exit process to reflect the feedback from consultation and to require applications to be made in a form approved by the secretary. The amendments also enable the secretary to make a determination in relation to applications, which will be a reviewable decision.

These amendments will also move the exit and wellbeing exemption arrangements under one subdivision of the Social Security (Administration) Act. This removes differences in decision-making processes, increasing consistency and fairness for participants across trial areas, regardless of whether a person is a participant in a trial area where there is a community body in place.

CDC participants can be also be exited from the trial if they were incorrectly placed on the trial or if they no longer meet the participation criteria. This is different to the wellbeing exemption process where a CDC participant could be exempted from the trial if being on the trial could pose a serious risk to their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

Just briefly in winding up, I think it is important to note that the government did commit, as part of this process, to ongoing reviews of the cashless debit card in place. The first of those, from the Adelaide University, was published in February this year. It looked in particular at the Goldfields region. It has a section, which I want to go through briefly, on the early impacts of the cashless debit card. I'll read out some of the observations. It says:

... a majority of respondents were of the opinion that early impacts were starting to be observed. These impacts primarily centred on alcohol and drug use and misuse, child welfare and well-being, spending and financial management, financial abuse, crime and domestic violence, and support services.

Levels of substance misuse (and especially alcohol misuse) were reported by many respondents to have reduced in the Goldfields since the introduction of the CDC. Likewise, alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and crime had also decreased.

It goes on to say:

Early positive impacts relating to improvements in child welfare and well-being were commonly reported by respondents with beneficial outcomes of the CDC perceived to be flowing down from participants to their families.

I'll contrast that again—the positives that are coming out of the analysis of the cashless debit card trials—with some of the comments I got on that first trip to Kalgoorlie. The mayor of Kalgoorlie, John Bowler, said:

Locals who live here complain to me about what's happening. They want a solution. I've been almost pulling my hair out—the little bit of hair I've got—asking: what is a solution?

He went on to talk about how the community has been contacting him about the problems they have. He then said:

I then drove to Ceduna to experience it firsthand and make my own observations. I spoke to people ... I spoke to the deputy mayor, I spoke to retailers in the town and townspeople and got the same picture: they were glad that it had been introduced. They said there were some complaints, but even some who initially had been opposed to the card had really come around to say that life generally was better, particularly for those living on the streets.

Patrick Hill, President of the Shire of Laverton, said:

Everyone in town—the police, the hospital, the school, the Laverton Crisis Centre, the ambulance, the fire brigade, the resident group, the shire—has done everything possible to try and stem this abuse and the effects that alcohol, drugs and gambling have on our towns and the availability of cash. Council has formally adopted and supports the cashless welfare card because we see this as an opportunity to try and do something. We have had up to 50 agencies come into Laverton to try and address these social issues, and we do have our Laverton inter-agency group meetings to come up with solutions to try and stem this violence.

Mr Hill went on to say:

This will at least give us breathing space to do something and sit back and analyse where things can be done better and what we can do better as a community. We see it every single day. We have done everything we can as a community to try and solve some of these issues that we've got.

I could go on. There are many more. We heard from Mr Jim Epis, chief executive of the Shire of Leonora. We heard from business owners in Kalgoorlie. We heard from community groups in the Goldfields region. People wanted the chance to try and change the social dynamic, the dysfunction that was occurring in their community. It is a desperately sad situation. I've heard ministers on this side repeatedly say that the cashless debit card is not a silver bullet, and we on this side all understand that. It is not of itself the solution. However, it can be a part of a broader solution. It can be the circuit-breaker that helps people take back control of their lives. I support the bill.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Western Australia) (10:49): I rise in support of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 . Last night, it was my great privilege to be able to speak for the first the time here in the Senate. In that speech, I spoke about my involvement with the cashless debit card in its early formations. I thought I'd take the time now to talk a little bit about the journey and the genesis—how the whole idea of the cashless debit card actually came about—because I was part of the very early discussions with some of the communities where it's now being trialled.

Senator Brockman said that I am a full bottle on this. Well, I think that's very kind and generous, but I think it's a little overstated. The reality is the full bottles on this are the communities. They are the ones that understand the depth and breadth of the importance of this card and the support that's provided with it—the extra supports of services that come with the card. The government is not delivering just that form of administered welfare payments, the social services payments that people receive. There are other supports that are there.

The Cashless Debit Card came about after a review by Mr Andrew Forrest from Fortescue Metals Group and the Minderoo Foundation, where I was working at the time. He was asked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, to undertake a review of the Indigenous jobs and training system. In doing the review, having gone around the country and speaking with many people—there were town hall meetings, lots of consultations around the country and about 400 different submissions as well—what became very apparent was that the focus on training and employment was important and we needed to bring some reforms into that space. I spoke about that last night in my speech. What became really apparent was, if people for six out of seven nights are drunk and affected by drugs, then there's no chance of training those people for jobs, even for jobs that are there or where there's a demand for jobs. And so there was a real cry from communities to try something that was different, to try something that could help people get that circuit-breaker.

Senator Brockman said that no-one in this place, in the government or anywhere, even in the communities, is saying that the Cashless Debit Card would be a silver bullet, but it is a circuit-breaker and it does provide an opportunity. We had a look at what was available. Is there a technology solution that could help? Years ago, you wouldn't have been able to do this, but technology has advanced.

We saw that the basics card was in operation in the Northern Territory. It's a similar model. It works similarly, but there are a few important differences between the basics card and the Cashless Debit Card. One of the problems with the basics card, which all welfare recipients across the Northern Territory and other parts in disparate locations across the country experience, is that the merchant has to install a separate terminal at their point of sale. In the Northern Territory in particular, you'd go into the grocery store, into the supermarket, and there would only be one line that had the basics card terminal installed, and it was the basics card terminal. Of course, you'd see all of the welfare recipients lined up at one terminal and everyone else lined up at the other aisles. It created a stigma for people. It was obvious who was on welfare and who was not, so it wasn't empowering. It wasn't helping people. It was actually driving down the despair further. If you're on welfare, it's a challenging circumstance, and no-one debates that, but what we don't need to do is add further stigma or a further issue to their lives, and the basics card was, in many ways, doing that. We took it to the technology providers, EFTPOS, Visa and Mastercard, and had a discussion with them. We got the banks together and said, 'Is there a way we could use one of the mainstream schemes, Visa, Mastercard or EFTPOS, to provide a more ubiquitous program so that the card could work anywhere in Australia, not just at those locations the merchant had installed a terminal to interface with their point of sale?'

We wanted to find a system that would enable people to go freely about their lives, conduct their business, buy the things that they needed—their groceries—and pay their electricity bill and pay for whatever they needed in a pretty unrestricted way, just with the merchants that sell alcohol and gambling products blocked and of course ensuring that there's no purchase of drugs and perhaps prohibiting taking cash out at the ATM.

