Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Richmond supported a bill, introduced by the member for Bruce, that would have abolished the cashless debit card. Now an assistant minister, the member for Richmond is part of an administration that is giving more money to Indue and giving the minister powers to put people on compulsory income management. Across the country, Labor MPs met with their community members and represented themselves as progressives and people who would vote for progressive policies. Now we're seeing Labor's true colours. If the people of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg can exit the card, we think the people of Darwin and McArthur should be able to as well. If not, Labor should look these people in the eye and tell them why they're entrenching and perpetuating a failed policy that disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples.

The Greens will not support this bill. I call on the government to remember that Australians voted for change, not more of the same cruel, punitive policies that prop up the profits of companies like Indue at the expense of people's quality of life. Compulsory income management does not work. It is demeaning and the government should be ashamed to be breaking their election promises by reintroducing it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be disagreed to.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Around nine months ago, as debate was underway on the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card, I expressed my concern over a lack of detail as to how exactly they intended to address the issues that the cashless debit card was designed to fix. As I said at the time, the issues won't magically go away with the elimination of the card. Today, as we debate the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, I still hold those concerns about moving anyone under income management to the SmartCard. The only things I do find myself agreeing with, on my own side, are the remarks from the member for Deakin, essentially calling the SmartCard an expensive rebrand of the coalition's program.

While I appreciate that this transition is an attempt to remove some of the stigma that comes with the government partially controlling the income of participants, this is still a long way off from the government's promise to address the issues of compulsory income management. If your intention is to dismantle this system, for all the reasons that you say you are, I do have concerns that so much money is being spent to go sideways with this policy. At this stage they've taken an extremely punitive measure and lightened some of the restrictions and are presenting it to the public and participants as something that we should be thankful for.

I find income management abhorrent. As I said in 2020, the system of income management strips away autonomy and a sense of pride, no matter how well intentioned. Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help. The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays into the very worst of human nature. We're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something other or less than, and that's not the Australia I want to live in.

When I gave this frank assessment as to why I wouldn't be supporting the efforts of the coalition to expand the card, Labor came out in full force and were very loud about wanting to dismantle the policy with the abolishment of the CDC, which quickly became a key campaign platform, particularly in my electorate of Bass. I'm sure it's clear that I'm willing to take on any side when it comes to dismantling this disgraceful policy. While I do note the minister has outlined that the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field, I would hope that there would be more clear information available as to when this consultation will wrap up and a time line for the next steps.

I withheld my vote last August due to my concerns that removing the card without the appropriate supports will not fix the very problems that it's trying to address. This is particularly true in the instance where this will apply—for participants who currently use the BasicsCard, which was first introduced under the Howard government in 2007 and further expanded under Labor in 2010. It is these participants that I've held the greatest concern for. For some who may have been on the card for more than a decade, a phased transition is necessary to fully support these communities, but I don't buy into the rhetoric that income management is the answer to the complex challenges that need to be addressed.

The fact that my colleagues are saying that, anecdotally, they believe that antisocial behaviour has returned is evidence that income management is not a sustainable long-term solution. It is simply sticking a bandaid over a gaping wound and hoping for the best. The systemic dismantling of the income management system is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done carefully and by building long-term supports going forward. Where is the solid plan to invest in long-term solutions that will provide individuals with the tools and skills to improve their life, address long-term trauma and empower them to make the right financial decisions? I know that the minister cares deeply about these issues, but there is still too much ambiguity about how this dismantling will happen and when.

Of course, while I raise my concerns about the card overall, it's no surprise that my thoughts on this policy differ to those of my colleagues. However, as I have publicly stated previously, I do want to acknowledge my colleagues who represent the communities where current sites exist. I'm neither disputing nor seeking to be in any way dismissive of the significant challenges that persist in these communities, and I understand what the card is seeking to do, but it is clearly failing as a long-term solution. We do agree on some of the problems, but our approaches to the solutions clearly differ.

