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

I move:

That the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination 2017, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2017L00210].

This is about disallowing the extension of the trials into the cashless welfare card. These trials, as I am sure people are aware, are in Ceduna in South Australia and the East Kimberley in Western Australia. In the East Kimberley, the trial has basically focused on the towns of Kununurra and Wyndham. Despite the failure of the Northern Territory intervention and income management, which is clearly articulated in the final evaluation of the report which I have spoken about many times in this place, the government decided to proceed with a trial of the cashless welfare card, the cashless debit card, which quarantined 80 per cent of a person's income support. Not satisfied with trying to quarantine 50 per cent of a person's income support in the Northern Territory, they are now trying to quarantine 80 per cent. Recipients were told the trial would be for a year. They were not consulted about the trial going ahead in Ceduna or in the East Kimberley. As a slight sop to Senator Xenophon, a so-called public meeting was called in Ceduna after the event of the legislation going through, but recipients were not adequately consulted, and the government hand-picked people they called leaders in the community to give the okay to the trial.

Recipients were told that the trial would be for a year. On the day it was supposed to finish in Ceduna, the government announced that they would be extending the trial in Ceduna and in the Kimberley. They released an evaluation report, but up to that time people that were existing on the card in Ceduna had no idea of what their future was: were they going to be stuck on the card or were they coming off? I must say that, given that the government had not been talking about any transition approach, I was extremely suspicious that in fact the government was going to find some way of trying to extend the card, and of course we now have this regulation before us which I am seeking to disallow. The government, as I said, announced only on the day the trial was due to end in Ceduna that they would be extending it, and I have to say it was distressing news for many recipients who are trapped on the card and have expressed that concern to me.

The cashless welfare card restricts anyone on a working age income support payment to just 20 per cent cash and 80 per cent on the card. That is supposedly to stop spending on alcohol, drugs or gambling. As anticipated, the yearlong trial, supported by both the government and the opposition, has turned out to be a rubber stamp, spruiked with premature evidence, anecdotes and ideology for the entire year of the trial. Last year, journalists were sent bits and pieces from a so-called interim confidential report. When you followed it up straightaway, you could not get the report—strange, that! It was some sort of secret report. But, when I questioned the Department of Social Services in estimates, they were very clear at the time that no such report existed. I was fairly persistent about this. As people that know of my long-term engagement in this issue will know, I am persistently asking questions about income management and the cashless welfare card in estimates. No report existed.

Miraculously, a week and a half later, a report appeared that had very clearly been thrown together and that sought to justify the minister's and the government's claims that the trial was going really well. Unfortunately, there was not a proper analysis of the raw datasets that were thrown into the report. Those were not questioned. The sweeping statements and anecdotal feedback were treated by the government as if they were gospel. It was very clear that it was nothing more than a set of anecdotal comments that the minister and some departmental staff had been talking about.

The government is now justifying the trial continuation on the basis of the wave 1 interim evaluation report, which was done by Orima. It is the first part of the evaluation of the sites. Surprise, surprise! The government is saying how successful the trial is and extending the trial beyond the initial period. I have to say I am really not surprised, because that is what we thought would happen all the time. That is what we warned the opposition about, and that is exactly what has come to pass.

The government are claiming this is proof of concept. It is so far from it that it is unbelievable, but they are still claiming it is proof of concept and that it justifies them extending the trial when half—I should be correct here: 49 per cent, or half, basically—of the participants on the card are saying they are worse off on the card. The KPIs that the Orima report talks about are not even the same as the aims of the legislation. So we are measuring these KPIs, and they are not actually about the aims that are contained in the legislation and that the government said they are aiming for. But just look at a couple of them; I am not going to reel off the whole of the report. Look at 'Output KPIs—performance rated fully effective/KPI target achieved'. Tell me how anybody that is actually reading this without rose-tinted glasses on could take that from this. It says:

The Wave 1 survey—

I will come back to the dubious survey process in a minute—

found that (on average across the two Trial sites)—

so here we are averaging the information—

25% of CDCT—

cashless debit card trial—

participants and 13% of their family members reported drinking alcohol less frequently since the Trial commenced …

Twenty-five per cent—oh, good! I can see that KPI is met! They are saying 25 per cent is successful when half of the participants are saying they are worse off. They ignore that but say 25 per cent say they have drunk less.

