Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

That's your ruling? Thank you. I'll proceed with the committee stage. Minister, I wanted to respond to a couple of things, if I may, that Senator Hanson said, and then I'll ask you a couple of questions.

Senator Hanson firstly accused some people in this chamber of 'playing the victim'. I'm sure she wasn't necessarily keen to listen to my second reading speech, but one of the points I made in that is that I think that our First Nations representatives here in the Senate and in the lower house, from the Labor Party, Senators McCarthy and Dodson and Ms Burney, and obviously other First Nations members, demonstrate courage every day. I don't think they come in here and play the victim. They come in here and seek—and are often rebuffed—to progress reconciliation and to progress policies that matter to them, to their parties and to their people. To simply dismiss them as 'playing the victim' is disrespectful, and I disagree with it. I'm up-front enough to say to you respectfully: I disagree.

The second thing with which I disagree is your suggestion—I think you were referring to the Labor Party; I wasn't sure—that we were lying about the possibility of a broader rollout. You can say that. But I would make the point that, out of the government's own mouths, they have talked about broader application. I think it is legitimate for a party to raise this fact when you firstly have Senator Canavan saying, I think two days ago, 'I think it's time we take the evidence on board and roll it out across the country,' when in February this minister said, 'It does need to have a broader application,' and when the Prime Minister said, 'The CDC is commending itself for wider application.' I appreciate that you have a different view on this policy measure. You're entitled to that. The Labor Party disagree with it, but I think it is entirely reasonable for us to point out that out of the mouths of the coalition is an indication that this is something that they want to roll out more broadly. I don't think that's an illegitimate thing for us to raise in public debate.

I turn now to a question to the minister, which is in relation to the provisions under the ASIC Act, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act. Section 12DL provides that a person must not send another person a credit card except in specified circumstances. I think it is clear from the ASIC letter that ASIC—and I invite the minister to explain her answer, because, despite her tone towards Senator McCarthy, I don't believe the letter supports the assertions she made—did grant a no-action letter in relation to the CDC, but only in relation to the initial trial. ASIC says that that 2016 letter 'was specified to apply to the trial of the program' and, 'It does not cover the proposed ongoing and broader program to be enabled by the bill.' The letter goes on to say that obviously nothing that ASIC does can actually change the operation of the law itself; it simply indicates no action.

If you are prevented by section 12DL—I assume you've considered this in is the deal that you've offered Ms Sharkie—from sending out a card to communities, what is the proposition? I'm sure Senator McCarthy can explain to you the postal service for some of the communities that are being described and the significant impediments that would be put in place for your plan if, indeed, you can't actually send it out. Are you expecting people to come in and collect it? What is the plan for this so-called transition for people who are currently, involuntarily, on income management to move from one to the other?