Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the third report of 2022 the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2022

4 August 2022

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTE E

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock

Senator Paul Scarr

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2022

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 August 2022 at 7.15 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(c) the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2022 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

4 August 2022

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Significant impact on businesses / Complex piece of legislation which will have significant impact on businesses

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bil l is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

1 September 2022

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Provide stakeholders an opportunity to speak to the draft legislation and properly consider its impacts on people subjected to compulsory income management, particularly in the Cape York region and the Northern Territory

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Accountable Income Management Network (AIMN)

Dr Elise Klein

First Nations communities in Northern Territory and Cape York

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Wednesday 10th of August

Tuesday 16th of August

Wednesday 17th of August

Thursday 18th of August

Monday 22nd August

Tuesday 23rd August

Wednesday 24 August

Possible reporting date:

26 August

(signed)

Senator Nick McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue with huge ramifications for vulnerable communities

Possible submissions or evidence from:

All current communities that have the CDC

Many Social and indigenous groups

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

August—October

Possible reporting date:

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Private Senators Bill:

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022

Reasons for referra l /principal is sues for consideration:

Initiatives to improve access to the labour market for aged pensioners and veterans without adversely impacting on their pensions, while at the same time meeting the rising cost of living challenges.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

National Seniors Association (NSA)

National Farmer Federation (NFF)

Council of the Ageing (COTA)

Grains Producers Australia (GPA)

Council of Small Business Associations of Australia (COSBOA)

Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)

Regionally based chambers of commerce and industry

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and/ or its associated entities

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

August and September 2022

Possible reporting date:

Friday 30 September 2022

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam President, I understand that the government may have an amendment to this report. I'm seeking clarity on whether that amendment will be moved by the government.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm all over it! Thank you, Senator McKim—always got my back! I need to amend the amendment that I have circulated. Apologies for this. It's just a last-minute request from the opposition. I move the amendment as amended:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of:

(a) the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022, the bill not be referred to a committee; and

(b) the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on 31 August 2022"

This doesn't change part (a) of the amendment, which is that the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 not be referred to a committee, but it does extend the reporting date on the CDC to 31 August 2022, which would still allow the bill to be available for debate in the next sitting.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I thank the government for the small extension of time for reporting on the inquiry on the cashless debit card bill, I want to put on the record how disappointed the opposition is in relation to the amount of time that has been made available to review and consider these bills in committee. I think it disrespects the important work of the Senate.

I also think the disrespect that the Labor Party has shown by not consulting with the very people that this measure is going to impact is extraordinarily insulting to them. Communities in the trial sites of the Goldfields, the Kimberley, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg and Ceduna actually asked for this particular measure to be put in place. The government are seeking to remove this measure without even bothering to consult with them, and now they want to rush this legislation through this place. I think this is absolutely unbelievable; that this appalling decision does not even go to back to the communities that have asked for it. I would draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that in my home state of South Australia, in Ceduna, the CDC was actually put in place in response to a coronial inquest into the tragic deaths of a number of people on the west coast. It was a recommendation of the coroner's report into those deaths, and it was something that that community asked for.

In other sites that previously had the clunky, outdated BasicsCard, the government is now going to deny participants in those communities the ability to access the new technology the cashless debit card offers them. They do not intend to remove income management. In answer to a question asked of him last week, Minister Farrell said that income management was not going to be taken out of the Northern Territory. They want to send those people back to having the clunky old BasicsCard instead of providing them with the advanced technology of the cashless debit card. In doing so, they will also deny the Traditional Credit Union in the Northern Territory the opportunity to support many of their members in using this particular new form of technology.

In Cape York transition is voluntary. There are a number of people on the card voluntarily. They've linked it to their amazing, award-winning Pama Platform, which supports—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop controlling our lives. You're not in government anymore.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a decision of government; it's a decision of that community. Once again, the government wants to send them back to the clunky old BasicsCard without any thought.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you get told how to spend your money?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is absolute, abject hypocrisy. They come into the chamber and are not able to answer questions. We don't know how the government intends to transition off this card. What's going to happen to the people who currently have the support of this card? We don't know what's going to happen to the people who voluntarily—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You live off the BasicsCard!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Senator Thorpe, Senator Ruston has the right to be heard in silence.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not know what is going to happen to those people who are voluntarily on this card. We don't know what's going to happen to those people who have voluntarily transferred from the BasicsCard to the CDC in the Northern Territory. What is going to happen to them? We do not know what is going to happen. What was the research that underpinned this decision, and where is the research to show what impact the withdrawal of this particular mechanism is going to have on those communities? We don't know what advice has been taken to underpin this decision. We have all these unanswered questions, and this Senate wants to give us four weeks to go and ask those people at the coalface—those people who are impacted by this card, those communities who are impacted by this card, the communities who asked for this card in the first place.