Let's come to the survey. The survey is basically push-polling. We saw this in some of the dubious evaluations that were carried out on the Northern Territory intervention, where they did the same sort of thing. They asked participants, 'Are you gambling less?' Well, of course they are going to say they are gambling less if they are going to try to get off the BasicsCard up there. 'Are you looking after your children?' They know it is a government backed survey. Will they say, 'Oh, no, I'm not looking my children and I'm not feeding them'? They will say, 'Of course I'm feeding them better.' That is not a proper evaluation of the success or otherwise of the card.

The report goes on about other particular issues. It says:

The Wave 1 survey found that (on average across the two Trial sites), around a quarter of CDCT participants who reported using illegal drugs before the Trial commenced indicated that they had been using illegal drugs less often …

Again, wouldn't you expect people to be saying, 'Yes, we're using drugs less often?' Only a quarter of those, by the way, said they were using drugs less often, yet this trial is supposedly a proof of concept and an outstanding success. No, it is not.

Then let's look at an example of the outstanding qualitative evidence they are supposed to have.

The following positive impacts of the CDCT on drug use were identified by the qualitative research:

o   A CDCT participant who had previously been addicted to methamphetamines (ice) but had stopped using ice due to limited access to cash …

That's a great evidence base, isn't it?

o   A family who was now consuming less marijuana due which had allowed them to spend more money on clothes and food …

o   A few stakeholders felt—

they just felt—

that the frequency of marijuana usage had reduced due to limited access to cash.

They felt it? Come on, what sensible, thinking person who actually looks at scientific rigorous evaluation thinks this is an adequate evaluation and proof of concept? You are push-polling people who are, of course, going to say they are drinking less alcohol, when they are asked by a survey mob they know is reporting to government. Of course you are going to get a biased sample saying, 'Yes, we drink less. Yes, we're looking after our kids better. Yes, we're not gambling so much.'

The evaluation report, in fact, reports against just one of the government's supposed four aims of the trial, specifically the aim to reduce the amount of certain restricted payments available to be spent on alcoholic beverages, gambling and illegal drugs. This aim is not proved. I have just read out to you that only 25 per cent of the participants say that.

First, they are connecting the two trials, which means you cannot get an effective clear picture of East Kimberley and Ceduna independent of each other. Second, alcohol restrictions make it virtually impossible to make any clear analysis of the impact of the card. The report largely ignores the alcohol restrictions in Kununurra—in fact, a report has just come out on that. I know the community up there is very concerned, because I have had contact from them that the report is ignoring the work that has been happening around alcohol restrictions. It needs to look at that. They cannot draw the conclusion that it has been successful in relation to alcohol, because they simply do not have the proper data. Third, there is poor analysis of how recipients are getting around the card. The police still think there is a problem with alcohol. The report says that it is not reporting on how people get around the cards. I will come back to that in a minute.

Aim 2, to determine whether there was a reduction or decrease in violence or harm in the trial area, was not properly examined. The increase in domestic violence is, strategically, not reported—neither are the rates of suicide, self-harm, anxiety or depression. As well as this, the key up-to-date statistics from the South Australian and WA police have been left out of the report. In the South Australian trial site and the areas surrounding that, they have seen a large jump in robbery and related offences, up 111 per cent. Aggravated robbery is up 120 per cent, non-aggravated robbery is up 400 per cent and serious crime trespass is up 20 per cent. Where is that in the evaluation report? How is that proof of concept?

Aim 3, to determine whether such arrangements are more effective when community bodies are involved, is not examined. In this regard, the failure of the panel and the collective community action against the card has been omitted from the report. There has been no assessment of the involvement of the leadership groups and the panel process. People do not know who are on the community panels—they do not know their faces. The department admitted that in estimates. The department said, 'We are not releasing the names of the panel.' These people are being judged by their neighbours and by their peers, but they do not know who is judging them when they try and get either an exemption or a reduction from, say, 80 per cent to 50 per cent of their money quarantined.

Similarly, there has been a lot of concern expressed, and that is why community groups, individuals and participants are concerned about the card. You have to question the amount of money that is being given out—and I will come to that quickly on Ceduna—in relation to this trial and how it has impacted on community groups. You have to wonder whether they are more supportive of the card because they think that they will not get the additional funding that has been going into communities. The fact that the communities do not know who is judging them is deeply concerning. Lastly, aim 4 is to encourage socially responsible behaviour. That aim is not examined either.

People are getting around the card, for example, by shopping. I have visited the Kununurra trial site and I have spoken to people who have supported the card, to people who have opposed the card, to participants and to some of the leaders up there. It is fair to say that the community is very divided over the card. You do not have to be up there long to find out some of the ways they are getting around the card. One of those is through shopping. One of the things that the proponents of the card and people who were supportive in the community—non-participants—were saying about the card was, 'Oh, you see a lot more Aboriginal people in the supermarket.' Do you know what is happening? Card holders are going to people that have cash, are doing their shopping for them and are then keeping the cash while putting the shopping on their card. One person said to me, 'They're walking around the supermarket with a list.' That is because they are buying food for somebody else. That is just one way that they are getting around the card.

