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

I have a series of questions that I would like to ask, and I know that Senator Xenophon does to, so perhaps we can explore things topic by topic.

The government has committed $1 million in additional funding—as I understand it through the letter that has gone to Ms Macklin, the opposition shadow on social services—specifically for the trial in Ceduna. My first question is: will there be similar levels of funding for the other trial sites, such as in the East Kimberley, and whatever other towns the government manages to get to agree to this process? Will there be similar levels of funding, or is it just because this one is the one that the government needs to get over the line to get this legislation over the line?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also have a question. Minister, if you remember, at the Senate inquiry we asked questions about the availability of funding for wraparound services. At that time the department said there was no designated amount and that there was no cap, that it would actually be worked out with the community at the time. I am very interested to hear whether there has been any further discussion beyond those generalisations that we received at the committee stage, because now we are actually talking about specifics.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, colleagues. In relation to other communities, there will be support packages that will be developed in a similar way as the one for Ceduna. But the first thing that has to happen is that the government needs to announce the intention for a trial in a particular location. Once that announcement has been made the government will work with local communities through a co-design process on the support package for the trial location.

It is important to see this as enabling legislation. We are in a position where we can confirm Ceduna and where we have announced the support package arrangements for that. But once other trial sites are finalised and announced, then there will be a similar process that will be gone through with those communities to work out similar support arrangements. In relation to Senator Moore's specific question about funding and whether there is a pot of money, we will find the resources that are needed for these support packages.

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

That leads me exactly on to my next question: where is this funding coming from? There was $270 million cut out of the DSS budget in 2014-15 and by subsequent MYEFO cuts. Where is the money coming from? Is it new money, or is it money that is coming from other programs?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it will come from the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and also from funding in the Department of Social Services.

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

Could you tell me which programs in the IAS it is coming from and how much is coming from there, and how much is coming from DSS and where that money is coming from? What program has not been allocated money, or what has been cut to provide it there?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice in relation to the Department of Social Services. The Department of Social Services, as I know from a previous incarnation, is a large portfolio, and there is ample opportunity to find the appropriate funding from within it. In relation to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, I will seek further advice from officials as to whether I can give a more specific answer.

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

I think that a lot of social service organisations would be fascinated to hear that there is a lot of money in DSS that can be suddenly found just like that for these sorts of services. You cut $270 million out of the budget for this sort of thing, and all of a sudden we can find more money? Not that I am opposed to finding more money, but I am just fascinated that we can suddenly find money for these services when you cut some of them previously. Could you please give us a bit more detail about where the money is coming from?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Department of Social Services has a budget of $100-plus billion per year, and what we are talking about here are important amounts of money but relatively modest amounts of money, so I am confident that it is within the capacity of government to ensure that there are the funds that are required for what will need to be done to support these communities.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in the committee hearing we were told that this particular funding would come out of a contingency fund. I have a long history of not understanding contingency funds; I have had them explained to me a number of times. But in terms of the process, I am interested in the last letter from Minister Tudge, which arrived yesterday, I believe. It listed the number of services that would be enhanced by the $1 million payment. It also listed the number of services that were already in place. We were told there was a mapping exercise within the community, working with the community to see what services would be needed. I am very keen to know whether that is going to be the ongoing process, should there be other trial placements, and whether there would be any attempt to say that, because $1 million was appropriate to a trial in Ceduna, there could not be greater or lesser amounts in other trial sites, should such trials happen. What I want to find out is whether the process that we have seen in Minister Tudge's letter, which is working with the community to do a gap analysis and then looking at what other services there could be, would be the model and whether there would be any link between the amount of funding that has been given to this trial and the other trials having to have a similar amount of funding. It would be a similar model, but with no linkage to the amount of funding?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will very much be a co-design process, and the amount of money will be that which is agreed with the community as part of that process. That experience in Ceduna will be an input, no doubt, into those discussions with the community but it will not be the determinative contribution or input to those discussions.

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

Has an amount been determined? If not, how do you intend to budget for the IAS process and through DSS?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no formal budget or allocation as such. The amount will be that which is negotiated and determined with local communities. I have no doubt at all that those funds are available. The funds that will be required are available in the relevant portfolios.

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

Does that mean that services that should be available to other towns that would be paid for from the money that pays for these types of supports will not be available to other communities that require them? What happens if other communities put up their hands and say, 'Hey, we need a detox centre, we need a rehab centre, we need these wraparound services'? Does that mean that the trial sites will be prioritised and they will not get those things? How will that decision making occur? Secondly—this relates to evaluation, and I will go to evaluation later, but it does relate to budgets too—the evaluation will need to compare this approach, because it is a trial supposedly, to a centre that does not have the debit card. Will similar services be provided to another regional centre that does not have the debit card, to differentiate the debit card process and effect from the sorts of wraparound services that we all know are needed—in other words, comparing like with like? At the moment what you will be doing is looking at the trial and comparing it with the provision of the debit card and the services, whereas it is a lot of our contention that if you provide some of these early intervention services, rehab services, detox services and wraparound services it will in fact help tremendously to address issues around substance abuse and the sorts of things you say you are aiming for in this trial. That is a series of quite large questions. I appreciate that. Will other towns get this? Will you be specifically investing in these sorts of services in another town in order to be able to carry out a proper trial?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In what we have before us and in the correspondence which has gone from Assistant Minister Tudge to Ms Macklin and is also available for other colleagues, we are talking specifically about the support arrangements for these trials. I do not think anyone should think support arrangements for these trials would be to the detriment of any other community in the nation. If there are propositions that are put to government for support in other communities then they will be considered through the usual government processes. So I do not think anyone should see what is proposed here as being at the expense of other communities. There will be an evaluation of these trial sites. The community will be heavily involved in that evaluation process, and if there are other inputs that communities or colleagues in this place think should be looked at in that evaluation process then I am certain that Assistant Minister Tudge would be only too happy to sit down and talk to colleagues to explore these matters.

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

I am fascinated by that response, in that I know through the IAS process—and we have a Senate inquiry into this—that applications that were made for these sorts of joined-up wraparound services we are talking about now did not get funded, and there were some in the Kimberley that did not get funded. So, I think a lot of the communities that put in applications through the last round of IAS funding will be (a) fascinated by this debate and (b) coming back to government to ask, 'Can we now have access to these services, given that other communities now seem to be able to get these services?'

My question there is: will the government now be willing to take applications from other communities for these sorts of services? It is a straightforward question: are you opening this process now to applications from other communities who want similar sorts of services for which you have now come up with funding all of a sudden? It is not that I think it is a bad idea to give them services. Will other communities now be able to put up their hand and say, 'We want some funding the same as Ceduna is getting'?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not announcing a new process today, but obviously it is always open to communities and senators and members to put propositions to government.

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

I want to go, then, to the other part of the question that you did touch on, which is the evaluation process. I take it from your answer—and this came up during the inquiry—that the government has not given consideration to how you do a proper trial and evaluate it and what you are evaluating it against. Is that correct?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just take Senator Siewert through the advice that has been given to me on the evaluation process. It is expected that the evaluation will involve comprehensive analysis of multiple datasets from both qualitative and quantitative sources. The government is working closely with the Ceduna District Council and the South Australian government and will do so with local and state governments in other trial sites to build a comprehensive community baseline dataset before the trial commences early next year. This is critical for measuring community-level change during the trial. The Premier of South Australia has specifically committed to cooperating with state based data. This data may include state and territory collections, such as alcohol related hospitalisations, emergency department presentations and child protection data; Commonwealth collections, such as Centrelink administrative data related to drug and alcohol dependence, homelessness and housing, employment, recent trauma and domestic violence; local services data, including admissions to drug and alcohol services, mental health services, homelessness services and Aboriginal health services; and local merchant data, such as demand for alcohol and gambling products.

The government is working hand in hand with the Ceduna Community Heads Working Group, which will perform an important role in monitoring the trial and providing advice to government in relation to any unintended consequences or findings whilst the trial is on foot. In terms of the evaluation framework, the cashless debit card evaluation will have three components. The first will be the community change evaluation. An independent organisation will conduct interviews with trial participants and a wide cross-section of the community to explore the impact of the trial on levels of community harm, community functioning, alcohol consumption and rates of gambling, among other key issues relating to community safety. Second is the data monitoring project, where the government, in consultation with local and state governments, will collect data to monitor the effect of the trial in making communities safer on alcohol consumption and its wider negative effects in the community. A specialist with expertise in statistical methods will analyse the changes in these datasets during the trial. Thirdly, specialised product analysis. Recognising the debit card is a new innovation the government will engage a specialist to monitor and analyse the effectiveness of the card during the trial, and the evaluation will be made public.

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

Thank you for that additional information. There was some of that in the exchange of letters with the opposition. Thank you for outlining the additional data sets.

