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

I'm very proud to stand in this chamber as the member representing the first community in Australia that had the gumption to attack one of the great social evils within its midst—in particular, excessive alcohol consumption. That community is Ceduna and the surrounding communities of Yalata, Oak Valley, Koonibba and a number of homeland communities around Ceduna. Ceduna isn't an Indigenous town as such—about 20 per cent of the population is Indigenous—and problem drinking is not just an Indigenous issue. That's why I was so proud of the community, with the charge led by their mayor, Allan Suter, and a number of Indigenous representatives who walked the mile with us and saw the introduction of the cashless welfare card in Ceduna.

I was very pleased with the interim report on the trial, which came down a little over 12 months ago, but was particularly pleased with the final report. The trial has been extended. I thank members opposite for their support of that extension, but I am incredibly mystified by their intention to try to deny the current legislation.

Let me tell you how good the cashless welfare card has been in Ceduna. It is extremely popular with the broader population, but also, from my interactions, with the majority of those who are on welfare, because the welfare card is so designed that it really won't impact on your lifestyle at all if you are managing your life well. If you are taking the payments that the Commonwealth gives you to care for yourself and your family in a correct manner, it will not have an impact. Increasingly in this world, as we all know, in the supermarket and in almost any shop you can just wave the card and it debits the account. One of the problems with the BasicsCard is that it came with a level of shame. The BasicsCard looks different—the blue card. When people that hold a BasicsCard go into a supermarket, everyone can see that they are on the blue card. But a cashless welfare card looks just like everybody else's debit card, so there is no shame. That's a great move forward.

So it is that I come to some of the key evaluations in the final report. In the first six months great improvements were made, with a reduction in alcohol and illegal drug use and gambling. After the wave 2 data, the second evaluation, we found that those reductions were not only sustained but also broadened, with a larger proportion of cashless debit card participants reporting reduced levels of those behaviours. I will start with one, being the reduction in gambling. For those people in the Australian community who gamble responsibly, it's a good thing—it is no problem if you manage it correctly. For those who have less disposable income to lose on gambling machines, there can be very harmful results for their families. If you are on a welfare payment, you must remember that that payment is for you to look after yourself and your primary responsibility—your family.

The intake of poker machines was shown to have dropped by 12 per cent. That does not sound like a big reduction, but the figures from the South Australian government survey actually cover another four communities besides Ceduna in the cashless welfare area. Those figures, which include Cummins, Lock, Streaky Bay and Elliston, where there are poker machine outlets, are likely to be much, much higher—I would suggest around a 50 per cent reduction, but certainly 40 per cent. That is considerable. The shops in the region have reported increased turnovers. In the case of Oak Valley, a remote Indigenous community some 300 kilometres out, there was one food truck every two weeks. Now there's a food truck every week. What a wonderful outcome for the people living in that community!

In the wave 1 examination, we found that 25 per cent reported they were drinking less frequently. In wave 2, that went to 41 per cent. In wave 2, people were asked how often they have more than six drinks on one occasion. Thirty-seven per cent more people said they are drinking less drinks than previously. Thirty-eight per cent of participants who reported drinking alcohol stated that they drank alcohol weekly or more often, which was a substantial reduction from the 63 per cent that were measured in wave 1, which we had considered to be a reduction on what existed prior to the welfare card. This is having an incredible impact.

Let me tell you a story, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was out in Ceduna—I visit it frequently—visiting the drying out centre about three or four years ago. They have a drying out centre there with 12 beds. I was talking to the staff—it was all quiet during the day—and I said, 'What was it like last night?' It was full. I asked, 'What was it like?' There were two couples. The men were bad enough. The women were far worse. That was the nursing staff's assessment. One lady was eight months pregnant, and she could not stop throwing up. Now, we know what damage fetal alcohol syndrome is causing in these communities. How can we stand in this place and deny a path that has shown it has effective results?

