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

I move the amendment on sheet 1972 revised:

(1) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Obligations of Minister: reporting

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 At the end of Part 7

Insert:

243B Tabling of report relating to effect of cessation of cashless welfare arrangements

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must prepare a report on the social effect of the cessation of cashless welfare arrangements in each of the program areas.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must outline, in respect of each of the program areas, rates of, and trends in:

(a) violent crimes reported to police;

(b) presentations to hospital emergency departments, as follows:

(i) overall presentations;

(ii) drug or alcohol-related presentations;

(c) ambulance call-outs, as follows;

(i) overall call-outs;

(ii) drug or alcohol-related call-outs;

(d) reportable incidents of domestic violence;

(e) referrals from Services Australia to:

(i) social workers; and

(ii) alcohol counselling services; and

(iii) domestic violence counselling services; and

(iv) gambling counselling services.

Note: Examples of violent crime include, but are not limited to, the offence categories of homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery (both armed and unarmed).

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be:

(a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the completion of the report; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is published under paragraph (a).

(4) In this section:

cashless welfare arrangements has the same meaning as set out in Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before 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 commenced.

program area has the same meaning as set out in section 124PD of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before 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 commenced.

reporting period means the following:

(a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences;

(b) each subsequent 6-month period ending 3 years after this section commences.

The reason the coalition is moving this substantive amendment is so that for a period of three years from royal assent the government must publish details of key metrics of social harm within all the former cashless debit card sites, including, but not limited to, rates of violent crime, presentations to emergency departments and ambulance call-outs reported with incidents of domestic violence. In the absence of having these sorts of measures, how on earth can the government measure the success or otherwise of their decisions? We think that, as soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the minister must prepare a report on the social effects of the cessation of the cashless welfare arrangements in each of the program areas.

If they don't do this, this is just another action of the government in not being transparent. This is an opaque government, unless, of course, they are prepared to support this reasonable amendment. These are the very issues that we were seeking to avoid by the introduction of the cashless debit card. The removal of the cashless debit card has already seen a significant increase in these kinds of harmful behaviours, and we call on the government to support us not only in the interest of transparency but also, most importantly, in the interest of people in the communities that this impacts.

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

I outlined in the second reading debate the government's reasons for opposing this amendment. I know that the opposition will continue to pursue this amendment. To operationalise it would mean a waste of Commonwealth government resources and an attempt to turn the government's attention away from what really works, and I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment.

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

The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We are absolutely in support of having really good evaluation and really good data, and the data that is available so far on compulsory income management shows that it doesn't work. The data that has been proposed in this amendment was a very biased set of data. It totally ignores any of the value of removing compulsory income management—removing the cashless debit card. There is research that is underway, looking at the evaluation of the cashless debit card. I would absolutely like to see more data, but this amendment doesn't capture what is needed in terms of evaluation of compulsory income management.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak very briefly to this amendment. It was an amendment I circulated. I think it's absolutely shocking and disgraceful that Senator Rice would say that and the Greens would vote against this amendment, when the government has promised services in these communities. They've put money aside, they've promised wraparound services, and this amendment would hold the government to account and make sure those services are actually doing what the government promised it would do for those communities. Quite frankly, it's too late now to judge the failure of removing the cashless debit card. It's too late to judge that, because we've already heard, on the ground, the negative impacts of removing the cashless debit card. But, at the very least, surely the Greens could hold the government to account.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put the question that the amendment on sheet 1972 revised be agreed to.

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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1966 revised 2:

(1) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Sunsetting of compulsory enhanced income management and compulsory income management

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 123SW

Insert:

123SX Sunsetting of compulsory enhanced income management

(1) The following provisions cease to be in force at the start of 24 March 2025:

(a) Subdivisions A to F and H of Division 2 of this Part;

(b) Subdivisions A to B of Division 3 of this Part.

(2) At any time before 24 March 2026, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) arising out of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) ceasing to be in force.

(3) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an 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.

2 After section 123ZO

Insert:

123ZP Sunsetting of compulsory income management

(1) The following provisions cease to be in force at the start of 24 March 2025:

(a) sections 123UC, 123UCA, 123UCB, 123UCC, 123UD, 123UE, 123UF and 123UFAA;

(b) Subdivisions BA, BB and C of Division 2 of this Part;

(c) Subdivisions B to DAA of Division 5 of this Part.