I gave it a lot of thought before deciding to speak on this bill, as I can see what the government is seeking to do through the legislation and my opinions on that are clearly on the record. However, there's no doubt, from the speeches that I've heard throughout this debate from my own side, that the continuation of income management in some form is a policy that the coalition will continue to pursue and one that, I must state again, I will never support. As a Liberal, I have a fundamental issue with how the program aligns with the belief in personal and individual responsibility, which is the very foundation of our party's principles. One of the reasons I am a Liberal is because of my belief in one of our guiding principles—that we should seek to minimise the interference of the government in the lives of Australians.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can continue to doggedly pursue a policy that is so antithetical to Liberal values and that also puts a massive strain on the public purse. In 2020-21 alone, the cost of this program was over $36 million. By any measure, this is the very definition of big government. As a Liberal, I'm against the idea of spending a lot of money to dictate how others can spend their money. As Liberals, are we again saying that we believe in individual aspiration and autonomy but not if you're poor or intergenerationally disadvantaged?

Imagine if that funding was instead invested in ensuring long-term, sustainable outcomes for communities in need, by addressing high numbers of alcohol or illicit drug consumption and gambling. We know there is growing understanding of the need for trauma informed practice, and I think more research and funding into implementing evidence based, trauma informed, wraparound services would be a key starting point to supporting individuals in need, including more tailored individual case management. I also think that more work needs to be undertaken to determine whether the federal government is best placed to deliver these types of services. Instead, perhaps we should look at funding place based solutions that are driven by those who know their communities best.

We know the evidence is mixed. The most recent report into the scheme was undertaken by the University of Adelaide and commissioned by the coalition. In relation to the reduction of three social harms, the second evaluation found the following: alcohol consumption was reduced after the introduction of the CDC, but the evaluators stated that it was not possible to attribute these changes to the CDC alone. With gambling, there was a 3.5 per cent short-term reduction in the prevalence of gambling in each of the CDC trial site areas. The evaluation could not provide a clear conclusion about whether the cashless debit card influenced the personal or social harm caused by the illicit drugs. Additionally, it was reported that the majority of cashless debit card program participants reported not participating in the target behaviours prior to the CDC implementation. Why would you use such a blunt instrument that affects so many who are just trying to get by? Income management in any form should be voluntary or, were absolutely necessary, implemented on a case-by-case basis, not as a one-size-fits-all approach across entire communities.

We have heard the commentary over the past few days that violent behaviours have increased with the abolishment of the CDC. I abhor any violence, and I believe we should be doing what we can to keep our communities and our children safe, but any rise brings home my point that income management is a temporary solution to far, far deeper challenges that need to be addressed. For all the money spent so far, there is no demonstrable proof that income management works. Income management is presented as a solution to many issues. However, it casts a wide net that, in my view, punishes recipients as a collective rather than having regard for individual circumstances. It places the burden of demonstrating the ability to manage your finances on the individual, thereby making the default assumption that recipients are incapable of managing their own affairs. This only serves to stigmatise and marginalise recipients and doesn't fundamentally address the wider issues. In doing so, it also drives assumptions that addiction, gambling and domestic violence only occur in disadvantaged communities. We know that this is untrue. It is wrong to conflate these issues with cashless welfare. They absolutely need to be dealt with, but income management is only masking the symptoms, not treating the problem. As Elise Klein, Associate Professor at the Australian National University said last year, there is no evidence that compulsory income management, including the BasicsCard, has a positive effect in communities.