This was a real breakthrough. It couldn't have been done 10 years ago. This is something that was new, and we thought it was worth trialling. So, we took it to a number of the communities that are now trial communities, and a few others. There were a few that rejected it; they didn't want it. At the time Geraldton, for example, weren't prepared to bring about the trial. But in the communities of the East Kimberley and Ceduna, the leadership group within those communities, said: 'Look, we think this is worth a go. We think this is worth trialling.' So, at Generation One, in Minderoo, where I was working at the time, we took it to the government. The government worked with us and said, 'Well, if you can actually demonstrate that the support is real, that there are actually people who want to see this happen, where we could break the cycle of welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling purchases, then this might be worth having a look at.' So we did. We got the support of those communities. They were a part of bringing delegations here into this place, speaking with crossbench members, government and opposition about the kind of support that was there within these communities. The government moved to implement this program, and it's been running now for several years across the East Kimberley and Ceduna, and now into the Goldfields and Hinkler.

It's a circuit-breaker. It by no means deals with all the challenges. I talked to the senior sergeant of police up in Kununurra, who said to me, 'Instead of having five continuous nights and days, after welfare payments hit, of drinking issues and all sorts of social problems that come with excessive drinking, we might now have only one or two nights.' So, it becomes a circuit-breaker. I had the opportunity to go to many of these communities over a number of years, long before the cashless debit card and now since the implementation of the card, and these places really are different. They're very, very different. They're not perfect; you still see issues, you still hear from the nursing staff and police and others, and we know there are still some problems that have to be addressed within these communities.

To me, employment is clearly the way to deal with this, because when someone has to take the responsibility of getting up for work and the responsibility of providing for their family, they make better choices, because they can't be staying out late every night, using all their money to purchase copious amounts of alcohol and drugs and not putting that into their family. People take responsibility. So, this is a real opportunity, and people seize that opportunity when they've got a job. That really is the focus that we need to have.

So, this legislation and the amendment here deals with an important thing that the community is looking for. As Senator Brockman said, this is a trial. This is about moving and adapting to the program and how it's working and how it can be improved. Here we have a situation where community members are saying, 'We think there are circumstances where people can demonstrate that they don't need to be on the cashless debit card and they can transition off that.' The government's listened to what the community is saying. There was a part of the legislation that established a reference group that people would have to go to and make their case, and then that would be able to take them off the cashless debit card. But the community responded, saying: 'Actually, we don't want to be set up against our communities. We don't want to have that sort of involvement. We just want to be participants within our community and not have that sort of role.' So I think this amendment is a very important amendment. It takes pressure away from community members within the group. This is an important change that we would make here today.

In order to make the card even better—it's never going to be perfect—we can invest in the technology that the card operates on. At the moment, it works by blocking an entire merchant. If you use that card at a grocery store, a supermarket, it will work. If you use it at a petrol station, it will work. If you use it to put new tyres on your car, it will work. This is not just in communities where the trial is in operation, but anywhere across Australia and, in fact, the world. However, if you use that card at a liquor store, it won't work. If you try to use it at a casino, to purchase some gambling products, it won't work. This is anywhere across Australia, not just within those trial communities.

The problem is, if you want to see it go into other regions where you don't have these discrete communities, there are mixed merchants that sell both alcohol and groceries through the same point-of-sale system. What we really need, to enable it to expand and go further and to take away any of that stigma that is attached to it, is the ability to limit the sale of particular items. So we need to ratchet up the scale of the technology to limit items rather than an entire merchant. One of the problems is, you can go to a mixed merchant, or even an existing merchant that's allowed—for example, at the service station—and buy a gift card and take that gift card that you purchased in the service station, or the post office or wherever you can buy gift cards, straight down to a liquor store to purchase a trolley full of booze. It's defeating the purpose of the program.

I'll be working with the minister and the government to look at ways of developing the technology to improve its efficiency, to improve how it works, so we can restrict the sale of particular items rather than entire merchants. You certainly wouldn't want to restrict the ability to shop at a supermarket. It has basic provisions that people are going to need. And we can't stop people purchasing fuel from a service station just because they also sell gift cards.

In the trial communities they've got around it with a manual override process, by limiting the sale of particular items. But if we're going to take it broadly we need to invest in the technology. This will further support the communities and the intent of the program, which is not to limit people's lives, not to impose upon them any unnecessary, undue, process. They will be able to go about their lives freely, without any encumbrance, and provide for their families. We've seen some great results in the trial communities. The key finding from the initial evaluation was that 41 per cent of those who reported drinking before the trial were now drinking less, while 37 per cent reported binge drinking less frequently. It doesn't mean they've stopped; it just means there's been a reduction.

I spent many years as a youth worker, and I have never seen a program have such a dramatic social impact. There's no amount of counselling or support that you could provide—I've worked with many young people who have had issues with this. I've never seen such a dramatic change in a community brought about, as we've seen in this community, with that sort of result. Of participants who reported that they were gambling, 48 per cent said that they were gambling less. Of those who said that they were taking illegal drugs before the program commenced, 48 per cent said that they reported using illegal drugs less often.

The evaluation also found widespread spillover benefits from the card. Forty per cent of participants surveyed that they were better able to look after their children. Forty-five per cent of participants were better able to save money. There was a decrease in requests for emergency food relief and financial assistance in the Ceduna region, and merchants reported increased purchases of baby items and food, clothing, shoes, toys and other goods for children. In the Wyndham store that I went into, for some reason, there's been a big run on fish fingers. There were copious amounts of fish fingers being sold. It's often the food of choice for my children, I've got to say, when you're just trying to put a quick meal together on a Sunday night! The point is people are using more money for important support for their families.

Of course, we're also hearing from teachers and schools that they're having to provide less food at the breakfast programs in Wyndham primary schools. Instead of kids coming and filling up because they haven't had any food at home, there are fewer kids now coming to school needing that service and assistance—that wonderful program that's run in the schools.

In closing, this is an small amendment to this program, but it is very important. This is something that is in response to what the community is asking for. None of us here in this place are necessarily experts on this. The people we need to listen to are those who are on the ground. When the people in the community are saying that this is something that we need to further improve the program and to ensure that it has the best opportunity for success, then that's something that we should respond to. I commend the bill.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:07): I have supported the cashless debit card as an effective means of reducing the impact of alcohol and drug use since its inception, because it works. I took part in the committee inquiry hearing in Kalgoorlie in 2017 and heard from people about the level of dysfunction which drug and alcohol abuse bring to a community. I have spoken to community representatives since about the positive impact that the card has brought. I have heard about children being sent to school regularly. I've heard about families shopping together and filling their supermarket trolleys with food—a new experience as a result of the card. I've heard that the level of social disruption has fallen. Domestic violence has lessened. The evidence on the ground shows that the cashless debit card makes a difference in improving lives and improving communities.

