Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table three supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and I seek leave to move items (1) to (13) on sheet TK324 together, noting that the question on some items will be put separately to enable the question that items stand as printed.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (13) on sheet TK324 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 2), after the heading to Part 1, insert:

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

1A After paragraph 66(2)(f)

Insert:

(fa) Part 3AA of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999; and

National Emergency Declaration Act 2020

1B Section 10 (after paragraph (zb) of the definition of national emergency law )

Insert:

(zba) section 123SJ of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999;

Social Security Act 1991

1C Subsection 1061EK(1)

After "Parts", insert "3AA,".

1D Paragraph 1222(1)(ba)

After "Parts", insert "3AA,".

1E Subsection 1222(2) (table item 20, column 2)

After "Parts", insert "3AA,".

1F Par agraph 1230(1)(a)

After "Part", insert "3AA,".

1G Subsections 1230C(1) and (2)

After "Part", insert "3AA,".

1H Paragraph 1234A(1)(a)

After "Act, Part", insert "3AA,".

1J Subsection 1237AB(1)

After "Part", insert "3AA,".

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1K After paragraph 60(2)(a)

Insert:

(aaa) Part 3AA of this Act; and

1L After section 70

Insert:

70AA Person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime etc.

Scope

(1) This section applies to a person if:

(a) the person is subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA); or

(b) the Secretary is satisfied that it is likely that the person will become subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA).

Requirement

(2) The Secretary may give the person a notice that requires the person to do either or both of the following:

(a) inform the Department if:

(i) a specified event or change of circumstances occurs; or

(ii) the person becomes aware that a specified event or change of circumstances is likely to occur;

(b) give the Department one or more statements about a matter that might affect the operation, or prospective operation, of Part 3AA in relation to the person.

(3) An event or change of circumstances is not to be specified in a notice under this section unless the occurrence of the event or change of circumstances might affect the operation, or prospective operation, of Part 3AA in relation to the person.

1M After paragraph 72(3)(d)

Insert:

(da) in the case of a notice under section 70AA that requires the giving of information mentioned in paragraph 70AA(2)(a)—be the period of 14 days after:

(i) the day on which the event or change of circumstances occurs; or

(ii) the day on which the person becomes aware that the event or change of circumstances is likely to occur;

as the case may be; or

(db) in the case of a notice under section 70AA that requires the giving of a statement mentioned in paragraph 70AA(2)(b)—end not earlier than 14 days after the day on which the notice is given; or

1N Paragraph 72(4)(a)

After "68", insert ", 70AA".

1P Subsections 72(6) and (7)

After "68", insert ", 70AA".

1Q Subsection 74(1)

After "70", insert ", 70AA".

1R After Part 3A

Insert:

Part 3AA — Enhanced income management regime

Division 1 — Introduction

123SA Simplified outline of this Part

123SB Definitions

In this Part:

balance of the qualified portion, of acategory B welfare payment, means:

(a) if a deduction is to be made from, or an amount is to be set off against, the payment under:

(i) section 61, 61A or 238 of this Act; or

(ii) section 1231 of the 1991 Act; or

(iii) section 84, 84A, 92, 92A, 225, 226, 227 or 228A of the Family Assistance Administration Act;

the amount of the qualified portion of the payment less the amount of the deduction or the amount of the set-off; or

(b) in any other case—the amount of the qualified portion of the payment.

BasicsCard bank account means a bank account of a kind determined by a legislative instrument made under section 123SU.

cash-l ike product includes the following:

(a) a gift card, store card, voucher or similar article (whether in a physical or electronic form);

(b) a money order, postal order or similar order (whether in a physical or electronic form);

(c) digital currency.

categ ory A welfare payment means:

(a) a social security benefit; or

(b) a social security pension; or

(c) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance.

category B welfare payment means:

(a) a category A welfare payment; or

(b) double orphan pension; or

(c) family tax benefit under the Family Assistance Act; or

(d) family tax benefit advance under the Family Assistance Administration Act; or

(e) stillborn baby payment under the Family Assistance Act; or

(f) carer allowance; or

(g) child disability assistance; or

(h) carer supplement; or

(i) mobility allowance; or

(j) pensioner education supplement; or

(k) telephone allowance under Part 2.25 of the 1991 Act; or

(l) utilities allowance under Part 2.25A of the 1991 Act; or

(m) a distance education payment under the scheme known as the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, where the payment relates to a child or children at a Homelands Learning Centre; or

(n) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as pensioner education supplement; or

(o) a social security bereavement payment; or

(p) an advance payment under Part 2.22 of the 1991 Act; or

(q) an advance pharmaceutical allowance under Part 2.23 of the 1991 Act; or

(r) a mobility allowance advance under section 1045 of the 1991 Act.

eligible recipient has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

excluded goods has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

excluded service has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

Part 3B payment nominee has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

qualified portion, of a category B welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SJ.

Queensland Commission has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

subject to the enhanced income management regime has the meaning given by Division 2.

unqualified portion, of a category B welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SJ.

Division 2 — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime

123SC Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Queensland Commission

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:

(a) at the test time, the person, or the person's partner, is an eligible recipient of a category A welfare payment; and

(b) on or after 6 March 2023, the Queensland Commission gave the Secretary a written notice requiring that the person be subject to the income management regime under Part 3B; and

(c) the notice was given under a law of Queensland; and

(d) at the test time, the notice had not been withdrawn or revoked and had not expired; and

(e) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B).

(2) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:

(a) at the test time, the person, or the person's partner, is an eligible recipient of a category A welfare payment; and

(b) subsection (3) applies in relation to the person; and

(c) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B).

(3) This subsection applies in relation to a person if:

(a) immediately before 6 March 2023, subitem 97(2) or (4) of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Act 2020 applies in relation to the person and a notice; and

(b) immediately before 6 March 2023, the person was a program participant under section 124PGD.

(4) Subsection (3) ceases to apply in relation to the person if on or after 6 March 2023 the notice referred to in paragraph (3)(a) is withdrawn or revoked by the Queensland Commission or expires.

(5) This section applies on and after 6 March 2023 despite item 97 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Act 2020.

123SI Relationship with other provisions

If a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time, then the person cannot be subject to the income management regime under Part 3B at that time and cannot be a program participant or a voluntary participant under Part 3D at that time.

Division 3 — Deductions from welfare payments

Subdivision A — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Queensland Commission

123SJ Category B welfare payment to be split into qualified and unqualified portions

Payments by instalments

(1) If an instalment of a category B welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC:

(a) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is qualified (the qualified portion) is the percentage determined by the Secretary under subsection (2) of this section, after consultation with the Queensland Commission; and

(b) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is unqualified (the unqualified portion) is the percentage that is equal to 100% minus the percentage applicable under paragraph (a).

Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (4).

(2) The Secretary may determine a percentage in relation to a person for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

Payments otherwise than by instalments

(3) If a category B welfare payment is payable, otherwise than by instalments, to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC, 100% of the gross amount of the payment is qualified (the qualified portion).

Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (4).

Variation by Secretary

(4) For a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC, the Secretary may make a determination that:

(a) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(a) to 0%; and

(b) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(b) to 100%; and

(c) varies the percentage applicable under subsection (3) to 0%.

(5) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (4) only if:

(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's BasicsCard bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:

(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or

(ii) a natural disaster; or

(iii) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or

(b) the person's category B welfare payment is payable in instalments and the Secretary is satisfied that any part of the payment is payable:

(i) at a time determined under subsection 43(2), where that determination is made because the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances; or

(ii) under a determination under subsection 51(1).

When determinations take effect

(6) A determination under subsection (2) or (4) takes effect on the day specified in the determination (which must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made).

Determinations are not legislative instruments

(7) A determination under subsection (2) or (4) is not a legislative instrument.

123SK Payment of balance of qualified portion of category B welfare payment

If a category B welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC, the Secretary must pay the balance of the qualified portion of the payment to the credit of a BasicsCard bank account maintained by the person.

123SL Recipient's use of funds from category B welfare payments

A person who receives a category B welfare payment:

(a) may use the balance of the qualified portion of the payment, as paid under section 123SK, to obtain goods or services, other than:

(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or

(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services; and

(b) may use the unqualified portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's discretion.

Division 4 — Information

123SS Disclos ure of information to the Secretary — financial institution

(1) Despite any law (whether written or unwritten) in force in a State or Territory, an officer or employee of a financial institution may give the Secretary information about a person if:

(a) the person is subject to the enhanced income management regime; and

(b) the disclosed information is relevant to the operation of this Part.

Note: Subsection 202(8A) allows a person to disclose information about a BasicsCard bank account to a financial institution.

(2) If information about a person is disclosed as mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary may disclose information about the person to an officer or employee of the financial institution for the purposes of the performance of the duties, or the exercise of the powers, of the officer or employee.

123ST Disclosure of information — Queensland Commission

(1) Despite any law (whether written or unwritten) in force in Queensland, the Queensland Commission may give the Secretary information about a person if:

(a) either:

(i) the person is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC; or

(ii) the Queensland Commission is considering whether to give a notice of the kind referred to in paragraph 123SC(1)(b) in relation to the person; and

(b) the disclosed information is relevant to the operation of this Part.

(2) If information about a person is disclosed by the Queensland Commission as mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary may disclose information about the person to the Queensland Commission for the purposes of the performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Queensland Commission.

(3) If:

(a) a person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SC because of the cancellation of a category A welfare payment of the person or the person's partner; and

(b) immediately before the cancellation, the relevant notice referred to in paragraph 123SC(1)(b) or (3)(a) had not been withdrawn or revoked and had not expired;

then, as soon as practicable after the cancellation, the Secretary must give the Queensland Commission written notice of the cancellation.

Division 5 — Other matters

123SU BasicsCard bank accounts

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the Secretary may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of bank account to be maintained by a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime for the receipt of payments under this Part.

(2) A legislative instrument determining a kind of bank account may also prescribe terms and conditions relating to the establishment, ongoing maintenance and closure of the bank account so determined.

123SV Exceptions to Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010

(1) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the declining of a transaction by a financial institution is specified and specifically authorised if the transaction would involve:

(a) money in a BasicsCard bank account; and

(b) a business of a kind specified in a legislative instrument made under subsection (2).

(2) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, declare a kind of business, whether by reference to merchant category codes, terminal identification codes, card accepted identification codes or otherwise, in relation to which transactions involving money in a BasicsCard bank account may be declined by a financial institution.

(3) For the purposes of subsection 51(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the declining of a transaction by a supplier of goods or services is specified and specifically authorised if the transaction would involve:

(a) money in a BasicsCard bank account; and

(b) the obtaining of:

(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or

(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services.

(4) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section, it does not matter whether money in a BasicsCard bank account represents the qualified portion or unqualified portion of a payment.

123SW This Part has effect despite other provis ions etc.

This Part has effect despite anything in:

(a) any other provision of this Act; or

(b) the 1991 Act; or

(c) the Family Assistance Act; or

(d) the Family Assistance Administration Act.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 9 to 11), omit the definition of repeal day in section 123TC.

(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 1, insert:

1S Section 123TC (before subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of excluded Part 3B payment nominee )

Insert:

(ia) is not subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA); and

1T Section 123TC

Insert:

repeal day means the day on which Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022 commences.

(5) Schedule 1, items 20 to 26, page 7 (line 17) to page 8 (line 11), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 1, item 37, page 11 (line 16), omit "the closure day", substitute "6 March 2023".

(7) Schedule 1, item 38, page 11 (line 17) to page 12 (line 9), to be opposed.

(8) Schedule 1, item 45, page 13 (line 17), omit ", 124PGD(4)".

(9) Schedule 1, item 47, page 13 (line 24), omit ", 124PGD(4)".

(10) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 25), after item 47, insert:

47A After paragraph 192(da)

Insert:

(daaa) the operation of Part 3AA;

47B After paragraph 195(1)(c)

Insert:

(caa) to facilitate the administration of Part 3AA;

47C After subsection 202(8)

Insert:

BasicsCard bank accounts

(8A) If protected information relates to the establishment or ongoing maintenance of a BasicsCard bank account (within the meaning of section 123SB), a person may do any of the following:

(a) obtain the information;

(b) make a record of the information;

(c) disclose the information to a financial institution;

(d) otherwise use the information.

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Act 2020

47D At the end of subitem 97(3) of Schedule 1

Add "before 6 March 2023".

47E Paragraph 97(4)(a) of Schedule 1

After "item", insert "and before 6 March 2023".

47F At the end of subitem 97(5) of Schedule 1

Add "before 6 March 2023".

(11) Schedule 1, items 51 to 57, page 15 (line 11) to page 16 (line 2), omit the items, substitute:

51 Subsection 1061EK(1)

Omit "Parts 3AA, 3B and 3D", substitute "Parts 3AA and 3B".

52 Paragraph 1222(1)(ba)

Omit "Parts 3AA, 3B and 3D", substitute "Parts 3AA and 3B".

53 Subsection 1222(2) (table item 20, column 2)

Omit "Parts 3AA, 3B and 3D", substitute "Parts 3AA and 3B".

54 Paragraph 1230(1)(a)

Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".

55 Subsections 1230C(1) and (2)

Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".

56 Paragraph 1234A(1)(a)

Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".

57 Subsection 1237AB(1)

Omit "Part 3AA, 3B or 3D", substitute "Part 3AA or 3B".

(12) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 13), after item 60, insert:

60A Section 123SI

Omit "and cannot be a program participant or a voluntary participant under Part 3D at that time".

(13) Schedule 1, item 61, page 16 (lines 14 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

61 Section 123TC (paragraph (b) of the definition of excluded Part 3B payment nominee )

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) a Part 3B payment nominee who:

(i) is not subject to the enhanced income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3AA); and

(ii) is not subject to the income management regime.

The government's amendments allow for an enhanced technology option to provide a modern user experience for Cape York participants. Witnesses requested this in the Senate committee hearings, including Mr Noel Pearson and the Commissioner of the Family Responsibilities Commission, Ms Tammy Williams. These amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 also further affirm the operation of the Family Responsibilities Commission, which was also heard in the committee hearings. Commissioner Williams has reviewed and supports these amendments.

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

Before I go into the substance of the amendments just moved by Minister Farrell, I'd just like to put a couple of comments on the record and then seek some further clarification around the general nature of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 before we moved to vote on these particular amendments.

Currently, income management in Australia is delivered by two particular means. It is either delivered through the BasicsCard, which sits under a piece of legislation called income management legislation, or delivered through the cashless debit card legislation by technology that is commonly referred to as the cashless debit card. Senator Farrell, I'm very keen to understand whether it is your intention to cause ongoing uncertainty for communities that are currently operating the cashless debit card technology as income management because of your intention, which you have indicated today, to bring your so-called enhanced technology solution into this place for consideration prior to 6 March 2023.

I also note that when you gave your final second reading speech you referred in your contribution to consultation. I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to the definition of 'consultation' and what it actually is. Consultation occurs when you actually go out and seek the views of somebody around a particular issue prior to making a determination or a decision in relation to that particular issue. The definition of 'consultation' is not 'going and telling people what you're doing after you've made a decision and after you've announced a decision'. That is actually just going out and telling them what you're intending to do.

