Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions from senators Liddle, Paterson and Henderson during question time today. In response to a question from Senator Liddle, Senator Farrell said some of the most disgraceful things I have ever heard in this chamber and he did so with a little smirk on his face, as if it was somehow funny what he was saying. Senator Farrell said that the repeal of the cashless debit card was an election commitment; therefore, they had carte blanche to implement it. What he didn't say either publicly in the policy document or subsequently in this chamber was the following: he didn't say that there was no policy associated with this, that there was no detailed consideration of the impact on Australia's most vulnerable. It was simply an ideological left-wing policy statement, one that has unbelievably serious consequences for some of our most vulnerable Australians, particularly women, children and the elderly.

Anyone who takes time to visit these regions will see what the consequences will be on at-risk communities—women, the elderly and children. It is not at all necessarily about the person who has the card; it is about the behaviours that will impact, again, on women, children and the elderly, and on those who are also subject to humbugging.

It is the view of those of us on this side of the chamber that this card should be extended and not repealed. While minister said they had consulted, it was clear they had not. Ever since, she and her department have been scrambling to try and do some very inadequate consultations and get input from those on the ground. This parliament—the Senate—as I have said previously in this place, very shamefully put through a parliamentary consultation that didn't go to many communities, didn't give time for consultations and did not visit our home state of Western Australia.

So let's hear what West Australians in the communities who requested this card have said. Ian Trust, the Director of the Wunan Foundation in Kununurra said the card reduced the alcohol, violence and harassment of the elderly and vulnerable for cash when they go to use the ATM. He said, 'The cashless card is not a silver bullet but it is something and we can build on it. But there is no plan by those opposite for what happens after the CDC is abolished. We are left in a vacuum.' The government says if we want to go down the path of keeping income management, it has to be a community decision, but there is no information for the communities about how they want us to arrive at that decision or what the replacement will be. Shame on them.

In the second location in my own home state of Western Australia, the mayor of the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has said it seems that the cart has been put before the horse by Labor. He said, '…the decision to abolish the CDC has been made without any consultation with the regional community and the city—Kalgoorlie-Boulder—remains unconsulted' on the transition, which will impact on CDC participants, social service providers, government agencies and the community, and I will also say public health providers, who have to pick up the mess of women and children who are assaulted, raped and murdered by men in their own communities.

After we pointed all of this out, the committee from this parliament did a very, very short inquiry. And what did the government do? The minister put it out for three days of consultation with the impacted local communities. So as late as 30 August, the hastily-put-together so-called CDC engagement team sent the Goldfields a raft of draft engagement documents—four documents—and they had three working days for a local council to deal with one of the biggest and most serious issues in their communities. They sent a draft engagement plan, an engagement summary, a participant checklist and a CDC fact sheet. Well, what a triumph of bureaucracy over genuine consultation with impacted communities! The shires were given until 12 noon on 2 September—three working days later—to provide feedback. This is a disgrace, and those opposite know what the consequences will be in local communities—you cannot say you were not warned—that people will die. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on this motion to take note of answers. Like your good self, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, I know there are a lot of people in this building who talk a lot about closing the gap and working in Indigenous communities, but I know from the heart that there are a number of us who actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Mr Acting Deputy President, you're one of them, and I'm one of them. For those out there who don't know, you and I are both co-patrons of the Men's Shed in Fitzroy Crossing, and I know the work that you have done working with communities around this issue. It's a very complex issue and it can tear families apart and tear friends apart.

It hurts my heart to have this debate, because it's a well-known fact in this building that I supported Ian Trust, Lawford Benning and Teddy Carlton in Kununurra when they worked to do the trial in Kununurra and Wyndham. I remember, with previous minister Jenny Macklin, committing to the trial. There was an air of hope that this would go a long way to, as you and I both know, trying our best to—and let's say it as it is—stop rivers of grog that were flowing through the Kimberley.