This is borne out by a number of research projects. The baseline report into the Goldfields trails supports these earlier findings. There continues to be a decrease in drug and alcohol issues; decreases in violent crime and antisocial behaviour; improvements in child health and wellbeing; and ongoing and even strengthening community support for the income management measures. The independent evaluation of the card trial in Ceduna and East Kimberley regions also show the effectiveness of the trial to reduce alcohol abuse and gambling, which also eats up income, in many welfare-dependent communities. The overall conclusion of the research was that the card has had a considerably positive impact, including 41 per cent of those surveyed reported drinking less frequently, 48 per cent used drugs less frequently and 48 per cent of gamblers gambled less often. Given the positive outcomes that the cashless debit card has shown to have, I cannot see how anyone would not support the continuation of the trials and a broader rollout in other areas where drug and alcohol abuse and social dysfunction are rife.

There is strong support for the introduction of the cashless debit card from community leaders, local government and key community based organisations—for example, the Far West Community Leaders Group, which recently released this statement:

We are now into the third year of the implementation of the cashless debit card rollout in the far west region of South Australia, which covers Oak Valley, Yalata, Scotdesco, Koonibba and Ceduna. We acknowledge and recognise the work done by all our communities and other areas of Australia that have implemented the cashless debit card. It has not been an easy feat but we have united together, influenced the design of the trial and made a real lasting effect in numerous communities, all with unique experiences and individualised benefits. We recognise the government officials and ministers, both current and former, who have stayed true to their word in co-designing the trial with us rather than for us. Our region remains in direct contact with ministers and departmental staff and, furthermore, we encourage the Prime Minister and other ministers to visit our communities and see firsthand the results of the policy.

As I said, I went to Kalgoorlie for the Senate inquiry. I listened to community leaders, councillors, mayors and community elders, and basically the majority wanted the card. The only real issue was communication. They felt that there was a need for the card, especially in Kalgoorlie. You know that it comes down to tough love. I listen to the Greens speaking on this issue in this chamber and they talk about someone's human rights being taken away from them. I think we need to look at the real issues. The government has introduced the cashless debit card because of certain communities—and let's be honest about it and not back away from it, these communities are basically Aboriginal. That's what they are. That's where the real problem is. Everyone skirts around the whole issue. The big issue is with alcohol and drugs. In 1998 I had a community meeting with Aboriginal women. They brought their children and they told me, 'We are facing sexual abuse and our kids are sniffing glue.' There was no assistance. Everyone turns their back. They don't really want to deal with the issue, because they would be called a racist.

These are real problems and issues in these communities. There is escalating crime. The attitude is: 'Don't lock up Aboriginals, because the incarceration rate is getting too high.' Why is it getting that high? I have been speaking to a lot of Aboriginal communities and it is because there is a lack of employment. Then you look at the reason that is happening. Is it because they are on alcohol and drugs and it makes them unemployable? That's another issue to look at. How are we really going to address the problem? Don't turn your back on it because you think it is too hard.

The cashless debit card is a start, and it is working. I have spoken to police and they have said that, once it has been introduced, reduction in crime has started and families are buying decent food for the kids. Health issues, like diabetes and kidney dysfunction, are another big problem. This is all happening because of their diet. Isn't it best to apply, as I said, tough love? It means they can't go out and use their money to buy drugs and alcohol and end up in a dysfunctional life and a dysfunctional family. Those kids coming through become used to that life because of their parents. We need to break the cycle.

Sexual abuse is another thing. We heard earlier this year that a kid as young as two was raped—and just recently we heard of a seven-year-old boy. No-one wants to discuss this. Why is it happening? Again, it is because of dysfunctional communities. I'm not having a go at the Aboriginal communities. I respect their culture, but it's not working, and we have to be honest with ourselves in this place if we are to find the right answers. I don't think anyone here would have a go at any cultural at all, but we have to be honest with ourselves and find the answers to try to prove it. Billions of dollars a year are thrown at it but nothing seems to change.

Families are asking for help. Let's look at the cashless debit card. The moneys are put into an account. Eighty per cent has to be spent on the card, and it stipulates that you can't go and buy alcohol with it and you can't gamble with it. Twenty per cent is still cash. They can still spend that cash where they want to. And there's another thing with the Aboriginal community, if you understand the culture, which is that if they have cash in their pockets and a family member or a friend comes to them and asks them for money they rarely will say no to that, unless they're very strong. They hand over that money. So there also could be intimidation happening in these communities. If you're going to allow these people to actually have cash in their pockets all the time, other family members will be the ones who will take the money from them. But if they're restricted and they know they haven't got the cash, they can't hand it over, so they can provide what needs to be done for their own families.

The Greens talk about their amendments today. I can't believe their amendments. The Greens will complain and whinge all the time about different things and about people's rights. But I never hear about how they're going to deal with this. It's all right to sit back and whinge and complain about it, but unless you've actually got the answers, how are you going to deal with this issue? Everyone wants their rights, but with rights come responsibilities. If you're going to pull back this card, where are our responsibilities? Because their parents aren't good parents and because of the drinking, the alcohol and the sexual abuse that's going on, where is our duty of care, as the managers of this country on behalf of the people, to give those young children coming through the same opportunity? We have a responsibility to ensure that the kids have at least half a chance to be looked after, educated and not sexually abused.

The Greens have been moving their amendments today. One is to abandon it completely. The other one is that they want to take away the income management of the card so you'll only be on the card if you have had a serious offence of three years or more.

Senator Siewert: No, that's not what that amendment is. You've got it wrong.

Senator HANSON: All right. It is that if you have a serious offence of three years or more you're on income management. So being drunk and disorderly is no reason for it at all. When you have people who are saying that it is working in these communities, that families are now able to provide for and look after their children, that communities are better for it, that there is less violence, less drinking, less alcohol and fewer drugs, why on earth would you want to say no to it? If this is all about the politics in this place, then I say, 'Get over it.' It shouldn't be about politics. When you look at these bills you have to look at what is in the best interests of the country and the people and start working together. If you're not happy with the bill, then come up with some answers; don't just say that it should be abandoned and talk about people's rights. As I said before, responsibilities and rights go hand in hand.

I do support this bill. It is working. I say to anyone out there who may be listening to this: if you don't like the cashless debit card and having a responsibility to the taxpayer who is giving you this money so you that can live, put a roof over your head and survive, then my suggestion is that you get a job.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:19): I thank all senators for their contributions to this debate on the Social Services (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019. The cashless debit card is an important part of our plan to improve the lives of Australians by supporting people, their families and communities in places where high levels of welfare dependency co-exist with high levels of social harm. By reducing the amount of cash available in a community, the cashless debit card is reducing the overall harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, gambling, and drug misuse—and it's working.

The evidence on the ground shows that the cashless debit card is making a real difference, improving people's lives and improving communities. Over a dozen research projects attest to the trial's success, most recently the baseline report into the Goldfields, which reaffirmed previous findings. My colleagues in this place have talked about the first impact evaluation and the findings that the cashless debit card is having a considerable positive impact in the first two trial sites. These findings included a number of significant statistical improvements in things like the reporting of less frequent drinking, the reporting of less frequent drug use, and the reporting of less frequent gambling and gambling-addicted behaviour. We have also seen decreases in drug and alcohol issues; decreases in crime, violence, and antisocial behaviour; improvements in child health and wellbeing; improvement in financial management; and the ongoing and even strengthening of community support for the card on the ground.

