Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is an important debate in this House today, and I'm pleased to be standing here supporting the amendment moved by the member for Barton. Labor does not support this bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. Once again, it's necessary for me to speak out in this chamber against this government basing policies on ideology and not evidence.

Once again this government is failing to heed the voices of First Nations people. Once again this government is making life harder for people in our community who already do it tougher than most. Once again this government is wasting money on an ideological crusade instead of investing in job creation and making our communities safer for all. Twelve years after the beginning of the Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory broad based income management has worked to improve outcomes for First Nations people. Yet, as the member for Barton has already pointed out, during NAIDOC Week of all times, this government is pushing forward with an ideological crusade that discriminates against First Nations people.

This bill will make the cashless debit card permanent in the existing trial sites of Ceduna, the East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. It will permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory. It replaces the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in Cape York and extends income management in Cape York until 31 December 2021. It makes it easier for a person to volunteer to be placed on a cashless debit card and allows a person to remain on a cashless debit card when they move outside one of the prescribed areas. And it enables the secretary to review and revoke cashless debit card exit provisions if the secretary no longer believes that the person who exited the card is reasonably and responsibly managing their affairs.

I was amazed to hear in Senate estimates just the other week the relevant minister admit that she had not read the long-awaited review by Adelaide University before she and this government decided to make the cashless debit card permanent. That says so much about this government's callous disregard for people's lives—that they could press ahead with this without paying attention to the facts, without paying attention to the evidence and without paying attention to what's actually going on. So, in a bid to help the minister and this government, let me outline what some of the relevant research has found.

Researchers from four universities said in a report released in February this year that they'd uncovered an overwhelming number of negative experiences stemming from the card, ranging from feelings of stigma, shame and frustration, to practical issues such as cardholders simply not having enough cash for essential items. They said:

Our research illustrates the empirical case for continuing with the current policy settings—

on compulsory income management—

is weak.

Further:

Our research is certainly not the first to suggest these set of policy measures require a fundamental rethink.

What other evidence is out there? Well, as I said before, income management was introduced as part of the NT Intervention, and the evidence we have on the record from the final evaluation of the Intervention is that it did not meet its objectives.

When looking at the cashless debit card trials, the Australian National Audit Office found, 'It is difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm.' Further, the evaluations funded by the government have not shown that the card is achieving its objectives. The government-funded Orima evaluations and an evaluation by the University of Adelaide have been called into question by numerous academics because no baseline data was collected for a comparison. So that's all the evidence we've seen. That's the work this government has apparently put in to tell us that this will work. It doesn't show that. In fact, it shows the opposite. As I said, what this government is embarking on is an ideological, discriminatory crusade based on no evidence. It is having a discriminatory and really harmful effect on a lot of people's lives.

To go into that further, I'd like to talk about some of the reported experiences of people who are living on this card. The university study I just mentioned found that people reported having not enough cash for essential items. People said that they had difficulty providing for their children and for other family members because the way this system works means they don't have enough cash to do that. That includes comments like, 'They impact what I can and can't do with my children, like take them out in the community,' and things like: 'School excursions are cash only. The fair and Christmas parade activities are predominantly cash only. I have four children, and 20 per cent doesn't get us that far.' So these families are feeling discriminated against in their own communities. Children are missing out in these communities. It's a program that's meant to be supporting families and children, but the evidence, the comments and the stories we have from people involved are that it's doing the exact opposite.

People on the card reported not being able to do things like buy second-hand goods—buying things that may be cheaper second-hand, such as university textbooks, or maybe a new fridge. They can't access that because of the way the card works. Again, how ridiculous: in a situation where we're meant to be helping and supporting families who are struggling, we're making it harder for them to access this part of the economy. People reported difficulties paying rent and other bills.

Again, in this research, survey respondents identified challenges in paying their rent, including rent to private landlords, and other bills because of glitches with payments by the cashless debit card. These circumstances were usually beyond the user's control, but of course they have implications for the management of their finances, their financial track records and the security of their housing. In separate reports community businesses and operators have spoken about people struggling to use the card in their businesses, so they're being locked out as well. When money could be being spent in the economy, supporting small businesses, people are being locked into big retail chains, where they can use the card.

The simple reality of this bill is that it's racially discriminatory. The rollout of the cashless debit card as proposed by the government will disproportionately impact First Nations people. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise: 68 per cent of the people who will be forced onto the cashless debit card are First Nations Australians. Over 23,000 of the 34,000 people impacted by this card will be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, and that includes more than 18,000 people in the Northern Territory. This is a failure of this government to work with First Nations people.