At the same time, those opposite intend to keep income management in place in some communities but not in others. We do not understand the rationale behind keeping people in the Northern Territory on income management when people in other communities are not going to be kept on income management. We do not understand the difference. This is a really important piece of inquiry that I think Australians need to understand. In particular, we need to respect the views and ideas of people in the communities where this card is currently in place. We need to understand what they want and how they want it to be implemented. We need to understand the impact of removing this card without any thought whatsoever, without any consultation. There was no consultation with these communities before the announcement that the card was going to be removed. I think we owe respect to this chamber for review, and we owe respect to those communities to consult with them.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not going to be lectured about consultation by the former government. They provided zero consultation to the people of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. I know that because I've been there multiple times. They imposed this from on high through their local member, Mr Pitt. No consultation was taken with that community before this was imposed on them. I went there and did forums in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. I took the then shadow minister, Linda Burney. We consulted with those people on the ground whom this government ignored. The local member, the member for Hinkler, Mr Pitt, wouldn't even meet with constituents who raised issues about this; that's how arrogant he was. For this opposition to come in here and try to lecture us about consulting is completely outrageous.

This is something on which we consulted in opposition over many years. The shadow minister travelled to many communities so that we could listen to evidence on the ground. That's what a good opposition does to actually learn the lessons and hear from people directly. We formed our view about this policy over that period of opposition—before we said that we would actually go to the election and say that we would end the cashless debit card. We consulted widely. We were productive in how we used our time in opposition, and we took a policy to the election that the Australian people voted for. So we're not going to get lectured by the opposition about how we do it.

We know that the committee has enough time to provide a report so that this legislation, which has already passed the House of Representatives, can get debated in this place and, ultimately, I hope, lead to the removal of the cashless debit card and the impact it has had on communities. The trauma and the stigma that this has caused people who have been forced onto this card, and the way that they have been treated in these communities, is not acceptable. It's not something that this current government stands for. We absolutely urge the Senate, when the vote comes, to remove the cashless debit card.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just indicate at the start that the Australian Greens would like the questions put separately on the government's amendment, because we intend to vote differently on each. With regard to that, we are happy with the change of reporting date for the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. So we intend to support that amendment to the report, with the amended date of 31 August, as flagged by the minister.

But we have our own amendment with regard to part (a) of the government's amendment to the report:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of:

(a) the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022, the bill not be referred to a committee; and

(b) the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on 26 August 2022".

That report has been circulated in my name in the chamber. For the benefit of colleagues in the chamber, this amendment, if it were accepted by the chamber, would refer the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry and report by 31 August 2022. I know that my colleague Senator Shoebridge would like to make a contribution to the debate. I just offer that to senators as perhaps some courtesy in terms of taking up the time of this chamber. I won't be taking my full five minutes, because I would like the chamber to be able to hear from Senator Shoebridge on that matter and also, briefly, Senator Rice on the matter of the cashless debit card.

But, briefly, the Human Rights Commission legislation amendment bill is really critical legislation. I note that Senator Shoebridge has articulated very well, publicly, the need for an LGBTIQ+ commissioner on the Human Rights Commission. This is a gaping hole in the structures of the commission, and it should be filled. Senator Shoebridge has quite rightly identified an opportunity to make that happen. I think it's really critical that we hear from the LGBTIQ+ community through the mechanism of a Senate inquiry so their concerns can be heard and their deeply held and genuine wishes for an LGBTIQ+ commissioner on the Human Rights Commission can be understood by the government, by the Senate and, ultimately, by the whole parliament. I repeat the Greens' request for these questions to be put separately, and I move my amendment to the minister's amendment.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKim. Just to be clear, so everyone's clear, we have an amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, which is basically in two parts, part (a) and part (b), and Senator McKim has just moved an amendment to part (a), and he wishes for those two to be put separately.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to express my utmost, absolute disappointment at this government's ham-fisted approach to attempt to smash the cashless debit card—income management that, I will remind the government, was an initiative of the Gillard government, to begin with. To attempt to now call this racist is utterly ridiculous, because Jenny Macklin as the previous minister defended it and did not call it racist at all but a measure that needed to be put in place.

Talk about consulting at the grassroots level! As a Warlpiri women who is engaged with people from remote communities—out of sight, out of mind—with people who don't speak English as a first language—not that this government seems to care at all for these individuals, because they are out of sight and out of mind and don't have access to media, don't have the ability to articulate, so they can be easily ignored—I find it very distressing.

