Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8730.

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

I have a couple of extra questions, and then I'll explain our position on these amendments. Yesterday the minister articulated that support would be available for people to fill in forms and to participate in the process to apply for exemptions. Senator Lines, who is now in the chair, asked a question about whether community organisations would also be able to provide that support. I'm just wondering whether funding will be available to those organisations for additional support for people, because some community organisations are already pretty flat out providing service support to community.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is the funding is already available for assisting people, broadly. So there is actually funding available for people to exit the card currently under the wellbeing provisions. Obviously, if additional resources are required, we would look at it. But at this stage, we believe that adequate resources are currently being provided to enable the assistance of these people but, obviously, we'll keep a very close eye on it.

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

Thanks for that. Could you perhaps, if you haven't got it available, take on notice to provide how much it is and which organisations in the trial sites it's going to?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, of course.

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

Also, I just want to follow up on the costing question and answer that we went over yesterday in terms of the cost of the trials, the $34 million. My understanding is that there's around $126 million over the forward estimates. What is that for? Is it for the ongoing trial sites and the expansion of the Indue card in the Northern Territory? Or is it for something else?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's for the ongoing operation of the trial sites, the four trial sites as they currently are, and also forward funding for the NT and Cape York subject, obviously, to the passage of legislation through this place.

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

I also just want to clarify, in your sum-up, you made comments around the number of purchases that had been rejected from the card. My recollection is you said the number of rejected attempts to purchase alcohol and gambling amounted to $400,000. Are they failed attempts on the card? I'm sure you're aware there has been quite a lot of failed attempts to use the card, not just because people were buying alcohol and gambling but because the system wasn't working or whatever. Is that $400,000 purely around alcohol and gambling or does it also include failed attempts to use the card?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the $400,000 I stated in my summing up statement yesterday was from unsuccessful purchases or alcohol or gambling products.

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

Thank you for that clarification. Do you have figures on the failed attempts as well?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, are you referring to failed attempts to use the card where the card has been the problem as opposed to some other external EFTPOS machine?

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

Yes.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But an EFTPOS machine can fail more generally. Are you asking about the specific failure rate that is directly attributed to the card?

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

Yes.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to take that on notice for you.

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

I can now articulate the Greens' position on this amendment. We will support it. I have thought quite long and hard about this because I do see the other side of the argument, which is this will enable us to make quick decisions if there's some other way to enable people to opt out. My concern is that it could be used in future to make things harder to opt out rather than to facilitate opting out. So, on balance, we will support this amendment because we're concerned about ramping up and perhaps narrowing down how people can opt out.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify, in answer to the question from Senator Siewert about the funding that was made available to the community service organisations, that is already built into the funding that we receive. There is, however, additional funding that is available to assist people coming off the card as required.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice and get back to you.

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

I appreciate the minister took that on notice. I'm wondering if she can tell the chamber what the quantum is. Is that available? I appreciate you need to take on notice how much will be available for the trial sites and organisations, but how much is the quantum for this process?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interests of accuracy, I will take that on notice, Senator, but I'll try to get it back to you as quickly as possible.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8730 as moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8733:

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 9), omit "an offence", substitute "a serious offence".

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 19), after subsection 124PHB(3), insert:

(3A) For the purposes of subparagraph 124PHB(3) (a) (ii), a serious offence means an offence where:

(a) the offence:

  (i) involves violence against a person; or

  (ii) is a serious drug offence; or

  (iii) involves serious damage to property; and

(b) the offence is punishable by:

  (i) imprisonment for life; or

  (ii) imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than 3 years; or

  (iii) imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than 3 years.

(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 1 to 6), omit subsection 124PHB(8), substitute:

Reconsideration of Secretary ' s determination

(8) If a health or community worker:

(a) has a direct professional relationship with a person who is the subject of a determination under subsection (3); and

(b) considers that it is necessary for the person to be a trial participant for medical or safety reasons;

the worker may request the Secretary to reconsider the determination.

These relate to the issues that I raised in my speech on the second reading and in some of the questions I was asking around 'serious offence'—the offence provision and the exit criteria—to add 'serious' in front of 'offence', so that it's a serious offence that is taken into account. The other one relates to the relationship with a health and community worker. I did ask some questions about that in the chamber, where the minister articulated that there will be notes in the guidance around this issue to clarify that they will have to have a professional relationship. We think it is better off in the legislation. I appreciate that the minister made a commitment to do that, and on the form, but I do think that it's better off in the legislation. So that is what that particular amendment is about. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert. As an explanation of why the government won't be supporting these amendments, whilst we take Senator Siewert's point in relation to the seriousness of the offence, many of the offences that would not be captured under this particular serious criteria are the offences that are, indeed, the reason why the card was put in place in the first place. Many of these sorts of antisocial behaviours would not attract a serious offence. However, they are considered very serious in terms of the impact they're having on these communities.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8733 as moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

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

The Greens will be supporting these amendments. They don't go far enough for us however. We moved a second reading amendment that said we should get rid of income management and the cashless welfare card. The cashless welfare card, as I articulated in my second reading contribution, demonises people and stigmatises people, and it is not the way that we address the very serious issues that we know communities are facing. I've gone through the details of that extensively in this place on many occasions. So we think this is a step in the right direction, which is why we're supporting it. We should make the cashless welfare card voluntary.