Senator Farrell, when you came in here, you referred to consultation, as did many of your colleagues before you in their contributions. You did not consult on this bill with anybody before you made the decision in the lead-up to the election that you were intending to bring it into this place. So I put that on the record. But what I'd like to understand from you on the particular amendment that you have before us is this: is it the intention of this government to pursue any form of compulsory or mandatory income management in Australia from this time?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the questions from the shadow minister I think I'd start at the beginning, and that starts with the election result, where Labor took a position to the Australian people where we said, because of all the problems with the cashless debit card, that we were going to move to abolish that card. So, that was the position that we took to the Australian people. We didn't do that lightly. We did it after much thought. But, more particularly, we did it after much consultation. People like Senator McCarthy traipsed up and down the Northern Territory in the seats of Lingiari and Solomon, both of which were saved by campaigns that Senator McCarthy conducted in the Northern Territory. And in all of those discussions and consultations with, can I say, a damned sight more people than you would have spoken to, Senator Ruston, in the course of the—

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

I think you might have a bit of trouble with that one.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, look, I'm happy to lay the cards on the table and show you just how much Senator McCarthy, former Minister Scrymgour and Luke Gosling consulted in the Northern Territory alone. They didn't stop talking to the people of the Northern Territory in this particular case. And what did the people of the Northern Territory do? They re-elected two Labor members as well as Senator McCarthy. So, I think there's no doubt that we've gone beyond the call of duty to consult.

But let me talk to you a bit about what we did. Prior to the election Labor heard the many calls from people living on the card who said that the card was negatively affecting their lives and their ability to manage their money. The Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney—she was then shadow minister, but she's now minister—visited many of the CDC communities and spoke with participants. The minister heard that the card did not help them manage their money or improve their lives. Since the election, that terrific Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, and the assistant minister—another fine minister, Justine Elliot—visited each of the six communities affected by the CDC. They spoke with participants on the card, local government representatives, emergency services and the First Nations leaders.

I'm happy to go through the dates of those visits. In Ceduna it was 23 and 24 June 2022; that was Minister Rishworth. East Kimberley was 29 June to 1 July; that was Minister Rishworth again. Bundaberg and Hervey Bay was 4 and 5 July; that was Assistant Minister Elliot. Cape York was 9 and 10 August; that was Assistant Minister Elliot. Cairns was 12 August; that was Minister Rishworth. Then the Goldfields was 15 and 16 August; that was Minister Elliot. Finally, the Northern Territory was 17 to 19 August; again, that was Minister Rishworth. So I'd submit that that's pretty conclusive evidence of the consultation that this government participated in before we moved this legislation.

As to the other particular question that the shadow minister asked, we simply can't sit back and wait for 2023 to roll around, meanwhile extending a payment management system that amounts to privatised welfare. This is not in the best interests of the recipients and, more importantly, not in the best interests of taxpayers. That's why we are passing legislation through the parliament right now to abolish the card.

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

Minister, I asked you two quite separate questions. I'm asking you: is it the intention of the Albanese Labor government to continue, from this day, with compulsory income management?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, I thank Senator Ruston for her question. As we transition people away from mandatory measures, we'll continue to offer assistance, and we'll take the time necessary to research, develop, consult and implement a future social security payment system that will target supports to the people who identify that their family would benefit from it. The government is making the path to life beyond the CDC our focus today, and we will focus on the future. As we work through this, we must also work with communities to identify what other key supports are needed, not only to support individuals as they transition off the card but to put in place other programs and supports to help the community address issues of alcohol and other drug misuse, domestic violence and problem gambling.

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

Can I perhaps be really, really clear here for the minister. My question is: is it the intention of the Albanese Labor government to extend or keep in place any form of compulsory or mandatory income management from today?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again thank Senator Ruston for her question. While income management legislation in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 does not sunset, it operates through a number of legislative instruments that sunset every 10 years. These instruments enable income management to operate in specific locations, and/or income management measures. Six of these legislative instruments were due to sunset on 1 October 2022. In order to consult effectively, the Attorney-General has agreed to a deferral of these six instruments for a period of 12 months. We are extending the instruments to allow time for consultation with communities, including First Nations peoples and leaders, on the future of income management. This will include what a voluntary model of income management looks like at a community or individual level and the best way to transition people who have been living on compulsory income management for 15 years. The transitional arrangements for the abolition of the CDC will also consider pathways for participants to voluntarily income manage. This is why it is practical and appropriate for the existing instruments to remain in place until further decisions are made on the future of income management.

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

Minister, you made the comment that it was appropriate to keep in place these instruments until the future of income management in Australia had been decided when referring to the extension of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and a number of other sites around Australia. I, then, ask you: is it your intention to continue with compulsory income management in the four trial sites?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Ruston for her follow-up question. The answer is no.

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

Yesterday there were questions in question time in relation to the extension of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and other sites. Whilst failing to answer the questions during question time, you did come to the chamber after question time and put on the record that it is the intention of the Albanese Labor government to extend compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and other income management sites around Australia. Today the Minister for Indigenous Australians said in the House, 'Mandatory income management has been a failure across the board, and we do not believe in mandatory income management.' Can you please clarify to me your position on extending compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and other sites with the position of the Minister for Indigenous Australians, who has today publicly said, 'We do not believe in mandatory income management.' You have extended that today in selected sites across Australia, whilst this piece of legislation seeks to move away from compulsory management in other places. Perhaps the minister might be able to explain to us why the government has made the decision to keep compulsory income management in place in the Northern Territory particularly, but has taken it out of other sites. The Northern Territory income management predominantly affects Indigenous Australians. In other sites around Australia with the CDC there's not necessarily as high a number of Indigenous Australians. Why has the government chosen to keep compulsory or mandatory income management in place for a majority Indigenous population?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Minister Burney can obviously speak for herself. I'm not here speaking on her behalf. I am speaking on behalf of the minister who is responsible for this particular piece of legislation, and that is Minister Rishworth. As Minister for Social Services, she and her department are working with the FRC to affirm income management for people in Cape York and to ensure the continuation of support services for people. The minister and Assistant Minister Elliot visited Cape York communities to consult on what income management should look like and what supports will be required to ensure communities are best placed to address the complex social issues that they face.

The model of income management operated in the Cape York region by the Family Responsibilities Commission is distinct to the broad-base compulsory income management models elsewhere in the country. The FRC model is one informed by self-determination, which is something that the Albanese government is committed to supporting for our First Nations communities. We will always listen closely to these communities about the solutions they would like to see in their communities.

The Minister for Social Services visited the Cape York region in recent weeks and spoke with Commissioner Tammy Williams and the local commissioner for Doomadgee. She also met with Noel Pearson and gave evidence to the Senate committee hearing into the CDC that he does not agree with the blanket imposition of the card. Assistant Minister Elliot also visited the remote Cape York community of Aurukun to observe the FRC's operation at work.

As far as the Northern Territory is concerned, there's no evidence that this card has made any difference. The card has not worked. It does not address the concerns of some communities about alcohol abuse and violence in the community, particularly against women and children. We need new ways to do better for Northern Territory Australians. Forget about the discriminatory practices introduced by those opposite. People on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory will go back to the BasicsCard for the time being. We are continuing our discussions with the people in these communities so that we can consider their needs in any future decisions. NT communities deserve opportunities to participate in meaningful work and receive the support they need while they are seeking jobs just like everyone else in Australia.

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

Can the minister confirm what he just said? He just said that the CDC had not worked in the Northern Territory and he said that those people in the Northern Territory who were on the CDC have transitioned back to the BasicsCard?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. To provide a card with functions people on the CDC are used to requires the involvement of an entity with a banking license. This provides certainty to merchants as well as Visa and eftpos that, when someone purchases something with a card, they will be paid. It also allows people to use BPAY system. Purchases using the internet are also supported through having a bank account that is used to make the payment.

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

What are you talking about?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am answering your question.

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

No, you're not answering my question. I asked you if you could clarify a statement you just made.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked some questions about the technology, and I am providing some—

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

Can I take a point of order to clarify my question?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can take any point of order.

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

I'm wondering if it may not assist the minister if perhaps I reframe my question. In a previous answer before that one, the minister said that the CDC had not worked in the Northern Territory and that people in the Northern Territory on the CDC would transition back to the BasicsCard. I am just wondering whether you could clarify whether that is correct or you have misspoken.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I propose to answer in the way I started answering, and that is that the government is working to engage a third-party provider to provide a modern card for people leaving the CDC and moving back to income management. Under the new arrangements, Services Australia would do all customer functions such as taking calls, providing replacement cards and handling account balance requests. The third-party provider would only provide the back-office functions of the card such as maintaining an account so that payments are made through Visa and merchant processing transactions and such as reporting to Services Australia. Specific negotiations with a third-party provider are commercial-in-confidence, and I cannot comment on those.

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

RUSTON (—) (): Can I seek some clarification. Thank you for the detailed answer you gave me around where you're going. I'm sure my colleague Senator O'Sullivan will have more questions around this supposed enhanced technology and third-party provider to which you just referred in that answer. But I would like to take you back to a comment you made—I'm just seeking clarification whether this is correct. You said 'the cashless debit card had not worked in the Northern Territory' and that 'the people on the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory were going to transition back to the BasicsCard'—I'm quoting you there. I'm just seeking clarification about that statement you made a minute ago, as to whether that is correct.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston, for your question. The people in the Northern Territory can choose the enhanced tech, which I was talking about a moment ago, or the BasicsCard.

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

Can I just be really clear: are people in the Northern Territory who have currently made the decision, the 4,300-something of them who have transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the cashless debit card—after royal assent of this legislation, subject to the passage of the amendments put forward by the government, will those people retain their cashless debit card and functionality of it, or will they be forced to transition back to the BasicsCard, which is what you appeared to be indicating in your previous answer? I'm not talking about what's happening in the future at all.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just answered the question. You're just repeating the question that was just answered.

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

Can I be allowed to continue my question. I just want to be very clear here. We currently have two forms of income management: the BasicsCard and the CDC. You are talking about a new advanced technology that you are proposing to bring in sometime between now and 6 March next year. I am talking about the current technologies in place. The advanced technology does not exist at the moment—well, maybe I should ask this question: does the advanced technology you are talking about exist at the moment, and will it be available for implementation on royal assent of this legislation?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator FARRELL (—) (): I can only repeat my earlier answer; I suppose we can do this all night! The people in the Northern Territory can choose the enhanced technology or the BasicsCard. With all due respect to Senator Ruston, I think the questions you are asking relate to the next amendment rather than this amendment. I'm happy to answer questions, if you want, on the next amendment—that might speed up the process when we get to it—but I think it's probably more sensible if you ask questions as they relate to the particular amendment before the Senate.

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

TON (—) (): I will come back to ask the question. In the meantime, perhaps we can get a copy of Hansard as soon as possible for the comments the minister made that I am referring to, so I can actually seek clarification about that.

I'm not talking about the next amendment in relation to the people in the Northern Territory on the cashless debit card. I'm just going to ask you right now—you keep referring to enhanced technology. Could you please explain to me whether people who are currently on income management will have access to what you refer to as advanced technology when this bill receives royal assent?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston, for the question. I answered that question previously. I suppose I can spend all night repeating the answers I give, but I don't think that's terribly helpful. It's probably not terribly helpful to any of the people listening. I have answered the question.

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

Senator Farrell, could you just indulge me, please? You said you've answered this question on several occasions. You are referring to a thing. You are referring to advanced technology. I'm sure that Senator O'Sullivan can ask you a whole heap of questions around what this advanced technology is. I'm just seeking to understand when, if I am a recipient of the cashless debit card or of income management, of the BasicsCard, I would be able to get access to this advanced technology.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sixth of March 2023.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've got a third card in play—is that what you're saying? We've got a brand-new card? We've got the BasicsCard. We've got the Indue card. And now in a matter of six months—and it took quite a few years to get the Indue card down pat, I can tell you—you're bringing out a third card. Is that what you're telling us? How is this working?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I can be any clearer than what I've already said. In the Northern Territory, people are going to be able to choose between the enhanced technology that I started to talk about before—you didn't seem very interested when I started to explain that, so I won't repeat what I said about the enhanced technology—or the BasicsCard.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by putting our perspective on the record so that my questions will be considered in that context. The Greens' position is that we are against any form of compulsory income management because it has clearly failed to work. We have had—what is it?—six years of so-called trials of the cashless debit card, which have failed to address the social problems which they were set up to address. We have had evaluations that have shown very clearly that there has not been any evidence that the cashless debit card has addressed those social problems. We have had a scathing report from the Auditor-General that has shown that compulsory income management has failed. It is a harmful, punitive approach, and it's basically trying to mask an awful lot of other social problems, which are the issues that need to be addressed. We've heard in many speeches, yesterday and today, people being very concerned—and quite rightly—about social problems in some communities across Australia but then jumping to the conclusion that compulsory income management is going to fix those problems. Clearly the evidence from the BasicsCard, which was introduced in the Northern Territory after the Intervention, and from the cashless debit card over the last six years, has shown that compulsory income management has not fixed those problems. Otherwise, the communities it has been imposed upon would have had very clear evidence of having an improvement in those social issues, and it just hasn't happened.

Given that context, the Greens are supporting this bill because it is going to mean fewer people under compulsory income management, because the people in the four trial sites are, after the royal assent to this bill, going to have the ability to get off compulsory income management. That is a huge step forward. I am going to be celebrating with those people in those four trial sites. I know that there are many of them who are just waiting to get off the cashless debit card. We've got amendments that will be attempting to get more people off compulsory income management. But, as I said, we're going to be supporting this bill because it is going to mean fewer people under compulsory income management.

I want to just ask the minister some questions of clarification, starting off with this. Will anyone who is currently not on compulsory income management be forced to go onto compulsory income management as a result of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Rice, for your contribution, and thank you for your support of the legislation. I can talk specifically about the Northern Territory, but I think it answers your question generally. Our amendments relating to the Northern Territory allow for the new, enhanced technology to be offered to the current CDC participants in the Northern Territory. This amendment places no new people on compulsory income management that would otherwise not have been subject to this program. The affected participants are subject to the income management legislation in the Northern Territory and would have been placed back onto the BasicsCard without this amendment offering them enhanced technology.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Just clarifying, just putting on the record, that the rationale for us supporting this bill is that, well, it's a step forward. It's moving some people off compulsory income management and not putting any new people on.