We've heard from the recent Senate inquiry, from numerous other forums and from First Nations people and organisations speaking out against this bill and against the card. Just to make sure that some of those voices are heard in this place, I will quote from Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory. Theresa Roe, from that organisation, told the recent Senate inquiry that this program risks disempowering First Nations people. She said:

We have experienced income management for the last 13 years and it has created more harm than good.

Over this period poverty and unemployment has worsened … it has been a vehicle for disempowerment and continuing trauma and stigmatisation.

Ms Roe said she was alarmed that the federal government planned to roll out the scheme across the NT and triple the number of people on the program. She said:

The cashless welfare card has not even been adequately evaluated and yet the government wants to rush to legislate this.

And all of this from a government that tells us it's actually taking a new approach to closing the gap, that it's listening and working with First Nations people. What an insult. What a case of saying one thing and doing another thing. Is it any wonder that First Nations people feel frustrated by what happens in this place? Is it any wonder that they don't feel that their voices are heard when there are policies like this which have such a fundamental impact on their lives, on their families' lives, on how they can conduct their business and on what they can buy and where they can buy it? And all of this happens with no regard to evidence, no regard to what First Nations people are telling this government. It is all based on ideology.

As we've heard, Labor is not opposed to income management in all circumstances, but we are opposed to broad based compulsory programs that catch and disempower the wrong people. We know that income management can be justified when it's targeted, such as in child protection situations, but it should not be indiscriminate or broad-sweeping, which is what this government is proposing. Again, we know that in some communities there has been genuine consultation and people genuinely do want this card. But that's the exception, not the rule, and it's not what this bill does. In Cape York, the local community is applying income management based on individual circumstances, supporting families and monitoring outcomes. That's appropriate where the community supports that happening.

I've talked a lot about evidence. We know that the very slim area where there is some evidence that this works—or may work—is when people are doing this program voluntarily rather than compulsorily. The evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory found that compulsory income management usually does not bring about improvements but voluntary income management might. Again, though, that's not what this bill does. This bill compulsory puts people who haven't been consulted adequately, who have said they don't want to be part of this, onto a card that is discriminatory, that affects how they care for their families and that there is actually no evidence to support.

I have heard from the other side that we're just scaremongering when we talk about the fact that they may roll this out even further. That's nonsense. Some of their own members have been quoted in the media talking about how it should be rolled out further. So if this government isn't going to pay attention to the evidence of what's happened so far, there is a genuine worry that they could propose an even greater rollout with no evidence. Everything we have seen to date suggests that they're not doing this based on evidence; they're doing it based on ideology. We know from Senate estimates that the government has established a technology working group with the big banks, the supermarkets and Australia Post to look at how this could be rolled out through a payment system. That is what you do if you're thinking about a national rollout. People across the country should be concerned about what this might mean for their ability to control their money, to provide for their family, to do the things I was talking about—have excursions in their local community, buy goods in the second-hand markets, support local shops—and not be discriminated against based on no evidence. Based on current form, people should be very worried about what the government's next plans are.

This bill represents a triumph of ideology over evidence. It's an insult to the people and communities it affects. It is an insult to our First Nations people—in NAIDOC Week, of all times. If the government are genuine about working with First Nations people, if some of the rhetoric they give this place is actually something that they're going to see through, they should look at the evidence. They should look at the evidence and read it before they propose bills in this place that relate to it. It's just sloppy. It's rude. It's discriminatory. This government pays so little attention to the reality of vulnerable people's lives. They pay so little attention to the reality of what it means to have a system that means you struggle to work out how you pay your rent and how you support your family. This is a backwards move; it's not a positive move. It doesn't create jobs. It doesn't provide any additional investments that might help people who receive welfare payments to understand finance better. It doesn't provide any additional support for them and their families in terms of how they work their lives. All it does is discriminate against them—and with no evidence.

Being in this place, I have heard from the government about how it's taking a new approach to closing the gap. Apparently that's an approach based on working with Aboriginal people—hearing their voices and working with Aboriginal led and controlled services. That is not what this bill is and it is not what this bill does. This bill is an insult to all the people that the government says it's working with. The Coalition of Peaks have done so much work to put in place this new Closing the Gap framework, and the government is saying to them: 'None of that matters. The evidence doesn't matter. What you have told us doesn't matter. In fact, what matters is our ideological crusade here and what our backbench tells us.' This bill doesn't create jobs, it doesn't help communities, it doesn't build new houses, it doesn't close the gap. It's discriminatory. There's no evidence. It should not go ahead.

See this speech in context