I'm very sceptical about testing community support because the experience at the moment is that it is a flawed approach. The government keeps tells us it's supporting communities; however, when I go into those communities, I don't see a whole lot of support for the people who are stuck on the card, who are suffering the effects of the card, whose lives have been made harder by the card. I've articulated those experiences in this place on many occasions—in particular, yesterday in my second reading contribution and the night before in my adjournment speech. There are a lot of people whose lives have not been made better by this card; they've been made significantly worse in terms of not only their capacity to manage their finances but also their physical and, in particular, mental health.

Having said that, this is a step in the right direction. I know that what the Greens expect from the amendments around community support and testing is an independent process, not one that is driven by government. Quite frankly, we simply cannot trust them to do the job properly. We've seen flawed consultation processes in the past; we've seen flawed evaluation processes, and, again, I've spoken about those flaws on many occasions. So we say that this consultation process needs to be carried out independently and needs to be clear, transparent and accountable. Having said that, these amendments are a step in the right direction, so we will be supporting them.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting these amendments because the government believes that one of the strengths of this particular initiative is the fact that we are able to work in partnership with communities to make sure that we continue to be flexible, backwards and forwards, about meeting their requirements. Also, we have and we continue to consult and work with community leaders, representative bodies, local governments, service providers, community members and people on the card. So far, the experience we have had is that, overwhelmingly, these people are in support of the positive benefits that are being generated by this particular initiative, and we will continue to work with them to that affect. Obviously, there are a series of reviews that have been in place to assess the validity and the benefits of this card, all of which have been made publicly available and which will continue to be made publicly available into the future.

Most importantly, when we consider the benefits and outcomes that we've seen in the trial sites of the delivery and operation of this card, are the rights of the children. The rights of the children in delivering this card have been at the absolute forefront of everything we've done, and ensuring the welfare of children ranks as one of the most basic and important tasks of any government and any society. Children have the right to access food, safe housing and education, and we will continue to work in partnership with communities across Australia to make sure this program continues to deliver benefits to our most vulnerable—our young.

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

I can't let that remark about considering the children go past without comment. That's why you brought in the intervention, the Northern Territory intervention. The claim of the government at that time was that this was about the children. Twelve years later, have we seen that situation fixed? No, we haven't. We see an increasing number of kids going into out-of-home care; we see an increasing number of kids interacting with the justice system. Clearly, it is not working.

The final evaluation of the intervention shows it has met none of its objectives. It is not working. The government keep reiterating this because they are ideologically committed to it; they are not genuinely committed to looking at the evidence. You dismiss proper evaluation of the evidence, independent evaluation of the evidence, such as that which was carried out for the Northern Territory intervention. You don't take any of that into account when you're commenting on the children.

There is no evidence that this helps. Twelve years worth of this giant experiment with income management has not worked, because children in the Northern Territory are still going into out-of-home care. We've still got those very same issues. We need to change the way we do things; we need to look at the underlying causes. All this does is entrench dependence on the system, which is what the final evaluation of the Northern Territory intervention suggested—that is, there's evidence to suggest that financial management has gone backwards. And that's also what people are saying to us.

When you say you're consulting with people—the baseline evaluation by the University of Adelaide was not a baseline evaluation; it was a semi-evaluation, the same as what the ORIMA process had done. It was push polling of people. People are on the card, they know they don't want to be on the card, so when somebody being paid by government comes along and says, 'Are you drinking less?' then of course they're going to say yes, because they know that person is being paid by the government.

The Labor government did the same thing—sorry to the opposition; I'm not directly attacking you—and Jenny Macklin came out with a report that showed there had supposedly been improvements in people buying fresh food et cetera in the Northern Territory. AIHW had to come out and say, 'Actually you've interpreted this data wrong.' This was for exactly the same reasons that I've just articulated. When people who are dependent on the system know the person asking them questions has come from the government, then of course they're going to say they're feeding their children more, they're buying more fresh fruit and vegetables. When you're evaluating something, essentially you don't do push polling.

Please, spare us the lecture about looking after the kids. If you're looking after the children, you would not be perpetuating this system.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8729 as moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.