Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm rising today to speak on this legislation to outline my concerns surrounding the program and the potential implications of making it permanent. I welcome this opportunity to detail why I think it is not the best way forward. To be clear, I'm not at all seeking to condemn those who want this program in their communities. They are not in any way without empathy or care, and indeed I know them to be good and decent and caring people, and I do believe that they want the very best for their communities and to see individuals thrive. There are also community leaders who do support this program for the same reasons. But I note, from the recent research, that there are others over the years since the rollout who have backed away.

Whilst I can see there are measures in this bill which are an attempt to address the stigma that surrounds individuals in this program, these measures miss the point. Stigma is not just external or how our society perceives someone. In all the conversations that surround stigma, we fail to recognise the internal or felt stigma that people experience, making them feel other and less than due to their circumstance. Despite the proposed changes, so much damage has already been done, with many recipients reporting separate lines in supermarkets or an inability to shop at some stores at all, as referenced in the recent Senate report. If that doesn't make you uncomfortable, it should.

There are countless reasons why someone may need government assistance. Certainly, after such a tumultuous and difficult year, many Australians are sadly experiencing for the first time what it means to be without work. Our government has responded accordingly, with appropriate measures that are temporary, targeted and scalable. This program could and should have the same approach, perhaps utilising the card as a temporary tool, targeted towards people who have demonstrated that they need assistance on a fixed time basis with the appropriate support to transition. Applying a broad brush to all recipients in the current sites, no matter their circumstances, is harmful and unhelpful.

There's a high level of anxiety that exists elsewhere in the country beyond the three trial sites. In the northern Tasmanian community that I proudly represent, I've had distressed people, including pensioners, ask me if they will end up having their income managed. And with the amount of time and money spent in addressing the current challenges of this program, it is difficult to believe that this program will end with these current sites. No matter your circumstance, relying on government assistance is difficult not only financially but mentally and emotionally. I have been a recipient of government assistance at different times in my life and I can understand the distress that so many forced on to this card would feel. This system of income management strips away autonomy and a sense of pride, no matter how well intentioned. Government imposing control in this way is not a fix to the myriad of issues driving disadvantage and at best it is a bandaid. Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help. The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays in to the very worst of human nature; we're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something 'other' or 'less than'. That's not the Australia I want to live in. I'm standing here as I believe in an egalitarian society and equality of opportunity, and dividing our society into us and them is not the Australia we should aspire to.

I also have a fundamental problem with how this program and this legislation aligns with my own principles. As a Liberal, I believe in personal and individual responsibility. It's the very foundation of our core principles. We work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives. Forcing the cashless debit card program on to people unless, or until, they can prove to the government that they can manage their own finances is antithetical to these principles. Do these principles only apply if you're not poor? I believe we're better than that. It should be pointed out mutual obligation measures are already in place for those needing government assistance and it's appreciated that a range of such measures is expected. However, the level of intrusion imposed upon recipients of this program is overreaching.

The cashless debit card program is a punitive measure enacted on the presumption all welfare recipients within the trial areas are incapable of managing their finances and require the government's assistance. I acknowledge that some communities are more likely to experience generational disadvantage and have generally poorer outcomes in a number of areas. These are all good reasons for the government to provide assistance to address these problems. However, it is not clear to me that the cashless debit card program is the best solution or even a good solution to address some of these systemic issues. Of course we should be looking to address the substantial challenges of intergenerational disadvantage and we shouldn't shy away from that, but I don't believe that this is the way.

One mother of two in Hervey Bay told the media she understood what the government was trying to do. She said:

I understand where they're coming from, growing up in a high drug and alcohol area as a child and having been a victim of parents not doing the right thing.

But they don't need to punish everyone. The fundamentals don't work and it's not targeting the right people. When I have to call these people—

to complain about her transactions being declined—

and I have anxiety, it's quite upsetting and it’s stressful.

Just doing stuff to our communities is not the same as helping. You will always get better results when you empower people to do things for themselves. If we truly want to move the dial on intergenerational disadvantage, we need to address complex issues like trauma and put in place a range of effective, evidence based programs that work to address the issues that keep communities in poverty. It's claimed the cashless debit card program is delivering significant benefits in the communities in which the trial has operated. The Cashless debit card trial evaluation: final evaluation report indicates that those benefits are limited in nature and scope and do not demonstrate an overall improvement in the conditions which the program is intending to address. I do acknowledge that the report found some reductions in the consumption of alcohol, illegal drug use and participation in gambling by program participants, but it's not clear whether the program delivers meaningful change in the long term or just controls behaviour in the immediate sense. There is just not enough evidence that supports the view that this program is a game-changer for these communities and the individuals placed on it to justify the associated harm that it causes.

The program has also been presented as a solution to many issues. However, it casts a wide net that, in my view, punishes recipients as a collective rather than having regard for individual circumstances. It places the burden of demonstrating the ability to manage your finances on the individual, thereby making the default assumption that recipients are incapable of managing their finances. This only serves to stigmatise and marginalise recipients and doesn't fundamentally address the wider issues. In doing so, it also drives assumptions that addiction, gambling and domestic violence only occur in disadvantaged communities. We know this is untrue.

The cost of trialling the cashless welfare program has amounted to more than $80 million since 2015. It's somewhat ironic to me that you can essentially have an income management assessment trial for half a decade that can't show conclusive results and yet there are a number of evidence based programs that cost far less and that have demonstrably worked—programs like Healthy George Town, which was rolled out in my home town, an area recognised for high rates of disadvantage and where I served as mayor. Together with Lucy and Penny from Healthy Tasmania, we fought for a minute amount of funding—$150,000 for 10 years. I was thrilled when the federal government funded the program last year. In less than 12 months, this program has delivered over 1,000 hours of healthy lifestyle activities to hundreds of locals.

The Healthy Tasmania team has also rolled out the Healthy Quit program to eight participants, with three quitting smoking entirely and all significantly reducing the number of cigarettes smoked per day. In just seven weeks, participants saved over $2,000. The same group has also rolled out Healthy Shed initiatives at a local men's shed, with a focus on improving the overall health of participants. Of those participants, 100 per cent said the program made them more confident to manage their own health and 50 per cent said that by the end of the program they were feeling less depressed as a result of their involvement. Of course these programs are not a magic fix to the systemic issues that exist in areas where there's significant disadvantage, but it is evidence based programs like these that play a critical role in addressing the issues that can keep individuals from being active participants in their own lives. Implementing a range of programs and initiatives to support communities where disadvantage exists can make a difference and probably at a fraction of the cost.

I find it extremely disappointing and frustrating that we would look to support income-management systems like this while not addressing the reprehensible practices of payday lenders. We are seeking to manage people's income on the one hand while, on the other hand, allowing highly predatory payday lenders direct access to our most vulnerable. This is a complete contradiction and a damaging one at that.

We must move to investing in long-term solutions that create sustainable and meaningful change. The very concept of this type of control of our communities is anathema to me. The immediate challenge that we have is: what's the alternative for these trial communities right now? With just a few weeks of the year left, there is a great deal of uncertainty for those who have been on this program for a very long time. There are not alternative payment structures in place, so to just stop it in its tracks will potentially cause further disadvantage. After such a long trial phase, it would require some work to transition away from it again. I will continue to advocate for that to occur, and it's the only reason I'm not voting against this bill today.

In my first speech, I stated that I want to be a genuine, authentic representative for my northern Tasmanian community and that I would fight for better outcomes for every single person I represent. This type of program will never be accepted in my community, and I want to make it unequivocally clear today that any proposed future expansion of this scheme will not have my support.

See this speech in context