As part of a research group in 2001 when it all began, income management, I was part of investigating, speaking to, income management recipients in the first trial of income management—rolled out, again, by the Labor Gillard government. The purpose of the investigation was to seek the views of the recipients on the program. And, I can tell you, speaking directly to Indigenous women, they said that this was very helpful for their lives. I spoke to one woman who stated that she was able to stop drinking and stop gambling and feed her children, and she could say no to family members who were demanding access to her income, as a result. I spoke to a non-Indigenous woman who said she was able to halt her addiction to methamphetamines and to, then, regain custody of her child and ensure that her child could go to school.

These are the people I speak to every single day. I've been fielding calls in my office every day, since this is what the Labor government proposed, who are deeply concerned. I had an Indigenous man call me from Western Australia, yesterday, who had grave concerns for his father-in-law who is currently having his income stolen from him by his drug-dealer son. You're all ignoring this! I think it's disgusting. This government is going to ensure that addicts have complete access, can take away the income, that they can smash the human rights of these vulnerable people in those communities. You have absolutely no idea. Not only this, but you're changing your minds on this particular issue.

I will also state that in 2020 Senator Lines—yourself, President—called the basics card racist. Again, it was when your own minister defended it and did not call it racist. Now this government is trying to say that only Territorians will be subject to income management. So it's alright for blackfellas in the Territory but for nobody else in the country! This is creating two classes of people in this nation. We as the coalition decided that it would be for all Australians, equally. Let's not forget, income management and social security is a temporary measure for people to get back on their own two feet. Ultimately, we want people to have jobs so they can stand on their own two feet and use their income as they wish.

In the Northern Territory it's fifty-fifty. You have 50 per cent cash. So those who are addicts, yes, they can go ahead and buy alcohol, if that's what they want to use it for. They can deny their children a feed. They can do that. The other 50 per cent is quarantined, so maybe they can cover their bills. Indigenous Australians, especially those whose first language is not English, don't have the same sorts of opportunities and freedoms and understanding of a cash economy. They don't have that. They don't have income literacy. This is one of those measures and one of those tools, and I find it absolutely disgusting that you're denying them this.

I suggest that you get out to some of these remote communities, where people—who are out of sight, out of mind to you—can't clearly articulate to you, because English is not their first language, and stop toeing the ideological line. I will bring to these chambers, over and over again, the messages from those who are continually calling my office, absolutely distressed, about their loved ones whose welfare payments are being stripped from them as we speak. You are leaving them vulnerable and open.

As I mentioned, some of you argue it's racist. Perhaps this government is racist—because they're suggesting it's alright for blackfellas in the Northern Territory but it's not alright for the rest of Australia. For those that are having a whinge over on Hervey Bay, we're trying to save lives here not toe the line of ideology. (Time expired)

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by my colleague Senator McKim to refer the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 to committee for inquiry over the short recess between the end of this sitting week and when we return. It looks very much like a stitch-up has happened between the opposition and the Labor government to prevent stakeholders having the ability to engage with an inquiry over the next fortnight to improve the government's bill. Let's be clear: the government's bill does little more than suggest there needs to be a newspaper advertisement when there's a new appointment proposed for the Australian Human Rights Commission. You don't need legislation, last time I checked, to put an ad in the paper, but it is useful. We don't oppose the bill; indeed, we support the bill. It's useful to have an ad in the paper, at least! We know that the previous government did; they just appointed their mates quietly without any due process. So, yes, we support legislation that requires an ad to go into the paper.

But this government has said in moving this legislation that it's implementing the Paris principles. That is so far from the truth that it is close to embarrassing. Australia's human rights commission is at risk of being downgraded from class A to class B, going below the human rights framework of Iraq. That is because of the action of the previous government but also because of the structural inadequacies in our human rights framework. The Greens are proposing to respond to that criticism.

The criticism that came from the subcommittee included—I will read the list. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not have explicit requirements to:

a) Publicize vacancies broadly;

b) Maximize the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups;

c) Promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process;

d) Assess applicants on the basis of pre-determined, objective and publicly available criteria; and

e) Select members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent.

There are multiple criticisms the UN has made about the way in which appointments happen and the nature of appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission. And all this government does in response is say, 'We're going to have a newspaper ad, going forward.' We've heard from a series of stakeholders that they want this legislation to go further. They want to implement the Paris principles.