Minister, the media release that was put out by Minister Rishworth refers to 17,300 people transitioning off the cashless debit card and onto the new arrangements or off the program completely. Can you take us through how many people are transitioning off completely?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice again for her question. The government's amendments allow people to choose to stay on the card as a voluntary option. Therefore, I can't provide an exact answer, but the government does expect that the majority of participants in Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Ceduna, the Goldfields and East Kimberley to transition off the card if they choose to do so. This would be a total of 12,515, based on current participants as at 16 September 2022. There are currently 4,300 people on the CDC in the Northern Territory and Cape York. These people will be transitioned to a new arrangement on 6 March next year, as I've previously indicated.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just get some more clarification, Minister, about the 4,300 people who are on the CDC in the Northern Territory and Cape York. How many of those are in the Northern Territory and how many are in Cape York?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can probably provide you with a little bit more information to answer a few broader questions. As at 16 September 2022, there are 16,886 participants on the cashless debit card. In the Cape York region, the number of participants is 105, and First Nations participants are 92 per cent. In the Ceduna region, there are 692 participants, and First Nations participants represent 78 per cent. In the East Kimberley region, there are 1,236 participants, and First Nations represent 86 per cent. In the Goldfields, there are 2,513 participants, and First Nations represent 50 per cent of that figure. In Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, there are 4,209 participants, and First Nations represent 18 per cent of that figure. In the Northern Territory, the figure is 4,266, as I have previously indicated, and First Nations participants represent 79 per cent of that figure. There are 3,865 out-of-area people, of which just under half are First Nations participants. That comes to a total of 16,886, as I mentioned earlier, with First Nations participants representing just over 50 per cent.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Minister. In terms of my question then, as to how many are transitioning off completely and how many are transitioning to new arrangements, we have 4,266 in the Northern Territory who are going to be transitioned either back to the BasicsCard or onto the new enhanced technology and, similarly, 105 in Cape York. All of the others will then be given the option to be off compulsory income management altogether. Can I clarify that that is the case for the people who are out of area, all of those 3,865? I'll ask that first, then I have another question about the numbers as well.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Senator Rice. It's good to get questions from somebody who's actually read the bill and all of the associated documents. The answer to all of your questions just then is yes.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one last question on the numbers. In terms of not knowing how many people are going to be transitioning off completely because you don't know how many people will choose to voluntarily stay on the card, have you got any indication of numbers? Based on the consultation that has been done in the lead-up to the abolition, what proportion of people might choose to stay on the card voluntarily?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of this whole process is giving back to individual Australians their right to make decisions, which the previous government took away from them in a particularly unfair and cruel manner. The work that's been done by Minister Rishworth is giving these people back the right to make their own decisions about what they do in their lives and how they spend their money. We could only guess what the final numbers are going to be, and if I could give you a more accurate answer than that I certainly would. The whole purpose of this is giving back to those people some rights to make decisions about their futures, particularly to Indigenous Australians because they represent such a large portion of the people under this scheme. I can't tell exactly what those numbers will be, but we will get some results pretty quickly as the changes roll out. I'll very happily supply those results to you when they become available.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're giving them their rights back. So Labor is okay with our children giving all their money to a bikie to buy ice? We're okay with that, are we? I just want to know. You're okay about giving them back, but you won't answer these hard questions. I want to know what you're going to do with these people once you give them all their money back and they go and spend it all down at the bottle shop and run around drunk, abusing their communities, or they buy ice and get violent in their communities. Labor's okay with that, is it? We don't need to manage them at all! We don't need to provide services ready to go! You want to take 12 months to work that out. Tell me what that's going to look like in the next 12 months, because you're so okay with bringing harm to the rest of the community. Explain that to the rest of Australia, because I'm not getting it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lambie for her rather emotional question there. I totally reject the proposition that you—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course you would!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally reject the proposition that you just put to me, and to be honest, Senator Lambie, I find it quite offensive that you should—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it offensive what you're doing to our kids! So do millions of other mothers out there!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I find the implication in your question totally offensive.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's because you don't have any answers; that's why.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I find that comment—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, you don't have the call.

offensive and, look, I found in political life that civility, particularly in the Senate, has never been a weakness. I simply say to you that I totally reject the implication in your question. But, to try and provide you with more information about what the government is intending to do, we are committed to ensuring that people are able to come off the card as quickly as possible, and support will be available to those who need it, including for those opting for voluntary income management. We are setting up a Centrepay arrangement and referrals for local supports. It is critical that those who do need some extra help with the changes to their financial arrangements are able to get it. This may include an option for individuals to transition to voluntary income management programs.

The participants in the Cape York and the Northern Territory will automatically be referred to enhanced income management. These participants will continue to access a contemporary card with customer service and support such as replacement cards and account inquiries provided by Services Australia. Services Australia will provide a new card to people in existing CDC sites that volunteer for enhanced income management or to new people referred by the FRC. Income management participants in the Northern Territory and place based locations will have the option to access the modern technology and transition to enhanced income management from 1 July 2023.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was wondering if the minister can commit to publishing as soon as possible a transition plan to the departmental website so people know what's going on?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lambie for a more balanced question. We will take that on board, and I will come back to you with a response.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since the Labor Party is talking about the cards and who is coming off, who is coming on, I'm wondering if you might supply me the evidence that you used in the last election, where you put out there on all those cards, and scared the bejesus out of all the old-age pensioners, that age pensioners were going on that card because the coalition were going to put them on it. I was wondering if you could supply me with the evidence of where you got that from. Today is good.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again for your question, Senator Lambie. We didn't make the decision lightly and we did take into account—

Well, I'm about to provide it for you, Senator Lambie. The University of Adelaide report from January 2021 found that the evidence to support the CDC was inconclusive. The study found that any reduction in alcohol and drug abuse could not be attributed to the effect of the card. The report found that the CDC introduced widely-felt and costly hurdles to many participants in financial planning and money management, and that the large proportion of CDC participants reported that their quality of life was affected in a negative way. There is a wealth of research available on the CDC. A study by the University of South Australia and Monash University in 2020 found the CDC had no substantive impact on gambling and intoxicant abuse in Ceduna and no substantive impact on crime or emergency department presentations. A 2020 study by the University of Queensland also found that CDC participants in Hinkler said that the card impacted their emotional wellbeing, that they lived in fear of stigma of their cards being declined and that it reduced their ability to participant in community life and leisure activities that required cash.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Farrell. We have a point of order.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply asked for you to show me the evidence that Labor was using during the last election—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: What's your point of order, Senator Lambie?

Sorry. My point of order is that you are not answering my question. You are giving me a lot of babble. My point of order is that you are not giving me the evidence that was used when you ran the campaign—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, that's not a point of order.

Let me rephrase the question. What evidence did Labor use during the 2022 election to go out there and tell age pensioners that the coalition intended to put them on the cashless debit card? I want to know where you got the evidence. I want to know where Labor got the evidence to say that the coalition was going to do that, because you spent a lot of time scaring age pensioners about that and that's really unfair. I think that's a real low point for Labor. I want you to supply me with the evidence on how you came up with that, that the coalition ever said they were going to put age pensioners on that card. Where is the evidence? That's what I'm asking you. Every age pensioner out there deserves of an answer. Who was lying? Show me the evidence that the coalition said this on paper or said it elsewhere. Show me where you got that evidence from? You are not getting away with this, not tonight.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally reject the proposition. I've explained all of the reports that were done. The University of Adelaide, a very fine establishment, and the University of South Australia, another very fine establishment, have done all of these surveys. The proposition that we took to the Australian people at the last election was—a very simple proposition—that we would abolish the cashless debit card. That was the proposition we took. We explained that to people—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You lied to people! That's disgraceful!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that's what you say, Senator Lambie, but—

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got no evidence the coalition said they were going to do it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say that, but we took a very clear position to the Australian people. In particular, let's look at the Northern Territory. We took that proposition to the people of the Northern Territory and the people of the Northern Territory re-elected Mr Gosling by a 10 per cent increased margin. They elected Marion Scrymgour in the seat of Lingiari. They elected Senator McCarthy. The people of Australia elected an Anthony Albanese Labor government. What we are doing is implementing what we told the Australian people we were going to implement before the last election. I think, if we hadn't done that, Senator Lambie, you'd be the first to criticise us. We took the proposition to the Australian people. They elected an Anthony Albanese Labor government. I'm here tonight to implement the promise that we took to the Australian people to get this cashless debit card bill through and that is eventually what we will do tonight.

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

Minister, is it the intention of the Albanese Labor government to have age pensioners on the cashless debit card, the BasicsCard or your new form of enhanced technology? Is it the intention of the government to place age pensions on this card?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The only way that that would happen would be if somebody volunteered or if the FRC placed that person on the scheme.

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

Can I be absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the government to force aged pensioners or service pensioners onto income management? It is not the intention of the Commonwealth government to place—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that's what you wanted to do.

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

No, no, Senator, let me finish, please. Is it not the intention of the Commonwealth government to place aged or veteran pensioners on income management? I'm not talking about the FRC—I'm talking about the Commonwealth government's intention to place aged pensioners on the Cashless Debit Card, the BasicsCard or your enhanced technology card.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. I've answered that question already.

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

Well, maybe the senator could please explain to the chamber and the Australian public why about an hour ago you voted against an amendment that explicitly requested that the Senate call on the government to ensure that no recipient of the aged pension, or a veteran or service pension, would be placed on income management by the Commonwealth government or any of its agencies?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. We're offering people a choice here, and that's the effect of the bill and the amendments.

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

Could I just seek clarification: was it the intention of the government to vote against an amendment that explicitly prohibited or prevented the government from placing people on income management? Not for people to volunteer, but for the Commonwealth government to place people on income management—was that your intention? You voted against that amendment, so was that the intention? Do you believe that the Commonwealth government should have the right to place aged pensioners, veteran pensioners or service pensioners on income management?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

r FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Ruston. Look, we voted against your amendment because we are the government, we have put forward a bill, we have amended that bill and it reflects what we took to the Australian people at the last election. I know you are the former minister in this area, Senator Ruston, and I know you've got an attachment to the Cashless Debit Card. I know there's a reluctance on the part of the opposition—because I see it every day in question time—to accept the result of the Australian people but, like it or not, the Australian people elected an Anthony Albanese government. The Prime Minister appointed Minister Rishworth to this portfolio, and I have to say she has been doing a terrific job both in preparing this legislation and in consulting with the Australian people about the introduction of it. I know you're having trouble coming to terms with that change, and I know you think that amendments that you introduce should be supported by the government but, unfortunately, Senator Ruston, the Australian people didn't elect you as a government. They elected the Anthony Albanese government, and we're presenting our bills and our amendments to the Australian people. We're presenting it to the Senate, and we are asking the Senate to make a decision about what we have proposed.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know what all the jargon was about, but it was not answering the question. It would be nice to get the questions answered in here. If you don't know the subject, Minister, then maybe you need to bring in someone who does.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, when we were talking about the numbers of people who were transitioning off the card, you talked about giving people their rights back, which is certainly the case in the four trial sites. But, of course, in the Northern Territory we've got 4,266 people who aren't getting their rights back. They are being transitioned either back to the BasicsCard or onto the new enhanced technology.

However, you do acknowledge, in the media release, that there's going to be an 18-month consultation on making income management voluntary. Is that specifically for the Northern Territory that we're going to have this 18-month process for making all income management voluntary, so covering people on the BasicsCard as well as those people who have been transitioned off the cashless debit card on to BasicsCard now? Can you tell us some more about that process please?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice for her question, and thank her for taking such an interest in this area and taking the trouble to read the minister's press releases, which explain much of what we're doing today.

Under this bill and amendments, the government is delivering a long-term plan to ensure certainty, choice and support to communities moving off the CDC program. First Nations people and other stakeholders have called for a measured approach to reforming income management. During consultation, they made the point that transition needed to reflect the complex needs of the participants and to mitigate any disruption to their ability to manage their money disbursements and their ability to buy essential goods and services. We'll continue consultation over the next 18 months to ensure communities are supported to decide what the future of income management looks like for them.

The government has considered whether to make changes to income management concurrently with the abolition of the CDC. However, we do not recommend this approach due to the difficulties in accessing the large number of participants in the various locations, which are vastly spread out across Australia. Our proposed 18-month time frame will ensure that there is a sufficient amount of time to consult affected communities on the look of the program. It will also ensure the transition of participants in a supported and targeted approach, noting that many people have been part of this program for more than 10 years.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, I was hoping to follow up on Senator Lambie's earlier question around claims made by members of your party, before the last election, about the CDC.

In a media release dated 27 October 2021, Labor MP Emma McBride said:

Thousands of Coasties who rely on the age pension are at risk of being forced onto the Cashless Debit Card Scheme by the Morrison Government.

They have a plan to force 80 per cent of people's pensions onto a cashless debit card, so they can control and limit how pensioners spend their money.

Then Labor deputy leader, now Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, made a similar claim in a Facebook post on 21 October that said, 'Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants to keep the card and extend it to all pensioners.' Claims the then government wanted to force all pensioners onto the cashless debit card was also made by other Labor politicians, including Justine Elliot, Brian Mitchell, Kate Thwaites, Tim Watts and Julian Hill. In a media release dated 25 October 2021, Senator Ruston, in reply, said:

Let me make it crystal clear—the Morrison Government will not force age pensioners onto the Cashless Debit Card. We were never going to, and never will.

Three days later, on 28 October, Senator Ruston told a Senate estimates committee that she categorically ruled out expanding the scheme to all pensioners, saying:

… there never has, there isn't and there never will be under this government any intention to require age pensioners to go on to the cashless debit card.

An article by the AAP found the claim by Labor to be false. My question to you is one that highlights the need for truth in political advertising laws, and I really commend your commitment to electoral reform and look forward to working with you to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen in future. Labor did a great job of conflating all income management with the CDC, and my hunch is that there are a lot of Australians out there who think that your election commitment to repeal CDC simply means that all compulsory income management is going, which isn't the case. I look forward to seeing your plan to do that. I look forward to seeing your plan to work with communities. My question to Senator Farrell is: given Labor clearly made these comments before the election, why not just own up to it?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock, for you question and for coming in for the debate. Part of my portfolio, of course, deals with electoral reform, and I look forward to working with you to make a range of reforms to the Australian electoral system. You mentioned one, but there will be many others. I look forward to having some cooperative discussions with you about what those reforms might look like and ultimately look forward to your support for those very sensible changes to our electoral laws.

Senator Ruston made a number of statements in the lead-up to the last election. On the question that you asked, I'd put to you that the opposition did not rule out the application of the CDC to pensioners. Can I refer to Senator Ruston's comments as minister. She told Channel 7 news in February 2020:

We're seeking to put all income management onto the universal platform, which is the cashless debit card.

My office and other offices—Senator McCarthy's office, I'm sure—were contacted by pensioners with worries and fears, and as a result we made our election commitments. Senator Ruston might want to walk away from that statement that she made, but that statement was made, it was unequivocal, and we stand by what we said.

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

Can I seek some clarification on the comment that Senator Farrell just made. Senator Farrell, would you be able to explain to the chamber what income management is?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, Senator Ruston, you don't like being reminded of that comment. I guess, if you had your time again, you might not have said what you said, but I think your words were pretty unequivocal there. You're the one, in that statement, that's talking about income management. I know it's embarrassing that you made those comments, and I know it's particularly embarrassing because you said it in front of a TV camera and there is a record of it. But I'll repeat what you said. Income management is what you referred to. You said:

We're seeking to put all income management onto the universal platform, which is the cashless debit card.

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

I seek the minister to answer the question: what is income management? That is what my question was, Senator Farrell. I didn't ask you your opinions about everything. I just want you to clearly articulate what income management is. That's all the question is.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You obviously struggled to understand what income management was when you did that interview, but let me explain it to you. I know you don't like these answers, Senator Ruston, but at some point you have to let go. There has been a change of government here. You have lost the portfolio. We now have a terrific new young minister, who is dealing with solving the problems that you created over the previous nine or 10 years.

The income management scheme that you're referring to actually predates the cashless debit card program. It has been operating for more than 10 years in the Northern Territory, Cape York and 12 other communities across Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Income management was created in 2007 as part of the Howard coalition government's Northern Territory emergency response, often referred to correctly as the Intervention. As part of that scheme, income management was initially introduced to prescribed areas of the Northern Territory, including 73 remote communities, associated outstations and 10 town camp regions. It formed part of the Howard government's response to the high levels of alcohol and substance abuse that were linked to child protection issues described in the Little children are sacred report, which was released in April 2007. The income management scheme was further developed and expanded under the Rudd Labor government.

Income management is for people who are on income support payments, who live in an income management location and who would benefit from assistance in managing their budget. It's a tool that helps individuals budget their welfare payments to ensure that they are able to pay for the essentials, such as food, clothing, housing and electricity. It works by making a proportion of a person's welfare payment income managed and directing it towards these essentials.

The key objectives of income management, under section 123TB of the administration act, are to reduce immediate hardship and deprivation by directing welfare payments to the priority needs of recipients, their partner, children and any other dependants; to help affected welfare payment recipients to budget so that they can meet their priority needs; to reduce the amount of discretionary income available for alcohol, gambling, tobacco and pornography; to reduce the likelihood that welfare payments recipients will be subject to harassment and abuse in relation to their welfare payments; and, finally, to encourage socially responsible behaviour, particularly in the care and education of children.

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

I thank Senator Farrell for at last actually putting on the public record the fact that I did not say what I was accused of saying by the then opposition and now government. Senator Farrell has just very kindly put on the public record that income management is actually the mechanism by which people in the Northern Territory and the other sites around Australia that he defined received income management by way or means of the BasicsCard. He has confirmed that the comments that I made were about the superiority of the cashless debit card as a platform for the delivery of income management for those people who were on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory and other sites around Australia. So I thank him very much for correcting the record. I really appreciate that, Senator Farrell, because for a very long time a number of your colleagues have been out there making a statement that, clearly, they knew was false and misleading. The fact that you have acknowledged that my comments referred to income management and that income management was the mechanism for the delivery of the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory and other sites around Australia is very much appreciated, Senator Farrell. You have now put on the public record the misleading scare campaign that was run by the opposition during the election campaign and prior to it.

