Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that reducing social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling abuse is a key priority nationally and for local communities;

(2) recognises that the Government is currently trialling the cashless debit card in two communities—Ceduna in South Australia, and the East Kimberley in Western Australia—in partnership with local community leaders in those communities; and

(3) acknowledges the:

(a) hard work, dedication and commitment of community leaders in Ceduna and the East Kimberley in co-designing the trials with Government, and their leadership in its implementation and delivery in their communities; and

(b) positive initial results of the cashless debit card model in the two trial communities, including the strong positive feedback from the community on the ground.

The trial thus far, as it stands in both the East Kimberley and Ceduna, is an example of the rewards of strong and resolute leadership from the federal government and from the state government in South Australia, who have become our partners in this trial, but also and particularly of local leadership, where a point was reached that enough was enough. Too many of their families and friends were dying prematurely from alcohol and drug abuse. Too many families were being destroyed by alcohol-fuelled violence. Too many children were being damaged by violence and neglect.

The cashless debit card was introduced in Ceduna on 15 March this year and in the East Kimberley region on 26 April. My direct contact is primarily with the Ceduna region, and most of my experience with the trial is in that spectrum. However, I have also viewed the data from the East Kimberley trial, and their experience seemed to be relatively uniform.

The card directs 80 per cent of a welfare recipient's income to a cashless debit card account. The other 20 per cent is allocated to a standard account. There are only three restrictions on the way a recipient can spend the 80 per cent. It cannot buy alcohol. It cannot be spent on gambling. And it cannot be converted to cash, which helps eliminate drug purchases. These three limitations are embedded electronically in the card, which is visibly identical to a standard debit card, and follow the recipient wherever it is used in Australia.

So many people no longer carry significant levels of cash. We are indeed the tap-and-go society, virtually everywhere. Anything from a chocolate bar to a coffee or a box of tissues can be bought with a simple wave of this undistinguishable card. For those very few places not participating, the recipient still has 20 per cent of their welfare income available. Honest appraisal would suggest that this is probably more than the average welfare recipient spends on luxuries.

There have been a number of critics of the trial, with groups like the Greens trying to whip up public concerns about personal freedom and choice. I say to them: these communities have made a choice. They choose to take control of their lives. They choose to help those who cannot help themselves. They choose to have safer families and choose to try to help their friends and families overcome their addictions. They choose to live longer.

In the Ceduna region, arrests under the Public Intoxication Act have fallen by more than 50 per cent. Much lower levels of alcohol are being registered at the sobering-up unit. Poker machine revenues are officially down by 15 per cent. However, the assessment area covers the district council areas of the Streaky Bay, Elliston and Lower EP councils as well, which are unaffected by the card, suggesting that the figure is probably double that in Ceduna and at least a 30 per cent drop on gambling revenues.

There has been a strong uptake in financial counselling and capability services. Fewer people are requiring homelessness services. Anecdotally, food and clothing sales are up, and the grocery supply trucks to Oak Valley have gone from one a fortnight to one a week. In fact, the biggest issue facing Oak Valley at the moment is the overcrowding in housing as a result of the far greater number of residents living back in community rather than living rough on the outskirts of Ceduna.

In Wyndham, admissions to the sobering-up unit are down 69 per cent—69 per cent—and there has been a 28 per cent fall in the call-outs for the ambulance service.

These are far better results than anticipated, which are undoubtedly improving community and household safety. The results also fully justify the actions of the local community leadership teams that have led the change. Certainly they have come under pressure, but they have stood firm in pursuit of building safer, stronger communities, and they are to be congratulated. It is very enlightening that there have been a couple of spates of cash inflows into the community. While statistics are yet come to light from the most recent bout, there is no doubt that they have resulted in a serious relapse of behaviour—drunkenness, violence and antisocial behaviour. It is also important to note in the Ceduna circumstance that Ceduna is not a predominantly Indigenous town; it is predominantly white, so this policy is affecting people right across the community and is having a very good result, it must be said.