I am not standing in the way of this bill; I am simply holding the government to account on their promises made. Abolishing the CDC was a positive first step, but this revamp of the BasicsCard to the SmartCard cannot be the final answer. The government had much to say about the dangers of income management in the lead up to the last election, and I want to see that turned into tangible action that will make a demonstrable difference to the communities where income management is in place. I am committed to working constructively with the government, and I commend the minister for her continuing proactive approach to communicating with me. I hope that this bill is a further step on the road towards phasing out compulsory income management for good, and I will continue to resist any efforts to reinstate it in the future.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me pleasure to join the debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 immediately after my friend the member for Bass. I congratulate her on what I thought was a very thoughtful and considered presentation on what is a very complex issue. The level of complexity in this issue is reflected in the fact that, while I completely respect her point of view agree and everything the member for Bass had to say, I disagree with a large amount of it. I guess that probably indicates just how challenging this area of public policy has become.

As a National Party member of parliament, I am very passionate about localism. I believe very strongly that local communities are best placed to solve local problems. Local communities can find local solutions and apply them broadly across their own townships, preferably with the support of state and federal governments where required. I was very interested to hear the presentation from a couple more of my friends and colleagues—the member for Parkes, the member for Grey and the member for Hinkler—who have been directly impacted by the cashless debit card and in fact advocated for those cards in their own communities because of the impact they'd seen on systemic and widespread social dysfunction emanating from a range of areas but primarily around alcohol addiction, drug addiction or gambling problems. What I do take from the member for Bass's speech and also the contributions from the member for Parkes and the member for Grey is the level of unity we have in this place and the desire we have for change in grappling with these complex and difficult issues. The member for Bass I think made a very important point that we do need tailored case management as much as we possibly can to help families faced with these challenging issues. I did find the now government's attacks on the cashless debit card when they were in opposition to be more based on ideology than based on the facts of the situation on the ground as the local members were dealing with those challenges.

There is a great divide in Australian politics today, and it's a divide which is largely based on geography. What you will see when you look at the electoral map today is that the Labor Party, for all its success in the cities and the suburbs, is largely unrepresented in rural, regional and remote communities—with a couple of exceptions; I do note the member for Lingiari and, I'd suggest, the member for Eden-Monaro. But once you get a couple of hours out from the major capital cities, the Labor Party is largely unrepresented. I don't make that point as a particular criticism; just to point out that there are going to be times in this place where ministers and the Prime Minister would be well advised to talk to local members in those communities and get an understanding about localism and an understanding about what local solutions might look like in those communities. The member for Parkes and the member for Grey are two outstanding examples of that—people who know their communities well and know the challenges they're facing every day in dealing with social and economic dysfunction.

I make my comments again today from a positive position and one trying to be of value to what the government's trying to achieve here, and I make a very simple point that Australians should be very proud of the welfare system we have in this country. We have a welfare safety net which has been added to, created and improved over generations. We have a safety net that provides a helping hand for Australians when they need it the most. That helping hand also requires obligations that the money is well spent by the government and well spent by the taxpayers who receive it. From the last figures I've seen it's about $230 billion per year in the overall welfare budget, taking into consideration the whole range of pensions and different payments the federal government makes. It's about 34 per cent of Australian government expenditure. I think Australians can be proud of that. They can be proud of the fact that we do provide a system of government that supports Australians when they need it most.

Income management was intended to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including those who have drug and alcohol dependencies and children who are subject to abuse and neglect. This was not a step the previous government leapt to as a first option in those communities where it was introduced. I sincerely believe income management should always be a last resort and it should always be locally supported before it proceeds. The coalition introduced the cashless debit card in 2016 and implemented the card in regions across Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. One of the criteria for trialling the card at that time was it had to be accepted by the community.

As I said at the outset, localism matters. The communities were at their wits end in trying to deal with the challenges they were facing with abuse of government payments and money being used for alcohol, drugs and gambling and not being used to support the families it was meant to support. These communities spoke to the ministers responsible about the need for a better income management system to protect the vulnerable people who lived and worked in and visited their region. The cashless debit card, as it was introduced, worked just like a regular bank card that, however, couldn't be used to purchase alcohol, drugs or gambling products. Cardholders received 80 per cent of their welfare benefits as a credit on the card, with the remaining 20 per cent deposited into their bank accounts. And the CDC allowed for product-level blocking and could be used in around 900,000 merchants.