While I'm on my feet, Senator Farrell, could I just seek some clarification in relation to whether the department or the minister has taken any legal advice in relation to the religious discrimination act in relation to this bill? I'm sorry: could the minister advise whether the government or minister has taken any advice in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to this bill, please?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for clarifying, Senator Ruston.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did struggle to see why it might be. It's interesting to note that Senator Ruston makes mistakes.

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

Not very often, Don.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've made a clanger there. I understand that, on this bill in particular, there has been advice in relation to the application of the Racial Discrimination Act.

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

TON (—) (): Thank you. I'm just wondering whether you might be able to provide us with some more detail, because, as you would probably be aware, when the income management act was first passed, the then government had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act. Considering that you've put on the record that 84 per cent of income management recipients in the Northern Territory are Indigenous and that the sites around Australia where there will be removal of compulsory income management have a higher percentage of non-Indigenous populations, I was just wondering whether you'd sought specific advice in relation to noncompliance with the Racial Discrimination Act and whether you believe that there was any need to consider the resuspension of the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to the extension of the instruments that relate to compulsory income management in the Northern Territory.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The first observation I would make is that, as the former minister, you would be aware of advice that has been received in respect of the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to the legislation that you dealt with on these issues. It's not customary for us to release that advice. You're obviously aware of previous advice in your former capacity as minister, but we're not proposing to release that legal advice.

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

You said you're not intending to release the advice, but I'm just seeking to understand whether you sought advice about the suspension of the act. That's all I was asking. I'm not expecting you to release the advice.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All our bills receive advice in respect of the Racial Discrimination Act.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, does the government know how many additional staff Services Australia will have available to assist with people wanting to transition off the CDC as soon as they are able to do so—the number both on the ground in communities and also answering phones and emails?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Pocock. We'll seek some advice about that, and as soon as I've got that advice available I'll provide it to you.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Does the government have a date for when the new codesigned process will commence for future income management? And how will you ensure that it is appropriately tailored to the unique needs of individual communities?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again, Senator Pocock, for your question. My assistants here are on the ball with every question. Under the bill, and particularly the amendments, it's our intention to deliver a long-term plan to ensure certainty, choice and the support of communities moving to the CDC program. First Nations people and other stakeholders have called for a measured approach to reforming income management. During consultation they made the point that transition needed to reflect the complex needs of the participants and to mitigate any disruption to the ability to manage their money disbursements and the ability to buy essential goods and services. We will continue consultation over the next 18 months to ensure that the communities are supported to decide what the future of income management looks like for them.

The government has considered whether to make changes to income management concurrently with the abolition of the CDC. However, we do not recommend this approach, due to the difficulties in assessing the large numbers of participants in various locations, which are vastly spread out across Australia. Our proposed 18-month time frame will ensure that there is a sufficient amount of time to consult affected communities on the look of the program. It will also ensure the transition of participants in a supported and targeted approach, noting that many people have been part of this program for more than 10 years.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Does the government know how much they will have to pay Indue for the transition period 1 January to 6 March next year?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for the question. That amount is a commercial-in-confidence amount.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just wondering: will the government commission a review on the impact of the cashless debit card withdrawal so we can check out the stats and what's going on? How are you running this so we can all find out what's going on, on a monthly basis—and also publish the transition plan on the department's website once again? I think you said you were going to get back on that. But, more importantly, how are you reviewing the withdrawal and when are we going to get updates on the withdrawal? Is that going to be monthly? Quarterly? And who's doing it? Surely you've got someone ready to review it; you're pulling it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie for your question. I can advise that we will publish a transition plan on the website as requested and commission a review.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

I really appreciate the questions we heard from Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie. They've been able to, I think, get to the very nub of the reason that we're here in this predicament. We're debating the abolition of the cashless debit card and the genesis of the fact that we're, right here, now talking about getting rid of a card that we know is helping communities, helping vulnerable people to make better choices with their money and to provide protection to the wider community, particularly the elderly and women in these communities. We hear, from so many of them, that talk about the impact.

What is the genesis? I think you've really hit the nail on the head with those questions about the lie that was spread in the lead-up to the campaign, that the coalition was going to put age pensioners and veterans onto the cashless debit card. That's why we're now in this position. If you're going to make a lie true, you've got to demonise the instrument that's being used to help communities. So you had to single out the cashless debit card, the instrument that's helping people. They were forced into a situation where, because you were demonising it—when journalists asked the question 'What are you going to do about it?' you said you would abolish it, without thinking about the impact it would have on the ground and in communities.

What we're now seeing, with these amendments, is that through the committee process—and credit to the government; they've listened through the committee process. They've recognised that the BasicsCard is a really old, redundant technology. It's a stored value card. It's not universal. You can't use it everywhere. There are fewer than 16,000 merchants who will let you use it, compared to the cashless debit card that has over 900,000 merchants or thereabouts who will let you use it. They've got themselves into this position because they had to make their lie true, and we know that you can't make a lie true by just telling more lies.

What they're not doing here—and what we're not hearing from Minister Farrell—is coming forward with the truth about what this new card is going to look like or how it's different. We know that the BasicsCard is an old redundant technology. You've acknowledged that. You're going to create this enhanced card. So I have some questions in relation to what this new card is going to look like. Minister, can you start by explaining to us the features of this new enhanced card, please?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Boy, it took a long time for you to get to your question, Senator O'Sullivan. I know you've got 10 minutes, but you didn't have to repeat what Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie said. At least they could think of their own questions.

I thought you were here earlier when I started talking about this issue and were listening closely, but obviously you weren't.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, please, Senator McKenzie.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair, for that protection. How will the system work? Services Australia will open an account on behalf of a participant with a deposit-taking institution. Services Australia will also issue a new card to the person. The new card will be a debit card connected to the account. This will provide similar functions to the normal debit card. It will have 'tap and go' with the ability of the person to turn this off if they don't wish to use it. It will have internet banking, using the Visa system. It can be used in stores with access to EFTPOS or Visa card systems, with the exception of blocked merchants such as bottle shops. An account exists in both the CDC and income management programs. The account provides the certainty that funds are available to pay the merchant when the card is used.

This is essential for any transaction card. The account will be a bank account that allows the person to use the BPAY system to pay bills. A person will be able to set up direct debits from their account, and people will not be able to withdraw cash from the account. Services Australia will be responsible for customer-facing services, including opening the account, issuing the card, call centre functions, issuing temporary cards and providing statements and websites for participants. Participants will be able to get information on their account and transactions from Services Australia. This is similar to the services they provide under the income management program. The account provider will perform the back-of-office functions that support the card. These include providing bank account transaction processing, the system that approves transactions at the sales terminal, payment of accounts to Visa and EFTPOS, fraud monitoring and reporting to Services Australia.

In recognition of the unique role of the Traditional Credit Union in providing banking services on country, the government will seek to continue their contract and allow them to provide services to their customers. The TCU are a not-for-profit, Indigenous controlled organisation that employs local staff.

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

Maybe my question wasn't clear. I was asking what the features of the new card are going to be. The minister has actually just described, precisely, the cashless debit card. I seek leave to table a document here. I did provide the whips notice of this before. It's from the DSS website. It's publicly available. Otherwise, I can read it all out if you prefer?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

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

Thank you. I table the document. This document here, which is available on DSS website, describes, pretty much word for word, almost, what the minister has just described with the cashless debit card. My next question is: how different is the so-called enhanced card—or contemporary card, as it's referred to in the EM—from the cashless debit card? Or is it, in fact, the same?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. The short answer is no, and while the enhanced card—

We have been going quite well here tonight, Senator McKenzie, in a respectful manner. I respectfully listen to all of the questions, and I respectfully try to answer them without interruption. I do not interfere or interrupt the questions that are being asked, and I would like the same respect when I answer the question. I try to answer the questions as honestly and straightforwardly as I'm able to, and I would like to continue doing that, with your permission.

Well, you weren't here a bit earlier, but I did indicate that in politics I never saw civility as a weakness. In fact, I think we can generally behave in this place in a civil manner, respectfully deal with all the issues that you would like answered, and then, in due course, vote on the legislation and implement what the Australian people voted for at the last election, which is the end of this card. So, in answer to Senator O'Sullivan's question, no, while the enhanced card will retain some of the technical functionality of the CDC, this will be the case with any banking product with a debit card attached. The government has listened to communities; they want the functions of this type of banking product. However, the government's amendments establish a program with important differences to the existing CDC program.

All client interaction and management of the account will be done by Services Australia and not a for-profit company. The government firmly believes that participants should not have to deal with a private company, and our amendments return this role to government.

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

Will the new card be on the EFTPOS platform, the Visa platform or the Mastercard platform?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): I think I answered that question quite clearly in an earlier answer: it's the Visa platform.

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

IVAN (—) (): Thank you. I may have missed that. Just to confirm, the government is not seeking to be a deposit-taking institution; it's not going to hold the account on behalf of the welfare recipient.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The account provider will perform the back office functions that support the card. These include providing the bank account, the transaction processing, the system that approves transactions at the sale terminal, the payment of accounts to Visa and EFTPOS, the fraud monitoring and the reporting to Services Australia.

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

For the enhanced card, will there be a tender process for the provider?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is working to engage a third-party provider to provide a modern card for people leaving the CDC and moving back to income management. Under the new arrangement, Services Australia will do all customer functions such as taking calls, providing replacement cards and dealing with account balance requests. The third-party provider would only provide the back-of-office functions of the card, such as maintaining an account so payments are made to Visa, EFTPOS and merchants processing transactions and reporting to Services Australia. Specific negotiations with a third-party provider are commercial-in-confidence and I cannot comment on the status of these.

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

Will cardholders have to get a new bank account in addition to the card? Will there be support provided to cardholders, because many of them already have direct debits in place with the cashless debit card? You're essentially replacing it with the same thing, but you're going to have a new account. Are people going to get help to make that transition to an account with the same features that they've already got?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither the account nor card number will change.

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

Sorry, could you just repeat that?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, could you repeat that?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither the account nor the card number will change.

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

This is very interesting. If they're not changing the account number—I don't know if senators here have gone to a different bank. You have a different BSB and account number. You have a different credit card number. I'm sure everyone here has changed bank providers. You get a different number. Can I just give you the opportunity to clarify what you've just said: will there be a new number? Because if it's the same number, then it's still the same product—it's still the cashless debit card, people, just with a different name.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I answered your question previously.

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

People are staying on the cashless debit card. You've just heard it. All that's happening here is it's just getting relabelled. It is currently a silver-coloured card. Maybe there will be a new picture. You might be able to get your face on it, or you might be able to get it printed with some pretty colours or something. I don't know. But you've just revealed to us that it's the same thing.

Let's deal with a couple of things, then, if it is the same. Currently, if you're a BasicsCard holder, you can't purchase pornography or tobacco. With this new card—this enhanced card or contemporary card—will you be able to purchase pornography and tobacco?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

You won't be able to purchase that? Let me be very clear. If you are a holder of the new card, will you be able to go into a store and purchase tobacco or pornography?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered that question already.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You put it onto the cashless debit card. The BasicsCard never wanted it, then you guys brought it onto the cashless debit card.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: Senator McCarthy, if you want to be the minister able to answer questions from this side of the chamber, I suggest you swap positions with Minister Farrell.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, thank you. Can we direct all points of order through the chair. Did Minister Farrell answer the question?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did answer the question. I know the opposition are desperate to keep this debate going by asking the same question over and over and over again, but I've answered the question and I don't have any further comment to make on that answer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for clarifying that. Senator O'Sullivan.

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

I refer to a Guardian article that was published three days ago which stated:

The enhanced card will allow access to more merchants, online shopping and Bpay, and will be delivered by Services Australia—

which you've detailed to us tonight. Is it more merchants and services than the BasicsCard or more than the cashless debit card? Is this 'enhanced' card an enhanced cashless debit card—which currently exists—or is it an enhanced BasicsCard?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, Senator O'Sullivan; I haven't read the Guardian article.

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

I'll just re-ask my question, which was about the features that you talk about—the fact that the card can be used for online shopping and BPAY, things that the cashless debit card currently does—as enhanced services. Is that based on the assessment of the features that are available on the BasicsCard? You're calling it an enhanced card or a contemporary card; is that based on the BasicsCard or is that meaning an enhancement of the cashless debit card?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're abolishing the cashless debit card. I don't know how many times I can say that, but I'll keep saying it until eventually you get the drift, Senator O'Sullivan. We're abolishing the cashless debit card and we're making enhancements to the BasicsCard. It's a very simple proposition, and I'm sorry you can't understand it.

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

Can you explain how they've got the same number if the cashless debit card has been abolished?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or FARRELL (—) (): I have already answered the question over and over again. I am not going to answer it again.

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

How much then does the government estimate it will cost to develop a new enhanced income management technology?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. Would you mind repeating it?

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

No problem. How much does the government estimate that it will cost to develop the new technology?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for a new line of questioning, Senator O'Sullivan. Those issues are matters, as you fully would understand, of commercial in confidence.

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

Can I just take you back to some comments that you made very early on in the night around the consultation that had been undertaken prior to the decision by the government to make the election commitment in relation to the abolition of the cashless debit card. You listed a number of consultations that have been undertaken by Senator McCarthy and other ministers. I was wondering whether you would be able to table for us or provide us with a list of the consultations that were undertaken outside of the Northern Territory by any of the ministers or members of your party at the time prior to the election? You listed a whole heap of activities that happened post the election, after you had already made the decision. I was just wondering if you would be able to provide information about the visits to the four cashless debit card sites and the Cape York site. If you could provide us with information as to the consultations that occurred at those four sites and Cape York prior to the decision being announced by the now government, when they were in opposition?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Ruston, for your question. You are right. We did extensive consultation after the election. I outlined that in very considerable detail in one of my earlier answers. I still think you don't quite get this concept. We took the abolition of the cashless debit card to the Australian people. Why did we do that? Because people like Senator McCarthy went around the Northern Territory for days, for weeks, for months, for years in advance of the last election. What was she being told by the people who were on this scheme, these people who were compulsorily forced to go on this scheme? She was being told, 'We don't want the scheme.' I couldn't tell you how many people Senator McCarthy spoke to but it was a damn a lot of people. For days, for weeks, for months, for years she went around the Northern Territory, and the rest of our MPs and our candidates did the same. Shadow minister Burney did heaps of that. Marion Scrymgour traipsed up and down Lingiari talking with people about this.

Luke Gosling, who got a 10 per cent swing to him at the last election, went up and down the seat of Solomon talking to people. Our candidates in other states, wherever the cashless debit card might apply, did the same thing. We talked to people around the country. What did they tell us? They said, 'We don't want the cashless debit card.' We took that to the Australian people. You might not like it but we took that to the Australian people, and what did they do at that election? They elected a Labor government. And what are we doing here tonight? Well, we're implementing the policy that we took to the last election. You might not like it, and you might not accept that the Australian people have made a decision about this, but they did. They did make a decision about it, and it's time for you to accept it.

Look, the coalition will never move on if you don't accept that the Australian people made a decision at the last election to reject your government, which had forced upon them the cashless debit card, and elect a government that was going to take that cashless debit card away—and that's us. Minister Rishworth has brought to this place—it's already passed the lower house, and tonight or tomorrow morning, sometime, it's going to pass the Senate—this legislation. And you've got to get over the fact that the Australian people rejected you at the last election. They elected a Labor government and what they want us to do is what we told them we were going to do, and that is abolish the cashless debit card.