With all due respect, I appreciate the information but you did not actually answer my question, which was: will there be the ability to compare like with like? What you are doing is putting in place the debit card process and you are pouring in $1 million worth of additional services. I will repeat again that I think the additional services are really important, so I am not saying—and I do not want anyone for one second to say that I am saying—that those services are not important, because they are. But you have the debit card and the additional services. How are you going to differentiate the impact of the debit card from the additional services? In other words, you need another, similar community to be able to compare it. If you put in $1 million worth of services to a similar community, given the evidence base that we have seen before you are going to see a damn sight better response in that community than if those services were not there. So how are you going to differentiate the impact of the services and of the debit card?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Senator Siewert. I guess there are two broad elements to an evaluation. One is comparing the circumstances in the given community, looking at what the baseline was and how things have improved or otherwise. The other is comparing a trial site to a similar community, and that will be part of the trial. There are other communities that would be receiving some equivalent forms of community support and that is what the evaluation will look at.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions around the evaluation. Has the government considered running the evaluation in a culturally appropriate way and, if so, what are those considerations? Secondly, what direct involvement—if any—will Aboriginal people who are part of organisations which are participating in the trial have in the trial? Sorry, I meant in the evaluation.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whole approach—and Ceduna is a great worked example—has been to work up the design of the trial and also the evaluation in consultation with the community, and how organisations which may be involved in the trial can have input. The Ceduna Community Heads Working Group is such a mechanism. In terms of being culturally appropriate, the local community has been involved and will continue to be involved in every step of the way.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked specifically how the evaluation will be conducted and if it will be conducted in a culturally appropriate way, and if it is to be done that way if you could step me through that. Secondly, although I did certainly confuse the minister, I asked about the involvement of Aboriginal people in the evaluation process—not the design of it, but the actual delivery.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That precise input is to be determined. Obviously, we are open to that and we want that. Again, I emphasise that at every step this has been done in a collaborative way, recognising that the trial can only succeed with strong community support—and not just strong community support but also strong community involvement.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I do not want to press the point, but there is a difference between collaboration and cultural appropriateness. I am really trying to get to whether the evaluation will be done in a culturally appropriate way. If so, what is that? I do not think it is acceptable to say to me, 'Trust the government. We'll do it in a way that is.' Well—I have not heard the minister say it will be done in a culturally appropriate way, but just saying that it will be done 'collaboratively' is not saying that it will be done in a 'culturally appropriate' way. They are—or they can be—entirely different concepts. I asked about cultural appropriateness.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few points. The legislation has not passed and the trials have not started. We need the legislation to pass so that we can continue with the work of working with the community. Being culturally appropriate will obviously be an important part of the work that takes place.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, following up on Senator Lines's questions, it would not seem to me to be too difficult for the government to commit to saying that the contract for the evaluation process—and we have already had the letter from Minister Tudge saying that it is a very important part of the process—could include culturally appropriate methodology.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure, absolutely.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Getting back to the trial itself and gathering the baseline data you spoke about, what is the interface between these trials and the truancy program?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to seek advice from officials about that particular interface.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are seeking advice, could you particularly seek advice on what data is being collected, how the baseline will be established and what the key outcomes are? Presumably, in putting the card in place, school attendance is one of the outcomes you are looking at, so where is that data currently being collected and how will you determine a baseline?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be data held by the South Australian government, given state governments are responsible for schools and school attendance. The South Australian government has agreed to share its data. While to some extent the range of things that will be looked at to determine the benefits of the card have been laid out, that is not to say that they will not be adjusted in light of community consultations.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies in advance if this is being explored through the Senate inquiry. Does that mean that truancy is or is not one of the measures you will be looking at?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one of the measures being taken into consideration.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the concept of a trial in Ceduna has been agreed to, I do not understand the words, 'It is under consideration.' Are a range of determinants being considered, and will you come up with three or four? If we are withholding people's income, it seems to me that getting children to school should be one of the measures. How do we get confidence that it will be one of the measures, or is that still to be determined by the community? What is happening?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me put it this way: all of us want kids to go to school; all of us want to take the availability of any information that we have as to which programs and which government arrangements demonstrate an improvement in kids getting to school. We know that the federal government has a strong interest in this area more broadly as well. We have the broad outlines of the evaluation, but these things are not absolutely set in stone. If there are additional things which the evaluation should look at which the community think need a stronger focus, then obviously that is something the government can look at.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is attendance at school part of the broad outline?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised it is, yes.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's second reading speech stated that an authorised person can reduce the percentage on the card. Has the concept of an authorised person or authorised persons been developed? Is it someone nominated by the community or is it someone nominated by the department? Can you provide more detail on that, please?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is something that is being shaped by the community, that will be worked up in consultation with the community. It will not be the government making a declaration; it is something that will be worked through together with the community.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What considerations have gone into that shaping? Will this be a paid position and will there be training for the authorised person? What elements have made up that shaping so far?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What different communities want may well be different. Communities may have different concepts as to how they want to do that.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has been explored so far in Ceduna?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could be a community panel; it could be a Centrelink officer. These are things that are still being explored with the community.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the concept? If it is a panel, would they be paid attendance fees, and what are the training obligations? If it is a Centrelink officer, I imagine that would not be culturally appropriate. It could be, but I am saying firsthand that it is possibly not.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a degree of granularity which is obviously not in the legislation. It is a degree of granularity which will be worked up with the community. It is not something that you would want me to make declaratory statements on. If I did, I would then be accused of having government determining these things rather than working them through with the community, as is the appropriate way to go.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, and I was not necessarily going to say that government was dictating how this would work. I appreciate that it is at a local level, but these are important considerations and I am mindful that we need to ensure that this process is culturally appropriate. Particularly in Western Australia, where I know the trial is not up, given the shocking history of intervention, of non-Aboriginal people dictating to Aboriginal people what will happen, of many Aboriginal people being part of the stolen generation and living on reserves and so on in Western Australia, I would be very concerned about how we roll out this authorised person.

It is not appropriate for somebody to have to go into a Centrelink office and speak to someone, with a glass panel between them, and present some evidence that they want to reduce the percentage on their card. Whilst it is a local level thing, for me it is a very important issue. We have to have confidence in this trial. If there are four or five people on a panel, it is intimidating to have to sit before them and outline your most basic need. That in and of itself does not seem to me to be appropriate.

Is it going to be a collaborative arrangement where an authorised officer works with that person? To have to front a panel and present some evidence to show that you should be entitled to a smaller percentage on your card is almost like begging. I appreciate that it is at the local level, but I think it is something that we have to get right; otherwise it just smacks of the appalling history we have, particularly in Western Australia, between the interface with white Australians and Aboriginal Australians.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really do not think we want to be in the business of setting up straw people and knocking them down. I do not think we as government should dictate the way it should be. I do not think the senator opposite should dictate it. But, if she happens to think that she knows what would be the ideal arrangements, she is perfectly at liberty to share those with the local community. If she wants to do that, she should feel free to.

I will outline the situation with community bodies in a little more detail. The bill allows the local community body to support participants by varying the amount that is placed on the card down to a minimum of 50 per cent in response to demonstrated socially responsible behaviour or back up to the original amount if this behaviour is not maintained. It would also recommend support services, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation or financial capability support. The local community body would not have the power to determine who would participate in a trial and it would be voluntary for a participant to appear before it. There is no compulsion here; it is voluntary. The local community body would be made up of local leaders who can represent the community and who have appropriate skills and standing in the community. The government is holding ongoing consultations with community leaders to determine the appropriate make-up of the body. That is what this is about. It is about consultation. It is far too early to be setting up straw men and knocking them down, Senator.

The local community body would make decisions to reduce an individual's restricted percentage based on agreed criteria, which may include evidence of meeting community norms, including meeting participation requirements and children attending school, and evidence that there is no misuse of drugs or alcohol or involvement in problem gambling. References from community members could be presented to support the individual's request. That is the schema, and we as a government are not dictating the way that people operate on the ground.

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

This goes to the heart of one of the failures of this process. This community body is a thought bubble. I do not know how many people currently in this Senate and debating this right now have lived in a small town. I have. I lived in a small town for quite a long time, where we all knew each other. Ceduna and the other towns we are talking about are probably slightly bigger than the town I lived in, but I would hazard a guess that a hell of a lot of people in Ceduna know each other.

Why we are questioning this is that it is obvious that the government has not thought this through. The minister is saying, 'We don't want to dictate every detail,' but that is because the government has not thought through what this means. So if I am on a carer payment, even though I do not have any substance abuse issues or gambling issues, I will be subjected to this and I will only get access to 50 per cent of the cash. So I have to front up to a community body of people I know, in a small community, and start talking about my personal financial arrangements. I am a carer providing care to one of my loved ones, and I have to go through this demeaning process—because that is what it is—with people I live down the street from or people I meet in the shopping centre or down at the shops. That is what we are talking about. That is what the government is setting up.