Results from the Australian Early Development Census show improved outcomes for children living in a cashless debit card site since the introduction of the card. From 2015 to 2018 the number of children living in Kununurra and considered really vulnerable has decreased significantly. Significant improvements were seen in social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognition, communication skills, and general knowledge. Children living in Wyndham saw a substantial improvement in emotional maturity over the same period. Our review of emergency relief food vouchers and parcels in Ceduna found that, within 18 months of being placed on the card, 16.5 per cent of cashless debit card recipients no longer needed, or needed less, assistance in this area.

The cashless debit card is not a panacea. But the evidence clearly shows that it works, and acts as a stabilising force to help people pay for essential items while preventing the excess purchase of alcohol and gambling products. Between April 2016 and July 2019, the total value of all transactions made across all sites by cashless debit card recipients using their cards was approximately $175 million. That is $175 million in taxpayer-funded welfare dollars being used on essential items and not being used on non-essential purchases, which include alcohol, drugs and gambling. Thirty-four per cent of all transactions made on the cards were to buy food. There has also been $400,000 worth of attempted but unsuccessful purchases of alcohol and gambling products, that we're aware of. The Morrison government's priority will always be to put the rights of the child first—to have a roof over their head, and food in their tummy—ahead of a welfare recipient's choice to spend taxpayer-funded welfare on drugs, alcohol or gambling.

Unemployment is also down in all sites since the introduction of the cashless debit card. Most recently, in Hinkler, in Queensland, the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.3 per cent, the lowest in almost seven years. Most importantly, youth unemployment has dropped from 28 per cent in May 2018 to 18.1 per cent in May 2019, a drop of almost 10 per cent in a 12-month period.

The Social Services (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 continues the operation of the cashless debit card program but improves the processes introduced through recent non-government amendments for participants to exit the program. It provides a more effective and consistent application process, and ensures that the welfare of children, families, and the whole community is considered when assessing applications for participants to exit the program. The passage of the bill will clarify the administrative requirements of the cashless debit card exit process and ensure that the exit process is consistent with the cashless debit card regions. There is no change to the continuation of the cashless debit card program in the current trial sites. There is no change to the government's commitment to reduce the devastating effects of alcohol and drug use and gambling in these communities. The government is introducing this legislation following consultation with community leaders to ensure there is a clear and fair process for participants to exit the cashless debit card program where appropriate.

The government thanks the community leaders it has worked with and will continue to work with throughout the implementation and operation of the cashless debit card program. We acknowledge their courage and their leadership to assist members of their community to break the cycle of welfare dependency, to improve social outcomes and to support people to get off welfare and the card and into employment. Taxpayers expect nothing less. The government strongly believes that providing employment is the most important thing that we can do.

We have heard from both Labor and the Greens on this bill, and I thank them for their contributions. The Greens have moved amendments to the extension process that the government unfortunately cannot support. These changes would mean that a participant charged with disorderly conduct for drunken behaviour could remain eligible for an exemption despite demonstrating the exact behaviours that the cashless debit card is aimed to address.

Where Senator Siewert or other people have cases of individuals having difficulty using the card to pay their bills, I invite them to provide me with those details separately, and my office will investigate. Senator Siewert has also asked a number of questions relating to operational matters of the exit process—and I also thank Senator Siewert for the collegiate way in which she has worked with me and my office in drafting this bill. These changes are best suited to an operational guide or information sheet that will be accompanying the application form. I'll instruct my department to ensure appropriate information is contained in this documentation and provide it to the senator and anybody else. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:33): Both the opposition and the Greens have amendments, but I have some questions of a general nature. I'm wondering if we could deal with those first and then proceed to some of the amendments?

The CHAIR: Sure. We're in the hands of the Committee of the Whole.

Senator SIEWERT: First off, the minister made some comments in her closing statement, and I'm wondering if she could provide or perhaps take on notice the references for some of the comments she made around some of the figures, because some of those sound like new figures, and it would be very helpful to have them. Can I ask the minister to take that on board? My understanding was that the next report from the University of Adelaide's work was due in June. I'm wondering if my understanding is correct and, if so, has that report been made available to the government yet?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:34): My understanding is that the report is actually due to be provided to me in October. I think the time frame was late 2019, but October is the time I'm expecting it.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:35): Can I be clear that you have received no other reports from The University of Adelaide since the report that was made public in February?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:35): No.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:35): Can I also ask the minister about the consultation that's been undertaken about these particular amendments—communities involved, sorry.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:35): The department has undertaken consultation with all of the communities for community trial sites. I also personally have had discussions with a number of members of one of the communities in Western Australia, in your home state in the Goldfields, in relation to their concerns that were raised about the specifics of the process for financial exemption.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:36): Did that involve general participants—people that were actually on the card—but also participants that were seeking wellbeing exemptions and the opt-out exemptions?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:36): I can confirm that a number of people who were on the card were consulted through the process. I could not be specific as to whether any of those were seeking or intending to seek exemptions through this process, so I can't give you the exact details of the nature of the individuals that were spoken with and consulted with. But I can say that there were a number of people in each of the trial sites that were interviewed and consulted with in relation to the exit mechanism.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:36): You didn't seek out people that applied for wellbeing or who had already started ringing about the opt-out process, because I'm aware there have been lots of phone calls?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:37): Much of the consultation was taken prior to the commencement of the process. We didn't actually seek out people who weren't on the card. Anybody who actually had been granted a wellbeing exemption obviously wouldn't be on the card, so we didn't speak to them particularly. But, whether there were people within the cohort of people that were consulted with who were on the card who would have intended and believed they were eligible for the new exit mechanism, I am unaware of the specifics of the number of those people that were consulted with. I'm not sure if that information is available, but I will certainly try and find out.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:38): That would be appreciated. I take your point about opt-out, although I know my office was getting phone calls prior to the opt-out about how we understood the opt-out process was going to work. I presume that they were phoning the department. I'm aware there are a number of people who have been applying for the wellbeing process. That's why I ask that particular question, because I know that my office has been helping a number of them. I've got specific questions to clarify a number of things. Do we start that process now?

