Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for that contribution, Senator O'Sullivan, and for outlining the opposition's position in relation to this. It is correct to say that the regulation, which is the subject of this proposed disallowance, is part of the government implementing its election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card. It is a necessary step in that process and is utterly consistent with the government's approach to this. At the end of her contribution, Senator Rice finally made it clear what this is actually really about. It's about Greens party partisanship.

The government won't be supporting this motion. The determination that's the subject of the disallowance allows for the establishment and maintenance of existing BasicsCards bank accounts, which are central to the operation of enhanced income management. It allows bank accounts to be created for enhanced IM participants, restrictions to be put in place and the purchase of excluded goods and services. It allows merchants who sell excluded goods and services to be blocked and sets out how money can be transferred between enhanced IM accounts and when those accounts can be closed.

The determination names Indue and the Traditional Credit Union as the entities that can provide accounts for enhanced income management and the terms and conditions for using those accounts. The determination by enabling enhanced income management ensures participants who are previously on the cashless debit card and people who wish to volunteer in previous trial sites and new referrals from the Family Responsibilities Commission in the Cape York region are not issued a BasicsCard. The determination is made by the secretary of the Department of Social Services under section 123SU and subsection 123SV2 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The act provides that the qualified portion of payments must be paid into a BasicsCard account.

What would disallowance mean? If the Senate voted for this stunt, what would ensue? If the instrument is disallowed, BasicsCard bank accounts will cease to exist, and there will be no legislative authority for the Commonwealth government to pay the qualified portion of payments to individuals subject to enhanced income management. This means payment recipients on both the existing BasicsCard and those who volunteered and transitioned onto the SmartCard would not be able to have payments received into those accounts, some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. The result would be that people would be unable to receive between 50 to 90 per cent of their social security payments, and depending on their specific eligibility for enhanced income management, between 50 to 90 per cent of a person's payment is restricted for spending on excluded goods and excluded services that can cause harm. So, it has an impact on real people—real people.

The truth is, if this was endorsed by the Senate, where would real people be left? People can't eat Greens party memes. Social media posts don't put shoes on kids' feet. Irresponsible posturing can't help families, either. It is utterly astounding, but probably not surprising, because ordinary people are just a backdrop for Greens party stunts these days. It's been put to me that the Greens party might not understand what it is. But I think they do understand. People are just a backdrop for social media posts. People are just a backdrop for stunts and slogans—an utterly callous disregard for the interests of the people they claim to be concerned about: real people with real problems who need the government's support.

I'm happy to engage. I have engaged from time to time with Senator Rice in Senate estimates about the real challenges that exist in this policy area. I'm very happy to continue to do that. There are serious questions there that will continue to be examined year after year, and I suspect there is a lot more work that all of us have to do. But spare us the stunts, particularly when they are so harmful.

The approach on this issue matches completely the approach the Greens party have taken thus far this week on housing, making false claims, like the one that was just repeated over there, that the outcome of the Senate passing the HAFF Bill, the housing bill, would be 1,200 homes in every state. They know that's dishonest, but they continue to say it. Why? Because it looks good on the social media post. The Greens political party's job is not to deal with the substance; it's to try to denigrate the government whatever it costs, whatever it takes, no matter how dishonest the proposition.

There is an enormous gap between what they say and what they do. You only have to look at what they say nationally in here about housing and how much they care about it and what they do when they go back home. It is a complete yawning gulf, because when they go back home they are opposed to housing development. When they go back home there isn't a social housing development that these characters haven't opposed. Say it's transition housing. You'll find Greens party councillors and Mr Chandler-Mather, or whatever his name is, out there opposing those developments every single time. Show me one that's been supported.

What is the government's plan here? The housing bill will support 30,000 homes. Regarding the government's build-to-rent initiative, with tax and depreciation enhanced for build-to-rent projects, the industry says this will build 150,000 homes. And we are expanding eligibility for construction schemes—the National Housing Finance Corporation, an extended guarantee of $2 billion, which means more community housing providers building more homes. And there will be a 15 per cent increase—the biggest increase in our history—to Commonwealth rent assistance. That's what the government's bringing to the table in terms of housing: cooperation with the states, trying to drive more homes at an unprecedented level, right when what's really going on out there is enormous capacity constraints, enormous challenges for the government. And what is the choice in front of the Greens political party this week? It's not about making it better. It's: Will there be 30,000 additional homes or will there not? Are we 30,000 more homes or 30,000 less homes? And, if you are queueing for a rental, as you see so many young people have to do; if you are homeless; if you are in the queue for public housing; if you are finding rent unaffordable, if the Greens political party vote against this proposition this week then you know that the outcome of what they do this week will mean 30,000 less homes for ordinary Australians. It will never trouble you!

Ordinary people can't shelter under slogans. You can't house your kids in a Greens party meme. This is utter hypocrisy. They think all of this this week is clever politics. It's a sort of student politician, Trotskyite, clever politics. This is a manoeuvre where they feel they have to draw at least some line, and they pick a fight with the government. You can imagine the discussion in their party room about how clever this is. But, on this disallowance and on the housing bill, there are real people involved and there are real consequences of what it is that you are proposing to do.

If the Senate turned around, if the coalition didn't do what Senator O'Sullivan has said they will do, if the Senate endorsed the proposition on the disallowance that Senator Rice has moved, there would be profound negative consequences tomorrow for ordinary people who need the government's support. If, this week, the Greens political party doesn't do the right thing on the housing bill, more people will be homeless. If the Greens party doesn't do the right thing on the housing bill, there will be less housing stock, which will have an impact on prices in terms of rent and prices in terms of housing cost, and it will be directly your responsibility for getting in the way of 30,000 homes.

You might not like the government's approach. You might want to argue for more, and, honestly, go your hardest. That's a good thing. I don't mind there being some tension around the place about policy propositions and arguments for more ambition. There's plenty of that within the Labor movement and the community more broadly. But what I do think is utterly reprehensible is when there is a chance to do something for ordinary people and you knock it over and ordinary people suffer, young people suffer, all for the sake of a social media post, a bit of sponsored digital advertising and a warm inner glow for people who are always going to live in comfortable homes.