Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask a question in terms of the time lines and the need for timing the processes of both the wellbeing exemption and the exit application? In terms of time lines, how are you going to address the need for timely decisions?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the things that is currently built into the wellbeing exemption process is that, for somebody who had made an application, we would seek to have had that successfully processed within six to eight weeks, and that would certainly be the kinds of criteria that we would be putting on the exemption process for the financial wellbeing criteria. As we discussed earlier this morning, there are times when the complication of the process will mean that they are not always going to be able to meet those time lines, but they're certainly the kinds of time lines we've been meeting in the past and we'll be seeking to meet in the future.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of both the wellbeing and exit provisions—they will be approximately the same time. Do I understand that correctly?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly that's our intention or our understanding. However, because it's potentially a simpler process for the financial aspects as opposed to the wellbeing, it may be possible for it to be shorter. I wouldn't want to give an undertaking to this chamber until we've gone through a few of the processes, but we certainly would be seeking for it to be no longer than the current wellbeing process.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My last question on that: is the guide we were talking about this morning going to outline that expected time frame?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can take on notice the intent of your question. One of the things that we would be seeking to do is, obviously, expedite the process in cases where it's very simple, so we wouldn't like to give the applicant the view that it's going to take six or eight weeks when in fact it may be a much shorter time frame. But I'll take on notice the intent of your question in relation to providing applicants with some sort of indicative idea of how long the process may be expected to take.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now move amendment (1) on sheet 8734 as it relates to exit criteria:

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines to 1 to 19), omit subsection 124PHB(3), substitute:

Secretary ' s decision on application

(3) The Secretary may determine that the person is not a trial participant if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(a) the person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person's financial affairs; and

(b) the person satisfies any requirements determined in an instrument under subsection (6).

As I articulated in my second reading contribution, the Greens are deeply concerned about the exit criteria. I appreciate the answers to my questions that I received from the minister. However, we still remain very concerned about the broadness of the criteria and the way they may be interpreted. We believe that the process should focus on the participants' capacity to manage their finances, which is clearly something that is able to be documented, whereas many of those other criteria aren't. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8730 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 2 to 19), omit subsection 124PHB(3), substitute:

(3) The Secretary may determine that the person is not a trial participant if the Secretary is satisfied that the person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person's affairs (including financial affairs), taking into account all of the following:

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

(b) 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;

(c) risks of homelessness;

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

(e) the responsibilities and circumstances of the person;

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

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 27 and 28), omit subsection 124PHB(6), substitute:

(6) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make guidelines setting out how reasonable and responsible management of a person's affairs can be demonstrated for the purposes of subsection (3).

(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 29), omit "a determination", substitute "guidelines".

(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 8), omit "paragraphs (3) (a) and (b)", substitute "subsection (3)".

These amendments would remove a provision that allows the minister to specify other requirements a person must meet before being permitted to leave the cashless debit card and replace it with a provision that allows the minister to specify more details about how exiting the requirements should be met. This is because Labor does not think the government should be able to make it harder for people to get off the card, particularly given the breadth of the existing requirements in relation to the management of financial affairs, the protection of children and unlawful behaviour.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason for the provision that you're referring to in this amendment is, in the co-design with community leaders, we believe that it is appropriate as it currently exists so that we can be flexible and responsive to community concerns and respond to them in a timely way.

Progress reported.