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

I was just wondering whether the minister might be able to tell me, within 1,000, how many people in the Northern Territory were consulted who had been forced onto the cashless debit card.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can repeat the last answer I gave, but I won't. Senator McCarthy, Mr Gosling and Ms Scrymgour went out there and consulted and consulted and spoke and spoke and spoke. And there was a single message coming back from those people who were forced onto the cashless debit card: 'We want you to change this and in order to do it we're going to elect an Anthony Albanese government.' And that's exactly what they did.

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

I'm just wondering whether the minister could tell us how many people in the Northern Territory are on the cashless debit card who did not go onto the cashless debit card voluntarily.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston, for the question. I went through in quite some detail the data that I had, in terms of both the numbers and the number of Indigenous First Nations people on it, and that is the information I'm providing tonight.

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

I'm just going to try one more time, Senator Farrell, but I'll give you a hint. There is nobody in the Northern Territory who is on the cashless debit card who has not voluntarily chosen to go on the cashless debit card. So, there is nobody—and I mean nobody—in the Northern Territory who has been compulsorily forced to go onto the cashless debit card. So, I think for the minister to come in here and make statements about thousands and thousands being consulted in the Northern Territory who told Senator McCarthy and Mr Gosling and other people about the cashless debit card and how they hated the fact that they'd been forced onto the cashless debit card—I would ask whether Senator Farrell wishes to correct the record and actually put on the record that there is no-one in the Northern Territory who is on the cashless debit card who hasn't voluntarily chosen to go on it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McCarthy is here. We can ask her all about the people she spoke to in the Northern Territory. She can answer for herself. But I can tell you that what she will say is exactly what I told you: Senator McCarthy, Mr Gosling and Ms Scrymgour travelled around the Northern Territory; they spoke to people about what they wanted. We put a proposition to the Australian people. There was no equivocation about the proposition that we took to the Australian people. Shadow Minister Burney, as she was then, made it unequivocally clear: 'If you vote in a Labor government, then we will abolish this card.' Why did they do it? Because they spoke to people in the Territory and other parts of the country, and that was the message that came back to us: 'We want you to abolish the cashless debit card.' We spoke to the Australian people. We said, 'Will you support us on this?' The unequivocal answer was, 'Yes, we support you.'

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

Senator Farrell, you have been in this place for quite some time, a lot longer than I have been. You will know that it is a standard convention that you do not mislead the Senate by providing false information. You are on the record tonight, and I will ask the President and the Deputy President to review the record tonight. You have gone on the record and you have knowingly lied to the Senate. You have said that you and your colleagues have consulted with people in the Northern Territory who have said to those people that they were compulsorily forced onto the cashless debit card. In the absence of you being able to provide any information or evidence whatsoever that any person in the Northern Territory has been forced onto the cashless debit card, I would ask you to reflect on your comments and perhaps come back to this chamber at another time and address the chamber about the fact that you continue to mislead the chamber, even though I have advised you that there is no way that anybody in the Northern Territory has been forced onto the cashless debit card.

I will move on specifically to some questions directly around the amendment. Is it the intention of the government for the FRC to determine the percentage of funds quarantined or will they be required to meet the fifty-fifty rules as outlined by other amendments?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely reject the proposition that I have lied to the Senate. I take my integrity extremely seriously, and I absolutely reject your proposition. You may not like what I've said and you might not like the result of the last election, but the reality is the Australian people voted for a Labor government that was going to abolish the CDC. As to this question, the answer is that it will be up to the FRC to determine that issue.

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

Thank you very much for answering the question. What certainty have you provided the Family Responsibilities Commission that your enhanced technology will be able to be used at all sites where the CDC is currently able to be used by those people—that is, that it will be able to be used at all EFTPOS places, all online and overseas transactions? Have you given an undertaking to the FRC that the current accessibility of service and outlets by your enhanced technology will be—that they will be able to use it at every outlet that currently they can use the CDC card?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can do even better than that, Senator Ruston. The FRC have examined the amendments and have indicated that they can comply with everything they are required to do.

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

Could you then confirm that your advanced technology will be able to be used at all places that the cashless debit card can currently be used at.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure why the senator wants to ask the same question over and over again. I've explained to you that the FRC have looked at the amendments and they can meet all of the requirements under the amendments as proposed.

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

Thank you. I heard your answer very, very clearly, Senator Farrell. What I am seeking for you to answer is whether the enhanced technology that you are proposing will be able to be used at every site that currently the cashless debit card is being used at. It's a pretty simple question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pretty simple answer; I've given it to you two or three times now. The FRC are going to do everything. I don't know how I can be clearer. I just can't be any clearer than what I've already said.

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

Senator Farrell, I can only assume by the fact that you are refusing to answer my question that your enhanced technology will not be able to be used at all of the outlets.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. That is totally incorrect. Senator Farrell answered those questions earlier this evening. He has answered those questions.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McCarthy, that is not a point of order.

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

Perhaps, Senator Farrell, you might take on notice the specifics of my question. That is: will your enhanced technology be able to be used at all sites that the cashless debit card can currently be used at? You don't have to give us the other answer that didn't answer the question again. If you'd like to take it on notice—because clearly either you do not have the answer, or the fact is that your enhanced technology won't be able to be used at all the sites the cashless debit card can be used at.

I'm just wondering if the minister might be able to advise us as to whether the government has made any commitments to either the Cape York Institute and Mr Pearson or the Family Responsibilities Commission in relation to ongoing income management in Cape York outside of what you've advised the chamber of today?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our amendments protect the role of those organisations. Yes, that's the answer.

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

Can I take it from your answer, Senator Farrell, that you have made no additional undertakings to either of those two organisations in relation to income management going forward?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our legislation is our response to those organisations. They've had a look, they support it, and in due course, sometime tonight, we're going to pass that legislation.

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

I would like to put on the record that I would like the senator maybe to come back and answer the question as to whether there are any other commitments that have been made to either the Cape York Institute, Mr Pearson or the Family Responsibilities Commission that have not been advised by either the minister tonight or the actions of this legislation.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in your evidence before about the consultation that has been done in the Northern Territory, and the overwhelming evidence that people wanted to abolish the cashless debit card, I'm interested to know whether that consultation said that they wanted to abolish the cashless debit card in order to go back onto the BasicsCard or an enhanced BasicsCard, or whether they wanted to have the cashless debit card abolished altogether and compulsory income management abolished altogether.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, could you repeat that question, please, Senator? Senator Farrell's popped out for five minutes; he will be back.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McCarthy. In fact, given that his evidence was that it was you that did a lot of the consultation in the Northern Territory about people wanting to have the cashless debit card abolished, it would be good to get your response to this. The evidence that Senator Farrell gave was that people in the Northern Territory who were consulted with overwhelmingly wanted to see the abolition of the cashless debit card. What I asked was: in that consultation, did they say people wanted to stay on the BasicsCard or be transitioned from the cashless debit card onto the BasicsCard, or was the overwhelming evidence that they wanted to see the end of any form of compulsory income management altogether?

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This began quite a number of years ago, prior to the 2019 election, where First Nations organisations across the Northern Territory either met with me personally or travelled here to Canberra. You have groups like APO NT—Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory—the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council and AMSANT—the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT. They came here to the parliament on numerous occasions. We even had, from Central Australia, I think it was, the Tangentyere women's group come down, in 2018.

I was able to take a couple of senators up north. I thank Senator Lambie, who was one of those, and former South Australian senator Rex Patrick; they both came up. From the House—I'm trying to think who it was—one of the staffers from Rebekha Sharkie's team travelled up as well. In Central Australia we went out to Papunya. We also visited communities around Alice Springs and then went up to Darwin and out to North-East Arnhem Land, to Yolngu country, and spoke with people from Milingimbi. There was also an opportunity—I think it was only with former senator Rex Patrick—to go to Nhulunbuy; we were able to go that far as well. On all those occasions, First Nations people raised their concerns. They obviously wanted to talk about the BasicsCard. They were trying to understand what this new cashless card was and what it would mean.

That was important in the lead-up to a debate we had here in the Senate in late 2018 or early 2019 that went to all hours of the morning. That debate was about trying to make some changes to the cashless debit card further going across the country. That's why First Nations and Northern Territory advocates came down—to make sure that then shadow minister Linda Burney was consulted. The opposition to the cashless debit card coming to the Northern Territory was made clear.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be specific: was that opposition to the cashless debit card coming to the Northern Territory, meaning they were happy to stay on the BasicsCard, or did that include opposition to compulsory income management altogether?

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was certainly a view against compulsory income management. There was also the concern in terms of the cashless debit card. The BasicsCard has a history. That didn't begin with grassroots people, as was raised in one of the meetings here; it began with the former Prime Minister and Senator O'Sullivan's former boss, the Forrest family. The BasicsCard came in with the Intervention, and then the CDC came in after the review, the Twiggy Forrest report, and proceeded from there.

To answer your question: people were still unsure about the BasicsCard. There are grannies and women who want to have that, and that was made clear. I certainly know from my own experiences in the Gulf Country that some of them like it; they choose to be on it. But people didn't like the idea of being forced to go onto something. They also raised through those consultations the need for further jobs, concerns around the CDP and the lack of jobs. They also raised the need to have extra services that would give them support, whether it was around care for their children or extra school programs—certainly there were issues around extra housing. They were asking for other things that helped the social lifestyles of families in these communities, but it was very clear from those meetings I've mentioned that compulsory income management was something that they did not want.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or LAMBIE () (): I want to go back to the BasicsCard. It is an income management card, which you are now keeping in. We know it was brought out in 2007 by the Howard government, and Labor expanded it to a wider cohort of jobseekers, and not just Aboriginal people, in 2010. Please tell me why you did that in 2010, yet we still have the same social problems around and you don't want income management now, apart from the BasicsCard. Tell me why that is, because I don't understand it.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what I have to do, Senator Lambie, is perhaps give you my understanding of that journey with the BasicsCard. It came in in 2007 and was imposed on many thousands of people across the Territory. From memory, there was no review of that card until between 2010 and 2014. So the next decision was made in 2012. That was by, obviously, going to the election here. Federal Labor took it over from the coalition. I was not in the federal parliament at the time, but I remember, from a personal point of view, that we were lobbying our colleagues in Canberra to have a good look at the BasicsCard and wanting them to review it.

I think all people in politics go into it in the hope that they can influence change for the better. So when I came in in 2016 and that position was still the same, it was a deep concern for me. Here we had laws governing the people of the Northern Territory, but this parliament hadn't sought to review its own legislation, to review and look into what was going on with the BasicsCard. That's something that is very close to my heart.

Even with this particular legislation, which is on the cashless debit card, I know that there was no work done by the previous government to look into the BasicsCard. That has always troubled me. So I would certainly like to say that, should this legislation pass through tonight, this parliament must look into the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. Half those families may say: 'Don't touch it. We want to stay on it. We like it. It suits us. It works for us in our communities.' That's what they may say, but they've never really been asked because every focus has been on the cashless debit card.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My problem is that I think we all know why those cards were issued in 2007 by the Howard government. Those issues are still around.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're around in Australian communities all over the country.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we understand that. I want to know why you're ripping the card off others and giving them a choice. You're going to put these people on a new beaut card if they want it; they're on income management too. Income management is the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card. It's income management. Actually, as a matter of fact, they're slightly different because one's 20-80 and the other's 50-50. I want to know what angle you're playing at here as a government.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can certainly tell you the way I see it, Senator Lambie. It's this. If the previous government for nine years did no reviews whatsoever on the BasicsCard, yet this Senate did six inquiries on the cashless debit card, it shows where the priority was for this parliament. There was no priority on the people of the Northern Territory. So why would we make a decision to do something with the BasicsCard when no work whatsoever has been done by the previous government? So we have to do it carefully and cautiously and, yes, that will take time.

But in the meantime the previous government had a flawed card, and you know how flawed it was because the Yolngu people told you when you came up to the Northern Territory. That's why, when this parliament does not follow its own due process—yet it does six inquiries into the cashless debit card—that is the only information we had to go on as to what was not working with this flawed card. These senators on the other side had the chance to fix that up, and you know it. You stood in this Senate and you called them out for it, so don't backtrack now.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not backtracking. You don't—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You remind them. You remind them of that. You need to remember that.

You can check us, and keep us in check, and that's fine. You can keep us in check, Senator Lambie, because, let me tell you, I certainly will. But for now, the only information that is sufficient information for those Australians across the country is that this card—the cashless debit card—has to go.

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

I have a few questions. Is the government aware of any deposit-taking institution in Australia that allows for bank account number portability—that is, the ability to keep the same account number, the same BSB number, and shift to a different bank? Say you're a Commonwealth Bank customer and your number starts in 016, or whatever it is, and you keep that same number if you transfer to ANZ or any other deposit-taking institution—aka bank—in Australia.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered this question already this evening.

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

We've spent 2½ hours and haven't progressed an amendment, so I'd like to move that the amendment be put.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that amendments (1) to (4), (6) and (8) to (13), be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Actin G Deputy President:

The question now is that amendments (20) to (26) and (38) of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We now move to further government amendments.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (16) on Sheet ZA181 together, noting that the question on some items will be put separately to enable the question that some items stand as printed.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (16) on sheet ZA181 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, items 2 to 6, page 3 (line 12) to page 4 (line 4), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 7 and 8), omit subsection 123UCA(4).

(4) Schedule 1, items 8 to 10, page 4 (lines 18 to 29), to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 3 and 4), omit subsection 123UCB(5).

(6) Schedule 1, items 12 to 14, page 5 (lines 14 to 25), to be opposed.

(7) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 28 and 29), omit subsection 123UCC(5).

(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 6 (lines 9 to 16), to be opposed.

(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (lines 19 and 20), omit subsection 123UD(4A).

(10) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (line 30) to page 7 (line 3), to be opposed.

(11) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 6 and 7), omit subsection 123UE(5).

(12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 8 (lines 12 to 19), to be opposed.

(13) Schedule 1, item 28, page 8 (lines 22 and 23), omit subsection 123UFAA(3).

(14) Schedule 1, item 40, page 12 (lines 14 to 26), to be opposed.

(15) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 8), after Part 1, insert:

Part 1A — Stage 1A amendments

National Emergency Declaration Act 2020

48A Section 10 (paragraph (zba) of the definition of national emergency law )

After "section 123SJ", insert "or 123SM".

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

48B Section 123SA

After:

insert:

(a) the person meets the criteria relating to disengaged youth and the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory; or

(b) the person meets the criteria relating to long-term welfare payment recipients and the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory.

48C Section 123SB

Insert:

balance of the qualified portion, of acategory D welfare payment, means:

(a) if a deduction is to be made from, or an amount is to be set off against, the payment under:

(i) section 61, 61A or 238 of this Act; or

(ii) section 1231 of the 1991 Act; or

(iii) section 84, 84A, 92, 92A, 225, 226, 227 or 228A of the Family Assistance Administration Act;

the amount of the qualified portion of the payment less the amount of the deduction or the amount of the set-off; or

(b) in any other case—the amount of the qualified portion of the payment.

category C welfare payment means:

(a) youth allowance; or

(b) jobseeker payment; or

(c) special benefit; or

(d) pension PP (single); or

(e) benefit PP (partnered).

category D welfare payment means:

(a) a social security benefit; or

(b) a disability support pension; or

(c) a carer payment; or

(d) a pension PP (single); or

(e) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance; or

(f) double orphan pension; or

(g) family tax benefit under the Family Assistance Act; or

(h) family tax benefit advance under the Family Assistance Administration Act; or

(i) stillborn baby payment under the Family Assistance Act; or

(j) carer allowance; or

(k) child disability assistance; or

(l) carer supplement; or

(m) mobility allowance; or

(n) pensioner education supplement; or

(o) telephone allowance under Part 2.25 of the 1991 Act; or

(p) utilities allowance under Part 2.25A of the 1991 Act; or

(q) a distance education payment under the scheme known as the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, where the payment relates to a child or children at a Homelands Learning Centre; or

(r) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as pensioner education supplement; or

(s) a social security bereavement payment; or

(t) an advance payment under Part 2.22 of the 1991 Act; or

(u) an advance pharmaceutical allowance under Part 2.23 of the 1991 Act; or

(v) a mobility allowance advance under section 1045 of the 1991 Act.

exempt welfare payment recipient has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

qualified portion, of a category D welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SM.

unqualified portion, of a category D welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SM.