For the reasons outlined above, it has simply not been demonstrated, and there is simply no clear evidence to show, that the trials meet the four aims or provide proof of concept. Other concerns raised with me include the extremely poor research in the report and the inclusion of views of non-participants in the report. The difference is very clear when you look at participants and non-participants. Non-participants have a higher rate of thinking that the card has been successful and people's lives are better. People are looking at other people and saying, 'Your life's better because you are on the card.' Whereas, the people on the card are saying, 'No, it's not.'

As I said, it has divided the community. There was a complete lack of consultation. Claiming that there has been any improvement as a result of the card—just the card, not the services—is ridiculous, particularly when you look at the extent and the breadth of the funding that has gone into the services in Ceduna. I am not for one minute arguing against the fact that we should be putting money into these communities to improve services. I strongly argue that we should be, and that communities are disadvantaged to the extent that they are because these resources have not been going in. Why is there no adequate discussion of this in the report? They write it off by saying, 'A lot of people didn't know about the services, so they obviously haven't used them, so they obviously haven't had an impact.' I do not think that is a fair conclusion to draw.

There is no mention in the report of cost; no attempt has been made to calculate the net benefit. Given the government's ongoing narrative about budget stress and the need for budget savings, wouldn't you think they would be looking at it if this is in fact a cost-effective way of addressing disadvantage? I argue very strongly that this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with the government on that point at all.

Eva Cox has been doing some analysis of the report, and has done a paper on that. She says: 'The lack of serious scrutiny of the data on outcomes of the trial to date is deeply concerning. This program is flaunted as being aimed at fixing the supposed problems of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and is also a wider experiment in income support reform. The inadequate scrutiny of the program could well be linked to racialised assumptions that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are somehow less capable of managing their money and should have their affairs controlled, regardless of whether they drink or have other behavioural issues. Some assumptions are then extended to others receiving working age payments and eventually may extend even further. In the report, recipients are in fact blamed for the majority of cases where the card was declined at stores, in fact I spoke to a number of people who were in the situation where their card was declined, and I would suggest the people I spoke to would make valiant attempts to use the card.'

It goes on to say, 'There should be more education to assist participants to be more confident'—in other words, putting the blame back on the participant. The minister's claim that the report provided him with 'strong, independent evaluation results' is disturbing, and is in fact a myth. There is no clear proof of concept, because there is no independent data confirming validity of any of the claims or anecdotal evidence put forward in the preliminary report.

This is flawed research and flawed evaluation for the government, but when you think about it the government always wanted to extend this trial. We have already had numerous people out there saying they want to extend it to young people, they want to extend it nationally or to the regions. This trial is based on the government's ideology, not on evidence. We know that from the Northern Territory intervention. That is indisputable. This approach should be abandoned. The trial should finish and the government should invest the money that they are spending on this on better services and better ways of achieving outcomes we all so desperately want. I urge the chamber to support the disallowance.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nick Xenophon Team will not be supporting this disallowance. The cashless debit card trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have attracted their fair share of critics. However, what is frequently overlooked is the level of support for these trials, especially from Indigenous leaders in these communities.

The independent Wave 1 interim evaluation report produced by ORIMA Research concluded that overall the cashless debit card trial has been effective to date in terms of its performance against the key performance indicators established in the evaluation framework. The report says:

In particular, the Trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling – establishing a clear 'proof-of-concept' and meeting the necessary preconditions for the planned medium-term outcomes in relation to reduced levels of harm related to these behaviours.

The report claims that the findings:

… indicate that the reductions in these behaviours have been largely driven by the impact of the debit card quarantining mechanism and not by the additional services provided via the CDCT package or factors external to—

the debit card. The report acknowledges:

At this interim stage there is only limited evidence of early impacts on crime, violence, injuries and perceptions of safety … these medium-term outcomes were not expected to be seen in this timeframe and will be the focus of Wave 2 of the evaluation.

I will briefly speak to these conclusions.