So how is this trial going to work? That is what we want to know. So what we are saying is that people who are living perfectly normal lives, other than trying to make ends meet on a carers payment, DSP or Newstart, for example, will have to go and expose all their lives to a so-called community body. How is it going to work? How are you going to ensure that people are able to go through this process without feeling demeaned and without feeling like that they have to go begging to a community body to get more access to cash? How can you assure this chamber that people will not be put off going to this body because of the very issues that I have just outlined?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I probably should go back to the first principles here—that is, the card can buy anything except for alcohol and gambling and no-one has to go before or be part of the local community body process in relation to varying the amount that is placed on the card unless they want to. No-one has to. Again I say that the card can buy anything except alcohol and gambling, and there will still be the 20 per cent that is available for the individual in cash.

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

I do not think the minister was here—and I apologise if you were—for the whole of the second reading debate, where a number of us outlined why you might need more cash. People have talked about the loss of dignity and feeling demeaned because they cannot access cash if they need to. There are a whole lot of reasons that people may need to access cash. People have talked to me about wanting to be able to access more cash for various reasons. One of those is to be able to go to markets. I have not been to a fresh food market where too many operators have an EFTPOS machine, for example. The op shop in Ceduna does not have an EFTPOS machine. Some op shops do and some do not. There are a whole lot of reasons that people may need access to cash.

They do not have to go before the panel, but people who want to will be dissuaded from going because they will potentially be going to a panel of people who they know really well and who they do not want to have access to their private lives. They do not want to explain their financial difficulties, how they happen to do their shopping or if they want to travel and need more access to cash, for example. The National Welfare Rights Network has outlined their case with examples of having to travel and needing cash or having to have a large amount of cash to contribute to a joint present for somebody.

Again, I am sorry—and I am not trying to be rude—but, honestly, you are displaying the fact that the government does not understand how this will operate and what impact it will have on people at the community level and how they relate to their community.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the things that is being explored is alternative mechanisms for directing money that is on the card to outlets and shops that do not have electronic facilities. That is an area that is being explored.

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

Again, we are having to vote on this legislation when the government plainly has not worked out how this is going to work. What happens if you cannot do that? What happens if there is a cost involved in that—and I want to get to transaction costs and bank fees shortly. But what happens if you cannot do that, because you do not actually know yet whether you can do that, do you?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to a number of these issues, they will be negotiated with the community, and the arrangements will be clear before the instruments are tabled.

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

I make the same point: we are going to vote on something that the government does not know whether they can pull off or not. In terms of the community body, you talk in the letter—and if I just refer to the letter, I presume everyone knows what I mean—about an appropriate review process of the community body decisions. It does not outline what form that will take, how the review will work. Is it envisaged that DSS will do that or some other body? What are the time lines? What are the processes that will be used—in other words, enabling an appeal process of the community body decisions?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister every six months will be reviewing the operation of the community bodies. In relation to individual decisions, I think that is something that will be the subject of community consultations as to how exactly that will happen.

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

So am I correct in understanding that there is no process in place yet for working out how someone can appeal a decision made by this body?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right: it is still something to be negotiated. I emphasise that the process of appearing before the local body is something that is voluntary but, in terms of review of a decision, that is something that will be negotiated.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, some quite local questions: you mentioned in a second reading speech that there will be apps and so on available for mobile phones to check balances. In the case of someone losing a card, you said, I think, that there will be a phone number. Given that I think everybody has lost a card from time to time, we all know how difficult it is to replace a card. One, what will the replacement procedure be; and, two, how will people get on in the interim?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be a stock of cards available in the location that can be printed—I think is the right phraseology—in the community to make it a quick process.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So this will be available seven days a week?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised it will be quicker than the process to get my credit card replaced, if I lost it.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not particularly helpful. So I lose my card at 9 am on a Sunday. Perhaps I have used up my 20 per cent, but 20 per cent is not very much cash. What is the procedure?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The exact opening hours and mechanism of that—it may not surprise you—is not something that has been absolutely nailed down as yet. These are the sorts of details that will be worked through with the community and what suits the community. These are issues where, I am sure, an appropriate arrangement can be reached. If you want me to tell you exactly which shopfront, where, between what hours you have to go to right now and what the name of the person wearing the badge behind the counter is, no, I cannot do that. That you would expect that that answer could be provided at this stage is a little surprising.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am extremely uncomfortable about this debit card and I have not raised my voice to you. I have asked you legitimate questions and, yes, I am concerned about the rollout of this card on the ground. I am absolutely entitled to not only ask the question but receive an appropriate answer. It is a real-life experience that somebody could well lose their card on a Saturday or Sunday and, despite the Prime Minister saying that we live in a seven-day economy, I do not agree with him. I am asking a legitimate question about how the replacement will occur. I appreciate that you have told me that it will not take weeks but, for example, if you get the trial up in Kununurra and you have to wait for some 'okay' from Canberra or Perth, that can take weeks. I am asking a legitimate question in a reasonable way about what happens when a card is lost on the weekend. I want to know what access there is for people to get food for their family or whatever else it is that they need. That is a reasonable question and I think the government really should have thought through the answer to that question.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think I raised my voice. I think I was expressing surprise in my voice, but I did not raise my voice.

The point I am making is that there will be appropriate arrangements to make sure that people can get replacement cards. We will make sure that in consultation with the community there are arrangements that satisfy the community. Why you would think that we would do anything other than seek to put in place arrangements through consultation with the community that satisfy the community I am not too sure. Given your interest in these particular aspects, I am sure that the minister would be very happy to provide a briefing for you that goes into the detail of what will happen from the moment someone losses a card to when they get their replacement card.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, but I am interested in these issues being on the Hansard, because I think it is important for all Australians, particularly those who will be affected by this in the community, to absolutely understand what the process is. I was not suggesting for one moment that the government would deliberately withhold moneys, but we all know what happens when bureaucracy comes into play. The reality is that agencies that deal with cards, such as Centrelink and so on, are not open on Saturday and Sunday. What is the contingency? If somebody has lost their card, do they have to have documents that prove that they are who they say they are to get a replacement? And how do they get access to food on a Sunday morning? It is a legitimate question, and quite frankly the government should have a proper answer to that.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it will be a quicker process than if you or I lost our bank card. As to what the specific arrangement will be in terms of who to phone and what the phone number is, I cannot give that to you at the moment. What I can tell you is that arrangements will be worked up to make sure that they are fast and responsive for the community.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said at the outset that it would be quicker than if we lost our credit cards. Well, that is about a two-week process, so are we talking about a 10-day process, or a five-day process? It is not unreasonable for me to want to have the exact process laid out in the Hansard so that I can have confidence that people are not going to go without food for their family if they lose their card on the weekend. That is a legitimate question.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe you should change banks. It has been a long, long time since I have lost a card, but it did not take my bank two weeks to get a replacement card to me. The advice I have is that the longest period would be until the next business day, but these are things that can be worked through with the community. These are things that can be worked through in the trial. Let me emphasise: this is our trial. This is a trial that we are embarking on here. There are still some details to be worked through with the community. Again, I am not going to make a declaratory and definitive statement on matters that I think are best worked through to finality with the local community to determine what will meet the needs of the individuals who are participants in this trial in the community.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I lose my card on a Friday I will wait for the following Monday. I appreciate that it is a trial, but it is a trial that affects people's lives. It affects their ability to get food for their families, it affects their ability to manage their working day, if they are working, and it affects the way they operate. If I lose my card on a Friday I do not get one until Monday. What will the arrangements be in the interim? I also ask, because obviously you do have more information than you have been giving me: what is the documentary proof I have to front up with to get a replacement card?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will look to officials to see if they can advise what the particular documentary evidence is, but it is probably best if I take that on notice. In the briefing you will have, arranged by the Assistant Minister for Social Services, they can take you through what the documentary arrangements will be.

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

Before we move on from there, I just want to ask a question. We have been focusing around the actual town of Ceduna. I have had personal experience of this, having had my credit card stolen in a regional centre. It actually took more than two weeks to replace it. I alluded to this point in my contribution to the second reading debate last night. Say I am travelling, for example, to Maningrida for some family and cultural business, and I lose my card on the way, and I am in Maningrida. It is not just about having a stock in Ceduna. I could have gone to Melbourne. I could have gone to Perth. How do I do that? Is everyone going to have a stock? Whichever financial institution is going to do this—and we will get to that in a minute—how can they guarantee that those stocks are going to be there? And how do I get access to cash in the meantime? I was able to access cash when my card was stolen, because I do not have a limit imposed on how much of my salary I can spend in cash. They do, so they will be able to get only a certain amount of cash. How do they get by when they are away, let alone in Ceduna, without being able to access cash before they get their card in those remote centres? And can you guarantee that the same deal that you do for Ceduna will apply everywhere else in Australia?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The introduction of this card has not initiated and created the concept of someone losing their wallet. People have always lost their wallets, lost their purses, lost those things that are within them. It is always inconvenient when you lose your wallet or your purse and the things that are within it. There is always a period of time that it takes to replace that which is lost which was within your wallet or your purse. This is not a concept which has been created by the introduction of the concept of this card. Yes, I recognise that when people lose things it is inconvenient. What we will do is make sure that people can get a replacement card in the quickest possible period of time.