(2) At any time before 24 March 2025, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) arising out of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) 6ceasing to be in force.

(3) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an 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.

This amendment would insert a sunset clause into this legislation, which would fulfil the Labor Party's policy of ending compulsory income management. Labor went to the election saying that they were committed to an end to compulsory income management. As I noted in my second reading speech, we had just before the election the opposition spokesperson and now the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney, saying:

Our fundamental principle on the basics card and the cashless debit card, it should be on a voluntary basis.

Ms Burney then said:

Labor's fundamental position is that we do not believe in mandatory income management.

When the government came to power, and they said they were doing consultation on compulsory income management, they actually set up a time line as to how long that consultation period would be. It was 18 months, which led us initially to put the sunset clause at the end of the 18-month period, giving you plenty of time to do your consultation, which would have put it at 24 March next year, 2024.

I have since amended this amendment to actually add an extra year just to give you that extra time, and I understand that Senator Pocock is going to be in a position to support this amendment just to give you an extra year to fulfil that commitment of ending the dangerous racist policy of compulsory income management. It is the least you can do. I do not buy that, because you are doing consultation, you can't commit to a sunset clause. I was willing to engage on whatever type of sunset clause you might be interested in, given that we know that compulsory income management is a failed policy. It needs to end, but unfortunately the government was not willing to engage. They have not been willing to tell me, if 2024 or 2025 isn't an appropriate time for a sunset clause, when is an appropriate time. We need to have an end to compulsory income management. This amendment would put a very reasonable time frame on allowing that to occur.

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

The government won't be supporting this amendment. The future of income management is and will be the subject of genuine and ongoing consultation with affected communities, individuals and experts in the field. Adoption of the amendment would undermine that process. Decisions will not be made until they can be informed by the outcomes of that consultation. Introducing a sunset date creates a series of additional risks. Arrangements to cease mandatory income management need to be measured and tailored to support communities and ensure no-one is left behind.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1966 revised 2 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (2), (3) and (4) on sheet 1966 revised 2 together:

(2) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Obligations of Minister

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 123SV

Insert:

123SVA Periodic estimates of cost of enhanced income management regime

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must prepare a written estimate of the full cost to the Commonwealth (as at the end of the period) of the operation of the enhanced income management regime established by this Part.

(2) The Minister must cause the estimate for a reporting period to be:

(a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after it is prepared; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the estimate is published under paragraph (a).

(3) In this section:

reporting period means the following:

(a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences;

(b) the period of 12 months beginning on the day after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a);

(c) each subsequent 12-month period.

(3) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Review by Parliamentary Joint Committee on Hum an Rights

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 243

Insert:

243AA Review by Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

(1) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights must conduct reviews under this section and report the Committee's findings of each review to both Houses of the Parliament.

Requirements for review

(2) A review under this section must examine Part 3AA and Part 3B, so far as they relate to compulsory enhanced income management or compulsory income management, for compatibility with human rights.

First review

(3) The first review under this section must be completed within 12 months after this section commences.

Subsequent reviews

(4) Each subsequent review under this section must be completed within 3 years after the completion of the previous review.

When review is completed

(5) For the purposes of this section, a review is completed when the Committee's findings of the review have been tabled in both Houses of the Parliament.

(6) In this section:

compulsory enhanced income management means the enhanced income management regime set out in Subdivisions A to F and H of Division 2, and Subdivisions A to B of Division 3, of Part 3AA.

compulsory income management means the income management regime set out in sections 123UC, 123UCA, 123UCB, 123UCC, 123UD, 123UE, 123UF and 123UFAA, and Subdivisions BA, BB and C of Division 2, and Subdivisions B to DAA of Division 5, of Part 3B.

human rights has the same meaning as in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

(4) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Review by Senate Committee

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 At the end of Part 7

Add:

243B Review by Senate Committee

The Senate Community Affairs References Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:

(a) begin a review of each legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of Part 3AA or Part 3B within 3 months after the day the instrument is tabled in the Senate; and

(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing each review.

These amendments will improve a bad bill. They won't make it good enough for us to vote for it, but they will improve it.