One of the key lacks in our human rights framework is the absence of a commissioner representing the LGBTIQA+ community. We can't understand why the government is resisting the amendment we circulated to lift the protections for the LGBTIQA+ community and give them what they deserve: someone in their corner, a commissioner who can respond to what have been some quite hateful attacks—some of them driven by the previous government. Those hateful attacks won't necessarily end. The Greens, on behalf of that community, want to see a human rights commissioner who's in their corner, who can hear their concerns, who can respond to their concerns and who can give this government and this parliament direction in how to improve the law and ensure their status is fully protected in our society.

It looks like one of the first actions the Labor government, with the coalition, will take on human rights is to do a stitch-up and prevent an inquiry from even asking the question and from hearing from stakeholders about the need for that commissioner. That's a pretty poor act from the government in one of its first actions on human rights. We'd ask the government to reconsider voting with the opposition on this and opposing an inquiry, opposing letting stakeholders have their views heard about the establishment of an LGBTIQA+ commissioner, and reconsider, as one of the first actions they'll take in this parliament on human rights, voting with the coalition, given their appalling track record. That's likely what's going to happen here. That's a tragedy for the community, but it's also a really poor indicator for where this government is intending to go over the next three years. I'd urge the Labor government to look closely at Senator McKim's amendment. Don't vote with that mob and shut down the discussion as your first step on human rights.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to go to Senator O'Sullivan, but I am also going to remind all senators that the purpose of this debate is to talk about the amendments before the chair and why they are necessary, not the substance. I appreciate, Senator Shoebridge, you are new; I was giving you some leniency. But, sadly, Senator O'Sullivan, you are not new. So I remind all senators that it is about why these amendments are necessary or not necessary, depending on your point of view.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the matter that is before the Senate, which is the time that we will have to scrutinise and allow public input into the legislation regarding the abolition of the cashless debit card, I think it is absolutely appalling that proper time is not being given to allow the community and, in particular, the communities that are involved in the cashless debit card to give input into this decision that we all need to make in this place. It is an absolute travesty.

We saw, through the election campaign, many comments from those opposite and from around the country, calling for greater levels of transparency and accountability. Here is the first opportunity for that to be enacted and on display. Yet, sadly, what we're seeing from this government is a ramming-through of this legislation. Granted, they took this decision to the election. The Australian people, of course, did make their decision. But let's look at the particular communities where the cashless debit card is in operation.

We know that the member for O'Connor, Mr Wilson, was very much out there with his support of the cashless debit card. He was re-elected. You look at the member for Grey. He's also someone who's very supportive of the cashless debit card, and Ceduna, in the western part of South Australia, is one of the cashless debit card areas. He was re-elected. You look at the north-west of Western Australia, right up the very top in the East Kimberley, part of the seat of Durack, where Ms Price is the member. She is also someone who is very much on the record in support of the cashless debit card. She was re-elected. So it's really important that we actually hear from these communities where the cashless debit card is in operation.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, you started off really well, talking about the amendments. I've given you fair time; you've strayed a bit—if you'd come back to the amendments.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for bringing me back, Madam President. This is about the amount of time that these communities will have to consider this bill. These are busy people. To just rush this bill through and not allow for proper consideration of this bill is disrespectful to those people, particularly the people that this bill is going to impact the most. We hear a lot about consultation; we hear a lot about the need for it. Well, I know that, since the election—unless something has changed in the last five days since I spoke to people up in the northern Goldfields—no-one from the government, Senator Chisholm, has been in the Goldfields to discuss the cashless debit card and its abolition. Now, this is a real shame. They should be given the full opportunity to put in thorough submissions that will detail very clearly, very accurately, what their views are on the abolition of the cashless debit card.

There does seem to be a very ideologically driven approach to this from the government. We know that members of the government, when they were in opposition, called this policy racist. They called this policy racist. So there is an ideologically driven approach to this policy, rather than a focus on what is necessary.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, you have about one minute.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the government's reporting date; however, I must say the cashless debit card is racist. It's racist! It is a form of oppression on First Nations people in this country.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, I did remind all senators you are to talk about the merits or not of the amendments before the chamber, not the substantial matter. Thank you.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why we need an inquiry at this date. Mission management happened when our people were rounded up and put in concentration camps in this country. What were they given? They were given rations. It's rations!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. You are to constrain your remarks to the amendments before the chair. Please continue.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are Aboriginal people on this card that are being denied their human rights and dignity to self-determine how they live their lives. They need to be heard through this process, because we will not be mission managed any more. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment to part (a) as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm now going to put part (a) as unamended. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher on part (a) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

We will now move to part (b).

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 5 October 2022".

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the opposition amendment to part (b) be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now put that part of the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher—part (b). The question is that part (b) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I now move to the motion to take note of the report, as moved by Senator Urquhart. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.