48D After section 123SC

Insert:

1 23SD Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Northern Territory

Disengaged youth

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:

(a) immediately before 6 March 2023:

(i) the person was a program participant under Part 3D; and

(ii) the person's usual place of residence was within the Northern Territory; and

(b) at the test time, the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory; and

(c) at the test time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment; and

(d) at the test time, the person is at least 15 years of age and under 25 years of age; and

(e) at the test time, the person is not an exempt welfare payment recipient; and

(f) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and

(g) the person was an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment for at least 13 weeks during the 26-week period ending immediately before the test time.

(2) If:

(a) a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (1); and

(b) paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply in relation to the person; and

(c) at the time of that cessation, paragraphs (1)(c), (d), (e) and (f) apply in relation to the person;

then the person remains subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (1) until the earlier of the following:

(d) the time paragraph (1)(c), (d), (e) or (f) ceases to apply in relation to the person;

(e) the end of the period of 13 weeks beginning on the day that paragraph (1)(b) ceased to apply in relation to the person.

Long-term welfare payment recipient

(3) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time (the test time) on or after 6 March 2023 if:

(a) immediately before 6 March 2023:

(i) the person was a program participant under Part 3D; and

(ii) the person's usual place of residence was within the Northern Territory; and

(b) at the test time, the person's usual place of residence is within the Northern Territory; and

(c) at the test time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment; and

(d) at the test time, the person is at least 25 years of age but has not reached pension age; and

(e) at the test time, the person is not an exempt welfare payment recipient; and

(f) if, at the test time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and

(g) the person was an eligible recipient of a category C welfare payment for at least 52 weeks during the 104-week period ending immediately before the test time.

(4) If:

(a) a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (3); and

(b) paragraph (3)(b) ceases to apply in relation to the person; and

(c) at the time of that cessation, paragraphs (3)(c), (d), (e) and (f) apply in relation to the person;

then the person remains subject to the enhanced income management regime under subsection (3) until the earlier of the following:

(d) the time paragraph (3)(c), (d), (e) or (f) ceases to apply in relation to the person;

(e) the end of the period of 13 weeks beginning on the day that paragraph (3)(b) ceased to apply in relation to the person.

48E After Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 3AA

Insert:

Subdivision B — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — Northern Territory

123SM Category D welfare payment to be split into qualified and unqualified portions

Payments by instalments

(1) If an instalment of a category D welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD:

(a) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is qualified (the qualified portion) is 50%; and

(b) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is unqualified (the unqualified portion) is 50%.

Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).

Pa yments otherwise than by instalments

(2) If a category D welfare payment is payable, otherwise than by instalments, to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD, 100% of the gross amount of the payment is qualified (the qualified portion).

Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).

Variation by Secretary

(3) For a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD, the Secretary may make a determination that:

(a) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(a) to 0%; and

(b) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(b) to 100%; and

(c) varies the percentage applicable under subsection (2) to 0%.

(4) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (3) only if:

(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's BasicsCard bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:

(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or

(ii) a natural disaster; or

(iii) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or

(b) the person's category D welfare payment is payable in instalments and the Secretary is satisfied that any part of the payment is payable:

(i) at a time determined under subsection 43(2), where that determination is made because the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances; or

(ii) under a determination under subsection 51(1).

(5) A determination under subsection (3) takes effect on the day specified in the determination (which must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made).

(6) A determination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

123SN Payment of balance of qualified portion of category D welfare payment

If a category D welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SD, the Secretary must pay the balance of the qualified portion of the payment to the credit of a BasicsCard bank account maintained by the person.

123SO Recipient's use of funds from category D welfare payments

A person who receives a category D welfare payment:

(a) may use the balance of the qualified portion of the payment, as paid under section 123SN, to obtain goods or services, other than:

(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or

(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services; and

(b) may use the unqualified portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's discretion.

48F Paragraph 127(4)(ad)

Omit ", 124PGC(9) or 124PGE(10)", substitute "or 124PGC(9)".

48G Paragraph 144(lc)

Omit ", 124PGC(9) or 124PGE(10)", substitute "or 124PGC(9)".

(16) Schedule 1, item 63, page 16 (lines 21 to 24), to be opposed.

The government's amendments allow for an enhanced technology option to provide a modern user experience for Northern Territory participants. It does not move any new people in the Northern Territory onto income management that otherwise wouldn't be the subject of the BasicsCard.

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

Could I ask the minister—just to try and get some clarity around some semantics here—as we're sitting here today, could you advise me whether the amendment that you've just put forward on Sheet ZA181 will mean that people who are currently on income management and have the cashless debit card will remain on the cashless debit card until such time as your enhanced technology option becomes available on 6 March?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

Is it possible for people in the Northern Territory who are currently on the BasicsCard to continue to transition to the cashless debit card in the time period between now and when your more permanent form of income management comes into place on 6 March 2023?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

I ask the minister: will the people in the Northern Territory currently voluntarily on the cashless debit card keep that card for the next six months?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will keep that card until 6 March next year, when they will be transitioned.

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

Is it the intention of the government to offer access to the CDC in other sites that currently have the BasicsCard income management in place?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're not offering the CDC; we are abolishing the CDC, and that's what this legislation does.

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

Can I seek some clarification from the minister? You're saying that the legislation that's before us abolishes the cashless debit card, yet I thought that in a previous answer that you'd given me you actually said that the cashless debit card would remain available to people who were on the cashless debit card until the new form of income management came into place.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps Senator Ruston doesn't get it, but there's nothing equivocal about my previous answer.

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

Perhaps I could just run through a couple of questions. Income management has been operating in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands in Western Australia for some time.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where?

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

The NG Lands. They're next to the APY Lands. What happens now to those people who are on income management, following the passage of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill doesn't deal with that situation.

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

Income management has been operating in Perth in Western Australia. What happens now to the people on income management in Perth? Does this bill impact on them?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

Income management has been operating in the APY Lands in South Australia. What happens now to the people on income management in the APY Lands? What effect will this bill have on them?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing.

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

Income management has been operating in the greater Adelaide area in South Australia. What happens to people on income management in greater Adelaide? Will they have any effect from this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

Income management has been operating in the Kimberley in Western Australia. What happens to people on income management in the Kimberley? What will the effect of this bill be?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is no.

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

Income management has been operating in Playford in South Australia. What happens to people on income management in Playford? What will be the effect of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is no.

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

Income management has been operating in the greater Shepparton area in Victoria. What happens now to people on income management in greater Shepparton? What is the effect of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston. Nothing.

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

Income management was operating in the Kilcurra area in Western Australia. What happens now to the people on income management in that community? What effect will this bill have on them?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Nothing.

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

Income management has been operating in Bankstown in New South Wales. What happens now to people on income management in Bankstown? What is the effect on them from this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Nothing.

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

Income management has been operating in Logan in Queensland. What happens now to people on income management in Logan? What is the effect of this bill on those people?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senator Ruston for her question. Nothing.

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

Income management has been operating in Rockhampton in Queensland. What happens to the people on income management in Rockhampton and what is the effect of this bill on them?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The answer is, as she knows, is no.

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

Income management has been operating in the Northern Territory. What happens to the people on income management in the Northern Territory? What is the effect of this bill on them?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston. I think that completes your list of questions. As the other answers have been, the answer is no.

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

The cashless debit card has been operating in Ceduna in South Australia since March 2016. What happens now to the people in Ceduna? What is the effect on them of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senator Ruston for her question. As I've said on previous answers, they will be offered the enhanced technology that this legislation provides.

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

The cashless debit card has been operating in the East Kimberley in Western Australia since 26 April 2016. What happens to the people in the East Kimberley on the cashless debit card? What are the effects of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. The answer is the same as the previous one.

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

The cashless debit card's been operating in the Goldfields in Western Australia since 26 March 2018. What happens to the people in the Goldfields as a result of the passage of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston. The answer is the same as the two previous answers I have given.

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

The cashless debit card has been operating in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay Queensland since 29 January 2019. What happens to the people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay who are on the cashless debit card as a result of the passage of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston. The answer is the same as the three previous answers.

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

I thank the minister for his direct and short answers to the questions. What we have just heard from the response that we received from the minister is that the sum total of the effect of this bill on recipients of income management across the whole of Australia is the fact that there will be an offering of an enhanced technology to people in four sites—Ceduna, East Kimberley, Goldfields, and Bunderberg and Hervey Bay. Apart from that, this bill does absolutely nothing. The people of Cape York, we found out through prosecution of the previous amendment, will remain on the cashless debit card. The people of the Northern Territory who have transitioned from the BasicsCard to the cashless debit card will remain on the cashless debit card. Those people in the Northern Territory who are currently on the BasicsCard will be forced to remain on the BasicsCard because of the extension of instruments that is being undertaken by this government this week as well.

In all of the other income management sites across Australia that I listed in my previous questions, there will be no change. Every single person currently on compulsory income management in those sites will remain on compulsory income management in those sites. So what the minister has basically just done is bell the cat. What we have seen is that this bill is basically a shell of what they promised when they went to the last election. They went to the election and they promised that they were going to abolish the cashless debit card. This bill is called the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. The cold hard fact is that this bill should read social security administration amendment (extension of the cashless debit card and other measures bill), because what we have heard from the minister tonight is that there is no effect whatsoever on compulsory income management as it is currently outlined under the income management legislation, and that all we are seeing is a so-called transition onto enhanced technology. We've heard, in answers given to other members in this place, that people will still have the cashless debit card. Even when they have supposedly been transitioned over onto this new technology they will still have a card with exactly the same number on it as is currently on their cashless debit card. As we all know, you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you like, the fact is that the cashless debit card is going to remain in place. This is one of the most embarrassing backflips I've ever seen.

The only thing I can say is there are some small mercies by what has happened here tonight. Obviously the government has been forced into listening to a community like Cape York. We've seen an amendment that has enabled Cape York to be able to continue with the functionality that they have fought so long to be able to have, despite the fact that this government, without consultation, went to the election and said they were going to abolish the cashless debit card in Cape York. They clearly hadn't spoken to the members of the Cape York community, because of course they would've told them at the time that they didn't want the card to be abolished, which they've subsequently told them. They have backflipped on it. I am pleased that they have backflipped on that, because the community of Cape York clearly have worked very hard to try and deliver good outcomes for the members of their community.

It is extremely disappointing that, despite all the fanfare and all the con that we have seen from those opposite, the cold hard facts are that this particular bill does very little. They've tried to cloak this as some sort of amazing decision and delivery on an election promise. They have delivered very little by this legislation tonight.

The opposition is not going to stand in the way of the amendment that is before the chair, because we believe that it is appropriate for people to be able to have some continuity and some consistency. We are happy that the government is making the decision to allow people who are on the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory to remain on the cashless debit card.

We look forward to seeing what the government comes back with, with its enhanced technology option. I will make you a fearless prediction in here that the government will come back with the cashless debit card technology. They will probably pop it in a different act. They'll probably give it a different name. But the cold hard reality is that what they will come back into this place with is the cashless debit card dressed up as something else.

If those opposite would like to disagree with me, I'm more than happy for them to do so. You can be assured that every single person in this place will be watching what you're doing, because this has been nothing more than the most monumental con of the Australian public. You have not sought to abolish the cashless debit card. You have actually sought to extend it in some places. You have not sought to get rid of income management. You are intending to extend income management by the extension of instruments that put in place income management across the Northern Territory, and all of those sites that I have just listed here where you have said there will be no change to income management.

As I said, the opposition will support this amendment. The opposition will support this amendment, because we believe it is the right thing to do. We thank the government for actually listening to the people in the Northern Territory. Despite the fact that Senator Farrell has continuously misled this place by saying that there are people in the Northern Territory who have been forced onto the cashless debit card there are none. But at least you have given those people who voluntarily chose to go onto the cashless debit card the opportunity to remain on the cashless debit card. I look forward to seeing the legislation that you intend to bring back into this place to put what you are proposing for income management going forward.

I put you on notice: if you think that you can bring back the cashless debit card technology under some other different name and pop it into a different act and think that we're going to believe for one minute that you have done anything apart from extend the cashless debit card in this country, you are sadly mistaken. You need to come clean with the Australian public about what your intentions are. I think it's been very clear from all the amendments you have put forward, and very clear from the $50 million that you reannounced on Saturday to go towards drug and alcohol services, that you know that, due to the removal of the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card in the four sites that are going to the voluntary cashless debit card, there is a very, very high chance that we will see significant increases in social harm, significant increases in domestic violence and significant increases in police presentations, hospital presentations and child neglect. You know that's the case, and that is why you have put this bandaid of additional funding onto it.

As I said, the opposition will not stand in the way of this amendment because we believe that it is appropriate for people to at least be able to have some sort of consistency going forward. Your decision that you put to the people at the election was ridiculous. You have obviously realised that yourselves, so we will be supporting this amendment.

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

We appreciate the support from the opposition in the interests of progressing the bill. I move:

That the amendment be put.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: There are two questions. The first question is that amendments (1), (3), (5), (7), (9), (11), (13) and (15) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: I now put the question that items 2 to 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14, 16, 18, 27, 40 and 63 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet TK326 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (before table item 3), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 12 (line 30), omit "the closure day", substitute "6 March 2023".

(3) Schedule 1, item 44, page 13 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item, substitute:

44 Paragraph 127(4)(aa)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(aa) a decision to give a notice under subsection 123SE(3); or

(4) Schedule 1, item 46, page 13 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute:

46 Paragraph 144(l)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(l) a decision to give a notice under subsection 123SE(3);

(5) Schedule 1, page 15 (before line 1), before Part 2, insert:

Part 1B — Stage 1B amendments

National Emergency Declaration Act 2020

48H Section 10 (before paragraph (zc) of the definition of national emergency law )

Insert:

(zbb) section 123SP of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999;

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

48J Section 123SA

Before:

insert:

48K Section 123SB

Insert:

balance of the qualified portion, of acategory G welfare payment, means:

(a) if a deduction is to be made from, or an amount is to be set off against, the payment under:

(i) section 61, 61A or 238 of this Act; or

(ii) section 1231 of the 1991 Act; or

(iii) section 84, 84A, 92, 92A, 225, 226, 227 or 228A of the Family Assistance Administration Act;

the amount of the qualified portion of the payment less the amount of the deduction or the amount of the set-off; or

(b) in any other case—the amount of the qualified portion of the payment.

Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area means the area within the boundaries of the Division (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) of Hinkler, as those boundaries were in force on 31 May 2018.

category F welfare payment means:

(a) a social security benefit; or

(b) a disability support pension; or

(c) a carer payment; or

(d) a pension PP (single); or

(e) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance.

category G welfare payment means:

(a) a category F welfare payment; or

(b) double orphan pension; or

(c) family tax benefit under the Family Assistance Act; or

(d) family tax benefit advance under the Family Assistance Administration Act; or

(e) stillborn baby payment under the Family Assistance Act; or

(f) carer allowance; or

(g) child disability assistance; or

(h) carer supplement; or

(i) mobility allowance; or

(j) pensioner education supplement; or

(k) telephone allowance under Part 2.25 of the 1991 Act; or

(l) utilities allowance under Part 2.25A of the 1991 Act; or

(m) a distance education payment under the scheme known as the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme, where the payment relates to a child or children at a Homelands Learning Centre; or

(n) a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as pensioner education supplement; or

(o) a social security bereavement payment; or

(p) an advance payment under Part 2.22 of the 1991 Act; or

(q) an advance pharmaceutical allowance under Part 2.23 of the 1991 Act; or

(r) a mobility allowance advance under section 1045 of the 1991 Act.