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

The difference here is: I can only get access, if I am on this process, to 20 per cent of my money, and I could well have, particularly if I am travelling, already accessed that money. The point is: I cannot get any cash, even though I may have cash in the bank. How do you deal with that? This is a completely different situation if I have got 80 per cent of my money that I cannot access in cash.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we talk about cash, there will be numbers of people, I am sure, for whom that 20 per cent of cash goes into their bank account. If someone loses their wallet, the same issues arise accessing the money that is in their bank account as would arise as would arise if anyone else lost their wallet.

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

Say I am on Newstart and I have got 60 bucks that I can access. Particularly if I am travelling, for example, I am likely to have spent that, or I will go through it very quickly. So, sorry, the 20 per cent answer does not cut it, because I need access to more cash than that 20 per cent. It is a relatively small amount of money. People that are living on income support are living on small amounts of money and just managing to make ends meet.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regardless of whether you have this debit card or not, if you lose your wallet, for a period of time you lose your ability to access payments electronically. That is whether you are on the debit card or whether you are not on the debit card and you have a wallet that has other cards. That is a function of the loss of the wallet or the wallet being stolen. It is not a function of the existence of this card.

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

I will give this one more go. I will give you a real-life example. This is what happened to me. I got my whole wallet stolen. I could go into my bank, prove who I was through answering a series of questions and get enough cash to take me through at least till I got back home and for a few days after that. I was away. I could access enough cash to do that. I have a limit, just to stop people being able to go in and use my cards to steal my cash. There is a limit there, but it is quite a high limit, as probably most of us have, for the amount of cash per day. But I could get that money because I do not have a limit on how much money I can take out of the bank. A person on Newstart could do the same thing as me—go and prove who they were through answering a series of questions so that they could take money out. I think I actually took out $500 so that I had enough cash, because I knew I was not going to be able to buy things electronically. That is what a person in the same situation as me would want to do—take out enough cash so that they could access things before they got their card back. In this case, they cannot do that. They may have already used the 20 per cent that they can access for the two weeks of the pay cycle. Even if they have a little bit of that left, they may not have enough left, potentially, because there is a limited amount of cash they can get. So, yes, they can access the cash, but only a tiny amount. So what do they do then for the rest of the time, when they cannot access any more cash because they do not have the card? This is not a made-up scenario. It is a real-life scenario. That is why we are asking, because this is what it means to people on the ground when they are trying to get through this process. They will be surviving trying to use the card. You have got to think of what it means day to day, and this is a really live situation. Lots of people in the community travel quite long distances, but, even if they do not, it also happens if they are still in town and it is not the travelling scenario that I am outlining.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If someone is travelling away from home and their wallet is lost, they could go to a Centrelink office to seek an advance. If someone is away from home for an extended period, there could be arrangements for the replacement card to be sent to that Centrelink office, I guess in a similar fashion as to what might happen with a bank. But let me indicate again: where there are particular issues that the community identify as issues, then they can certainly be looked at.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of charges for withdrawals or use in a shop, will this debit card be entirely free of charges? If not, what are the charges?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is charge free.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that is a guarantee that, no matter where this card is used, there will not be any charge by a bank or a credit society or a store or anything? It will be completely free of any charges?

Honourable senators interjecting —

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the minister is receiving some advice, it would help Hansard if honourable senators would wait for the call before speaking.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just confirming again and the answer is no.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will be pleased to know that I am moving off the card.

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

I want to explore that a little more because there are bank fees and there are merchant charges. Can we be really, really clear whether we are talking about both bank fees and merchant charges—the transaction costs for each purchase.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that you would never pay any more than you would be paying if you were using any other card.

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

Now we are getting to the heart of this. They are going to make us have two bank accounts. I will have my bank account where I have my 20 per cent that I can access as cash. I will not have a choice about which provider I use—we will come to the issue of the financial institution in a minute. I am forced to have this card and a separate bank account, so I am going to be paying two sets of costs?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that there are no account fees associated with the card.

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

I am sorry, but I think we are not being quite as open as we should be, so let's dive down a little more. There are no account fees, so that is no bank fees, but what about merchant charges for the account and for transaction costs?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that you will not be paying any more than the merchant says you will be paying. What the merchant charges is what will come out of your account.

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

Do you acknowledge that people will be paying two sets of fees? Who is the merchant so we can know what the merchant charges are? What are the fees that people who are subject to this card are likely to be paying? They could potentially be paying two sets of fees.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People will not be paying two sets of fees, because there are no account fees in relation to the card.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I specifically asked you if there were any charges to be levied by banks and stores and you told me no. Then I asked and Senator Siewert asked about charges, and now we discover there are merchant charges. When you answered my question, what were you answering?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were asking about bank fees.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I specifically asked about banks and stores. If we are now saying that there is some sort of merchant charge, how much is that merchant charge?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some merchants surcharge for all cards. Some do not; some do. I cannot tell you the exact practices of every merchant that someone might go to. Also, I cannot tell you who will be the merchants that the holders of the cards will go to.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that in some rural communities this surcharge can be as much as around $3.70. When you are on a Centrelink payment, $3.70 every time you use a card is a significant amount of money. I think it is appropriate for us to know the range in dollar terms of what people will be paying.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Local merchants are being worked with to reduce as far as possible any surcharges.

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

Yes, local merchants, but what about when I am not travelling in the local area? Are you doing that for all the trial sites? Is that something that you are working on around Australia?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there could be outlets around the country that have surcharges.

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

The way I get around not having to pay surcharges is by using EFTPOS—that is, my normal bank and not a debit card. I have a choice where I can get around paying those sometimes outrageous merchant fees. The person with this card is not going to be able to do that.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it is rare for a Visa debit card not to have a surcharge that would also be applied through an EFTPOS transaction.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Credit card surcharging is a topic that I am quite passionate about talking about. I just want to get my understanding of this right. I have not been as on top of the details of this issue as other senators, so I apologise if some of this has been explained. With these cards, at the moment, if I want to withdraw money from the bank—and I am entitled, as I understand it, to withdraw up to 20 per cent of it as cash—I can use it at every normal ATM, as I would with a Keycard or a Visa card or a MasterCard? It functions in the same facility if I want to withdraw? It is as if it is a CommBank, ANZ or NAB card to operate?

Senator Fifield interjecting—

Yes, that is the question. Is that correct?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not entirely sure what Senator Dastyari's question is, but there are ATM fees often for withdrawing cash. I know that various banks have various arrangements—that there are X number of transactions that might not have a fee before you start having fees.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the bit that I guess I am interested in is that the way in which it works tends to be fairly consistent. As you know, the Senate is doing a separate inquiry into these matters at the moment to do with credit cards, which kind of relates to this. The consistency seems to be that, if you are using a card at an institution other than the institution that has issued that card, there is a fee for withdrawal of money, as there is also a fee for checking your balances. That is across every card, and that is across every bank.

The concern, I think, in part is the huge discrepancy in what these fees are in different parts of Australia. If I am in the CBD of Sydney, I can find a bank that is not my bank—let us say I have a Commonwealth Bank card; I can go and find an ANZ ATM—that may have a fee associated, but it is only, say, $1.50. But, if I am in a rural or regional area or a remote Indigenous community, there are reports of up to $3.70 being charged for that same function. Some would argue that this is a discrepancy relating to a lack of competition in these more rural and regional kinds of areas.

The concern, Minister, would be that, if I am being charged a fee of $3.70, the simple act of, say, on two occasions checking to see how much money is in my account, plus one withdrawal, suddenly means an amount of $10, which may seem small to those of us earning close to $200,000 in this chamber, but somebody who is on Newstart, disability support or another type of pension would obviously see it as quite significant. The question would be: have the practicalities of the fees associated and what the fees will do been looked at and modelled, and has there been any discussion with the financial institutions for these trials on how we can minimise that?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important to recognise that this is a debit card, not a credit card. In relation to taking it to a store, the only thing that someone will pay is what the merchant rings up on the cash register. What comes up on there is what the individual will pay. In terms of checking people's balances on the debit card, people can do that without cost.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said they can check it without cost. Is that by going online, or how?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, online, with apps. There will also be SMSs which will come to people, updating them on their balances.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one more question on this. Is what you are saying then, Minister, that there are really two functions where I may be charged a fee? One is checking my account balance.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I said exactly the opposite.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me ask the question, because maybe I misunderstood there. The second one is withdrawal of money.