The CHAIR: Yes, Senator Siewert. You can certainly ask questions, make statements or put your amendments through this Committee of the Whole.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:38): I'm seeking some clarification about how the exit arrangements are going to be interpreted, because that's what people are looking for. Minister, you made a reference to a guide. Is it your intention to provide further interpretation about how people interpret the criteria in that guide, and when is it likely that the guide will be available?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:39): The information that is required for anybody who's making application to be exempt from the card will be contained as part of the package that they will be provided access to as part of their application form. We'll make it available through their online portal or, alternatively, for those people who don't feel comfortable with doing it themselves or doing it electronically, these services will be available to assist them through the exit process through their providers in their local communities. But attached to that application process will be a set of guidelines to enable them to see the process they need to go through and the information they need to provide. At the same time, we will before using a person from the Department of Social Services to assist them, if they require assistance, to talk them through how they make that information available to them.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:40): There are a number of things I want to follow up on, just in that one answer. Do you envisage that someone from DSS will help with that process over the phone, or could someone also go into the Centrelink office in, say, Kununurra to obtain support with the guide? Is that also the sort of thing you see happening?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:41): Just in clarification, it would be more likely that the local partner in the community is where the person would receive that one-on-one assistance. Equally, if they are happier to use our services, there will be telephone services available to them, and substantial online information. We recognise that sometimes connectivity and capacity prevents people from using a purely online service.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:41): When you talk about 'local partner', do you mean Indue or an NGO?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:41): Community organisations or contractors within the community that are contracted by Indue to provide the service. Basically, there will be opportunity within the community—with the existing services provided for the operation or issues that a person on the card might have, not necessarily about this—for people to go and see the service providers, who will have the opportunity to assist them. They will also be able to phone and do it online.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:42): This is the sort of thing I'm being asked about. If I want to get the form, I can go online. Many community members who may be trying to apply for an opt out don't have access to a printer or even a computer. A lot of people do their communications on mobile phones, but it's very hard to fill in these sorts of forms on mobile phones. I don't have to go to an NGO to get the form—can I go to Centrelink and get a physical copy of the form?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:43): Yes, you can. The new suite of technology being put into all of the Centrelink offices will provide you with that bank of access, so the person in Centrelink can assist the person to get access to it online.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:43): Thank you. Then they'll be able to get the guide. Have you got a list of things that you consider necessary for meeting the criteria? Is there documentation? Will they have to go somewhere to get somebody to verify what they're doing for the health and safety of the person and the community? It's those harder things to prove that I think will be concerning people, how they satisfy those criteria.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:44): One of the things that we are currently in the process of doing is working through what is going to be the most streamlined and easiest way for us to make a determination about someone's preparation to exit the card if they're currently on it. Because, as you would understand, many of these situations are quite different to each other, we've actually taken a much more case-by-case approach on how this might be managed. I take your point. That's not the question you're asking. We will provide a guide that will outline what a normal, non-complicated process would be for the average person who would seek to come in and get the exemption. But we are also very mindful—and this is why we are particularly mindful about putting on determined time frames—that sometimes there is a level of complexity to get the information, and, because people are not able to provide the information, there is difficulty in accessing the information. Under a normal set of circumstances, the criteria and the process which the person needs to follow and the evidence that would be required for the exemption application would be clearly set out in the guidelines. Obviously, somebody will be there to help them through that. We also put on record that we understand that sometimes it's not a straightforward process, and, for those cases, we intend to put in a case-by-case process that could sit around more complicated cases.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:46): In terms of the issue I brought up during my second reading contribution, I see a potential conflict with the wellbeing provision. For example—and this is where I've had a little bit of experience—where someone has poor mental health and applies for a wellbeing exemption, how will that interact with the opt-out provisions where they talk about the health and safety of the person and the community? If I just apply for a wellbeing exemption, will that be considered in and of itself?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:47): The conditions that exist around the exit provisions under the basis of wellbeing will remain the same. I thank you for raising the question. It would be my interpretation that the wellbeing provision would be considered a higher level of exit priority simply because you're talking about somebody's personal wellbeing as opposed to, I suppose, a more straightforward financial capability exemption. You would have to prioritise somebody's health and wellbeing above financial circumstances, so I think the wellbeing one would go first.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:48): Before I get on to some specific questions, I want to follow up on Senator Siewert with two questions. How many people have contacted the department to come off the card? And I want to seek some clarification about who will help people get off the card?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:48): Thank you very much, Senator Brown. One thousand and fifty-four people have made a phone call to the relevant number seeking information or advice about the process. In terms of who will assist, it would depend on the individual as to what sorts of services they are seeking. At the moment, anybody who is currently on an Indue card, or the cashless debit card, has access within their community to locally based service providers that can assist them with any issue that they might have with their card. Those people will remain available to them to assist them in the process if they choose to seek an exemption, whether it be on the wellbeing criteria or the financial criteria. Equally, we will also make sure that assistance to exit is available by phone and there are provisions online, to give the person who is wishing to seek the exit provision a choice in the way that they make their application.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:49): You might have to give me an example of going to a location, but I want to know: is exiting off the card going to be provided only online or by phone? Or are there services—and what are those services?—that will help people exit off the card?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:50): Just as an example, Centrecare is a provider that we use in Kalgoorlie. Centrecare provides all the services and resourcing to somebody who is currently on the cashless debit card in that particular trial region. These services are provided in all the sites, but I'm using that as an example, because you asked for an example. So, if the individual who is seeking a financial exemption wants one-on-one assistance in making their application, they can make an appointment, they can go into Centrecare in Kalgoorlie and they can sit down with a person in Kalgoorlie and have them assist them in filling out the form—even to the point of assistance with interpretation, for example, because obviously we want to make sure that we are assisting them in their mother language.

Senator Carol Brown: And they're funded to do that?