So far, this is not any more than a trial and any decisions about other communities and wider adoption are some time off. However, if the trial improves the lives and the community of Ceduna, why would it not do the same in Port Augusta, Adelaide or in the middle of Sydney? (Time expired)

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grey for putting this notice of motion on our business for today. Let me say at the outset that I have no in-principle opposition to a debit card. I have made that clear in the past. I was very opposed to the BasicsCard, which was introduced in 2007 as a result of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response by the Howard government. It stigmatised people. It was selective in its use. It did not apply across the board. It was very difficult to use and people found it severely wanting, including commercial providers of services. For example, commercial providers of services were excluded. In one instance I can name, because they were a suitcase shop they were excluded, while Woolworths, who also sold suitcases, were not. That was a major issue. However, at the time the legislation for this was introduced, I said:

So, if a person falls within a category identified as a compulsory participant, they will have their payments restricted. This happened under income management when it was broadly applied. This would inevitably mean that, regardless of your status and regardless of your history of being an employer or an employee, paying taxes, raising children and being a responsible member of the community, you will be impacted by this. You will automatically have your income debited through the debit system and have 80 per cent of your income quarantined.

That remains the case. I do not think there should be a blanket application of this debit card. We understand that the majority of people who are subject to this card are able to manage their own finances. I do not believe that a blanket approach is warranted. We now know it has been used for six months—as we see in Ceduna and also at Kununurra. It is true to say, however, that communities are a bit conflicted by the outcome so far. Some are claiming, as the member for Grey has done, that gambling and alcohol have been significantly reduced—I hope that is the case—while others say the community has only been superficially consulted and there have been not significant changes. I think the consultation issue is extremely important.

There is some qualitative research which has been done in the East Kimberley which tells us some of the following: cashless welfare card holders are using their cards as a bartering tool—this is happening—exchanging the debit card for alcohol and drugs and resorting to cheaper, heavily intoxicating liquor to suit their budget. Cashless welfare card holders are being exploited. Taxis and shops are holding onto the cards when the cardholders pay. People trading with the CWC holder are purchasing items on the card that are worth far more than the item exchanged. Illiterate CWC holders are at a disadvantage. All prior financial obligations have to be arranged, loans deducted et cetera, and they are more likely to be ripped off when trading. There is a whole range of issues and I could go on and on about the list of issues that is confronting people. There is a question about sly grogging and drug dealing. I think these cards have got to be done in conjunction with other measures such as a banned drinkers register in the Northern Territory—which should apply in Kununurra and does not.

I also make the observation that retailers can opt out. They do not have to be part of this scheme. I have a list of organisations in the member's electorate who have opted out and organisations in the member for Durack's electorate who have also opted out. It is not compulsory for people who sell liquor to accept the card. This was the case with Opal fuel and we legislated in this place to make sure—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not true. The Smoky Bay and Districts Community Club, for example, has excluded itself. The Thevenard Hotel has and the Penong Hotel has. In the case of Kununurra, the Pumphouse Restaurant has, the Drysdale River Station has and El Questro has. I understand why El Questro has because their clientele is a very different group. They are whitefellas and they have money—so they do not accept the card. I think there are real issues here about the application of the card.

I think there are obviously benefits to some. I accept that and I think it is important that we see how this works over the longer period. I am looking forward to seeing the independent evaluation when it is undertaken and knowing who the independent evaluators are. It is extremely important that we understand this cannot be done in isolation. It must be done in terms of liquor, in terms of supply measures which need to be done and are not being done in the case of the Kimberley but which are being done in some measure at Ceduna. There is a lot more debate to be had about this and a lot more consultation that needs to take place to get what community members want, as opposed to what so-called community leaders think.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the member for Grey's private member's business. Social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling abuse is a key priority for this government, and that is the reason the government initiated and has started trials of the cashless debit card. I do want to underline the word 'trial' because indeed it is a trial and we will assess this in another six months' time.

The Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage report, which was released on Thursday, found rates of family and community violence were unchanged between 2002 and 2014-15, and that risky, long-term alcohol use was similar during the same period. The proportion of adults reporting substance misuse in the previous 12 months increased by seven per cent to 31 per cent during the same period, according to the report. Despite numerous initiatives by governments across all tiers and of all persuasions during this period these results are, I think, incredibly disappointing for all of those who are in this House. They illustrate what I said in this place only last year, following the Closing the gap report, that more needs to be done.