During the election campaign the incoming government chose to campaign against the cashless debit card. One of the first moves of new Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party was to abolish the cashless debit card, regardless of the fact that the locals in those communities were, by and large, still supportive and recording positive outcomes, particularly for women and children, the most vulnerable people of those communities. But, as a result of abolishing the CDC, from the information on the ground, the anecdotal evidence, the reports in the media—everything we have seen since then—the rivers of grog have again started to flow. They've started to flow, and we're seeing more violence in some of those communities. I don't pretend for a second that the cashless debit card is a panacea that's going to solve all our problems. The problems are far more complex than that. I respect, again, the contribution of the member for Bass, when she went into great detail about some of those complexities.

Since the repeal of the CDC, vulnerable communities are again feeling the devastation, and we're seeing an increased influx of violent crime, gambling, alcohol fuelled violence and child neglect. These are challenges that the new government is going to have to deal with and I guess is attempting to deal with today by what amounts to a rebranding and a backflip on their own policy. We have had the mayors of towns like Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Leonora, Coolgardie and Laverton—areas affected by Labor's abolition of the cashless debit card—reporting a surge in violence, child neglect and dysfunction since the last election. These reports are echoed in another former CDC trial site, Ceduna, with locals witnessing an increased use of pokies, violence and public intoxication. An article in the Australian newspaper on 24 March states:

Crime in Ceduna exploded after the abolition of the Cashless Debit Card, with new police numbers confirming the crime rate almost doubled in the South Australian town.

South Australian police data show 111 offences were recorded in Ceduna—population 3000—in January. This is almost double the number of offences being recorded monthly when the card, which quarantined 80 per cent of welfare payments for some vulnerable recipients—was abolished four months ago, and is almost triple the crime rate of the previous January.

The minister responsible, Minister Rishworth, is quoted in this article as saying:

The picture of chaos that some are trying to paint of Ceduna as a result of the Cashless Debit Card program ending is just not reflected in fact.

She goes on to say:

The most recent reports I have received from my department is that Ceduna has no issues to report as a result of the CDC program transition.

This again goes back to the question of localism. The locals know better. That is not what the locals are telling the minister; that is not what the locals are telling the media that visited to report on this increase in violence. The article continues:

Ceduna resident Richard Wilkinson said he believed the increase in crimes was a result of the abolition of the cashless card …

Mr Wilkinson said he had lived in Ceduna for 15 years and never had a problem, but was burgled three times over 10 weeks this summer, losing food, alcohol, bedding, and on one occasion his car.

…   …   …

"It's definitely got worse since the card was abolished," Mr Wilkinson said.

"The crimes up, the drinking's up. The police do a great job but they're sick of it."

I don't want to get into an ideological war about income management, but, for goodness sake, Minister, listen to what the locals are saying. The locals understand the challenges they have in their communities, and they are now being exposed to more crime, more grog and more violence, and it's a less safe community for women and children. There's no shame as a minister in trying to make changes to make a difference in people's lives and then realising quickly you've made a mistake and cleaning up the mess. This government needs to clean up the mess it's creating in many communities by abolishing the cashless debit card.

I fear that, while Labor today is showing some signs that it's listening to our local communities in regional Australia, it really is just an afterthought and just an attempt to try and smooth things over and pretend that somehow everything's going to be alright. I urge the minister to listen more to people who are on the ground in those communities, whether they be local members or residents, who have such an incredible wealth of experience from representing their communities in this place but also from being on the ground every day listening to the shopkeepers, listening to the police, listening to the schoolteachers, listening to the mums and the children who can't go home because dad's got a bellyful of grog and wants to beat them up. Listen to these people because they're hearing these stories every day, and income management was one of the tools which was available to us to try to reduce that cycle of violence in those communities. I have to say to the minister: stop listening to inner-city elites who may have some principled ideological view about how welfare works in a perfect world, and get out on the ground in regional communities and hear the screams from people in those communities. Hear what they're saying to you about income management and how it's keeping their communities safe and putting food back on the table.

