Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019—it doesn't really roll off the tongue! In doing so, I wish to state that I cannot support the bill in the form in which it has been presented by the government—or really any other form. I find this legislation highly discriminatory and insulting. Like much of this government's legislation, it's nasty, it demonises people and it doesn't support people. We've heard for a long time about the robodebt tragedy, and I do call it a tragedy in that it demonised and punished people for being poor. We've heard about the government's refusal to increase Newstart. Indeed, today I went to a presentation demonstrating that there's no area of Sydney that's affordable for those on Newstart benefits to house themselves.

This legislation, if it were to pass this parliament, would apply predominantly to First Nations Australians, with 80 per cent of the people on income management in the Northern Territory being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Of course, many other people around Australia are worried about the government's intention to roll out this cashless debit card throughout Australia to the populations dependent on welfare. They're worried about the way it will demonise and damage people. Here we have a discriminatory piece of legislation, and the government have not even tried to mask what they're doing. Instead they're content with looking as though they're controlling the lives of some of the most disadvantaged individuals in our country without providing them with support.

The government has failed altogether to consult with communities, and we should be disgusted by this. We should also be disgusted by the lack of any form of evidence in support of the cashless debit card. Indeed, 12 years after the intervention we still cannot say that there is evidence to support mandatory and broad based income management. Because of the lack of evidence, one has to wonder why this is still being debated in this place. Indeed, there's evidence to the contrary. The Menzies School of Health Research has published data showing that in those populations in the Northern Territory affected by the income management the birth weights have fallen by approximately 100 grams per child, which is a really significant negative effect.

Let's call this legislation out for what it is and what it really seeks to do. It lays the foundations for a national rollout of the cashless debit card to some of the poorest people in our country. We know there are several members opposite who would seek to have such a scheme implemented, and some of them come from some of the wealthiest electorates in the country. I wonder what the people in Point Piper, North Sydney, Chatswood or Toorak would feel about management of their incomes. I, for one, will not support a scheme being forced onto communities without their approval and without consultation.

Labor, of course, will be moving amendments to this bill in the other place, which will emphasise the government's failures in the House of Representatives. When the legislation comes before the Senate we will be seeking to make the cashless debit card voluntary, as it rightfully should be. To be quite clear: a national rollout of the cashless debit card should not be considered. There is simply no evidence to suggest that broad based income management and cashless debit cards actually work to improve the situation of the very disadvantaged.

We always see the government being morally righteous—acting as though the state knows what is best for the individual and how they should live their lives—with the poorest but not with the richest, particularly when they're talking about some of the most vulnerable in our society. I put it to the government members opposite that their pay cheques come from the same place that Newstart recipients receive their payments from: the Australian taxpayer. Perhaps those opposite should reconsider their approach. If we were to apply cashless debit cards universally, to all government payments, would those opposite be keen to see a cashless debit card implemented to manage their electorate allowances, or even their salaries? Goodness knows, some of those opposite do not know how to handle a budget. Look at the blowout in the national deficit over the past six years. Maybe those opposite would reconsider their moral authority on these matters if they were unable to freely access their travel allowances during sitting fortnights, instead having to account for every single dollar and cent that they spend—much like the government is trying to force entire communities to accept. Again, the arguments of the government fall apart here. Members and senators and those who receive social welfare are paid by the same people, and I know plenty of jobseekers and welfare recipients who work harder, or would worker harder if they were given the chance, than some of the members opposite.

I am pleased that the government has taken on board the amendment, moved by Labor earlier in the year, which would allow people to come off the cashless debit card scheme if they were effectively managing their finances. However, this does little to address the poor attitudes adopted by those opposite. Nor does it address the fundamental problems of the debit card being imposed upon people indiscriminately, without any consideration of their personal circumstances. Nobody should be forced onto such a scheme. Either they should choose to use the card or the community should make an informed and locally based decision that they want to opt in to having the card. To force people onto this scheme is totalitarian in nature and typical of the government's paternalistic and uncaring attitude to the poorest in our community.

Further to our amendment, which will make the scheme applicable on a voluntary basis, Labor will be seeking to ensure that the scheme cannot be rolled out without the express support of the community that it will affect. If our amendments are successful, the minister will rightfully have to demonstrate that the rollout has the support of the community and that there has been extensive consultation with women's groups, community members and health groups. It is evident that there needs to be further independent evaluation of the cashless debit card, and Labor will be seeking to ensure that this evaluation takes place.

Furthermore, the minister should not have the power to quarantine up to 100 per cent of an individual's payment. I don't see how this would benefit anyone. In particular, how is a person in need of help supposed to seek help if the government is starving them of the limited support they have available?

The government's logic here is very flawed. Labor would seek to ensure there are ongoing wraparound services made available in areas where the cashless debit card would apply.

I want to be quite clear here: Labor is fundamentally opposed to a national rollout or extension of the cashless debit card scheme. We have serious doubts as to the scheme's effectiveness. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this scheme would help people and not further ostracise individuals. It's quite demeaning and it is stigmatising to make people have a cashless debit card for their income. This scheme would prevent people from purchasing the basic essentials at affordable prices, and it is very expensive.