The cashless debit card, which has been trialled in Ceduna in South Australia and in the East Kimberley in my electorate of Durack, was introduced to reduce social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol and drug abuse—particularly with respect to domestic violence and mental health issues—and to increase childhood school attendance overall. The trial of the card in Kununurra and Wyndham, which started in April, has had a profoundly positive impact on the West Kimberley, leading to a decrease in crime and also to a decrease in general antisocial behaviour in the region. Senior Sergeant Steve Principe, head of Kununurra Police Station, said that since the trial started there were fewer intoxicated people in public, which is great news for the people and the businesses in the West Kimberley, and also for tourists as well. And more positive news: the ambulance call-outs have dropped by 30 per cent from this time last year according to the local ambos. There has been a dramatic decrease in alcohol-related hospital emergency room visits since the trial began in April, which illustrates the flow-on effects that reducing alcohol consumption can have.

The success of the trial in the East Kimberley is, without a doubt, due to the leadership and courage of the local Indigenous leaders. I would like to pay tribute today to Ian Trust and I would like to quote some words of his that I have read just recently:

Unlike other reform efforts undertaken by government, it has been the Indigenous leaders of the East Kimberley who have led this reform…

And he goes on to say:

We believe it's a model that could drive reform across the country.

I accept that this is still a trial and that there is still a long way to go, but I have to say that from where we are in the East Kimberley I do agree with Mr Trust's observation.

Under the trial we have seen a reduction in family and domestic violence incidents. I am particularly proud that this government announced another $100 million last year with respect to the Women's Safety Package, and that last month the Prime Minister launched the third action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. I am very pleased that in January the Marninwarntikura Fitzroy Women's Resource Centre, which is based in Durack, was awarded an additional $150,000 to help to address domestic violence. The funding was to allow the centre to provide workshops and smaller focus groups designed to be managed by a group of Indigenous leaders and supported by staff experienced in running committee initiatives, while promoting and enhancing the safety and wellbeing of women and children. This is real action run by locals in local communities. I do congratulate them and June Oscar for that particular grant.

With the time remaining I want to make the point that, with every scheme we have, whether or not it is an alcohol management plan, there is always someone out there who will scheme the system. There is always someone who will take advantage of the disadvantaged. This is a trial. So far, there are some who are knocking it, but there have been a lot of positive impacts from the cashless welfare card, and I think we need the time, another six months, to run before we can fully assess it. We need to hang in there because, by and large, the benefits outweigh the negative impacts of the card to date.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion by the member for Grey in relation to the cashless welfare card. I have to say at the outset that I am quite shocked that government members want to congratulate themselves in the Indigenous affairs space. I hear the member for Grey when he says this is applicable to everyone, but let us not kid ourselves: this is aimed at Aboriginal people. This is not an issue for chest beating and self-congratulations when it comes to this government's record in Indigenous affairs. While the government has made much of some positive initial results, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the results that we are speaking about today are very early and not the result of any comprehensive analysis or proper evaluation, and I find that unacceptable. In fact, the government has refused to provide any detailed analysis to any stakeholder who has requested it.

I am also sceptical of reports based on assumed correlations and individuals' views. The government must tell us what its evaluation framework is. It has so far refused to do that. The recent Productivity Commission report highlighted that many programs designed to help Aboriginal communities never undergo any proper analysis or evaluation. I am concerned that the government is repeating that mistake here.

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of visiting the Northern Territory to deliver the Menzies School of Health Research oration. I spoke about the need for government to recognise that the solutions to the issues in Aboriginal communities need to be found within them, not imposed on them as this card has been. Advocacy organisations have been defunded, and the voices of the Aboriginal community increasingly are being stifled. Cutting funding to the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and to vital Aboriginal legal services—

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ): The member for Grey will desist.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

are not the actions of a government which is serious about ending Aboriginal disadvantage.