The last point I want to make is that this was never a race based card. It should never have been portrayed as a race based card. This card applied equally to Indigenous welfare recipients and the rest of the community in the communities where they were consulted and wanted access to this system. At its heart, this was not a punishment; this was never intended as a punishment for those communities but as an attempt to get food back on the table for some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. It was an attempt to stop taxpayers' money going to bottle shops and poker machines, and there is evidence that in the early stages it worked. Evidence on the ground from those communities—from the women and from the children—was that they felt safer, that there was food on the table, that less money was being spent on grog and that there was less violence in those communities.

I say to those opposite: you're a party that likes to talk a lot about your support for women right across Australia, so go out and ask them in those communities whether the cashless debit card was working in their homes. Ask them if they felt safer when the income management system was in place. Ask them if their community was better off with the system that was put in place to try to keep them safe and their families safe. I thank the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know how many times I have stood in this place to talk about this issue of income management, but I thought I would talk about this issue—hopefully, for the last time in this place—and the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. I want to share with the parliament my experiences, both prior to becoming a member of parliament and also as, I think, being one of the few members who actually travelled out to Ceduna and over to the Hinkler electorate, where I sat down and met with organisations and people who were participants in this card.

First of all, obviously, what we have before us now is the second bill in this space since we had a change in government. The first bill was to abolish the cashless debit card; that impacted around 17½ thousand cashless debit card participants but it retained mandatory income management in the Northern Territory and on Cape York. It made some income management voluntary for some people—for people living in locations that were formerly subject to the cashless debit card. To my thinking, the primary bill that was before this place really put the cart before the horse. It ceased the cashless debit card program before transitional arrangements were put in place, and I think it's fair to say that what we saw in many locations really was chaos. Then of course we have this bill to address some of those challenges.

I have to say that working with people who are from communities which experience intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence is really challenging work. I know this from before I was in parliament. In fact, I worked for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, the South Australian department that was working with the federal government to implement this card and make sure that there were a whole heap of services wrapped around people in Ceduna. I also worked in the youth sector. I wasn't a social worker but I managed teams of people, youth workers and social workers, who worked with young people, many of whom were third- and fourth-generation welfare dependent people. No-one in their communities had been able to transition successfully from high school into employment. Unfortunately, they had lives of enormous dysfunction, hardship and heartbreak.

The great problem with this card and with all of the debates that have happened in this place is that much of it has been based on ideology rather than what is good public policy. In the previous parliament—in fact, I think it was probably two parliaments ago—I went to Ceduna. This was when the card was going to be extended. We'd had various university trials, and they were flawed. Some of them didn't start with a baseline. Others were really subjective—going up to people on the corner and saying, 'Hey, how do you feel about being on income management?' and when people said, 'No, I don't like it,' they'd put a tick in the negative column.

So I went out to Ceduna and thought, 'Let's see what this is really like.' I talked to people in the pubs. I went into the pokie room, and that was empty. I was told that it was so lovely that the pokie room was empty because before the card the pokie room was full. The front bar was full. I went and met with organisations—Red Cross and a whole suite of organisations in Ceduna. They were too afraid to be called out and say how well the card was working, so they'd sort of whisper to me: 'It's working really well. We're starting to see people change behaviours. People are no longer walking around carrying a four-litre container of alcohol under their arm. We're seeing more kids going to school. We're seeing fewer people seeking emergency supports.'

The challenges in Ceduna were that while there were a lot of frontline services, they didn't have a back office to them; they were very superficial. We didn't have any long-term stays for drug and alcohol dependence; it was just a sobering-up unit. You'd go in there, sober up and be out in the morning. I also note that there were very few supports around training to get people off welfare—and that's the point. The point is that we need to support people to change their lives, to be able to get that training, to be able to get a job and to be able to have a life of fulfilment.