Firstly though, I want to note that while the evaluation appears to be comprehensive in terms of consideration of KPIs and did include a survey of the local population in the trial communities, there is no substitute for direct engagement with community members and leaders and on-the-ground experience. I have visited Ceduna twice since I was elected, for a total period of three days, meeting a number of organisations and services and chatting to residents on the street. That is because it was important to me to hear directly from the local community about their experiences, rather than forming an opinion based on what I thought residents might think or what was being reported in the media. To anyone in this place who has views about the card, especially strong views about this card, I encourage you to visit these communities. I encourage you to speak with those who are living the experience. To not hear directly from those who are participating in the trial and those who are living around them is, in my view, an abrogation of our duties as parliamentarians.

If I had to summarise the views of the individuals, businesses, community groups, health workers and NGOs I have spoken to I would say this: the trial seems to be working, but it is still too early to tell. When I first went over at the end of September last year, the general feeling was that the card was working, but there was a lack of data and information in the community to support that perception. But it was also noted that the services that essentially support the trial were vital to any change. For example, the Mobile Assistance Patrol, which provides transport for individuals affected by alcohol or other drugs who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. The bus also results in an increase of admissions to other health services, such as the sobering up unit, by providing transport to this facility instead of those people spending their night on the streets. This highlights the difficulty in interpreting data without the full picture.

Issues that were raised with the card usage were being resolved relatively quickly with services such as the Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation helping cardholders with financial management and issues such as lost cards. The inability to obtain a balance at an ATM had been a common complaint, which was also worked through. Some services noted they could operate better if the positions which were created under the CDC package were able to be filled by qualified staff before the CDC trial started and if there was better retention of staff in general—a challenge faced by many services in rural and remote communities.

I spoke with some local Indigenous people who were walking by me on the street: one said the card was not working because he did not have 'enough cash for booze'; a young woman shrugged in response and said she thought it was ok. The people I spoke to who opposed the card seemed to do so because they fundamentally believed it was wrong to impose the card on welfare recipients, but many of these people were not on the card themselves.

I could go on and on about the feedback I have received, but I will now quickly turn to the data. The findings which were released last year by DSS and the latest by ORIMA can be difficult to interpret because, for example, with respect to crime statistics for Ceduna, the entire local service area is covered, which is a significant portion of the west coast of South Australia. Poker machine use also covers other towns, not just Ceduna. Alcohol stats in the ORIMA report are based on self-reporting. The local supermarket in Ceduna has apparently had a significant increase in trade, particularly of fruit and vegetables. The data shows that the purchases at the supermarket using the card have increased, but there are no stats for before the card was implemented.

As for findings in the ORIMA report, the survey found that on average in the two trial sites 25 per cent of trial participants reported drinking less frequently. Indicators relating to illegal drug use showed some improvement, with participants reporting less usage of illegal drugs since becoming CDCT participants. Gambling had reduced overall, and in Ceduna poker machine revenue was 12 per cent lower compared to January 2016. The report acknowledges that there remain issues such as the lack of awareness or understanding about card usage, and other criticisms such as community panels not being established in a timely manner.

Other issues have been faced by the community, such as grog running—on which I have engaged with the South Australian government, calling for legislative reform—and predatory payday lenders signing up debit card holders. Again, that is an issue that I have taken up with the federal government.

But, as I said earlier, at this time it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. Although feedback on whether the card is in fact working or not is mixed, in my experience the strongest and most desperate views came from the community leaders advocating for it to continue. Simply pulling the plug on the trial is not an option. The consequences of flooding an almost cashless community with cash would be dire. Multiple groups told me that, when money came into the community during the trial by way of inheritances, tax refunds or insurance payouts, alcohol consumption, violence and gambling spiked, and this is also reflected in the data.

If, in the future, community leaders decide that they no longer wish for the debit card to apply to their community, then a withdrawal plan would need to be in place. But it is the Nick Xenophon Team's position that, having engaged with the Ceduna community in particular and considering positive statistics in the independent evaluation with respect to gambling and alcohol consumption in particular as well, we should listen to the community leaders who have asked for the trial to continue.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor opposes the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination 2017. We do not believe in a blanket approach to income quarantining. That is not an option for Labor to even consider. We do not believe it should be rolled out nationally. Senator Siewert has strong views on this, and the Greens have strong views, but people that we have engaged with have equally strong views, and people in the communities have equally strong views. Their views are in opposition to the views that the Greens have put here today.

This is an extremely tough issue. This is an issue about future generations as well as the generations that we have trying to deal with the problem now. We understand that the vast majority of people on income support are more than capable of managing their own finances, but the level of alcohol abuse in some communities just cannot be ignored. Labor supports community-driven initiatives designed to tackle alcohol abuse.