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Half a million dollars cut from the Indigenous affairs budget is an issue of major concern, particularly when it comes to any policy which—

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Grey refuses to take note of the chair.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by its very nature must limit the freedoms of Aboriginal people. I spoke in Darwin about the 1886 Coranderrk petition by William Barak, who lamented that his people were not able to leave their reservations when they needed to and that they were deprived of the basic rights to make their own decisions.

The motion congratulates the communities in Ceduna and the East Kimberley for their work with government in helping to design the trial, and I do agree with that sentiment. But I also note that the grassroots Aboriginal communities in Ceduna and in the Kimberley have raised concerns directly with me that they have not been properly consulted. Early success cannot be used as an excuse to impose this system on more communities without consultation and cooperation.

I have noted in recent weeks that the government is yet to announce a new trial site for the program. I was the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs in New South Wales when the third trial site was supposed to be Moree, and the Moree community would have nothing of it. I urged the government not to react by forcing an unwilling community to take part. That would be the return of paternalism in its worst form.

If the trial is working, and I hope it is, it is only because the government is engaging with the local community and allowing their voices to be heard. If those opposite believe that this is working purely because it limits welfare funding, they do not understand the nature of disadvantage.

I would also like to note for this place that the wording of the motion is problematic. Welfare does not fuel alcohol dependence or drug addiction. These are symptoms of much deeper problems. While removing the ability of addicts to purchase alcohol or drugs will help in the short term, it will not solve those underlying issues. What is required is proper treatment centres, not an imposed so-called solution. Those issues can only be solved by people on the ground and well-funded and culturally appropriate social outreach programs. If you ignore the cyclical nature of these issues you are only treating the symptoms, not the cause.

I am glad to hear of some positive changes very early on, but I urge those opposite not to see some positive results as a reason to return to the dark old days of paternalism and punitive measures. We have seen time and time again that punitive measures and paternalistic approaches do not work. They will not work. They never have worked and they will not do so in the future. I join with the member for Grey in welcoming some early positive outcomes, but I also say that this cannot go anywhere without a proper evaluation. And it is just not fair.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for Grey. I support his words and also those of my colleague the member for Durack—my two closest neighbours. We share many common communities. The member for Barton mentioned that, in her previous position, she was privy to the fact that the community of Moree refused to take on a trial site. That is of great interest to me, because I want to talk today about a community in my electorate who were desperate for a trial site but did not have the opportunity because the government was negotiating with Moree at the time. I would like to open my comments by saying that, across the House, I am sure we all agree that reducing social harm, particularly in these remote communities, is bipartisan and a priority for the parliament in general.

My electorate of O'Connor is home to many remote communities that are struggling with high levels of unemployment and social dysfunction. Tragically, in late 2015, we had a spate of youth suicides in the small community of Leonora. The town was in absolute despair. Four teenagers had taken their own lives in a town of 240 people. While visiting the town in the aftermath and speaking to some locals, a very well-respected and very dear lady, Nana Gay Harris, approached me to say: 'How can we stop this? How can we do something about it?' All that I could offer that was not already in place or was not already being implemented was a cashless welfare card, which I stressed was not a compulsory thing for the community. The community would have to agree to it, embrace it and endorse it.

Within days—and I give him great credit for this—Minister Alan Tudge was on a plane and on his way to Leonora. We had a community meeting with many Indigenous leaders, local shire councillors and other people. Among some of the people who were there were Geraldine Hogarth—and I want to give Geraldine a shout-out; she was recently appointed a member of the Order of Australia; Nana Gay Harris; Bruce Smith, who is a very senior Indigenous elder in the area; as well as Patrick Hill and Peter Craig, who are two local shire presidents. The community leaders were very receptive to hosting a cashless welfare card trial. I have to say there were a couple of people who did not like the idea and felt it was an infringement of their rights. That is quite a valid point of view. They made their views clear. But certainly the majority of the people in the community, and very much the majority of Indigenous leaders in the community, welcomed the idea of a card. That meeting was followed by extensive consultation by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who went and met with individuals and family groups across Laverton and Leonora shires. I strongly believed then and still strongly believe now that we have to take this opportunity for governments and communities to work together for a better future.