Item (2) introduces a requirement to report on the costs of the SmartCard scheme. Item (3) requires a review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—the first one within a year and, subsequently, a review every three years. We know that this won't stop the worst harms of the bill, and we would absolutely seek to do that if we could, but at least this review process will provide some accountability. Item (4) requires a review by the Senate community affairs committee if and when the minister makes a legislative instrument expanding either the BasicsCard or the SmartCard. One of the key concerns that we have with this legislation is that it expands the minister's power in a dangerous way, so I hope that all of these amendments will be supported by the Senate.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, those of you who are not participating in this debate are required to either sit and listen in silence or, if you wish to hold a discussion, please leave the chamber and show some courtesy to your colleagues.

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

The coalition will be supporting the amendments that are being put forward by the Australian Greens because they provide greater transparency. We note that both the Greens and the Labor Party sought to vote against the transparency measures we sought agreement on; however, in the interests of at least some level of transparency we'll be supporting these amendments.

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

The government will be supporting these amendments. I note details of the SmartCard contracts, including their total value, are already available through AusTender, but we welcome the opportunity to provide more clarity. The other amendment would provide for regular mandatory review and report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee regularly engages with this matter and I note that its Human rights scrutiny report 4 of 2023 included scrutiny of the income management reform bill and sought the minister's advice on a number of the provisions. The minister provided a response to the committee on 18 April 2023. Further, the instruments made under this bill are disallowable by both chambers of this parliament, which will provide plenty of opportunity for scrutiny and debate.

Question agreed to.

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

I move amendment (5) on sheet 1966 revised 2:

(5) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Exiting compulsory enhanced income management and compulsory income management

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 123SH

Insert:

Subdivision GA — When persons not subject to the enhanced income management regime

123SHA Person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing at risk

(1) A person, other than a person in relation to whom a voluntary enhanced income management agreement is in force, may apply to the Secretary for a determination that the person no longer be subject to the enhanced income management regime under this Part.

(2) The application must:

(a) be made in writing using a form approved by the Secretary; and

(b) be accompanied by the documents and other information required by the form.

(3) The Secretary must determine that a person is no longer subject to the enhanced income management regime under this Part if the Secretary is satisfied that being subject to the regime would pose a risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

(4) A determination under subsection (3) has effect accordingly.

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

2 In the appropriate position in Division 2 of Part 3B

Insert:

Subdivision DA — When persons not subject to the income management regime

123UOA Person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing at risk

(1) A person, other than a person in relation to whom a voluntary income management agreement is in force, may apply to the Secretary for a determination that the person no longer be subject to the income management regime under this Part.

(2) The application must:

(a) be made in writing using a form approved by the Secretary; and

(b) be accompanied by the documents and other information required by the form.

(3) The Secretary must determine that a person is no longer subject to the income management regime under this Part if the Secretary is satisfied that being subject to the regime would pose a risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

(4) A determination under subsection (3) has effect accordingly.

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

My final amendment inserts an exit clause. For people who are caught up in compulsory income management that's been forced upon them against their will, this exit clause would allow them to make a case that their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing is at risk by being subject to compulsory income management and so they are able to exit the framework. Under the old cashless debit card, there was an exit clause. It was very hard to do, but at least, if you could show that your physical, mental or emotional wellbeing was at risk, you were able to exit. Under this legislation, that clause doesn't exist. There is not even an exit clause for people who are being harmed by compulsory income management. Again, this is a very reasonable measure that I think should have the support of everybody in this place.

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

The government will not be supporting this amendment. However, I want to be very clear and considered on the reasons why. The provisions that Senator Rice referred to in the current legislation continue to operate. I note that the drafting of this amendment mirrors the legislation previously in place under the cashless debit card, which I believe was an exit process that was criticised for lengthy delays at the time by the Australian Greens.

The current consultation underway on the future of income management is listening to individuals and communities about the broader questions around income management but also about this very issue. Decisions we take about this matter will be informed by those consultations. The government will not support amendments that would see vulnerable people transitioned off this program in droves without much-needed support, or experiencing lengthy delays while these matters are dealt with.

Implementing this amendment would also require advice on the achievable time frames from Services Australia, development of relative ICT functionality, business processes, communications products and staff training.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 1966, revision 2, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.