Under the stewardship of the coalition, the number of people over 55 years of age who are on Newstart has surged by a whopping 45 per cent. This scheme would not create a single job. It will attack some of the most vulnerable in our society and provide very little comfort and assurance to those desperately trying to enter the workforce or improve themselves. Instead of attacking people who are in need of support from the government, the coalition should be refocusing its efforts on creating a plan for jobs, a plan for our floundering economy and a plan to support those who are most disadvantaged in our society throughout Australia. That is the kind of effort people who are seeking work deserve from their government. They deserve positive support in retraining, in finding jobs and in managing their own finances themselves, as opposed to the insulting attitudes that are espoused by the government in its persistent efforts to control individuals' finances and individuals' lives.

Even the Auditor-General has been scathing of the government in its assessment of the cashless debit card scheme. The government's support of such a program is completely unfounded. It's antiscience, anti-evidence and demonstrates how truly out of touch they are with the needs of everyday Australians. However, what we can be certain of is the fact that the cashless debit card has actually prevented individuals from accessing some of the most essential items at affordable prices. It's not only welfare recipients who stand to lose out under the scheme and the warped agenda of those opposite. Small businesses are also concerned about the impacts of the cashless debit card. Small businesses, such as discount variety stores, are concerned this scheme would affect their clientele and, further, would have a negative impact upon their businesses in terms of the cost of non-cash transactions.

As a former small business owner, I can attest to the cost of non-cash transactions and can fully understand why local businesses would be concerned about the rollout of such a scheme. We've even heard that people have left town altogether to avoid the scheme. I'm sure this will happen in most of the electorates where it is possible for people to move. They will move away. That is how insulting it is to individuals whose lives the government would seek to control. People would rather uproot their entire lives and leave town than have the government dictate their day-to-day lives and expenses. Furthermore, there are issues and flaws with the technology surrounding this scheme that make it easy to get around. It would seem the government isn't actually interested in follow-through here but is happy to maintain the perception that it acts tough and readily attacks those on social welfare.

If a community genuinely decide they wish to use the card, the government must make a serious effort to consult with them and provide them with the necessary supports. Those supports include access to education, jobs, drug rehabilitation, health care and, in particular, the social supports that many families require but are not being provided. They don't require more robodebt, more negative implications from the government in managing their lives, and more attacks. Anything less is insulting and highly patronising.

While not opposed to income management in all circumstances, Labor is opposed to such a broad based approach and compulsory programs. All that these types of initiatives succeed in doing is to ostracise entire communities, stigmatise communities, and catch and disempower the entirely wrong people. This is a style of government that we've come to expect from those opposite in the past six years. The recent retractions of robodebt are a further example of that. The government won't admit it was wrong, won't admit that it stigmatised people, won't admit that it punished the poorest and won't admit that it damaged people's lives, but it has snuck in and said that it is 'going to amend the debt collection from Centrelink'. This is the government really trying to hide what it is doing. They are not interested in leading from the front, setting higher standards for our society and providing the stability, humility and functionality that Australians could be proud of in a government and in a social support scheme. They instead seek to maintain the grip of government on the poorest, by perpetuating fear, causing division and creating enemies where none exist, to undertake cheap publicity stunts—and that's all they are.

Income management should not be indiscriminate. A recent report found that compulsory income management usually does not bring about any improvements, whereas a voluntary approach with appropriate social supports may. This report arose out of an evaluation into income management in the Northern Territory. The government's entire approach in this field is flawed and indicative of a government that has not learnt from the lessons of the past 200 years. The government should be approaching this notion of cashless welfare with a concept of self-determination at the forefront of their minds. People need support to learn ways of managing their own lives. They do not need punishment from a government desperate to stigmatise them. If a community wishes to try the card then the government should respect their wishes and support their goals by providing wraparound support services. On the contrary, we have a government that believes that they have the right to dictate to others how they should live their lives, particularly those on the lowest incomes and with the most difficult circumstances.

I have severe concerns about the government's attitude towards all welfare recipients. As I've said before, the complete refusal of the government to consider an increase in Newstart is really a tragedy unfolding. Their ideas around the cashless welfare card are in a similar vein. The government appears to me to be determined to initiate this totalitarian scheme without any consideration into the potential consequences and any evidence for or against, and with very little consultation. One would think that the government would have looked closely at the BasicsCard that was implemented at the time of the Northern Territory Intervention had they seriously wanted to improve the lives of welfare recipients and those who need support. The reality is that this scheme has had very little scrutiny and has never really thoroughly been evaluated—don't ask me; ask the Auditor-General. Instead, the government carry on with their sanctimonious nonsense, believing that they know what is best for entire communities. Twelve years after the Intervention, we still cannot say that there is evidence to support mandatory and broad based income management.

Let us call this legislation out for what it really seeks to do: lay the foundations for a national rollout of the cashless debit card. To be quite clear, a national rollout of the cashless debit card should not be considered. There is simply no evidence to suggest that broad based income management and cashless debit cards actually work at all. Thank you very much.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context