Senator Fifield interjecting—

You can withdraw up to 20 per cent in cash.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be helpful if the question were posed and then, for Hansard, the response were recorded.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. What you are saying is precisely the opposite of what I said. I said you can check your balances for free via an app online or an SMS which will come to you, updating you on your balances.

You cannot withdraw cash from the debit card. The cash component, the 20 per cent, would go into your bank account or whatever the mechanism is that you specify. There are no fees associated with the debit card account.

In terms of a merchant, what someone pays is what the merchant rings up, which may include a charge that they have for people using cards. As I said earlier, there is work going on, particularly in the trial regions, to try to ensure that merchants have that as low as possible.

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

So you do acknowledge that, if I am paying on a card rather than by cash, I will incur merchant charges—and normally the RBA understands that they are around zero to two per cent if it is on a card—whereas, if I were paying cash, I would not.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be some occasions where there could be a merchant charge.

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

This is an additional cost on people on income support, who have very little money. Let us ask the big question. Which is the financial institution that you intend—because there is only one, as I understand it—will be responsible for this card?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That has not yet been announced.

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

I know that; that is why I am asking. That is why I am asking.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't announce something before it's been announced.

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

Again, we are being expected to vote on this when we do not even know who the financial institution is. When will the announcement be made?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, I cannot make an announcement before an announcement has been made, but it will be soon.

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

How soon is soon? You are expecting us to vote on this. You cannot answer a whole range of questions that we have been asking. You just said that there are going to be additional costs associated with this, and you cannot tell us even when you are going to be announcing who it is.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, on this point, these are the same questions we asked at the Senate community affairs hearing several weeks ago, and we got the same answer. It is a threshold point. At that time, all members of the committee expressed the desire. We said this was an integral part of the process and we needed to have the information as soon as possible.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot add to what I have said.

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

In terms of the cost, you said that there are going to be no actual bank fees on the card. Normally there are bank fees charged. How much is that costing? Who will bear the cost?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you just repeat the question.

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

There are normally bank fees. How much is it estimated to cost and who will bear that cost? Will it be the government or is it something the financial institutions are doing?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimately it will be the government that bears that cost because that would be factored into the price the government pays to the organisation that will be delivering the service.

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

So how much has the government estimated? What is going to be that cost? It is a cost to the government and a cost to us. What is the cost, is it capped and what happens if the cap is reached?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to that, will the costing be clearly identified so that when we are looking at how much this process costs, we will be able to see a line item that says that this allocation for this particular purpose costs so much.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimately, there will be a publicly available contract price for the service that is being provided.

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

Ultimately, again, we are being asked to vote on something we do not know the cost of. You did not answer the second part of my question: is that capped and what happens if the cap to the cost is reached? What then happens?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need a trial in order to finalise negotiations and we will not have one unless the legislation is passed.

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

So we are being asked to vote on something that we do not know what the cost will be?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is 'the chicken or the egg' stuff. We need legislation to have a trial. There is a cost to a trial. We have not announced the institution and we have not announced what the value of the contract will be.

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

I do not agree with that but there is no point in sharing that particular angle. Have you set aside an amount that you think this is going to cost? Surely you have done that. When these things are done, you usually do estimates. There will be estimates next week so we will be traversing this again, I suspect, if we cannot resolve this now. What have you budgeted for the cost of that?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there is an allocation. It is in the contingency reserve but obviously we will not know what the precise costs will be until we know what the three communities are and what the precise arrangements are for the three communities.

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

So, yes, you have done some analysis. It is in the contingency so could you tell us how much you have put into contingency notionally for that cost?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot tell you because that could potentially jeopardise the commercial negotiations.

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

I have some more questions in other areas. We were talking about the evaluation so I want to go back to the evaluation and to the community body. We went off onto fees. I heard what you said earlier around still working out with the community body and you wanted to negotiate with the community on what processes would be used et cetera. I am wondering have you set a minimum set of requirements? There are still areas of negotiation but surely you have got some view on what would be the minimum set of standards or minimum criteria to negotiate around?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a view but we do not want to pre-empt the community.

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

So what does that mean? If the community comes up with something and it does not meet the standards or the view, do you say 'no'? This, as I said earlier, is a pretty significant issue. They have a lot of responsibilities on their shoulders. In other committees I have been involved with, on assessments, we were usually given some guidance at least as to what were the minimum expectations, so I would have thought that was a fairly fair thing to do. We are talking about people's access to income support here; it is not an arbitrary thing. There are fairly set rules around it from the government and from others, so surely you would have some minimum level of requirement that you would expect from a community body? If you do not, what would you do if they came up with a scenario that in fact you did not think was acceptable?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well then that would be something that would be expressed and conveyed. This will be an iterative process with views from the community interacting with the views of the government to reach an arrangement that is acceptable to all the parties involved.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert's question was relating to whether you did have any process in place. In the letter that Minister Tudge sent to Jenny Macklin, under the heading '5: Evaluation Framework', it actually said:

A proposed evaluation and monitoring framework is currently being tested with community leaders.

I am sorry, there is no date on this letter. This is the kind of information we see at the community affairs committee so I understand that process but, from the answer you gave, I just wanted to double-check that.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That evaluation process is separate to the establishment of the local community body.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they are two separate things. Thank you.

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

We have talked about merchant charges but I do not think we have traversed the issue around minimum EFTPOS purchases. I have certainly had sent to me experiences from Ceduna where there is a minimum EFTPOS cost applied. And I have been to lots of other places where it is applied. Is there a proposal to address that issue?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that these were going on with the Ceduna traders association—to endeavour to ensure that there are not those minimum EFTPOS charges.

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

I have a couple of questions around that, and you may want to take them all at once. Firstly, people do not just stay in Ceduna; people travel. So what happens then? That occurs all around Australia. So what do you do when they travel outside Ceduna? We have been focusing on Ceduna because we know that the memorandum is already signed, but is the same level of negotiation going on in East Kimberley and in any other proposed trial location?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. It will be a critical part of negotiations in other trial sites.

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

I did ask a double-banger and I probably should not have. What about the rest of Australia—when you travel outside the trial areas?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rest of Australia is really beyond the remit of the trial.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate, minister, that the negotiations for the East Kimberley are still ongoing, but can you give us some sense of the geography that the trial is intending to cover?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is to be determined.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are not in a position to give the Senate any sense of whether it is Kununurra, whether it is Kununurra to Halls Creek, whether it is something else? I think we are entitled to have some sense of what that geographic area is, because they are very different areas.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not at this stage.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, if the trial is to go beyond the township of Kununurra, what are the sorts of contingencies you have taken in? Presumably, if it goes from Kununurra to Halls Creek you will start to cover remote communities; so what are those contingencies that you are looking at to make sure that people can access stores and so on and so forth?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If local leaders do want to come on board, then there will be discussions with the local community to determine what is required to make it work.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are exploring options outside of the township of Kununurra, how are you defining 'communities'?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is probably best I do not. You can define communities by local council area; you can define it by postcode; but the local communities themselves may have alternative views as to how communities should be defined in those particular areas, so I would not want to give a definitive answer to that question of how one might determine a 'community'.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you talking to communities outside of the township of Kununurra?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the answer is yes.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And are you talking to communities as far down as Halls Creek?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I am advised that the answer is yes, as far as Halls Creek.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So how many communities are you talking to outside of the township of Kununurra?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Advisers are counting them on their fingers at the moment. And it is not that they have a lack of fingers, but it comes down to a matter of how you define a 'community' again.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I asked the question 'Are you talking to communities outside of Kununurra?' and you answered 'yes', presumably you had some definition when you answered that question. Whilst I appreciate you may have to count, you must be able to answer that question.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised all communities within the Halls Creek shire and the Wyndham-East Kimberley shire have been spoken to.

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

Can I ask for clarification: if the decision is made to go ahead with East Kimberley—we already know that Halls Creek shire has rejected the idea. Will communities be included in the trial—if it goes ahead—regardless of what they have said; or will you limit the geographic area to a much more restricted area, to where the communities have agreed?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of the Halls Creek area have done as you have characterised. There are other leaders in that community who are keen, and discussions are continuing. A decision will be made at some point.

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

How will that decision be made when clearly there is substantial rejection of the trial? Will they be included regardless? How do you intend to make that decision?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to pre-empt or prejudge where discussions will ultimately end up as discussions are still ongoing.

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

So there is a potential that, despite the fact that you have said you want to know, you will consult et cetera, where communities have clearly said no you will go ahead there anyway. Is that what I am hearing?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I have said is that we are going to keep talking.

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

Are any other regions, towns or regional centres being considered outside of the ones that we have been discussing—Ceduna and the East Kimberley region? Which are the centres have you spoken to and decided not to go to? Are there other ones that you are currently negotiating with or consulting with?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that there have been discussions with Moree which have not really progressed. Apart from that, I think the answer is no.

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

Do you still intend to have a third trial site?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Possibly. There is provision there. It will be a function of further discussions that might take place with communities.