Senator RUSTON: Yes; they already are. We already have translation and language services that are available in these communities. If the person went in there and wanted the maximum level of assistance to enable them to make the application, they could go into one of these places and have somebody sit with them and take them through the whole process and tell them what information they need to provide and possibly then assist them in accessing that information as well.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:51): I now want to go to some questions around cost of the CDC. Perhaps you could provide how much has been spent to date on the CDC in total and in each location; how many people are currently on the card in total and in each location; the per-person cost of the card to date; and how much the government will spend across the forward estimates on the cashless debit card combined with expenditure to date—so, the total expenditure.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:52): The costs of the card across all the trial sites, which include implementation, providing additional funding to existing services to provide the wraparound services that were identified as being needed, and communications, for the period up to 30 June 2018, was $34.2 million. Unfortunately I don't have the site-by-site costs broken down for you. There are approximately 12,000 participants on the card, but I can provide you with the numbers for each of the individual sites. And $126 million is budgeted over the forward estimates for the ongoing CDC program.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:53): Just following up on those responses, are you able to give me cost per location, on notice?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:54): I can't, because some of the costs are shared across all the areas, and others are site-specific. I'm certainly happy to take on notice to see how much more granular I can be in the information you're asking for. I'm more than happy to provide that to you, but at the moment I'm not entirely sure that I'm going to be able to provide the exact information you're asking for.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:54): Okay. I appreciate that undertaking—that you should be able to provide some cost information, based on a region. If you could provide that, that would be great. But you would be able to provide figures on how many people in each location.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:55): I will take it on notice. I could give you an estimation within hundreds, but I'd prefer to take it on notice to be exact.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:55): I'm not sure if you responded about the cost per person?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:55): Obviously we can do an extrapolation of the number of people that are currently affected by the card and the amount of money that's been spent on the trial and I could say to you that, on average, it was X amount per person. But one of the things that I can absolutely assure you of is that the variation in the costs of assisting individuals with the card vary quite significantly.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:55): I now want to ask some questions around outages and the operation of the card itself. How many people have been impacted by the cashless debit card outages to date? Where have the outages occurred? What is the longest outage? How does the minister expect people to buy groceries and pay bills on time if the card is not working? How many people have missed payments or incurred overdue charges because of card outages? I ask these questions because, as you would be aware, Minister, there have been confirmed reports of card outages preventing people from shopping using their card.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:57): I suppose one point would be that there are often outages that occur through external forces, whether it's a power outage or because an EFTPOS terminal from a bank is down or the technology within a particular facility is down. We wouldn't necessarily have any information that relates specifically to outages that were outside of our control. But what I will take on notice and provide you with information on is if there have been any card-specific outages—in relation to the technology or the use of the card specifically—that have prevented somebody from being able to use it in a facility where they would've expected to be able to use it. I'll get that information, and, once we've got it, we'll seek to provide the further detail in terms of the implications of those outages. But my advice is that, in the majority of times that people have been concerned about their inability to use their card, nobody would've been able to use any cards, because the outage was actually a more general community-wide outage—as I say, whether it was a power outage or a failure of an EFTPOS system.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:58): I accept that nobody would've been able to use cards. But other people have other means of buying basic requirements—I'm just putting that on the record—as the minister would know. Have there been any complaints to the department, by the services that are funded to assist people on the CDC or by shop owners, about outages?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:59): You're suggesting complaints made by local partners, like Centrecare for example, or by a shop?

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:59): Yes. Any complaints around outages from shop owners, from people that are actually on the card or from community organisations that are assisting people on the card that have come and complained to them.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:59): In terms of the specific details, I'm happy to take that on notice and provide you with detailed information on the breakdown of the kinds of numbers that we're getting from those particular cohorts. But I am advised that it is not a high number of the communications that come to us that relate to the implications of outages.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (11:59): Can I now go to some questions around the expansion. What process will the government take to choose a card provider?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:00): Whilst the government's policy position remains consistent—and that is that we will be using the information that we've collected through the reviews of these trial sites to make any decision on further activity of the cashless debit card in Australia—no decisions have been made at this stage, so the policy remains the same.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:00): So are you saying that there's been no decision for further expansion? I'm talking about the NT and Cape York.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:01): I was actually thinking you were referring to it more broadly. Since the re-election of the Morrison government, there are some processes that still have to be undertaken in developing the legislation to enable those people who are currently on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory and Cape York to move over onto the cashless debit card. So whilst the intention is quite clear, the legislative instruments to enable that to happen have not passed through this place as yet.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:01): I just want to confirm that you've made no decision as to how you'll choose a card provider. Is it open tender or would you consider rolling it over to Indue or have you not made that decision?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:02): Whilst I don't have the exact details in front of me, what I can assure you is that any procurement process that is undertaken by the government in the provision of any service will be undertaken subject to the appropriate procurement guidelines, of course. But I don't have any further detail of that in terms of exactly how that process is going to occur or when it's going to occur—and obviously understanding that we need to get legislative authority from this place before we can proceed anyway.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:02): Thank you for that response. I'm just confirming that no decision has been made by government as to how a card provider will be chosen.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:02): Yes, I can confirm that.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:02): Can you give me some information around what Indue charges the government for each card issued, and how much profit does Indue make from the cashless debit card?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:03): I'm advised that it's less than $1,000, but I would have to take on notice the details. I may not even be able to get access to that information but I certainly will take the question on notice and provide the information that I am able to. In response to a previous question you asked that I took on notice but no longer need to, the number of participants in the four trial sites are: Goldfields, 3,326; East Kimberley, 1,517; Ceduna, 932; and Bundaberg and Harvey Bay, 5,524.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:03): Can the minister confirm the major banks declined to participate in the trial, and was this because the big banks have concerns about the way the government is rolling out this program?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:04): You'll have to excuse me, because I wasn't party to the original negotiations in this area. My understanding was that the original trial sites were quite small, Ceduna being by far the smallest. The banks saw the small scale of the trial as not being something that they were necessarily particularly interested in participating in. That was the reason given to us by the banks, I understand, at the time that we sought their involvement.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:04): I have a few more questions before I either hand over to Senator Siewert or actually move an amendment. Does the minister think that every person on the CDC is incapable of managing their affairs? Does the community think that every trial site has adequate services, such as health, education, early intervention, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and job creation?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:05): One of the things that was so important about the standing up of this particular trial initiative was the fact that it was co-designed with and we worked very closely with the communities, bearing in mind that the four communities that are participating in the trial voluntarily put forward their communities to be part of the trial. We worked very closely with those communities to ensure the outcomes we're seeking to achieve, which are better community outcomes, as listed. I don't need to repeat them all to you; they have previously resulted from a prevalence of drug, alcohol and gambling addiction and abuse. We work with the communities to make sure that those outcomes are appropriate and that the people are being appropriately targeted to make sure we deliver the good outcomes the community have requested by voluntary participation in this particular program.

What was your second question?

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:06): My second question was around the communities where the trials are occurring.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:06): Yes—the adequacy of the services. One of the things we did do as part of the process of setting up these trials was to make additional funds available to many of these wraparound services that, in many instances, already existed within the communities. But we saw that, with the introduction of a new way of seeking to get people to manage their financial affairs and the consequences of that, additional funding was needed to assist them with those wraparound services. So the answer is yes.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:07): I listened very closely to your response, but certainly since the start of the rollout there has been a considerable number of people who have actually withdrawn their support for the cashless debit card, and we heard that in some of the contributions here today. Minister, I'm sure that you and the department would be fully aware of that. So my question goes to the services that have been provided to trial site communities. What conversations have those communities had with either the minister or the department around issues that they have with a lack of wraparound services or wraparound services that are not adequate or services not actually being there at all?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:08): Sorry for taking so long to answer, but it's an important question. As part of the rollout of the trial and the assessment of the outcomes that the trial is delivering, we review all services that relate to the outcome criteria we're dealing with, which you referred to, whether they be domestic violence services, police services or the like. We do that every year. Where it is identified that additional services are required, we seek to work with the state governments and other partners in these trials to make sure that the adequacy of the services is addressed.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:09): I thank you, Minister, for that response, but my question was about any complaints that have been directed to the minister or to DSS. But before you respond to that part of the question, can you guarantee that there are drug and alcohol rehabilitation services in every trial site location?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:10): I'm advised that, yes, we do have in each of the trial sites drug and alcohol services that are available to participants. It appears from the advice that I am receiving from the agency, who are closer to the coalface on this than I am, that we receive very few complaints, but obviously when we do receive complaints they are taken seriously and are addressed—and anything will be put into part of the review if it relates specifically to the availability of the services that you're referring to.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:10): This potentially is my last question. Can you take on notice to provide a list of the complaints, where the complaint was made from and the nature of the complaint?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:11): I want to get this clear. Do you want complaints in relation to the provision of services, so anybody who has made a complaint about the inadequacy of the service that was provided to them to deal with the issue that they brought forward, the issue that is one of the outcomes that are targeted as part of the use of the card?