When I was listening to Senator Siewert, I had a look at the NACCHO Aboriginal health site, and there was a quote there. I will just read that quote. It is from the Wunan Foundation's Ian Trust, Desmond Hill and Gelganyem Trust chairman Ted Hall. They said:

It is our view that continuing to deliver the same programs we have delivered for the past 40 years will do nothing for our people and, besides wasting more time and money, will condemn our children and future generations to a life of poverty and despair,

Our children will continue to be removed from their families because their families are not safe, many of our children will be born with FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) and never be able to receive a good education, and a large percentage of our people will go to prison and, in some cases, commit suicide. We believe that this trial could be the catalyst for breaking the cycle of poverty and despair in the East Kimberley.

That is an equally strong opposite view from local community leaders in the Kimberley.

Senator Siewert talks about anecdotes and ideology. I do not think it should be about anecdotes. Labor does not say it should be about anecdotes. We do not believe it should be about ideology. We believe it should be about what the community wants, what the communities need and how we resolve these intergenerational problems. We support, as I have said, community-driven initiatives to tackle alcohol abuse.

We offered our support to the Cashless Debit Card Trial in both Ceduna and Kununurra. We did that because we consulted with local Indigenous communities, and the feedback we got was similar to the quote I gave. It was that people needed help; they needed support; and there was a huge problem that had to be dealt with. So we listened to the people in Ceduna and Kununurra and heard that they are desperate for action to tackle these issues in their communities. Community leaders in both locations offered their support for the Cashless Debit Card Trial. These communities wanted the trials to take place, and we will continue to listen to them in coming months.

The interim evaluation of the trials has also been made publicly available. The evaluation has found that overall the trial has been effective, in particular in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling. The final evaluation is due to be completed in June this year. We will scrutinise the report and listen to people in both Ceduna and Kununurra about the trials. We will not simply rely on anecdotes or ideology that might underpin any of the arguments or issues; we will listen to the people of Ceduna and Kununurra about the trials.

We know that these problems cannot be ignored—and they will not be solved by income quarantining alone. We are not saying income quarantining will fix these problems. But there is a desperation amongst many of the community leaders and many in the community about trying to deal with these issues. That is why we gained a commitment from the government to provide additional supports for participating communities, including an initial $1 million for community services in Ceduna and an additional $1.3 million to support families in Kununurra. You cannot just put in a debit card and say that will solve the problem. There needs to be wraparound support. There needs to be mental health support. There needs to be health support. There needs to be drug and alcohol support. These are the issues that wrap around the debit card or that should be the fundamental issues that are dealt with in the community.

These are complex, multidimensional problems; they are intergenerational problems; and they are social problems of great significance. The current approach to substance abuse in some areas of Australia is not working, and we must give proper consideration to new ways of addressing the tragic devastation of drug and alcohol abuse.

And it is not just Indigenous communities that are faced with drug and alcohol problems. I have not drunk for I think it is now 40 years. I know I cannot drink, so I do not drink, but I had lots of support to deal with that problem. Not many in Indigenous communities have the support that I had when I knew that I had an alcohol problem. This is an issue that has to be dealt with not just in Indigenous communities but also everywhere else. When I was listening to the debate earlier about taxation on alcohol, I kept thinking back not to the debates about how efficient the alcohol tax should be; I kept thinking back to what my life would have been like if I had not been able to get off alcohol. It would have been devastating. Look at the health problems many families have and the financial problems many families have. The family violence that comes from alcohol and drug abuse is huge, absolutely huge. So I do not find it intellectually substantial for people to come in and argue a point of view when they do not understand these other issues—that it is simply about a card. It is not about a card. It is about far more than a card. People are crying out for help, so there needs to be more help, and it is not just a card that will address the issue. So we have got to find other ways of addressing drug and alcohol abuse.

We do not support introducing a cashless debit card to all young people on social security under the age of 18. There is no formal proposal by the government to do that at this stage. We do not think that welfare quarantining can be useful unless it is well targeted. It has to be well targeted. And we do not believe it should be rolled out nationally. We do not believe in a blanket rollout. We certainly do believe that this is a trial that was requested and sought by community leaders and many in the communities, and we will have a look at the outcome of the second report. We will not simply look at the report, read the report and come to a conclusion.

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

Like you did with this one, then?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, you can interrupt all you like. You can yell all you like. I know how passionate you are about this, but you should put some of your passion aside and be a bit dispassionate about the issues that the Aboriginal communities and all communities in these areas are facing. We should look at what wraparound services need to be put in place and how we put finance into those areas that allow people to get out of the intergenerational social problems that are there.