And I'll make this very clear: I only speak about the East Kimberley. I am not here to represent Kalgoorlie-Boulder's view, as I have not worked out there. I did a Senate inquiry there early in the piece, before the card came. But I am talking about the work that you and I have done, Mr Acting Deputy President, through the East Kimberley and through the Central Kimberley and the West Kimberley, where they do not have the card. Unfortunately at the time there was great support for the card; there really was. And it breaks my heart, because of the work that I still do in the Kimberley. And nobody, not even Senator Thorpe, who's not here today, who likes to have a cheap crack at us white privileged men—what would we know and what do we do?—well, you and I, we've got the runs on the board. To this day I still do my community work through the Kimberley. I still run the donated furniture and bedding for the victims of domestic violence and the homeless. I'm doing a run again next week, with donated gear.

It breaks my heart when I see kids the same age as my grandkids and I know there's no way they're getting fed three meals a day. It breaks my heart when I'm driving through Fitzroy Crossing and I see the kids. I've seen the footage of the kids trying to break into the Coles Express to get the bowser off so they can get petrol to sniff. I know the argument that I had to have, with great support from Coles Express—they were tremendous; Viva Energy weren't very good at all. But fortunately now, both there and at Ngiyali Roadhouse, the 97 per cent fuel is gone. So, we've lost the sniffable fuel. Thank goodness for that.

But it tears me apart to think, how the heck can we make these kids' lives better? I see kids going through Fitzroy Crossing, walking from Bayulu—you know where that is, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan; you've been there, like me. They are walking 14 kilometres in the middle of the night because they want to escape the violence and the nonsense that's going on in some of these drug fuelled communities—not all of them, but the ones where the parents aren't doing the right thing.

But I am a member of the Australian Labor Party; I don't apologise for that. I wish we could have some system that would go to taking away the pain that I feel and that you and others would feel every time they go up there. There's a lot of work to be done. But the truth of the matter is that the Labor Party took it to the election. And I will be voting with the Labor Party, with my party, on the abolition of the cashless debit card. I do have to say that Ian Trust—Senator Reynolds mentioned his name—is a personal friend of mine. I still work very closely with Ian—I was on the phone to him last week—and through Wunan and I admire the work he's done. I had a conversation with Ian just prior to Minister Rishworth going up there. I heard Senator Reynolds say 'not a lot of consultation'. Well, I know Minister Rishworth was in Kununurra because I know she met with Ian. She met up with the crew. She met up with everyone. Ian is one of the most wonderful people in the world, and I know that his people and his kids come first and foremost. I know he has some plans, so hopefully we can get together and we can try to mirror what's being done up in Cape York. But the truth of the matter is that it was taken to the election. The other side can bang on about it as much as they like because it wasn't a secret.

I've done my best within the Labor Party to put my views forward, and my view's in the minority. So Ian, I'll continue to work with you, mate—and Lawford!—and I hope to heck that we do all we possibly can to achieve closing these gaps. We've been talking about it for damn well long enough, and we're nowhere near it. On that, I will be supporting the bill that the government puts into the Senate and voting for the abolition of the cashless welfare card.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the things that is constantly on the minds of South Australians and Australians that I speak to as I get around is this issue of data integrity and data security. It is consistently a theme—a theme which is bothering people, a theme which is constantly on people's minds—and it's never been more important in our lives than it is today in 2022. Everybody has data out there on the cloud with their service providers, including government departments. It is a massive, massive issue for Australians. It's not an issue to be taken lightly, which I fear is something that we've seen from the government in the last week. It is extraordinary news that the data of something in the order of, we think, as many as 10 million Australians, 10 million Optus users, has been compromised. It's incredibly concerning stuff.

But even more incredibly concerning is the listless approach of the government and the minister responsible, who we heard this afternoon took something in the order of three days to even respond to the incident itself. And to be even more frank about it, having taken three days to respond, the response formed three tweets at three-quarter time of the AFL grand final—it was three, three, three. Extraordinary stuff! It was a relatively dull game, I get that, and if ever you were going to take the opportunity to get a press release out, it would be once you put down the Bollinger at the half-time show at the AFL grand final. The minister banged out a couple of tweets to make sure the Australian people had full confidence in what she was doing in her portfolio. But, of course, that doesn't satisfy the likes of me; it won't satisfy the likes of Australians who are hoping and pleading that their government is across this issue.