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:11): Essentially, yes. I'm trying to get an understanding—and we talked about wraparound services earlier—of whether the services that have been provided in every trial site are adequate and whether communities or community leaders have come back to you or the department about the fact that whatever has been provided, if it is being provided, is not adequate. I would like to know where that complaint came from, which location.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:12): Thank you. I'm much clearer about what you've asked for. Of course, I'll take that on notice.

The CHAIR: Senator Siewert, are you seeking the call?

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:12): Yes, sorry. I'm trying to reorganise a committee meeting that I'm supposed to be chairing right now, so I apologise. I want to chase up the alcohol and drug services. I realise it might be a bit hard to give me off the top of your head an update on which services are funded or available in each of the trial sites, what they're funded for and which ones are new services that have been provided through the funding of the trial process.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:13): I'm happy to do that.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:13): Thank you. I want to go back to my line of inquiry about the criteria. I want to now go back to being able to manage your financial affairs. I wonder what specifically will be required there. Will someone with financial management qualifications be providing the advice to the secretary? I'm particularly interested in this because what I consider good financial management by someone on a low income may in fact be very different to what someone with a lot of income can do. For example, I know from personal experience that, when living on a very low income, you sometimes don't pay a bill on time, because you can't afford it. You know you have until a certain time after the due date to pay it, so you pay another bill because this one is just becoming due and you are about to get your power turned off and then you will pay this one. You're managing your money because you have very little. People who don't understand how people on low incomes manage their money and manage to make ends meet may see that as poor financial management.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:14): Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. I think what you raise here is the specific nature of dealing with many of these issues on a case-by-case basis. Going to the analogy you've just made: nobody's going to get a bad credit rating for paying their bills a bit late; you only get a bad credit rating if you don't pay your bills at all and you fall into default and you end up, through the process, getting put on a reach. So, I take very clearly your point on the degree to which financial management imprudence is interpreted. Looking at the holistic suite of issues, as part of this legislation we'd be seeking for someone to be able to demonstrate—I clearly take on board your point about the interpretation of financial management and the necessity for the person who's making the determination within the department to take on board the issues you raised about low-income earners and how they manage their money. So I suppose what I can say is that I believe that for this to be able to work it needs to be able to have the level of nuance that you're referring to, and case-by-case management. There will be a whole heap of people who will tick the box on every occasion and it will be fine, but there will just need to be a level of leniency provided for the demonstration of the example you just gave.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:16): Thank you for understanding where we're coming from on this. At the beginning of your answer you referred to credit rating. Do I take it that somebody's credit rating will therefore be used as part of this process?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:16): I think I was just drawing an analogy to suggest that your analogy of somebody who paid their bills late really did not warrant the tagging as being a bad financial manager. I was probably using that as an example of what I think society would accept was a bad financial manager. There was not meant to be any link between the two.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:16): Thank you for that clarification. What sort of documentary evidence around being able to manage your financial affairs is it envisaged will be required for someone to be able to demonstrate that they can manage their money?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:17): I would think generally it would be things like bank statements, proof that things like rent have been paid on time, and those bigger-ticket items.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:17): I want to go back quickly to an answer that you gave to Senator Brown about the support organisations or where you can get advice and support for filling in the form—I think you referred to Indue?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:17): My mistake—I apologise. I correct the record; I didn't actually mean Indue themselves. But the interface between the person who's on the card and Indue goes through a local service provider, like Centrecare, and I think I was referring to the Centrecare type of organisation.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:18): I think the concern that at least some people in the community would have is that if they had to go to Indue for advice they'd see that as a conflict of interest. I want to go to the issue I raised around the health and community worker not having a direct professional relationship with the trial participant. How would you intend to deal with that—that is, ensure that somebody who is asking for someone's exit application to be reconsidered, for them to be put back on the card, is in a position to make an informed recommendation, through professional contacts, for that to happen? How can you guarantee that?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:18): You raise a very good point, particularly—because we're talking about small communities in many instances—about whether the person's actually talking as the community worker or whether they're just talking as a member of the community. I think we would seek to make sure here that if anybody—a community worker or a health worker—made a recommendation that somebody who had exited the card should no longer be exited, or somebody who wasn't on the card should be on the card, then that would probably trigger an investigation, but that in and of itself would not be sufficient for any action to be taken. If a health worker or a community worker made an application to the Department of Social Services to indicate that someone should be on the card that would trigger us checking but it would not in and of itself. They must only do that in their professional capacity. I understand your point about how you define between professional and non-professional, but it certainly would not be in and of itself sufficient to have the person put back on the card.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:20): I understand what you've said. You built that into the process. It's a reconsideration—not automatically back on the card. My concerns is for a person who has received an exemption there's a degree of trauma going then. Somebody's now said, 'I need to go back on the card.' That person hasn't any professional relationship to me. I haven't gone to see them at the health clinic. I haven't accessed the service that they may be working in, because a community worker could be someone working in an NGO, for example. I don't have any professional relationship with them. They just rang up the department, or did whatever the process will be, and now I'm faced with proving all over again that I meet all the criteria. I really don't see how that's fair.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:21): I probably gave you the wrong answer to the previous question in not understanding. A trigger to reassess somebody's eligibility for being exempt could only be triggered by a community health worker or allied service worker if they were making that recommendation in their capacity as a worker in relation to the individual that they were referring.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:21): Just so I've got it clear, there will be something on the form that someone has to fill out to say,' I saw this person for this reason,' and that will then ensure it won't be considered unless that box is ticked. Thank you.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:22): I'm not sure I'm quite down to the kind of detail to say if there's a box on the form, but, yes, they must have a relevant and direct professional relationship with the person whom they're referring.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:22): I apologise. It sounded like I was talking literally, but I was talking figuratively. But I take the point. I will now ask about the wellbeing exemptions. One of the things with the wellbeing exemptions—and I'm glad this is being tightened up—is the issue about how the serious risk is being interpreted. Will there now be some guidance for people when they're applying for the wellbeing exemption? I do appreciate there hasn't been a lot of guidance there, so it's been a bit hit and miss quite frankly. Will there be some guide to participants about what information they need to provide?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:23): Thank you, Senator Siewert. As a reflection of some discussions that we've been having with you in the development of this, we quite clearly saw that a clearer set of guidelines or criteria in relation to the wellbeing exemption was needed. In reformatting this, assuming we're successful in getting these amendments through this place today, we would make sure that the same sort guidelines and clarity of what was required sat alongside the wellbeing exemption as well as the financial one.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:23): Will a GP's certificate or advice to support a wellbeing exemption be considered adequate as part of that process?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:24): My understanding is that it would be a very significant part of the process. Although the interaction with a social worker as part of the process would still remain. But, obviously, medical evidence would be the highest form of support.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:24): Thank you. If I understood what you just said, that process will also be included as part of the guide?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:24): Yes.