Unfortunately, there were some other trial sites being considered—the aforementioned Moree—and then an election intervened. Leonora and Laverton, who were desperate to host a trial, missed out. In discussions with the minister recently, he has indicated that we are now going to wait until we see the trial outcomes. I am very encouraged by the early results, and I will come to that in a minute. I sincerely hope that the bipartisan support that we saw for the initial trial will be continued, if the government decide to extend the trials at other sites.

I will just touch on some of the results that have already been mentioned, which I think are well worth mentioning again, and that is that Ceduna's poker machine revenue was 15 per cent down between April and August as opposed to the equivalent period in 2015. The monthly apprehensions under the Public Intoxication Act were 54 per cent lower between March and June 2016. These are not verified numbers, but I am assuming that they are reasonably robust. If you take out all of the people gaming the system, a 50 per cent reduction in the number of people presenting as intoxicated is a significant figure. If we go to Kununurra, where we saw a 69 per cent reduction—these are extraordinary numbers—I think the early stages of this trail are very encouraging and give me great hope that we can make a real difference in the communities that desperately need our help and that desperately need us, as a government and as a parliament, to come up with real solutions that work.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to make a contribution to this debate today on the motion before us from the member for Groom. What an important issue it is. This is an opportunity for the Australian parliament to give serious consideration to how we might best address some of those community issues that people have raised with us time and time again around how best to tackle issues of family violence, unemployment, health and education.

What the contributions before me from both the member for Lingiari and the member for Barton really pointed to was that, rather than members opposite engaging in self-congratulation on the early results of the cashless debit card system, it was time for us to ask important questions, to make some observations of those early, initial results and to ask ourselves seriously: is this the best approach that the Australian parliament can offer? We know that the cashless debit card was designed, in the first instance, to try and deal with some of the very real issues that community members raised in terms of the impact of gambling, alcohol and drug abuse in some of the communities. Whilst promising signs are there—we heard members opposite refer to the downturn in the income generated by pokies in the town of Ceduna, which is a great thing—let us see more money being spent in town than put through the pokies for anybody. This is a scheme that was very explicitly applied to the whole of the community. I would be very interested to hear a little more from members opposite as to the scheme's impacts on and benefits for the non-Indigenous communities. I have not heard anything about how many non-Indigenous people have been caught up in the cashless debit card process. I would be very interested to hear some figures around those non-Indigenous people who are taking part in the program, what the results were for those people participating in the program, and, importantly, what their feedback and lived experience were of that program, because we know that there is not universal endorsement of these schemes.

Regrettably, members opposite who were interjecting throughout the member for Barton's speech earlier on very clearly demonstrated the problem with trying to silence dissenting voices on this issue. I think it is very short-sighted of government members not to want to take genuine critiques of the program seriously. If you are dead serious about wanting to ensure that this program is the best it can be, the first thing you would do is take that critique on board, see if you can adjust the program and see what needs to be modified. This is a trial. This is the perfect time in which all members of this parliament, and, indeed, the community, should be taking an opportunity to stand up and see what is working and what is not, and to take seriously those criticisms that have been made. It is not just the member for Barton raising this. We know there are members in your own community, Member for Groom, who have raised some concerns around the use and deployment of the cashless card in your community. It is no secret. It is a matter of public record.

We know that at least two-thirds of those on the cards in Ceduna are Indigenous people, so we know that it is going to have a disproportionate impact for Indigenous people. We know that a Ceduna resident and elder, Ms Sue Haseldine, said that those caught up in the trial who were not addicted to alcohol or drugs have been particularly frustrated with this system. She expressed grave concerns around the fact that there was a lot of depression for those people whose kids are going to school in Adelaide. When those kids need money you cannot send them a BasicsCard; you need some cash to be able to forward to your kids there, but those parents were absolutely deprived of that. And there are many other genuine concerns.

I think that this parliament would be better focused by taking on board those critiques, reminding ourselves: if we genuinely want to deal with violence, domestic violence and health issues, let's not cut our budgets; let's make some serious inroads into those issues. (Time expired)

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.