If this were a positive education type of touchy-feely thing that was working to the extent that these figures we are given tell us, it would be acclaimed not just in Australia but worldwide as an incredible breakthrough. That's why I'm so mystified, now that the Labor Party has walked away from what I thought was a very good mutual understanding that we would go softly, softly, consult with communities and build trust. It's worth pointing out that, when the 20 per cent designated figure was arrived at in Ceduna, we reached that by negotiation with the Ceduna community. It was suggested at one stage that 15 per cent of their income should be delivered in cash. They insisted on 20 per cent. The minister at the time, Minister Tudge, agreed to the 20 per cent. They had their fingers on this reform. I said to them at the time, 'You've got the chance, really, to set the parameters for the rest of Australia to address itself to.' And it has so happened. After that time Kununurra, of course, came on.

For so many things, across so many indicators, there have been great outcomes. In fact, it's really hard to find the flaw in the process. It comes back to this basic tenet that, if you're managing your income well and you're doing the right thing with your income, it won't affect you. As I said, 48 per cent of people are gambling less and 48 per cent of people are taking fewer drugs. I remember speaking to the mayor on one occasion. There was a little protest group and I said, 'Who's that over there?' He was a little dismissive but he said, 'I'll tell you who doesn't like this program. It's the drug dealers.' What a worry! The drug dealers don't like the cashless debit card, because, I can tell you, they don't carry around the little card reader. They're not interested in plastic sales. They're only interested in cash. So it is of great benefit. I've had approaches from a few people in the area who feel as though it's an infringement on their civil rights. One gentleman said that he can no longer buy meat from local farmers that has been killed on-farm. That's actually an illegal activity anyway, just quietly. People shouldn't be supplying meat to anyone from local farms, and certainly not for cash. If you're doing the right thing, it will not infringe.

As I have said before, I'm so proud of this community. They've really stuck their necks out. I said to them along the way: 'I believe you're forging a path for Australia. You are showing what may well become the way that welfare will be delivered right across the country because if it works in Ceduna, why on earth wouldn't it work in Port Augusta? And if it works in Port Augusta, why wouldn't it work in Adelaide? And if it works in Adelaide, why wouldn't it work in Sydney?' But it isn't as if the government has made a decision to do that. What it's doing is trialling this process around Australia. We've already got two communities participating that have a high Indigenous mix in their social profile, although Kununurra's Indigenous mix in their social profile is a little higher than Ceduna's. We also have Kalgoorlie, which is a bit of a step up, although its profile is a little less Indigenous, and Bundaberg is less so again. That's why it's so important to get this program into these areas and start knocking the barnacles off it. That's why it's been so good in Ceduna. When issues have come up in Ceduna, we've been able to address them quite quickly and then alter the template for what we might do in another place. I remember being contacted by an op shop. They said, 'We don't have a proper connection to be able to get the plastic card to work.' We managed to fix that quite quickly. These are the little teething issues.

I think there are some myths out there. I've been told anecdotally that a number of families and individuals have shifted from Ceduna to Port Augusta, around 500 kilometres away, to get away from the cashless welfare card. That's an absolute furphy, because you can't get away from it. If you are listed in a community at the time the cashless welfare card is implemented, you cannot just change your address and leave those requirements behind. And that cashless welfare card will work the same all over Australia. Sure, there are more things to be done with it. We will have to use more finesse in working on this card, which is why it's so important it now goes into larger communities with different social make-ups.

I fully support the card. I'm the member who has had to stick his neck out over this card. Let me tell you how popular it is: people from all over my electorate come up to me and say, 'You're on the right track.' We believe that people need to manage the income allocated to them from the taxpayer in a correct and proper manner; that they use it for their good health, their benefit and especially for the benefit of their families; that they manage those families correctly; that they get their kids to school, they get shoes on those kids' feet and they feed them correctly. It's hard to do that if you're feeding a drug habit, it's hard to do that if you're feeding money into poker machines and it's hard to do that if you're drunk all the time. This measure directly addresses those issues. Sure it comes with some challenges for some people, but they are the exact people who need our help. To shy away and turn our backs on them is a retrograde step. We need to step up to the plate.