Then I travelled to the Hinkler electorate. During the last election we heard the cashless debit card often labelled a racist card. But in Hinkler it was the whole electorate—if you were under 35 and you were on JobSeeker or Newstart, you were on the cashless debit card. As previous speakers have said, it's not your whole income; it was 80 per cent that was quarantined so that you could not spend it on alcohol and drugs. So I went to the Hinkler electorate and I went with an open mind. I met with police. I met with the council. I might also backtrack: I also met with the council when I was in Ceduna, and they said there'd been enormous change. The impact was right across the community. They were getting tourists back, people were not feeling afraid, there was not the level of alcohol and antisocial behaviour in the community. Fast forward to Hinkler.

I went to Hinkler and I met with a whole range of organisations. What struck me was that there was a supermarket that you could go to that was a bit like a Foodbank, where you could go and get low-cost food items. When the cashless debit card was introduced in Hinkler, they had an uptick in people actually spending money on food. They had an uptick in kids attending school. I met with the police there, and they were initially quite concerned about what the impact would be of the cashless debit card in that area. They said to me: 'It's a really positive thing. Keep it going.' I even met with St Vinnies and had a cup of tea with their people. I took the time to meet with people who were on the cashless debit card. Many of them were angry, and I can appreciate that they did not want to have their money quarantined, and that they did not spend 80 per cent on alcohol and gambling and drugs. But they couldn't say to me what they would otherwise have spent that money on that they were precluded from spending their money on. The way that we have managed this in this place is really quite shameful. I think that we need to work with people to address their addictions.

I haven't gone back to Ceduna. When I was there Ceduna was a really beautiful place, and I have heard that in Ceduna crime has increased. It has doubled. Leonora and Laverton Shire presidents are reported as saying that the surge in violence was directly attributed to the abolition of card and the community was a safer place because of the cashless debit card.

There was so much talk about how Indue was managing the card. There was a whole campaign around the fact that Indue was managing the card. From my understanding, Indue's going to manage this SmartCard, so what is the difference?

We need to work comprehensively with people who are from communities. It's an investment we need to make in people. I think that this card had enormous benefit to change lives. There were many people who were too afraid to say out loud that when they were on the card they we able to save money, they were able to put food in the cupboard for their children and they were able to address challenges in their lives, and, moreover, the society improved.

Not too long ago I drove through western New South Wales and through much of the member for Grey's electorate and I've got to say it's a very, very sad sight. We need to do a lot more in this place. But a part of it is also helping people to spend the money that taxpayers provide to people who don't have a job. I think it is incumbent on people who are receiving those benefits to spend their money wisely. That means you're spending your money on food, you're looking for a job, you're making sure your kids are fed and clothed and you get them to school. And if we need to support people with respect to addiction management we absolutely must do that, because we must invest in them, but it is a two-way contract.

I support this bill because we need to fix up what was, I think, a knee-jerk reaction after the election and very rushed legislation. From someone who did spend considerable time and met with as many community groups and individuals as I could in two locations where the cashless card happened, I think it's a great shame how this has come out in this place.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by thanking all of those who have contributed in this important debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. Of course, what this bill does is provide updated technology to income management participants through the implementation of this bill. Through this debate we've heard a range of views, some of which do need to be corrected as it's important to be clear here to provide communities certainty about what these changes mean for them. We need to be clear that this does not change the current income management program or amend the underlying policy, which is based on applying restrictions to an individual's welfare payment when they meet specific eligibility criteria to ensure a portion of their payment cannot be spent on restricted goods.