C eduna area means Ceduna within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial AreaCeduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015 as in force on 15 March 2016 and includes the Surrounding Region (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).

East Kimberley area means East Kimberley within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination 2016 as in force on 26 April 2016 and includes the areas of each of the Included Communities (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).

Goldfields area means the following Local Government Areas as at 7 February 2018:

(a) the Shire of Leonora;

(b) the Shire of Laverton;

(c) the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder;

(d) the Shire of Coolgardie;

(e) the Shire of Menzies.

Local Government Areas means areas designated by the Governor of Western Australia to be a city, town or shire, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).

qualified portion, of a category G welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SP.

unqualified portion, of a category G welfare payment, has the meaning given by section 123SP.

voluntary enhanced income management agreement has the meaning given by section 123SF.

48L Before section 123SI

Insert:

123SE Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — volunteers

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is subject to the enhanced income management regime at a particular time on or after 6 March 2023 if:

(a) at that time, a voluntary enhanced income management agreement is in force in relation to the person; or

(b) immediately before 6 March 2023, the person was a voluntary participant under section 124PH.

Cessation former section 124PH voluntary participants

(2) If paragraph (1)(b) applies to a person, the person may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime under this section. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.

(3) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime under this section. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).

(4) A notice under subsection (3) has effect accordingly.

(5) A notice under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

(6) Subsection (3) does not prevent paragraph (1)(a) applying in relation to the person at a later time.

123SF Voluntary enhanced income man agement agreement

(1) A person may enter into a written agreement with the Secretary under which the person agrees voluntarily to be subject to the enhanced income management regime throughout the period when the agreement is in force.

(2) An agreement under subsection (1) is to be known as a voluntary enhanced income management agreement.

(3) The Secretary must not enter into a voluntary enhancedincome management agreement with a person unless:

(a) the person is an eligible recipient of a category F welfare payment; and

(b) the person's usual place of residence is within the Ceduna area, the East Kimberley area, the Goldfields area or the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area; and

(c) if the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B).

(4) The Secretary must not enter into a voluntary enhanced income management agreement with a person if:

(a) the person is subject to the income management regime under Part 3B; or

(b) during the 12-month period ending when the voluntary enhanced income management agreement is to come into force, there were 4 occasions on which previous voluntary enhanced income management agreements relating to the person were terminated under subsection 123SH(3).

123SG Duration of voluntary enhanced income management agreement

(1) A voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person:

(a) comes into force at the time specified in the agreement, so long as:

(i) at that time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category F welfare payment; and

(ii) at that time, the person's usual place of residence is within the Ceduna area, the East Kimberley area, the Goldfields area or the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area; and

(iii) if, at that time, the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee is subject to the enhanced income management regime or is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and

(iv) at that time, the person is not subject to the income management regime under Part 3B; and

(b) remains in force until:

(i) it is terminated under section 123SH, unless subparagraph (ii) applies; or

(ii) if the agreement specifies a period (which must be at least 13 weeks) during which it is to remain in force, and the agreement has not been terminated under section 123SH before the end of that period—the end of that period.

(2) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement (the original agreement) in relation to a person is in force, subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary from entering into a new voluntary enhanced income management agreement with the person, so long as the new agreement is expressed to come into force immediately after the original agreement ceases to be in force.

(3) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person has ceased to be in force, subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary from entering into a new voluntary enhanced income management agreement with the person.

123SH Termination of voluntary enhanced income management agreement

Termination by request

(1) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person is in force, the person may, by written notice given to the Secretary, request the Secretary to terminate the agreement.

(2) However, a person may make a request under subsection (1) only if the agreement has been in force for at least 13 weeks.

(3) The Secretary must comply with a request made in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) by terminating the agreement as soon as practicable after receiving the request.

Other ground s for termination

(4) If:

(a) a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person is in force; and

(b) either of the following events occurs:

(i) the person ceases to be an eligible recipient of a category F welfare payment;

(ii) in a case where the person has a Part 3B payment nominee—that nominee ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime or ceases to be subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B);

the Secretary must terminate the agreement as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the event.

Limit on new voluntary enhanced income management agreements

(5) If a voluntary enhanced income management agreement in relation to a person is terminated under this section, the Secretary must not enter into another voluntary enhanced income management agreement with the person within 21 days after the termination.

48M Before Division 4 of Part 3AA

Insert:

Subdivision C — Persons subject to the enhanced income management regime — volunteers

123SP Cat egory G welfare payment to be split into qualified and unqualified portions

Payments by instalments

(1) If an instalment of a category G welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE:

(a) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is qualified (the qualified portion) is 50%; and

(b) the percentage of the gross amount of the payment that is unqualified (the unqualified portion) is 50%.

Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).

Payments otherwise than by instalments

(2) If a category G welfare payment is payable, otherwise than by instalments, to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE, 100% of the gross amount of the payment is qualified (the qualified portion).

Note: The percentage may be varied under subsection (3).

Variation by Secretary

(3) For a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE, the Secretary may make a determination that:

(a) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(a) to 0%; and

(b) varies the percentage applicable under paragraph (1)(b) to 100%; and

(c) varies the percentage applicable under subsection (2) to 0%.

(4) The Secretary may make a determination under subsection (3) only if:

(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person is unable to use the person's debit card that was issued to the person and that is attached to the person's BasicsCard bank account, or is unable to access that account, as a direct result of:

(i) a technological fault or malfunction with that card or account; or

(ii) a natural disaster; or

(iii) if a national emergency declaration (within the meaning of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020) is in force—an emergency to which the declaration relates; or

(b) the person's category G welfare payment is payable in instalments and the Secretary is satisfied that any part of the payment is payable:

(i) at a time determined under subsection 43(2), where that determination is made because the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances; or

(ii) under a determination under subsection 51(1).

(5) A determination under subsection (3) takes effect on the day specified in the determination (which must not be earlier than the day on which the determination is made).

(6) A determination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

123SQ Payment of balance of qualified portion of category G welfare payment

If a category G welfare payment is payable to a person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime under section 123SE, the Secretary must pay the balance of the qualified portion of the payment to the credit of a BasicsCard bank account maintained by the person.

123SR Recipient's use of funds from category G welfare payments

A person who receives a category G welfare payment:

(a) may use the balance of the qualified portion of the payment, as paid under section 123SQ, to obtain goods or services, other than:

(i) excluded goods or excluded services; or

(ii) a cash-like product that could be used to obtain excluded goods or excluded services; and

(b) may use the unqualified portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's discretion.

I indicate that the government's amendments allow for an enhanced technology option for any participants wanting to voluntarily stay on income management in the other four cashless debit card sites—that is, Ceduna, East Kimberley, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and Goldfields.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't get a chance to speak to the last lot of amendments, but I'm very happy to speak to these amendments and the Greens' support for these amendments, which allow for voluntary income management for people who find income management to be of value to them. I've spoken to people for whom indeed that is the case. I've heard many stories and many examples of people who say that it's a useful thing for them to have, so we are happy to support that.

There is a very big difference between choosing to use something as a tool that helps people—when a person individually chooses to say, 'This is going to be helpful to me in terms of managing my finances,'—and having income management forced upon people with absolutely no choice. We're very happy to support this, but we reiterate that big difference between voluntary income management, choosing to be able to use this, versus having compulsory income management forced upon people, blanket across the board, which is still the case. As the opposition have just stated, there is going to be ongoing compulsory income management in far too many places across the country, despite the fact that it has been shown to fail. It does not work. It does not address the social problems that it is aimed to address. There has been so much research that shows that in fact compulsory income management could even have a negative impact. Recent research has shown that it has a negative corollary with birth weight, for example. For all of the talk about the value of the cashless debit card in a compulsory way, the evidence for it just does not stack up.

What we need to be doing, as well as having one voluntary tool like this one, is give people much more support, particularly to people who are living on inadequate income support. We need to increase the rate of income support. So many of the problems that so many people around this country have in managing their income, if they are living on income support payments, is that it is just far too little. It is way below the poverty line, and the impact that has on people is absolutely dire. Such people just cannot afford to eat three meals a day, even two meals a day. People cannot afford to pay the rent. People cannot afford to put clothes on their kids, to put shoes on their children's feet. People can't afford medication. In fact, people can't afford to go off and see medical practitioners if there is a gap fee involved. We need to tackle the fundamental issues that are at play here, and increasing the amount of income support to above the poverty line is an absolutely fundamental part of that.

We had evidence of this during the COVID lockdowns, when the rate of income support was doubled. There was absolutely wonderful research that showed that so many people were able to get their lives back on track, were able to participate in the workforce, were able to pay to get their washing machine fixed, were able to pay to get their car back on the road, were able to go off and have their medical problems treated because they had enough money to live on.

We will support this measure that says, yes, here is one tool that people might find useful, but it needs to be put in the context of all of the other things that need to be done. The fact that the government is choosing not to do them is a choice. Keeping people in poverty is a political choice.

We would urge the government, as well as taking measures like this one, to give people the ability to opt in for income management, to take all of the other factors that need to be taken and, in particular, to raise the rate of income support so that people are no longer living in poverty.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate Senator Rice's comments. I note that they are not particularly relevant to this particular piece of legislation, but can I say that the Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to building a welfare and social security system that is a strong safety net that protects vulnerable Australians and doesn't stigmatise anyone for needing income support. The government knows that those who are receiving income support are facing cost-of-living pressures, and that is why we are acting to provide relief across the government. This month has seen the largest indexation increases to government allowance in this country in more than 30 years, seeing 4.7 million Australians receive a much-needed boost to their payment, including to JobSeeker.

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

The opposition will be supporting the amendments on sheet TK326, which have just been moved by Senator Farrell. Before we give our support to these formally, I want to ask a few questions of the minister. Has there been any contractual cost incurred by the government to move from the compulsory cashless debit card scheme at these sites to the voluntary scheme that is being proposed by this amendment?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Ruston would know, these matters are commercial in confidence, and I'm not proposing to answer them here tonight.

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

I respect the fact that you are not going to give me an exact amount. I was merely asking you whether there had been any cost. I didn't ask you what that cost was. I was wondering whether maybe you could advise us if there has been any cost at all?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, the answer is the same. These are matters of commercial in confidence. As a minister under the previous government, you would be well aware of that, and I don't propose to answer that question.

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

Can I just give you notice that I will be asking these questions in estimates, and you would probably need to have your public interest immunity ready to go as to why you think an answer as to whether you incurred any cost in any way could not be in the interest of the public. On Saturday, the Minister for Social Services made an announcement in relation to funding to go towards drug and alcohol services in the sites that are going to go voluntary. I was just wondering when the services that were being proposed by the minister will actually be on the ground in those sites?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston, and I point out that we don't need her gratuitous advice on how to answer questions in estimates. Could you clarify, in respect of your last answer, what particular services you are referring to?

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

I was referring to the $50 million or $49.9 million in the announcement that was made by Minister Rishworth on Saturday in relation to drug and alcohol services that are set to go into the sites where the cashless debit card is going to move from being a compulsory tool to being a voluntary tool. I was just wondering when those services would be available to the people in those sites?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. As we previously pointed out, your government committed all of that money but never spent a zack of it in all of the time that you were in government. We've made a commitment, and Minister Rishworth has made a commitment, that we will spend that roughly $50 million. We will be talking to the communities where the money is going to be spent, and I can assure you that we will be rolling out the assistance that that money will provide as quickly as we can.

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

Can you outline the services that will be available at ascension to people who transition off the card when they are able to go from compulsory to voluntary cashless debit card in these sites. When this actually occurs, what supports will be in place for those people?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her questions. I did make the point that you were in fact asking questions that didn't relate to the particular amendment that was before us. I did answer this question earlier and I would refer Senator Ruston to my earlier answer. She is obviously looking up the Hansard for a whole range of other things. You can dig up that Hansard and you will be able to understand everything I've previously answered this evening.

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

I feel I will never understand every answer you have given me this evening because I don't even think that God himself would understand the answers you have given tonight. I am just wondering whether the department has done any modelling as to the number of people it believes are likely to seek to come off the cashless debit card? Have you done any modelling or do you have any figures in relation to the number of people in the four cashless debit sites that this particular amendment refers to? How many do you believe are going to come off and how many people do you think will voluntarily stay on?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for the question. Perhaps Senator Ruston was out of the room, but Senator Rice did ask that question earlier in the evening, and I don't wish to repeat myself again. I make the offer for you to grab Hansard at your leisure and you'll be able to read the answer to that question.

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

I'm just wondering whether the government has any modelling as to the likelihood of increasing social harm activities that are going to occur in each of these four sites, such as domestic violence, child protection et cetera. Have you done any modelling? I'm not asking you for the numbers. I'm just asking whether you have done any modelling.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Ruston, for the question. We committed previously to Senator Lambie to do a review, which will be published, and that's what we intend to do.

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

N (—) (): Can I just quickly confirm—I heard you say that to Senator Lambie—I was just asking: have you done any modelling to date as to the kinds of services that may be required in these communities when the cashless debit card is no longer compulsorily incurred in those communities?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, I thought Senator Ruston had jumped up again and I was respectfully listening to any other question she might have been seeking to ask me.

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

My last question on this amendment: has the government offered the four trial sites—the Kimberley, Ceduna, Goldfields and Hervey Bay/Bundaberg—the opportunity to retain income management by version of the cashless debit card in the same way that you have allowed Cape York to retain the cashless debit card? Has that offer been made to community elders in those communities?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, I can probably say this over and over and over and over again, Senator Ruston, but we are not offering the cashless debit card.

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

I'm just seeking clarification on your answer. You've just said that you are not offering the cashless debit card, yet in a previous answer you said that the cashless debit card will still be available to people in Cape York and people in the Northern Territory and voluntarily in the trial sites around Australia until 6 March 2023. Could you confirm which of your answers is correct?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her question. Look, I've answered this over and over and over and over again.

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

I just foreshadow that I've got a series of questions here, so perhaps I could keep the call, if that's okay. The government have said throughout this debate and even in the lead-up to it that the transition for participants needs to be staged—it needs to be slow—with individual support, which makes sense. My questions really go to the mechanics now of how people are going to transition. If someone chooses to move to voluntary income management, how will that process work and how will it be staged?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question, and thank you for your endorsement of our bill in your last question—

No, I appreciate that. I didn't think I'd hear it tonight, but I very much appreciate your endorsement of the legislation and look forward to your voting with us on this very sensible proposal. But in answer to your question, people will be able to opt out of the CDC from the day after the bill receives royal assent, which we expect to be 4 October 2022. There are no processes or exit applications required to do this. CDC participants, with the exception of those in the Northern Territory or Cape York, who want to leave the CDC program can simply call Services Australia and say they no longer want to participate.

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

Once they've called Services Australia, how long will it take for them to transition off the CDC?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his sensible question. A maximum of seven days.

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

Seven days does seem rather quick, given the changes individuals will have to make—arranging new bank transfers, regular deposits and transfers that people have. How will you facilitate that rapid transition?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're just a much more competent government than you ever were!

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wait and see!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the proof is in the pudding! When we say that's the time frame, that's what we are committed to. I go back to the $50 million that you said you put aside for drug and alcohol abuse—not a cent spent. When we, this government, say we will do something, that's exactly what we'll do.

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

With respect, that seemed to be quite a flippant response. This is quite a significant change for people to make, so I'm interested in what sorts of services will be there. Will Services Australia be on the ground to help people with this transition?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for another sensible question. The answer is yes.