I make the point that the progression to the cashless debit card in Ceduna came about as a result of the coroner's findings that six deaths in and around Indigenous communities in Ceduna happened basically because of overindulgence in alcohol. People were killed on the road; people died in unsheltered places. The report is a harrowing read, quite frankly. The community decided collectively that they had to do something about it. They had to stand up and be counted, which is why, as I said, I'm so proud of them. I strongly commend this bill, and I hope that those on the other side of this parliament will consider their stance and reconsider supporting the bill. Thank you.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The matter of the cashless debit card is a complex one. Labor has consulted many communities and many key stakeholders from around the country. We've received a wide diversity of opinions from both communities and individuals within those communities. We have heard from some communities and individuals who strongly oppose the cashless debit card. We heard from some communities and some individuals who strongly support it. Labor understands that there are areas where there is a community desire to try something new to address drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and the implications of those things, but we also understand that not all communities want this. We understand that there are certain aspects of this measure which are arbitrary and unnecessary.

The member for Grey should support Labor's amendments because he has himself admitted that there are barnacles on this scheme that need knocking off. He said in his speech just a moment ago that there needs to be more finesse. He has actually admitted there are problems with the way in which this scheme is being implemented. He mentioned St Vincent de Paul. One of the things that Labor heard very much in relation to this card was the inability for it to be used at markets and in thrift shops. We've also heard that, when there was a power outage in one of these communities, it meant that people could not use this card for over a week.

But the other thing that really has convinced Labor to take the position that we are taking is that it is a blanket approach, and there is no way for people to come off that card if they are put onto it. There is no pathway. The evaluation that has been done in relation to this particular measure was one of the most flawed evaluations and pieces of work that I have read for a very long time. In fact, it admitted that the very purpose for which this card was set up—and that was to cut back and reduce violence—has not been achieved in the communities where it has been trialled.

This legislation stems from the 2017 budget, when the government proposed establishing trials of the cashless debit card in a further two locations from 1 September 2017. This bill proposes to allow the government to do this by repealing section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act, which provides a number of limitations on the government's cashless debit card trials. Currently, the section has three relevant functions: first, for the existing trial to end on 30 June 2018; second, to limit the trial to three discrete trial areas; and, third, for the trial areas to encompass no more than 10,000 participants in total. These limitations mean that the government can establish one further trial site and all trials will end on 30 June this year. It will be up to the parliament to authorise additional trials above and beyond those prescribed under this section. Since the introduction of the existing trials, the government proposed establishing additional trial sites in the Goldfields of Western Australia and Bundaberg in Queensland.

Of course, Labor referred this bill to a Senate inquiry, appropriately, to allow for more comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of this bill. In particular, the Senate inquiry heard from communities in both existing trial sites, as well as in the proposed additional trial sites in Western Australia and Queensland. The Senate inquiry made a number of concerning findings. First, there was insufficient consultation with these communities; in particular, there was no clear framework or process to establish whether there was community desire for trials to be established in the relevant trial sites. That is very concerning, and it seemed to me to be one of the most fundamental points. Second, and just as concerning, was the finding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the trials were effective. Third, the inquiry heard that the Orima evaluations of the trial, which I have just referred to and which the government has sought to rely on, were unreliable and were not based on any empirical methods of evaluation. As I said, it was a very poor evaluation and found that the card made no difference to the levels of violence in those communities. Labor is also concerned that the existing trials in Ceduna and Kalgoorlie have not been running long enough for substantive conclusions to be made.

It is clear that we require more rigorous and comprehensive information regarding the card's efficacy. Labor does not believe in a blanket approach to income management, and we do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. We know that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. We know that the vast majority of income support recipients require support on a temporary basis until such time as they are able to regain basic financial security. Labor supports community-driven approaches to tackling deep-seated social issues which perpetuate the cycle of poverty and violence. We believe in continued contact and consultation with communities with chronic unemployment in relation to income management and on whether the card is an appropriate measure for these communities.

We understand that some, not all, communities are simply so desperate to break the chronic cycle of unemployment and poverty and all that that means that they are open to trying measures such as the cashless debit card. To that end, Labor will support the use of the card where a community decides that this measure is what they wish to implement. From our discussions with local communities in Ceduna and East Kimberley, it seems as if some members of those communities wish for those trials to be extended. Labor will move to amend the bill to extend the end date of the trials to 30 June 2019 so that a proper and comprehensive evaluation can take place. Labor will not support the rollout of the card anywhere or at any time without important limitations.