Income management was introduced by the Howard government, well before the cashless debit card, as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Income management is not a Labor creation, but we are the government and we are making sure that it is working best for the communities and the people that use it. For a decade their voice was ignored by the former government. Of course, the debate has shown that there are polarised policy views. The government is focused on getting on with the job. This bill, importantly, allows for the 24,400 existing income management participants living in remote, regional and metropolitan Australia who only have access to the BasicsCard now to also have a choice of going onto the enhanced income management card. Of course, this will allow new participants in this program to also go on to the card.

It is important we deal with the facts here and that we don't play politics with this. I have heard criticism from those opposite about the figure of $217 million, which they somehow claim is the cost of this new technology. I need to be clear to the House: that money is to go to services that were ending in the budget on 1 July, so these are existing services that had no certainty whatsoever which, therefore, need some certainty. When I spoke with communities, they said they wanted to keep the services that were in place that worked. Importantly, when I went out to communities, I spoke to them about additional services to really deal with intergenerational problems. So I have to correct the record there. That money really is about the support services on the ground. I am surprised those opposite are criticising or arguing against those services. I think communities would be surprised that those opposite are arguing against those services.

This bill does not change the proportion of payment that cannot be spent on restricted goods, which will remain the same on enhanced income management, based on an individual's personal circumstances. It does not change the items to be restricted. Importantly, it does not change the current ability for states and territories to refer people to income management where there are concerns relating to child protection. This ability is already there for states and territories to make these referrals and would be available on enhanced income management.

What this bill does is ensure that new income management participants, who would otherwise have been issued a basic card, be given access to the SmartCard. Importantly, I want to focus on the fact that enhanced income management and the new SmartCard interface are with Services Australia, which will not only ensure that people are able to get a holistic service from Services Australia, including access to things like Centrepay, but, importantly, it actually costs less to engage Services Australia to be the interface for those using income management.

The Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry supported the approach that we are taking in this bill. Much has been said in the debate about the future of income management. Those opposite have made it clear they want to bring back the cashless debit card and make it compulsory again. We will be speaking to and consulting with communities and individuals about the future of income management. This is what we have committed to do. We want to hear from people directly about the solutions that work for them, the services that work for them. What I have heard directly is that they don't want, like the previous government did, us to make announcements without actually delivering that support. I am pleased we have been able to look at that economic development piece and we are now working with communities about what that economic development piece will look like. Applications have now closed for those grants, and we will be working through those carefully

Equally, consultation on drug and alcohol services has begun in the cashless debit card sites. With money that had been sitting in the budget for years under the previous government, we are getting on with the job of codesigning the support for the specific needs of the community. The money for these services is in the budget, and we will continue to look at how we are improving income management not only by providing the right technology but also by ensuring the broader program provides the support that communities need.

I commend the bill to the House. I will say that the government obviously will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. Obviously, that is a call to bring back the cashless debit card, and we don't support that. Equally, we want to deal with income management. We're not proposing to roll it back; that is not what this bill is about. Therefore, we won't be supporting the second reading amendment by the Greens. I commend the original bill to the House and hope that the House does support it.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane be disagreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be disagreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Lock the doors! No, lock the doors immediately. Those members will need to return to the chamber immediately. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we go any further, I wish to call the Leader of the House, and I want absolute silence for this.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not in a position to name individual members of parliament, but we as a House cannot be in a situation—out of respect for the staff who work in this building—where, when you ask people to lock the doors, they have members of parliament physically pushing past them to get out of the room. There are standing orders that are quite specific in terms of people's obligation. Once you say, 'Lock the doors,' at that moment people have to move to the seats and pick a side or do as some members did, quite appropriately, and take the advisers' boxes.

Mr Speaker, regardless of Practice and standing orders, we cannot be in a position, as a House, where people are using their physical size to push past the members of staff after you have said, 'Lock the doors.' It would be appreciated if you could review the video. It would also be appreciated if the members involved reported directly to you so that you can work out what the appropriate action is.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shall be taking the issue very seriously. I will report back to the House.