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

Does that mean that you have not been able to find another town or region that wants to take the trial on? Why are you no longer proceeding with discussions with Moree?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has really been a function of one step at a time with the focus primarily on Ceduna. In relation to Moree, government is keen to talk to those areas that are keen and that want to continue discussions.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies if you answered this; I was thinking about the East Kimberley region. You will be able to use the card outside of your region?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will be able to use it around the country.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is a point, in terms of clarifying exactly the position of where we proceed, that he legislation before us is the enabling legislation for the three trials and the agreement is that the future activity around where the trials will exist will be done by disallowable instrument. I want to clarify that in terms of the kinds of questions that people have been asking today around how trials will operate. What kind of detail and exchange of information process is going to occur before disallowable instruments are developed and brought to the chamber?

We have had a Senate inquiry on the enabling legislation and how the general legislation will operate, and I think that has generated a lot of questions about detail. We have yet, now, to go down the process of saying Ceduna or other places where trials will exist. Can you give us any indication of what the interaction is going to be with us—with the parliament and with the Senate—about, even now, how the trial in Ceduna will actually progress, in particular for the disallowable instrument? Should you have other locations in mind, what will be the degree of detail that will come forward to explain to us how they will operate?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The driver will be discussions with communities. That is where the consultations will take place. That is where information will be provided and exchanged. I am sure that the assistant minister will be happy to put in place briefing arrangements for colleagues in this place so that they can feel satisfied that they have full knowledge and appreciation of how arrangements will operate and what will be contained within the legislative instruments.

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

I go back to this issue of the other trial sites and Moree. Just to be clear, have the negotiations ceased because the community said that did not want it? Why did they stop?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government puts its focus on communities who want to cooperate. Where it looks as though that could be difficult, discussions will take place with other communities.

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

So Moree said no. That is the bottom line, isn't it? Which other communities have you been talking to that have said no?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess the best way to characterise it is Moree was not opposed to the concept of the card as such. It was more a case that they felt that across a range of programs and portfolios they had plenty of trials in their area and that they perhaps would want to first benefit and learn from the experience of another region that had a trial rather than to have the trial themselves.

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

I want to go now to a few issues around privacy details and what information will be shared between human services and financial institutions. I noticed the letter said of the card operation that in order to establish bank accounts for trial participants the Department of Human Services will need to transfer limited customer information to their financial institution. The financial institution will then need to provide new account details back to the Department of Social Services. First off, I would like to know what that limited information that will be transferred is.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be things like name, address and date of birth—the standard information that would be required to establish a bank account.

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

Will information about the income support category that people are in be transferred—such as whether they are on a carer payment, DSP or Newstart?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The main benefit type will be one of the pieces of information.

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

We were asking some of these questions during the inquiry, and you talk in the letter about what is going to be switched on and switched off. Is it absolutely clear that the only time that the Department of Human Services will get information is when there is a transaction found that is on one of those things that is switched off? Does that make sense? Can you take us through what will happen if someone has suspicious transactions?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bank will monitor what looks like potential fraud and also what looks like there is an attempt to get around the gaming and alcohol restrictions. That would then be reported to Centrelink, to Human Services

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

It is the process of monitoring that I am trying to get to. How is it determined when fraud might be happening or there is an attempt to get around some of these things? I think that Senator Xenophon, when he gets back, might want to traverse this as well. I know he used an example last night that he called 'fluffy pillows', I think, which makes it sound very innocuous when in fact it is an online gambling mob.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will answer in two parts. One is: banks have standard processes and algorithms that help them determine some of these sorts of things that put flags up. The other part of the answer is that the exact mechanism—or things that might set flags off—is probably not something that would be appropriate to canvass publicly lest it might assist people who may be attempting to do the wrong thing.

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

I understand what you are saying in terms of your not wanting to tell us what is going on in case people work how to get around it. But what I am interested in is making sure that people can be confident that their every purchase is not being scrutinised. Otherwise it is, 'Goodness me! Look how much they spent at that restaurant—and they are on income support!' This is a trial, and let us not make any mistakes: as I understand, Andrew Forrest wanted this to occur all over Australia, to everybody on income support. Let us be really clear about that. This is what we are trialling here. This is why we are asking. How am I, as an income support recipient who is now caught up in this trial, supposed to be confident that the banking institution and the Department of Human Services are not going through and looking at every purchase I make to check whether I have spent my money appropriately. That is what this is about. Can you please reassure the Senate, and hence the community: what is the process by which that the bank goes through and looks at suspicious purchases?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be a computer program of some sort that would raise flags. There is not an intention and nor would there be the physical capacity or desire of either the institution or Human Services to individually go through each individual's transactions.

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

I do not think that reassures people. People want to know how that process will work. Presumably some algorithm will be run over the bank account details of everybody who is caught up in these trials to catch potential flags.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are the existing privacy laws—that which applies for the BasicsCard. There is not going to be anyone going through individual transactions of each individual each day.

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

Do I take it from that answer that the same processes that work for the BasicsCard will work for this? I appreciate that there are different flags.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just saying that the same privacy provisions will apply. That is the only comparison that I am making.

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

Last night I brought up an issue in my second reading contribution around the use of the card in places that sell, for example, alcohol—and I am thinking of cafes and restaurants in particular. I may be in a cafe for a meal and I may have purchased a glass of wine or a beer. I may be out for a birthday celebration. How is it envisaged that that will actually operate? This is supposed to be non-discriminatory. It is not supposed to be demeaning and it is not supposed to be identifying people, but I could be there at the till, potentially at a restaurant which cannot split bills—most restaurants now do not split bills—how would it then operate with the alcohol component and the meals component?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just been given an example of the Ceduna Foreshore Hotel Motel, where they have different terminals—if you like—for different transactions. So there is one terminal where you might pay for your food and another where you might pay for your alcohol through the bar. There are mechanisms and means for organisations that sell a range of products, some of which are appropriate and allowed under the debit card trial and some of which are not.

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

That does not answer my question. Yes, at a hotel they may split accommodation and food. But if I were in a cafe—a normal restaurant or cafe—and having a meal with friends, how would we do this?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It depends on if the local community wants a licensed premises to be part of the trial. If they do, then the community and the trial will work with that organisation to set up appropriate arrangements to facilitate it.

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

Sorry, but that is such a cop-out! This is a scenario that has been brought up with me: what if I were travelling and going to eat a meal and I have not negotiated with them? I am sorry, but that is just not an answer. I am going to be flagged. I might as well wear something on my head saying, 'I'm on income support. I'm caught up in this trial. Can you split this bill for me? Where do I stand—in a separate queue?' et cetera.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are travelling interstate the card will not work at an alcohol outlet or at a gaming outlet.

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

Is that any outlet that sells alcohol and other things, or are you just talking about a separate alcohol or gambling outlet?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that at a licensed restaurant in an area outside of the trial area the card would work.

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

I understand that the card would work for the food component. Would I be able to buy all of my meal if I have a glass of wine or a beer? That is the question I am asking. How will that work?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The card would work for that combined purchase.

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

I am going to be really clear. Is this going to work only outside? How are you going to operate it so that only outside I could have a combined meal and beer or glass of wine? How is it going to work outside but not work inside? Will it just come under 'food'?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be particular arrangements within the trial area to ensure that that is not the case. But if you happened to be in Sydney then that could be the case.

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

This is fascinating. So I could do it outside, if I were travelling outside, but I could not do it in Ceduna. Is it going to be the same in each of the trial sites or are you going to have a different set of arrangements in each of the trial sites?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be local arrangements in each trial site, but I cannot be definitive about what the exact arrangements will be in trial sites that have yet to be determined, agreed, negotiated or worked through with the local communities.

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

Would a flag come up on my account if I were outside the region and purchasing from a venue or a merchant that sells alcohol—and, potentially, gambling as well, because in unenlightened states that are not Western Australia they can have gambling in various places? If I were travelling and I purchased there, does that become a flag?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. There is no visibility of what the actual transaction is. The way that alcohol and gaming transactions are prevented in the trial areas, in relation to the 80 per cent that is on the card, is that the particular businesses will not accept the card for those purchases on the basis of what is negotiated locally.

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

That was very interesting and I want to come back to that. I apologise if my question was not clear; that is my fault. I mean a flag for the financial institution down the track.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there would not be.

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

Thank you. Coming back to your previous answer: I would not in fact be able to attempt to use my card to buy a meal, depending on what is negotiated in Ceduna at the moment. So if you negotiate that it is not going to include restaurants that serve alcohol I could not go in there and I would not be able even to use the card—even to use it to purchase a meal.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It depends on what is negotiated locally. It could be locally negotiated that there are arrangements in a particular restaurant to differentiate between the alcohol purchase and the food purchase. There could be those arrangements negotiated locally, but that is up to the community.