The Liberals seek a blank cheque on this measure, and we are not prepared to provide that blank cheque. We do not believe in the vague and insufficiently credible evidence to justify the pursuit of these trials. The evidence and the evaluation that the government has sought to rely on for further trials is inconclusive at best, and there is some concern about the way in which those conclusions in that evaluation were arrived at. There simply is not credible evidence to support the establishment of further trials. We will not support the establishment of further trials in the Bundaberg or Goldfields regions or any further trials. However, as I've said, we are willing to move an amendment to existing trial sites so that there can be proper evaluation.

Labor understands that the complexity of chronic unemployment, poverty and entrenched social issues cannot and will not simply be solved by income management alone. With the many years that I have worked in the social services area, the human services area and the Indigenous area, I find that this is somehow being viewed by some members opposite as some sort of magic bullet. A cashless debit card is not a magic bullet to solve the many, many years of history of chronic and complex problems that exist in these communities. To paint it as such is nothing short of a scandal.

Labor will propose a number of amendments to this bill and to the use of this measure. As I have said previously, Labor will propose to amend the bill to ensure that the existing trial sites in Ceduna and East Kimberley be given the opportunity to extend their trials to 30 June 2019 to allow a comprehensive and proper evaluation. Labor will also propose an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be established, by proposing to reduce the provision from three trial sites to the existing two. This is a really important discussion. It is not up to people that will never be affected to make decisions on behalf of these communities. It is not up to the local council and it is not up to individual members of parliament—those people will not be put on income management. It is up to those people that will be affected by these measures to have a proper say. It is not clear how the decisions have been arrived at in relation to the Goldfields and Bundaberg, and that is unacceptable. We are questioning whether or not there has, in fact, been proper consultation and discussion with those who will be affected in those two proposed trial sites.

Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the Liberal government can show that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of 'consent'. How on earth can you apply these measures to thousands of people without those two things? Labor understands that the holistic, community-driven approach is the best way to address chronic poverty and unemployment, so Labor will propose the guarantee of funding for wraparound services in the trial sites formally within the legislation. This goes to my point that this is not a magic bullet.

Ensuring basic welfare for all Australians, broader than the social safety net in itself, is an important thing to understand. We do not believe that the Turnbull government can be trusted when it comes to income support. That has been seen in the way the Social Services portfolio has been managed. That includes things like the proposed introduction of drug testing, 22 million calls being unanswered in Centrelink and, of course, the robo-debt debacle.

I will conclude by saying this: the government proposes the cashless debit card not because it is genuinely interested in lifting up our most vulnerable citizens but because it seeks to perpetrate an inaccurate and unfair narrative: that our most vulnerable Australians cannot be trusted with their own spending needs. I urge the government to reflect on going out and supporting these new trial sites. I urge the government, and the members of the crossbench in particular, to give serious consideration to the amendments that Labor proposes for this bill. We are not for one moment saying that there aren't chronic problems. We aren't for one moment saying that there doesn't need to be government intervention in a very meaningful way in many of these communities. We know that employment is important to changing the life choices and chances for many people who are currently welfare dependent, but the thought that a cashless debit card is some sort of magic bullet that is going to fix all those social ills is absolutely a nonsense.

We have thought about this very deeply. We have consulted wisely. We have considered very, very carefully the position Labor is taking on this. It is not a position that we have come to quickly, and it is not a position that we have come to in some sort of a kneejerk reaction. It is a position that we have come to through proper consultation and discussion, as I have said, with the people currently on the cashless debit card or, as the government is proposing, in the communities of those additional trial sites. We're simply saying to the government: 'Look at these amendments. Consider them carefully. Let's make sure that any measures that are going to be addressing the deep-seated issues in those communities are measures that are going to work and that have the wrap-around services that make sure income management can be done in a way that gives people pride, options and choice.' None of those things exist in this current legislation. Labor is simply saying to the members of the government and the crossbench, 'Give serious consideration to these amendments.' It has been the result of a Senate inquiry. I oppose the bill as it currently stands.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, can I just say that I have great disappointment in the loss of the Labor Party's bipartisan support on this very important program, one which is clearly difficult to implement. It is a tough policy. I've admitted that publicly many times. I've also said on many occasions that it is not a magic bullet but it is a tool that we have in the toolbox. It is a policy which we can implement, and it's one which will make a great difference.