We heard from the Leader of the Opposition on Friday—well before the grand final—that this may in fact be the largest-ever data breach in Australian commercial history. That was known well in advance of Saturday. I asked what the delay was in responding and why it took so long. The opposition are now seeking briefings in relation to the matter, but the Albanese government has seemingly just been missing in action on this issue. Australians deserve the opportunity to hear what steps the government is taking to secure their personal data and protect them from future cyberattacks because, of course, this one incident might well be the tip of the iceberg. We don't know what else is out there.

We know that Australians live their lives now in the cyberworld, and that is only going to increase; this issue is only going to get more important. Of course, with the prospect of digital ID and the digital ID legislation approaching, Australians have every right to be concerned about their data being in the hands of others—governments, private businesses—because we can see what can happen. Millions and millions of terabytes of data can go—well maybe not that much, but terabytes of data—

An honourable se nator interjecting—

It's a lot. I'm quite tech savvy, as you know! But terabytes of data can go off into the ether without even blinking, as it has in this instant. Businesses and corporations need to be transparent, but governments are meant to be there for the regulatory purposes of taking it up to businesses when they have these sorts of problems. The government, including the Minister for Cyber Security, now needs to make good that delay, that listless response, and make it clear to the Australian people what steps it has taken to protect Australians from future such attacks, because there will be more. We have bad actors in the corporate world. We've got state based actors looking for opportunities to penetrate the cybersecurity veil.

The coalition government, as it was, had an extraordinary track record when it came to cybersecurity—in fact, it had some of the most impressive and far-reaching deliveries in terms of key reforms. There were world-leading laws to protect critical infrastructure like water, power and telecommunications from sophisticated cyberattacks. We introduced a suite of ransomware related legislation, which included tougher penalties for criminal provisions to deter cybercriminals. There were regulatory amendments to empower the telco sector to identify and block SMS scams, which are now becoming even more prevalent. We expanded a 24-hour cybersecurity centre hotline to ensure Australians, including business owners, had access to cybersecurity data. The point I make is that time is of the essence with these matters—not three-quarter time, not full-time, but time.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a lot of respect for Senator Antic on this particular matter, but it is quite disappointing to see the opposition come into the chamber and try to play political football with issues of such importance as what occurred over the last week. I appreciate that Senator Antic appreciated the pun I used, but the fact is that this is a very serious matter.

The records of 10 million people have been affected in this breach. This is a breach that Optus seriously needs to pay particular attention to and address with the utmost urgency. That is why the Minister for Cyber Security today—what we have heard from the opposition, apparently—the minister has not made any public statements or tweets. That's how they used to govern. Remember how they used to govern when they were in government? There were press releases and tweets—all spin and no substance. We don't need to do that. As the minister articulated very clearly today in question time, the adults are in charge. We don't need to be putting useless tweets or media releases out to the public. We are taking the advice of our experts, experts who actually understand all the technical ins-and-outs of what has occurred.

There are obviously national security implications here—things we can't disclose—but the minister will make all the necessary commentary at the appropriate time, when she has all the facts in front of her. That is something that we and our agencies are trying to do right at this moment. We are working with Optus to try and understand how the deep the hacks have gone. The minister, today in question time, made it very clear:

Responsibility for this security breach rests with Optus, and I note that the breach is of a nature that we should not expect to see in a large telecommunications provider in this country.

Senator Antic and others on the other side come in here and pretend that this is an event that requires just a media release or tweet to solve all the issues of the world. It doesn't. Our public servants, particularly those in ASD—the Signals Directorate, the cybersecurity team here in Canberra—and the Federal Police, have been working around the clock over the last four days. Senator Antic makes fun of people, particularly those who may have been at the footy, I can tell you that there are a lot of public servants in this great capital who were working very hard and very closely with Optus to make sure that the people who have hacked into the Optus database are held accountable according to Australian law.