So we take the view that the community has asked for this and we will look at it, but we will go back and talk to the communities. We will consult with the communities. We will make an assessment separate from a report as to how this is working out. We will talk to Indigenous leaders, we will talk to the Indigenous community and we will try and make the best decisions we can in relation to this. We will not have just an ideological, blanket view. We will not engage in assertions that this is wrong. We will not engage in assertions that this is not helping the community. We will have a look at it and we will analyse it, because alcohol and drugs in the community are a big problem.

I have heard it said that alcohol is part of Australian culture. Well, for many, it is a bad part of Australian culture; it is not a good part of Australian culture. I am not a wowser. I do not say people cannot drink. I just recognise that as an alcoholic I cannot drink. I have actually talked to Indigenous people who did not have the support that I had to deal with that terrible disease of alcoholism. People need help. They need support. This card is seen as one way to do that. But there are many more things we will have to do in relation to this. So I stand by Labor's position that we will have a look at the report, engage with the community, talk to Indigenous leaders and other community leaders, and make a decision about this. But we will not support—we will certainly not support—a blanket rollout of this card across the country.

I think the alcohol industry should be doing a bit more to put funding into these communities to support them. As part of any trial, I would call on the alcohol industry to look at what they can do in a positive way in these communities, instead of just taking profits out of these communities, putting more people into poverty and creating bigger problems. There is not just a need for the Greens, Labor, crossbenchers, the Liberals and the Nationals to debate these issues here; there has to be an approach, I think, where the industry that is making a profit out of people's misery actually does something constructive.

For some time we have called for an alcohol summit in this country. I believe that there should be an alcohol summit, and that could go hand-in-hand with a drug summit. We need to talk about these issues. We need to deal with them in a dispassionate manner. We need to look at the devastation that has been wrought on our communities in relation to these issues. On that basis, we say this trial has still not been finalised.

We do not support a disallowance. We will look at this in a strategic manner. We will analyse the report. We will talk to the community. My view is we should also be talking to the alcohol industry. They have a contribution that they should be making in these communities as well.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation will not be supporting Senator Siewert's motion to disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination 2017. I was fortunate enough to be invited, by Andrew Forrest, to a meeting with Aboriginals from Ceduna and Kununurra. That was the reason to sit down and talk to them with regard to this card. At that meeting, over a lengthy period of time, they explained to me about the card and what it meant to their communities. They said that it had improved their communities. They saw less domestic violence, they saw less drinking and they saw more children start to attend school. They thought it was far better in their communities. They were praising the card, and they expressed to me their opinion on that.

We talk about pouring more money in to deal with the Aboriginal issues. Yes, there is a drinking problem. Yes, there are drugs. There are problems, such as domestic violence, that are not only in their communities. We see domestic violence throughout Australia. In dealing with the problems there over the years, I have seen billions of dollars being thrown at this whole thing to deal with the Aboriginals. Years ago I called it an Aboriginal industry. It was costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. If anyone spoke out about it, complained or questioned where the money went they were called 'racist'—you could not talk about it. I think it needs to be talked about openly and honestly.

I have been informed that we spend approximately $5.6 billion a year to deal with Aboriginal issues. Senator Siewert mentioned that we should put more money into services. I have just been over to Western Australia, and I visited Kalgoorlie. They are having a huge problem with the Aboriginal people there that are coming to town. They are accessing alcohol. They are sleeping on the streets. The councillors are saying, 'We don't know how to deal with this whole issue.' They informed me that there are about 170 different agencies, and yet they have this problem. The agencies do not work together. They do not communicate with each other. There is no cross-referencing of anything. We have this ongoing problem. The agencies only work from nine to five, and nothing happens after that period of time. The police have their hands tied. They do not know how to deal with this issue.

Having the card, as we have seen and as they have told me, restricts them from spending money on alcohol and on drugs. There is another issue. With the Aboriginal community usually if someone has something they must share it with the rest of the community. If a family comes along then they share what they have, whether it be money, alcohol or whatever they have. That is their culture. That card cannot be transferred to anyone else. When they know that they cannot get money from that card to gamble, to buy alcohol, to buy cigarettes or to buy drugs then the money is used wisely—to feed the kids, to buy decent food and to pay the bills. That is important. That is what this is all about.

If we really care about these people and want to do something about it we have to have an opinion and work together to help them. Regardless of whether they are Aboriginal, whatever people they are, if anyone needs this assistance in a community then we should look at it. We should look into what the community wants. Clearly, in my discussions with them, this is what the community wants. It works for them.