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

That gets back to my original question of how that will occur and the original issue about being treated differently to other customers, in that I will have to signal that I have this special card that I cannot buy alcohol on. How do I organise it? This is what people are bringing up with me. I have to flag that I am on income support, that I have a different card and that I have to pay for my alcohol out of my limited amount of 20 per cent cash.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There could be two terminals, but the exact arrangement is something that will be negotiated with each merchant.

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

My concern is that people will be treated differently. This is not just a normal card that you can use anywhere, with no-one knowing that you are on income support and without you being signalled as somebody who is caught up in the trial. In fact in these stores in these particular situations in Ceduna you will be signalled, because you have to flag a different arrangement.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me clarify the arrangement where there would be two terminals. It would not just be people on the debit card who would need to split their bill. Everyone would be required to split their bill, regardless of whether or not they are on the debit card.

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

This is really fascinating. I wonder whether the people in Ceduna who are not on income support know that, from now on, they will have to pay separately for their alcohol. Is that what we are saying? If that is what I just heard, that is exactly what is happening. Have you canvassed the whole of Ceduna to find out whether they know that that is what they are going to be doing, if in fact that is what you mean?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A further point of clarification: someone who was not on a debit card would be able to pay their full account through the alcohol terminal. They could split their bill if they wanted to, but they would not have to it. Someone who was on the debit card would need to split their bill.

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

It may be just me who is confused, but in your previous answer I heard you say that it would be the same for everyone; now you are saying that it would not be, that it would just be people on income support who then have to organise things so that they pay for their alcohol separately. A big flag goes up: 'I'm the one on income support.'

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone who pays for alcohol would be required to use one particular terminal. People who are not on debit cards would be able to pay for other things through that terminal as well, but everyone who is buying alcohol would be required to do so through the one terminal.

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

This is doing my head in. It is doing all our heads in—it is not just me—for those who are listening. It still means that you differentiate between those on income support: they pay for their food on a separate terminal?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me see if I can seek to clarify this issue so that there is no confusion. The debit card will work only on the food-only terminal. Someone who had a debit card but was wanting to pay for alcohol with cash or with another card linked to their own account would do so on the same terminal as everyone else. There would be a terminal that all alcohol purchases would go through and, if someone were using the debit card for food, that would go through the debit card terminal—and anyone else could use that terminal as well.

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

Okay, we are getting a bit closer. So my original question and scenario-painting were in fact correct. Anyone else can use that terminal—yes, they can if they are not buying alcohol. So there are still two separate terminals. I am in there, I have had my meal and I am coming out. I will come back to the sign issue in a moment. But it is clear that I will have to use two different terminals if I have had a drink with my lunch or dinner. That is correct, is it not?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That depends. If you do not want to use your debit card to pay for food, then, no, you would not have to use another terminal.

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

I understand that, but if there is a special occasion and I am out for dinner, these days the food is probably going to take up my fairly limited supply of cash. Therefore, because I need to save my cash to buy other things, I am probably going to want to put that on the debit card. So, yes, you can get out of it by saying that you could use your cash, but the fact is that that will get used up pretty quickly. Is that not the point? Before I walk into the restaurant, is there a process whereby people will know where they can and cannot use these cards? I can imagine this is going to be complicated. There will need to be splitting of bills. Restaurants do not do splitting of bills really well. Will a sign be up so that I am not embarrassed when I am confronted with this process?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How particular terminals are identified will be something that is worked through with the local community to make sure it is appropriate.

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

I asked about the situation before I go in. To be really clear here: we are talking about everyone in Ceduna who is on a payment being subjected to this—whether you are a carer or whether you are on DSP, Newstart or Youth Allowance and there are a couple of other categories. So all of these people are going to have to find out whether these restaurants, cafes and other places are ones that do this process or are ones that do not?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An individual who has a debit card knows that they cannot use the debit card for alcohol or gaming. That knowledge should guide people, and will guide people, as to what particular card they use to pay for which particular transactions. So someone going into a place that serves alcohol would know that they would not be able to use their debit card to purchase alcohol. I think the arrangements on the ground in individual stores are probably more straightforward because people essentially self-select on the basis of what they can and cannot purchase on the basis of whether or not they are a holder of a debit card.

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

I understand that the individuals will know, but I understood from your previous answers that the community and the merchants are still negotiating about whether they are going to do this process. As I understood your previous answer, it is not guaranteed that every merchant is going to want to have this separate process. Is that correct?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is possible, for instance, for some licensed restaurants to decide that they do not want to participate in this. That is possible.

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

That was why I was asking the question about whether there would be something on the window or whether there would be a document published, so that before I go in—and before I get embarrassed; let alone being embarrassed when I am having to split the bills when I am in there—I know whether it is a restaurant or a premise that actually does do that.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there are up to 10 merchants in Ceduna that this could apply to. There will be work done on indicating to people—in a way that is understandable, accessible and non-embarrassing—the merchants that are participating and those that are not.

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

What happens when you are travelling outside the region? What is this philosophy around the process inside the trial sites versus the process outside the trial sites?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is that it depends. If it is a supermarket that also has a bottle shop there will be separate merchant categories. Therefore, they will not accept the card and people will know that the card will not be accepted. If it is a gambling venue, it is fairly clear that it will not be accepted.

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

Sorry; every time you answer a question you raise more questions. So can we get down to the merchants where you will be able to use the card for buying a meal and a beer with? One issue that has been put to me is about roadhouses. How do I know which merchants do and do not?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Merchant category codes of alcohol and gambling are out. So if you walk into a BWS or a Dan Murphy's—

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

That's obvious.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; you will not be able to use it. If it is a licensed restaurant, they are not separately identified like a bottle shop would be.

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

I just promised Senator Muir that this would be the last question from me for the time being. So let's be clear here: the only area outside that you will be able to do it is where it is a licensed restaurant? Does that apply to a roadhouse, because they are not licensed restaurants? So is the difference then that it is just in Ceduna, or whatever the trial site is, where the actual licensed restaurants are going to be caught up in this?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds a reasonable characterisation, Senator, yes.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Initially, I would just like to say that I have been enjoying listening to the debate, and I actually share some of the concerns that both the Australian Labor Party and my colleague, Senator Siewert, have been sharing. At this stage, I think the debate has been very good. I have only a few questions, and I do apologise in advance if they have already been asked. I have not had a chance to listen to every single bit of the debate. You will have to forgive the cynic in me, but I do have concerns that the trial is being targeted at low-socioeconomic groups to guarantee success of the trial and to make it easier to justify expansion into the future. In the event that this trial is successful for this particular socioeconomic group, would the data be used, and how would it be used, to predict success for potential future implementation of this type of policy to socioeconomic groups that do not match the trial group?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator, for the question. The trial site in Ceduna has been chosen because of the very high indicators of hospitalisation and other abuses—and I am just flicking through my notes to give you some of the statistics, specifically, in relation to Ceduna.

In 2013-14, presentations to the hospital emergency department due to alcohol or drug use exceeded 500—and that is more than one presentation per day. The local sobering-up facility had 4,667 admissions that same year from a regional population of 4,425. I will just share with you a quote I sighted a little earlier from the Ceduna Community Heads Group, a key legislative group in Ceduna who have endorsed the concept of the trial. They said:

We want to build a future for our younger generation to aspire to and believe we cannot do this if our families are caught up in the destructive cycle of alcohol or drugs that destroys our culture, our lands and our communities.

At the heart of this reform, is a change that is being shaped specifically to meet our local needs. It has been a true collaboration to ensure that we can give our mob and our Communities every chance to create real and genuine change in their lives.

We have grasped this initiative; we have helped shape this initiative; and we are confident that this initiative is for the betterment of all people within our region.

You are right, Senator Muir, that the area has been chosen because of some particular issues—the level of alcohol abuse, the level of hospital admissions, illegal drug use and the recognition of gambling as being a factor that also harms families. Part of the rationale for having a defined component of someone's payment that can only be accessed through the card is to limit the amount of money that could be used on illicit drugs, gambling or alcohol.

The purpose of the evaluation, which will be put in place, is to see to what extent some of these really bad statistics are reduced through the trial of the card. I emphasise: it is a trial. There will be evaluation, and we do want to learn from the trial.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I understand the purpose of the trial, and the reason it is being debated now is to attempt to help with certain issues that you just mentioned. Considering this is a low-socioeconomic area with these issues, will the data be used to predict success into the future and to roll out the policy into the broader community?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention at the moment is that it is targeting areas where there are high rates of harm. It is not necessarily tied to socioeconomics, because there can be some low-socioeconomic areas where you do not have these kinds of statistics. It is not that a low-socioeconomic area has been chosen as such; it is the rates of harm that are present that has determined the one community at this stage that the trail is aimed at. It is not something that seeks to characterise low-socioeconomic communities. It is something that recognises that there are some communities that have a higher incidence of harm, and we are seeing if, through this mechanism, we can reduce that. I am advised that the intention was always to target the areas, if you like, of greatest need with some of these really appalling statistics.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the area that has been chosen for the trial to be rolled out, I understand the Ceduna area had 500 hospitalizations and the sobering-up program had 4,667 people. Does it capture other people who are currently doing the right thing? Is the trial going to pick up people who are not repeat offenders in hospitalisations or sobering-up programs?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The trial will cover anyone in receipt of a working-age payment. It is something, you are right, that applies across the board. There will be a mechanism in the trial for people who wish to have access to more than 20 per cent of their payment in cash. There will be local bodies that people can put that to. You are right: this will apply to anyone on a working-age payment.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that answer. Going back a little to my concerns—the cynic in me—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not cynical, are you?