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

O'SULLIVAN (—) (): I sat through the inquiry into this bill. We heard from a number of witnesses who spoke about the shield that compulsorily being on the CDC has provided to them. Frankly, when they were hassled—or humbugged, as some would call it—by other members of the community to hand over cash, they were able to hold up their card physically or figuratively and say, 'It's not me; it's the government that's put me on this card.' There's been a shield for them to deal with the coercion that often occurs within these communities—this is mainly from women and elderly people in the community. What measures is the government putting in place to ensure that cardholders are protected if they choose to voluntarily stay on the cashless debit card—bearing in mind that members of the community and their family and others could put extra pressure on them, now having voluntarily made this decision?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. The bill provides—

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you thought this through?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we've thought it through. Obviously you weren't here a little bit earlier in the evening when I explained the extent to which we have consulted with the communities that are affected by the cashless debit card. We have said to those communities that we are going to give back to them what they've told us they want, which is choice. You made it compulsory. We are offering Australians a choice. I'd be confident that, hopefully, the sorts of issues you've raised won't present themselves once we get back to a situation where people can make their own decisions about their own financial management.

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

I consider the word 'hopefully'. Can the minister guarantee that no-one will be harmed or feel any coercive pressure from others in the community as a result of their voluntary decision?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just hope, Senator O'Sullivan, that you're not seeking to scaremonger here. I said this earlier tonight and I'll say it again: we consulted with communities. I went through in some exhaustive detail the amount of effort that Senator McCarthy and her colleagues in the Northern Territory in the Labor Party went to to consult with people about this issue. We went to the last election with this policy. The Australian people, including the people in the Northern Territory, voted for this government, and what we're doing here is implementing the promise that we took to the Australian people. I understand that you don't like that result, but the reality is that that's what the Australian people voted for, and we intend to do what we said we would do, and that is to pass this piece of legislation, which, hopefully, we'll do sometime tonight or tomorrow morning.

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

Minister, you mentioned the Northern Territory and the result of the election there. You've mentioned that several times now throughout this debate. You've not mentioned the seats of Hinkler, O'Connor, Durack or Grey. These are seats that were all able to see the return of coalition members—members who have been very vocal in their communities about their support of the cashless debit card. Their position on the cashless debit card was very clear to people who were voting ahead of the election in those electorates, and they were all returned. Can the minister explain that difference, please?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have the results of all of those seats in front of me, but my guess is that, in all of the seats that you just mentioned, Labor got a swing to it, and one of the reasons we're now on this side of the chamber rather than the other side of the chamber is that we got a majority of seats at the last election. So the Australian people voted in an Anthony Albanese government, obviously for very good reasons. We've seen over the last three months what a terrific job Prime Minister Albanese has done. He's been a fantastic example of what a prime minister ought to be and what a prime minister ought to do. I think that when this legislation passes, either tonight or early in the morning, the Australian people will once again know that, if an Anthony Albanese government says they will do something, that's what they will do.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be very short. In fact, I want to seek the indulgence of the minister, because this is a question that's actually related to the last amendment that was moved, but I couldn't ask it because the question was put, which I didn't complain about. It is basically whether, in the Northern Territory, when people are being moved off the cashless debit card and onto enhanced income management, people who are on the BasicsCard will also have the choice to move onto the enhanced card.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're currently looking at all of those issues and all of those options at the moment. The moment that a final decision is made, I will come back to you with an answer.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My second question is: it looks like in the Northern Territory we're going to continue to have these two different types of income management; we'll have the enhanced card and then we'll have people on the BasicsCard. One of the differences between the cashless debit card and the BasicsCard was that there were different provisions as to how people could get off it or apply to get off it. With the cashless debit card, exemptions from the cashless debit card were if people were able to make the case that participation would pose a serious risk to their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing or if they could demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of their affairs. For the BasicsCard, the ability to get off the BasicsCard—people have told me—is much more limited. In particular, if a program participant on the BasicsCard is in the category of being a vulnerable welfare recipient, it's almost impossible for them to get off the card. So what I wanted to know is: in this new enhanced income tool, which people from the cashless debit card are being moved onto, what are the criteria going to be for people to be able to apply to get off that card?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are, of course, happy to answer questions that are related to a previous amendment. I suppose the truth of the matter is that this legislation doesn't specifically deal with the issues that you've just raised. But I will say this: some people are able to apply for an exemption from income management through Services Australia. If granted, an exemption means a person is exempt from income management for 12 months unless their circumstances change.

Circumstances where exemptions can be granted, if you don't have dependent children, include: if you are either a full-time student or apprentice, had less than 25 per cent of your basic rate of payment for at least four of the last six fortnights, or get the special benefit and are 16 or older.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are the criteria for these exemptions going to change for people who are being moved off the cashless debit card onto the new enhanced technology, or will there be the same criteria for exemptions?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're asking questions that don't particularly relate to this piece of legislation, but I'm happy to come back to you at a later date and provide you with some answers to the questions that you're asking.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, this legislation shifts people off the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory onto a new technology. So I'm happy for you to take it on notice and get back to me. But I think the question is very valid as to whether the same conditions are going to apply for people who are then compulsorily on this new enhanced card compared to when they were on the cashless debit card. The connection with my previous question is: if people on the BasicsCard are able to apply to go onto the new enhanced card, then the conditions may be easier for them to get off it, which I think is of great significance because we know that there are a lot of people who are currently on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory who do not want to be on it. So, if they have an easier mechanism to actually apply to get off the BasicsCard, that would be a very big step forward which could be implemented immediately.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have anything further to add.

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

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question is now that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1612 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 18 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Obligations of Minister: Local services plan

1 Definitions

(1) In this Schedule:

plan area means any of the following:

(a) the Ceduna area;

(b) the East Kimberley area;

(c) the Goldfields area;

(d) the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area.

publication deadline means the day that is 6 months after the day that this Schedule commences.

(2) An expression that is used in Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before this item commences, has the same meaning, when used in this Schedule, as in that Part.

2 Local services plans

(1) The Minister must, for each plan area, prepare a written plan (a local services plan) for:

(a) improving community services in the area; and

(b) addressing social issues in the area.

(2) In preparing a local services plan for a plan area, the Minister must:

(a) have regard to the principle that the plan should prioritise evidence-based local investments; and

(b) cause consultation to occur with the following:

(i) community organisations, including First Nations organisations, that operate in the area;

(ii) health services that operate in the area;

(iii) businesses that operate in the area;

(iv) the State in which the area is located;

(v) each relevant local council.

(3) The Minister must cause the local services plan for each plan area to be:

(a) published on the Department's website on or before the publication deadline; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the plan is published under paragraph (a).

(4) A local services plan:

(a) is not a legislative instrument; and

(b) does not affect any legal rights, liabilities or duties.

(3) Page 18, at the end of the Bill (at the end of proposed Schedule 2), add:

Schedule 2A — Obligations of Minister: Cost of scheme

1 Definitions

(1) In this Schedule:

cashless debit card scheme means the cashless welfare arrangements established by Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

publication deadline means the day that is 6 months after the day that this Schedule commences.

(2) An expression that is used in Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before this item commences, has the same meaning, when used in this Schedule, as in that Part.

2 Cost of cashless debit card scheme

(1) The Minister must prepare a written estimate of the full cost to the Commonwealth of the operation of the cashless debit card scheme.

(2) The Minister must cause the estimate to be:

(a) published on the Department's website on or before the publication deadline; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the estimate is published under paragraph (a).

This Greens amendment requires a transition plan from the government in the four trial sites where the cashless debit card is being abolished. We want to have some certainty about the services that will be provided to support people in the transition. We've heard consistent evidence through the inquiry process that while compulsory income management is a failed program and does not work, what does work is actually being able to have services provided to people to support them, to help them overcome the disadvantage that they face and to help them to do the best they can if they are relying on income support payments that are below the poverty line. They deserve support from the government.

This amendment requires the government to prepare and publish a written plan within six months of the passing of this bill that would show that they have consulted with the local communities to prepare that plan and that would improve community services and address the social issues in each area. It would require the minister to publish this plan on the department's website and to be tabled in each house of parliament in six months time. I'm pleased to be able to support that.

It's important, in terms of transparency and accountability, to make sure that these communities, which are suffering a lot of social problems, which need a lot more support, are each going to have a really well-documented and transparent plan so that we can see what levels of support across what services are being provided.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice. I indicate that the government will support this amendment. The amendment causes the minister to prepare and table in parliament six services plans for each CDC site. We welcome the Greens amendments to table the costs of the cashless debit card program, given the significant investment made by the former government without evidence supporting the effectiveness of the cashless debit card. Similarly, we welcome the opportunity to further demonstrate our commitment to supporting communities through the development of the local services plans for the cashless debit card sites. As I said before, the government supports this amendment.

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

r RUSTON (—) (): The opposition will be supporting this amendment as well because we do believe that it is necessary, for transparency, that there are plans in these transition sites. The opposition obviously remains extremely concerned about the removal of this card and the so far inadequate demonstration of the necessary supports that are being put in place and the fact that the minister tonight has either not been able to or has refused to answer questions with any great clarity as to the kinds of supports that will be in place and when they'll be in place in these particular sites.

We think it is absolutely essential that the amendment moved by Senator Rice be put in place, and we also believe that the costs need to be tabled in this place. We would also request that, if the government is prepared to support this particular amendment, they be a little more transparent about the costs of the measures that are contained in this bill, because so far all we've heard tonight is that apparently it's commercial in confidence and is not able to be made available. The opposition will be supporting these amendments because we believe it's in the best interests of those people that are affected by this piece of legislation.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1612 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1656 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(3) Page 18 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Cessation of income management

Part 1 — Amendments

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After Part 3D

Insert:

Part 3E — Ceasing to be subject to income management or cashless welfare arrangements

124PT Definitions

In this Part:

program participant has the same meaning as in Part 3D.

subject to the enhanced income management regime has the same meaning as in Part 3AA.

subject to the income management regime has the same meaning as in Part 3B.

124PU Ceasing to be subject to the enh anced income management regime

(1) A person who is subject to the enhanced income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.

(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).

(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.

(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

124PV Ceasing to be subject to the income management regime

(1) A person who is subject to the income management regime may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be subject to the enhanced income management regime. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.

(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be subject to the income management regime. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).

(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.

(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

124PW Ceasing to be subject to cashless welfare arrangements

(1) A person who is a program participant may make a request to the Secretary to cease to be a program participant. The request cannot be withdrawn or revoked.

(2) If the person does so, the Secretary must give the person a notice stating that the person ceases to be a program participant. The notice comes into force on a day specified in the notice (which must be no later than 7 days after the day on which the request was made).

(3) A notice under subsection (2) has effect accordingly.

(4) A notice under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

124PX This Part has effect despite other provisions etc.

This Part has effect despite anything in:

(a) any other provision of this Act; or

(b) the 1991 Act; or

(c) the Family Assistance Act; or

(d) the Family Assistance Administration Act.

Part 2 — Repeals

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

2 Section 123SB

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) definition of balance of the qualified portion, of acategory B welfare payment;

(b) definition of balance of the qualified portion, of acategory D welfare payment;

(c) definition of category A welfare payment;

(d) definition of category B welfare payment;

(e) definition of category C welfare payment;

(f) definition of category D welfare payment;

(g) definition of exempt welfare payment recipient;

(h) definition of qualified portion, of a category B welfare payment;

(i) definition of qualified portion, of a category D welfare payment;

(j) definition of Queensland Commission;

(k) definition of unqualified portion, of a category B welfare payment;

(l) definition of unqualified portion, of a category D welfare payment.

3 Sections 123SC and 123SD

Repeal the sections.

4 Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 3AA

Repeal the Subdivisions.

5 Section 123ST

Repeal the section.

6 Transitional rules

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Schedule.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create and offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of the Act.

(4) Page 18, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:

Schedule 4 — Obligations of Minister

1 Definitions

(1) In this Schedule:

compulsory income management area means an area in which persons are:

(a) subject to the enhanced income management regime within the meaning of Part 3AA of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999; or

(b) subject to the income management regime within the meaning of Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

publication deadline means the day that is 6 months after the day that this Schedule commences.

(2) An expression that is used in Part 3AA or 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as in force immediately before this item commences, has the same meaning, when used in this Schedule, as in that Part.

2 Local services plans

(1) The Minister must, for each compulsory income management area, prepare a written plan (a local services plan) for:

(a) improving community services in the area; and

(b) addressing social issues in the area.

(2) In preparing a local services plan for a compulsory income management area, the Minister must:

(a) have regard to the principle that the plan should prioritise evidence-based local investments; and

(b) cause consultation to occur with the following:

(i) community organisations, including First Nations organisations, that operate in the area;

(ii) health services that operate in the area;

(iii) businesses that operate in the area;

(iv) the State in which the area is located;

(v) each relevant local council.

(4) The Minister must cause the local services plan for a compulsory income management area to be:

(a) published on the Department's website on or before the publication deadline; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the plan is published under paragraph (a).

(5) A local services plan:

(a) is not a legislative instrument; and

(b) does not affect any legal rights, liabilities or duties.

These amendments would go to the heart of what we have been talking about in the whole debate about compulsory income management right back from the very beginning—right back to the Intervention, through the imposition of the cashless debit card—which is that compulsory income management doesn't work. There are social problems that need to be addressed, but compulsory income management is not the way to address them. We have heard so much evidence, and there is so much evidence on the public record, of how compulsory income management is a failed tool.

So we're supporting this bill tonight because it goes some way to moving some people off compulsory income management: the people on the cashless debit card in the four trial sites. But we are particularly concerned that that leaves over 20,000 people in the Northern Territory, and overwhelmingly First Nations peoples in the Northern Territory, still having to suffer being under compulsory income management. As we've previously discussed, if it's voluntary, that's fine, but if it's being imposed on people as a blanket measure, it is inappropriate. It doesn't work. It's harsh, it's punitive and it's a failed measure.

This amendment would allow anybody in the Northern Territory who is on the BasicsCard or being transitioned off the cashless debit card to apply to be off compulsory income management. Just as people in the trial sites who are being moved off compulsory income management can apply—they can pick up the phone and ring Services Australia a week after royal assent—we reckon that should be available to people in the Northern Territory as well. If people want to stay on income management, fine. But if this amendment were passed, what it would mean is that anybody who is suffering and has said, 'We do not want to be on compulsory income management. It is a failure. It is impacting our lives,' would also be able to pick up the phone and ask to be off compulsory income management, and within a week they would be off it.

This is what we are hearing from across the country. This underpins our commitment to the fact that compulsory income management is having a massive, punitive, destructive impact on people and that it needs to be abolished. While we welcome the government's commitment to do an 18-month consultation process with a view to be ending compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, we think that is taking far too long. There are many people who are now languishing under the impost of compulsory income management who should be allowed off it. Our amendment would allow them to pick up the phone and to say, 'Take me off income management, please,' and that would happen.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice for her contribution. Unfortunately, the government won't be supporting her amendment.

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

The opposition seeks the advice of the clerks about whether it would be possible for us to vote on item (4) of the amendment separately to the rest of the amendment. We're seeking to vote separately in relation to the minister being required to cause the local services plan for compulsory income management areas to be published on the department's website on or before the publication date and for it to be tabled in each house of the parliament within seven days of that house after the plan is published under paragraph (a) of the schedule which this amendment applies to.

Senator Rice, we will not be supporting the remainder of your amendment. But if it was possible for us to be able to support part 4, we would do so if the amendment can be split.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We are seeking advice from the Clerk. Senator Ruston, while we are seeking the Clerk's advice on this, can I please go back to the opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1639. We were seeking clarification about whether you could confirm about withdrawing those?

Yes, we are.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The Clerks' advice is they can be split but (1) and (3) have to be dealt with together, and (2) and (4) have to be done together as well because (2) relates to (4). To clarify, if they're split, (1) and (3) could be done together, and (2) and (4) together. The question is that amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 1656 be agreed to.

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

We now move to amendments (2) and (4) on sheet 1656.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to withdraw amendments (2) and (4) on sheet 1656. They are redundant. They were dependent on amendments (1) and (3) getting up to be relevant.

Leave granted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.