Interestingly, the other aspect that the minister highlighted in parliament today is that one in four or our Commonwealth entities met the Essential Eight cybersecurity obligations back in 2021. Further, it is also now on the public record that, when the Labor Party were in opposition last year, it took the Liberal government 365 days to release a discussion paper calling for a ransomware strategy. They then introduced this bill, but it was too late. It was far too late to actually have the bill passed by the previous parliament, because we had the upcoming federal election. There would have been other remedies in that bill that would have prevented such hacks from occurring, but the government of the day, the then coalition government, the Liberals and the Nationals, took their time in implementing the reforms that were needed.

The minister, Clare O'Neil, has today also indicated that this breach has actually resulted in a need for substantial reform. It is substantial reform that this government will be working on very closely with the industry and others to ensure that this occurrence does not happen again. But Optus has said that it will directly communicate with those customers over coming days, so I do encourage anyone who is a current customer of Optus or has been in the last seven years to, please, make sure you do contact Optus. Please, make sure that they are actually taking this breach very seriously, because the last thing that this government wants is people's details being shopped around out there. We all know of people in our families who have, unfortunately, been caught up in some scams in the past.

It is something that this government is taking very seriously, despite the rhetoric that we hear from those opposite. It's interesting, because they've spent the last hour and a half wasting precious Senate time so they could filibuster and prevent important legislation from being passed.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I came into this place on 1 July, so speaking on this is new to me, but, certainly, the cashless debit card, the BasicsCard and working in and with Aboriginal communities in remote and regional areas are definitely not. Mine is a career spanning some 25, almost 30, years, let alone being born in a place where the card actually exists and having immediate family still living in those places.

It's disappointing that the government misled the Australian public with promises during the election campaign and now, embarrassingly, has to admit that it was a grab for votes. This is a promise they should break. The amendments we have now seen allow Cape York, the CDC trials and those people in the NT who have voluntarily transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the CDC to remain on the cashless debit card. This is just an admission that they have messed up this ill-conceived election commitment. The amendments put forward by the government confirm that even they admit that abolishing the cashless debit card will have serious consequences for vulnerable communities. We see that in the provision of $50 million for additional drug and alcohol support services, because they themselves recognise the serious harm that is likely to result from the removal of this critical program.

The Albanese government's decision to abolish the cashless debit card will give the green light to more alcohol, drug abuse and violence in some of our most vulnerable communities, for the most vulnerable people within those communities. Addicts will now have more cash to access grog, ganja, crack and gambling, and families will have less chance to protect themselves because they will no longer have the card to be able to do that.

Let me give you an example of how this works. These women, these grandmothers who are looking after their children's children because they can't or won't, see family walking down the street. With the cashless debit card and the BasicsCard, they don't have to cross the street when they see family walking down the street. What they can say to their family is: 'I'm sorry, I can't give you cash to go and buy grog and ganja and to gamble, because the card doesn't allow me to give you any more cash than the cash I have in my pocket.' That's about protecting their interests. That's about protecting the interests of their children. That's about protecting the interests of their grandchildren. That's about protecting the interests of other people who are not Indigenous but who also live in the towns and communities.

This is not a race issue; this is actually about people who are problem drinkers and who often find themselves incarcerated and at risk of death in custody because they have been drunk or drugged or they just find themselves on the street because their families will not let them live in their house because of the dysfunction that addiction brings. This is the reality.

The CDC is an advanced technology that enables recipients to access their welfare payments using a universal banking platform. The BasicsCard is a limited delivery mechanism.

I heard people way back before 2016, and even when the card came in, say to me, 'I don't like being on the card, but you know what? It gives me protection from my family members. I've got money to feed the kids. I've got money to clothe them. It makes life a whole less hectic.'

Only a few weeks ago when I went to Ceduna—I'll tell you what my consultation looks like. I actually had to go at the last minute. Sure, we visited those organisations that usually provide the services. But then Julian Leeser and I went for a walk down the street. We went into the gaming room. We went into the bar. We met people on the street in places on the edge of the town, because they were too frightened to speak to us directly. What they said to us repeatedly was, 'I don't like the card. I shouldn't be on the card. But I know the card is really important for my family. I get power and I get control when I can tell people that I can't give them money because the money is quarantined on a card.' That takes it out of the personal. That gives them the power. That gives them the power to feed their children and to clothe them. This is a terrible decision.

Question agreed to.