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

sorry, Senator Xenophon, I am—about the data potentially being used to roll this out further into other communities. Will the government commit to a process in the future where communities can choose to opt in or out on a community by community basis in the event that the government does decide to use the data collected after this trial to roll out the policy further?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing we do not want to do is pre-empt the outcome of the trials. We take the evaluation seriously. We will want to have the trial, look at the evaluation, see if it is a success and, if it is, then at that point we would make a determination as to whether to seek to expand it to other communities. Our approach with this trial, and possibly with another two, is to work with local communities, to be consultative and to see if there is a willingness as there is in Ceduna. In Ceduna there is a really, really strong desire for this to be in place, but we take the evaluation seriously and I would not want to prejudge that evaluation or any decisions that we might take after that.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You most definitely did not rule out extending the trial further. I suppose I am trying to seek some kind of commitment that these trials would not supply data that would then encourage policy to put this type of trial into legislation which goes far beyond communities that would even ask for it.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can take some comfort from the fact that this legislation only authorises three trials and a maximum of 10,000 people. If the government was wanting to do something in addition to that it could only be with the approval of this chamber. We would have to introduce fresh legislation.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am nearly finished; I think I have got enough on that for the time being. Will wraparound services be offered on a voluntary or referral basis—your drug counselling, financial counselling, domestic violence counselling and so on?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The approach in Ceduna has been to work with the local community to work on what those local wraparound services should be. We have made some funding available for that. If we went ahead with the further two trial sites we would be taking the same approach there: to work out with the local community what are the wraparound services that are needed for the particular circumstances of that community.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might come back a little bit later, after a few of my colleagues have asked questions, and go further into that. Alan Tudge's report does not appear to cover the concerns of EFTPOS fees for minimum spends in retailing outlets. Has the government taken this into consideration?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The trial is already working with the local Ceduna traders' association in an effort to work towards there not being those minimum spend requirements.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify: at this stage, even though we are about to vote on the bill, or are very likely to vote on the bill, it still has not been completely sorted?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The local arrangements cannot be finally nailed down until we have legislation, but discussions have occurred and it is the intention to address the issue raised.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know we have 10 minutes before we go to senators' statements, but hopefully I can deal with two discreet issues in respect of that. The first relates to the location of the trial. I have had some very good and productive discussions with Assistant Minister Tudge in relation to this—and I want to express my gratitude to the assistant minister and to his office for their level of cooperation and goodwill.

When I went to Ceduna with Senator Lambie on 2 October, there was a concern felt by a significant part of the community who had expressed concerns about the trial; they felt that there had not been an adequate level of consultation. I know that Assistant Minister Tudge has made it very clear that there has been extensive consultation with a number of key stakeholders. The assistant minister has indicated to me that there will be a public meeting in Ceduna that will go for two to three hours—I think that the minister's adviser is helpfully nodding, and hopefully that nod can be translated through the minister into Hansard. Before any regulations are tabled, before any final decision is made, can the minister indicate that there will be a public meeting in Ceduna that will allow a robust exchange of views with the local community, and that the public meeting will involve the assistant minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can give the assurance that there will be meetings there—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before you have made any regulations?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

before any regulations, that is right—and we will work to find a date that works for you.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By flying me in by helicopter?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are notoriously frugal, Senator Xenophon, as is appropriate. We will certainly work to make sure that it is a date that works for you, other interested colleagues and Assistant Minister Tudge as well.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the taxpayers, we will not be going to Ceduna by helicopter from Adelaide. I am grateful for that, and I think that it is going to be very important. I am sure that it will be a feisty, robust meeting. It is important in a democracy for those concerns to be raised. I will raise some of the concerns that were put to me in the community gathering that I went to at the Ceduna community hotel.

There is one issue that I happened to speak to Assistant Minister Tudge about just a few moments ago, and I want to get this on the record. It is an issue that I have discussed with my colleagues Senator Moore and Senator Siewert. It relates to the regulations for the trial. The concern that I have had is that, at the moment, in terms of subordinate legislation, there are 15 sitting days to disallow a regulation, so, if a problem is apparent, if there is a serious problem with the trial—and I hope that will not be the case; I want to make that clear—we have only got 15 sitting days to deal with that. I was going to move an amendment to extend that 15 days to 30 days, but that would involve some technical difficulties. I would be grateful if the government could indicate and give a firm undertaking that any regulations would be established for a period of six months only, with the intent that there be a further period of six months, effectively giving the Senate an opportunity to consider a disallowance of those regulations on two occasions, with 15 sitting days each time. I think that would give us a greater level of scrutiny, in a sense, and scrutiny with teeth, in respect of this. Again, I make it clear that I want this to work, as does the government, but I think it is important that we have that additional level of safety and scrutiny for the communities involved.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised by the assistant minister's office that this will be a 12-month trial, but two six-month instruments, as you propose, will be done.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful that that undertaking has been made on Hansard so that, with any regulations, the first tranche, if you like, will be for a period of six months, which gives us that greater degree of scrutiny. I think my colleague Senator Siewert, if she gets the call from you, Chair, wants to ask a follow-up question on that.

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

I have got to put on the record that I think this is slightly better but it still does not get it over the line for us. However, if we are going to do that, is there a commitment that information that is collected as part of the monitoring process will be made available so that, when we are then considering the next regulatory process, we will have access to that information? Otherwise it is a moot point, because, if we do not have access to information, we will not be able to make a decision about whether we support the next regulatory instrument.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will use our best endeavours. I have no doubt that Assistant Minister Tudge would be happy to sit down with you and share with you what has been learnt to that point.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I just take up Senator Siewert's point? I guess I look at it from a slightly different perspective. By having two legislative instruments, by having two periods of six months, if the government is not being transparent in the process—and I would shocked if it were not, and I say that with a straight face, because I think it is in the government's interest for there to be transparency in the process. I genuinely believe that. I know some more cynical in the chamber might not have that view, but the fact is: if there is not, then that itself could be a factor for the disallowance. I think the government would know that, in order to ensure that the regulation not be disallowed in the second six-month period, there would need to be a level of transparency and accountability in the process. So I think that itself would act to be useful.

I will just ask a question of the minister that I raised briefly with Assistant Minister Tudge. This is what happens when you pass people in the corridors of this building. We had a useful conversation but sadly none of it was recorded for the purposes of Hansard. This relates to online gambling. Yesterday, just parenthetically, I had a very useful discussion with former New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell, who is heading up—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over wine?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari, hopefully Hansard did not pick that up. Through you, Chair, Senator Dastyari needs to know that there was no wine consumed, only water.

In his review of online gambling, there was an issue about the distinction between illegal online gambling providers—those that operate out of Gibraltar and the Caribbean and goodness knows where else, which are unauthorised and illegal—and those that are authorised under the Interactive Gambling Act. My question to the minister—and I happy for some of this to be taken on notice—is: given that some of these illegal operations have innocuous-sounding names that do not sound anything like a gambling provider for their merchant ID, will the healthy welfare card prohibit overseas transactions, and which overseas transactions will be allowed? If you are dealing with Amazon.com to buy a book, I would have thought that someone should be able to do that transaction—or if they are dealing with any online retailers that might be overseas or they want to subscribe to The New York Times, which might have a special subscription deal that goes to an overseas website. How do you distinguish between those overseas transactions and, in particular, overseas online gambling transactions?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Online, the default position will be no, but there will be whitelisted entities which are acceptable.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amazon?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, they do not sell alcohol or gambling, so I am sure that is being noted as we speak.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There might be some online retailers that sell alcohol but you cannot tell by their name that they are alcohol or liquor merchants. How will that be determined? Will there be liaison with all the licensing courts or the licensing bodies around the country to establish who is authorised online? I am just trying to see in a practical sense how that would work.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are about to go to senators' statements, but I want to ask a question about a point that was put to me in a very powerful, poignant way by one of the people that I met in Ceduna on 2 October. This person had never been on welfare for 40 years. They had fallen on hard times and needed welfare, needed that support. They had paid their taxes for 40 years or so and they felt a level of stigma in having such a card and that they would have to go to a panel to get approval for some pre-existing payments they had to make. Perhaps we could address that when we get back to this bill.

Progress reported.