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you. I will go on to the review process. I would like to get a bit of clarity around how that process will operate. I understand that the process is reviewable. Is it going to be the usual review process under social security law?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:25): Hopefully I'm answering the right question here. Obviously, social security law applies across anything that we do, but what we're seeking to do as part of this new process is actually to put an internal review process into the Department of Social Services to enable them to be able to deal, within the agency at a higher level than the standard determination may well be made, with any complaints or determinations that are not agreed with. This will mean that only those cases that are of a more significant nature will end up having to go to a higher authority like the AAT.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:25): Just so I'm clear: I understand there will be an internal process, and then there's the external process of the AAT. What will the internal process look like?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:26): The internal review process already exists within Social Services but, in effect, what it would be is a review by somebody much more senior within the agency. Obviously, the delegated power for determinations rests with the secretary but, realistically, the secretary is not going to be doing all the detail. So the internal review process enables the person an opportunity to have the determination reviewed by somebody much higher up in the organisation.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:26): So, as I understand it, will that be your usual process?

Senator Ruston: Yes.

Senator SIEWERT: Will that apply for both wellbeing and opt-out exemptions?

Senator Ruston: Yes.

Senator SIEWERT: Can I ask about the data that's provided. In both of these processes, quite sensitive data will be provided. What arrangements are in place to make sure that the data is adequately protected? How long will the data be stored for? Or will it be destroyed after the decision-making process?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:27): All data that is collected by the Department of Social Services is collected in accordance with the Privacy Act, and we also have a set of privacy principles that exist within our agency because of the sensitivity and the quantum of personal information we have about people. Also in the Social Security (Administration) Act, there are a number of provisions that provide very clear circumstances in which information could be used for any other purpose apart from the purpose for which it was provided. I'm more than happy to provide you with those details if you'd like.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:28): Thank you, that would be appreciated. For the consultation process under clause 124PHB(7)(a), can you outline what definition you're using for 'local communities'?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:28): I suppose that it's pretty much a catch-all term, so that we can consult as broadly as possible. But in terms of the specifics that you're asking for: community leaders, community service providers, the community participants—it really is very much at the broadest possible, catch-all level in terms of the consultation that can occur. But in the specifics, as I say, it is community leaders, community elders, participants, providers, and current participants, most importantly.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:29): When you're undertaking consultation under that provision, how will you carry out that consultation? Have you determined that? Because there has been some criticism of the consultation that's been undertaken to date.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:29): As part of this process of co-design, one of the things that is really important is to make sure that we continue to work with the individual communities about how they would like the consultation to occur within their particular areas. Whilst we absolutely support the concept of consultation and the importance of it for this particular project, we'd probably be seeking to tailor our consultation processes so that they meet the desires of the individual community. We'd certainly be working with the community participants, the elders, suppliers, providers et cetera, to make sure that the consultation covered the broadest range of people possible but also that the process of consultation reflected what that community wanted and whether the people in that community wanted to participant in that consultation.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (12:30): I want to go back to some comments you made earlier, Minister. You gave the example of Centrecare in Kalgoorlie. If I'm a CDC person in Kalgoorlie and I want to get off the card, how do I know to go to Centrelink and who in that agency is going to help me with the form?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:31): As part of the process, we would make people on the card aware of the changes—that we hope will pass through this chamber today—through the normal communication process. Many of the people that we are talking about also constantly interact with places like Centrecare in Kalgoorlie and would know well to approach them, and they do constantly have meetings with them anyway.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (12:31): As one of those forms of communication, would the 4,000-odd people in the Goldfields region receive a letter indicating to them that they could apply to come off the card?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:31): We weren't planning on sending a specific letter. I'm a bit nervous of letters, as you might well imagine, but we would certainly provide a form of communication to the people on the card to make sure they were aware that the provision now existed.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (12:32): I want to know what form that is going to take. My second question is, whilst I do appreciate some people on the card in the Goldfields region would be in contact with Centrecare, if they are not and they front up to the counter, who specifically is Centrelink going to provide? Is it the financial counsellor? And how do I know, as a cashless debit card holder? You will send them some form of communication that says, 'You can apply to come off the card.' Will there be a list in the Goldfields region of agencies I can contact if I can't do it online?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:33): Anybody that's currently on the card would be aware of their service provider, within their region, that they would engage with if they had any other issue in relation to the card. There is nobody in any of these sites that doesn't already have a place that they would know to go to if they needed to change any of their conditions or get information, have assistance provided et cetera. That already exists. But part of the guidelines associated with the two exemption categories that we are seeking to amend and have reinserted into the bill today would have all of the information sitting alongside how they should progress, if they wished to avail themselves of this particular provision.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (12:34): Thanks, Minister. You have been very clear about saying the information would be alongside any other information they get, and I think we all accept that. My issue is, when I go into Centrecare in Kalgoorlie, I need to be assured that there is someone there able to assist me in my application if I'm not able to do that myself. I'm asking who it is in Centrecare or which department it is. Is it their financial counselling department? Is it the drug and alcohol service? Is it the domestic violence service? Which service would I be asking for when I walk into that Centrecare office in Kalgoorlie?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:34): If someone walked in and they fronted up at the counter at Centrecare in Kalgoorlie and said, 'I would like to apply for an exemption,' there will be people in that office who have the specific skills and responsibilities to assist somebody who wanted that particular assistance. The other people that sit within that agency that may be more specific to the provision of information that they may need to fill out that form would obviously be accessed, but there are particular people who are the first interface that would assist them with their application process.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (12:35): Minister, you've said there are specific people within that Centrecare office. Are they funded on behalf of the government to undertake this work to assist people who want to put an application in to come off the card? Centrecare has specific services for which it is funded—domestic violence, financial counselling, accommodation and so on. Where does this person come from out of those separate departments, and has Centrecare been specifically funded to do this work?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:36): My understanding is they actually have got specific funding to assist us in this process.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (12:36): Are you able to outline—and you can take this on notice—what that specific funding entails and which organisations across the trial sites have got that funding? Thank you, Minister.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:36): I actually wanted to move the first of our amendments. On sheet 8731—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): Senator Brown, I'm told that you'll have to ask for leave to move them all together. Is that your intention?

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:37): Yes, it is.

Leave granted.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (12:37): The amendments that the opposition are putting forward on sheet 8731 will require the department to make a decision on the application to leave the card within 21 business days, and there is a stop-the-clock provision to extend the time when further information is requested from the applicant. We believe that this is a fair amendment because people should be able to get off the card in a timely fashion and get on with their lives. I recommend the amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8731, as moved by Senator Brown, be agreed to.