For too long I have heard too many bleeding hearts saying their opinions without truly looking at the whole issue that is happening here. It is the same as when I went up to Palm Island years ago. I saw what was happening up there; I walked around the place. I had three men—one was as young as about 15, and he was drunk at around about two o'clock in the afternoon—say 'Pauline, we want to work.' That is what they want to do, but no-one wants to get involved or say anything. I was accused of going up there, and I was called a racist. This is what is happening. They want someone to stand up and speak up for them, because they have real problems and real issues.

We need to start making the tough decisions and start really investigating what is happening. There is an Aboriginal industry out there. There are people who are abusing the system and ripping off taxpayers' dollars. It is not going where it is supposed to be going. Everyone shuts down, because it is taboo—you cannot talk about it. I believe in having an honest discussion about this. We should talk about it, because I know these people are.

I went to a meeting in 1998. I had all the media there. I had about 12 Aboriginal women and children who were in the room. They held up my hand and said, 'We have been hoping and praying for someone like Pauline Hanson to come along, because our women are being bashed and raped, and our kids are glue sniffing.' Nothing was reported, because they could not possibly do that. All these years I have been ridiculed about it, and what needs to be done is just openness and honesty. We need to talk about these issues that are happening, because they are crying out for it.

When I went up to Port Hedland recently, two Aboriginal women came up to me and said: 'We need a royal commission into Aboriginal spending, about where the money goes. Where do our royalties go? Where does our money go?' They are questioning the whole system as well, because it is not going where it is supposed to go. They want to see improvements. They want to see their kids educated. They want to see law and order in their towns. They want decent housing. And it is not because the Australian taxpayer has not paid billions of dollars into this industry; they have. The Australian people have paid for this. But there are people who are not being accountable to taxpayers—and not to their own people. I have seen this over the years.

I do support this, and I think we need to listen to the communities, and that is exactly what I have done. They do want this. And as regards those under 18 years of age getting this, I do support that. That is another thing that we must look at. As I have travelled Australia—and in rural and regional areas, and not only there but every place, we have a drug problem. There is a huge ice problem in this country. These kids are getting on the ice, because they cannot get jobs, because there is no future for them and because they are depressed, and so they get caught up in taking drugs. If the have cash in their pockets, of course they are going to buy the drugs. If having this cashless card means these kids cannot get cash to give to the drug dealers out there—these parasites that are feeding off them—then this may be the way to stop it, so that these kids can have a chance.

Forget about feeling soft and bleeding-heart over everything. Start making some touch decisions and ask the parents out there how they feel about it. Would the parents encourage this? Ask the Australian people if they want to see a cashless society for these kids that are under 18 years of age. Will it benefit them? Because a lot of these parents that I have spoken to would dearly love to have the right answers, and clean up the mess that this country is in. If we do not start dealing with the ice problem and the drugs, heaven help us and our future generations. Thank you.

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

I will not be supporting this either. As a matter of fact I have spent four or five days in Ceduna on a couple of different trips. I have heard all the positives. I have looked at all the help that Minister Tudge has put in there to make sure that the card makes it easy for people, so the help is sitting there. It was all aligned; it was all done well. I watched him, and, as soon as something came up, within 48 hours he fixed it. Everything has been thrown at this.

When I was over there, it was nice to see—I walked up and down the streets for two days. I walked into most shops. I talked to—did not matter what colour skin they were—if they were outside the courts or they were inside the courts, I went and spoke to them. I went out to the communities. They want this card. First of all they are finding that their kids are taking lunch to school. They are getting breakfast. The elders are not getting bashed because the younger people in the community are not trying to get money out of them because they do not have any. That is a good result in itself.

I can tell you that I feel really proud of myself as a taxpayer that I was feeding my son's ice habit, because that is where his social security benefit was going—to him and his mates! It makes me feel really proud that I was really a part of that! Every Australian is a part of that, because that is our tax and that is our money. I am not investing that money into the future of our kids, because that does not give our kids a future. That does not work. I watch my girlfriends that I grew up in public housing with, and their kids are not getting what they need and it is not just because they do not get much on welfare because their money is going elsewhere. I watch what comes into their households—and, I tell you what, organised crime is a very bad thing. The only people that are winning out of our taxpayers' money right now are those organised crime gangs out there.

You cannot tell me that somebody who is on welfare—that 20 per cent cash that goes into their proper bank account—has any more cash left over than 20 per cent. If you have, then you probably do not need to be on welfare. By the time you pay your rent with the little bit of welfare you get—there is your rent; you put food on the table for your kids; you are paying your electricity bill—then you should not have any more money than 20 per cent left over. You are getting 20 per cent of that in cash. You cannot tell me in 10 years time there will actually be cash around. Everybody will be on cards. That is where we are heading.

By feeding taxpayers' money into these people who already have issues what we are doing is feeding their habits, whether it is alcohol or drugs. It is absolutely disgusting. Fifty per cent of those on disability support pensions in Tasmania are on that because of drug and alcohol problems. And we are not doing anything about that. I absolutely commend Twiggy Forrest for what he has done. I have seen his 27 recommendations for creating parity, and I too—through the chair—like you, Senator Hanson, want that damn card rolled out to those kids under 18. I want it rolled out. I have seen kids out there. It was brought up in an ice committee last Friday—10 years of age and I said this and I have said it before: they are on ice pipes. What are mum and dad doing—that are on welfare? Where is the money coming from? You cannot tell me that kids that are under 18 years old should be spending that money on alcohol. They should not even be buying it. There is something terribly wrong.

We are not giving it to them as a gift. Welfare was never meant to be like that. Welfare is meant to help you when you are down and out. It is not meant to feed your habit. That is not on. And the sooner we get this card rolled out right across Australia for that first group, the better off we will be. That is the first generation we are going to start breaking. We are going to start breaking the cycle. Do you know how much heartache that is going to save families? Do you know how much money that is going to save the economy? Do you know how much that is going to lessen the impact on our public hospitals?

That is what it will do. But let me tell you what: I do not want to take responsibility for my taxpayers' money feeding somebody else's son's ice habit. That is not on. That is why I will not be supporting this.

It is time to change, and sitting here and talking about it, taking years to do it, is only making it worse. Like I said, the people who are really benefiting from this are the organised crime gangs out there, and they are having a nice time taking advantage of our kids. For goodness sake, the trials are working and are doing well. But I do not need to see a trial, because I spent long enough on a disability support pension, on welfare. I saw it when I lived in public housing; I grew up in the damn thing. I could already sniff and see what this card would do before it was even given out for trial. I thought: 'Beauty! This is something that's finally going to work; we just have to iron out the creases as we go.'

A trial was a good idea. But those trials are nearly over, so let's get on the front foot and keep the momentum going. Let's get it out for those kids who are 17 years and under, because they should not be buying drugs or spending taxpayers' money on alcohol. It is not on. They get 20 per cent in cash and they do not need any more than that. The other 80 per cent should be helping them out with buying clothes or whatever. Twenty per cent is more than enough, and I do not want the momentum stopped. The Greens like to talk about social justice, but social justice is not taking taxpayers' money and making the situation worse by giving it to people to go and buy their ice or drugs or alcohol with.

It is rampant out there. I live in Tasmania, one of the most disadvantaged places in Australia. It makes me cry every time I walk outside my office, which is right near Kmart and outside a taxi rank. Do you know what the taxi people say?. They feed in to me. I know it is getting worse. They know who the dealers are. They are taking people to pick them up. This is what is going on out there. This is an absolutely chronic issue, and we now need to take it on lock, stock and barrel. Twenty per cent is enough, and that is why I will not be supporting this.

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

It looks like the government does not want to make a comment. In summing up and addressing this I want to make a few comments. I am passionate about this because I have looked at the evidence. I have looked at the Northern Territory intervention and the final evaluation, and I urge anybody looking at this debate to read that report. It did not meet any of its projected outcomes. It failed.

I want to explore this issue of people 'feeling' that things do better, because that evaluation showed that people there felt that things were improving. But, when the evaluators compared the evidence of what was changing on the ground with another community outside of the NT, there was no difference. People felt it was better. In fact, it was not better. That is why I am so passionate about where the report says 'people felt this'. It is all very well to feel it. The psychology suggests that, because people saw money being spent and a trial being done, they thought things were better. But the evidence is not there. Senator Cameron said he will look very carefully at the second report—well, please look very carefully at the interim report. Please look very carefully at this, because I spent quite a lot of time going through this report and showing that the evidence is not there.

I want to make a comment to those who are worried about 'the cash that will go back into these communities if we go off this trial'. That comment horrifies me, because what you are saying is that we always knew that this trial was inevitable and it was going to be entrenched because putting cash back into the community was in fact going to have a devastating impact. I know there are problems in these communities, and I am desperate to solve them, but this is not the way to do it.

With that, I urge you to support this. In the future you will look back, like people have done with the NT, and say it does not work. Even though the government is continuing with the NT intervention, the evidence shows that it has not been working. Please disallow this, and let us look at what really works. I am as passionate as anybody else in this chamber about trying to find out what really works.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert to disallow the determination be agreed to.