Can I say to the member for Barton: you missed one of the critical recommendations of the Senate inquiry, and that is the overall recommendation that the legislation should be supported. That was the outcome from the Senate inquiry.

It's not a blanket approach, and I'm going to talk specifically about my electorate, the electorate of Hinkler. It is not just the city of Bundaberg. It is the city of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay; it is the outlying areas such as Bargara, Childers, Woodgate and Booyal; and it is all of those smaller communities such as Toogoom and Burrum Heads. It does cover a very broad range. The consultation has been extensive, and I will talk about that in detail as we continue. It has extensive community support, and I'll talk about exactly how we managed to ascertain that early on before we worked forward with the Department of Social Services.

In terms of ways off the card, if you're on Newstart there's a very clear one: you can go to work. If you are employed, clearly you will not be on the card; you do not need Newstart. It is targeted specifically at those in my electorate who are aged 35 or under and are on particular payments, which we'll discuss a little bit later on. I say to those people in the Bundaberg area: we are continuing with the rollout. I'm disappointed that Labor is not supporting the recommendations for something which quite clearly works.

In terms of our community, I can only tell you that I was born there. It's part of my community. My family is there, I grew up there and my kids go to school there. I've had businesses there. I know extensively the difficulties we have, and I've got to tell you they've gotten worse. They've not gotten better; they have gotten worse. We need to do something which will make some changes, and the amendments proposed in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 will do that.

You don't have to believe me, as I'm sure the Labor Party won't. I can show you some absolute demonstrations from my local community, including the local press. The first one is an article in the Fraser Coast Chronicle by Blake Antrobus—this was last year—saying that $5 million a month is lost on pokies, just in the Fraser Coast. That is without Bundaberg. That's almost another $5 million, so some $10 million every single month for 12 months.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the member not to use props in the House.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course. I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will use it for reference only. This is just one front page: $10 million lost in pokies--$10 million. The second one was in the Bundaberg NewsMail: 'Ice rife in Bundy homes; Bundaberg the worst for parental drug abuse'. And then there's '$30K inheritance blown on drugs'. On the other side of the coin, on another front page, was a gentleman who was looking for 30 people to come and work at his scallop-shucking business—positions he just can't fill. So we have challenges on both sides of the coin: we have employment available that people simply won't do, and we have real challenges around drugs and alcohol. This is one way forward. It is a policy which is on the table that has been demonstrated to work. I can go on and on and on here. We have dozens and dozens. In fact, there were so many in the local newspapers that my staff couldn't give them all to me. There were literally dozens over a very short period of time—'Thief takes off with aunt's ashes' and 'Mother's horror as husband slain in home'. We need to do something about this.

I've said publicly, and I'll say it again, it is not a magic bullet. There is no way that we can address every single issue simply with this change in policy, but it will make a difference, because it has been shown to make a difference in the two trial sites. It quarantines 80 per cent of a person's welfare payment onto the card. As we've said, the remaining 20 per cent is available for cash. It is a debit card like every other debit card.

I notice that the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsay, spoke about the challenges when the power goes out. I've got to tell you that it's the same challenge for every other card. Regardless of which card you have in your wallet, if the machine won't work, none of them will work. This is quite simply something which people use regularly and, in fact, if you're under the age of 35 I would suggest that nearly everything goes onto your debit card—very, very few of them carry cash.

The Minister for Human Services at the time, Alan Tudge, announced Hinkler as the next trial site on 21 September. It was announced in the budget for those two new locations, and the proposal for my electorate is different. After extensive community consultation, what's been determined is quite simply that, if you are 35 years or under and you're on a payment—which is Newstart, youth allowance, jobseeker, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered—you will be included in this rollout. That is substantial. In the Hinkler electorate, that is 6,711 individuals at the time that we put the data together. I recognise that is a lot, but we do need to do something about this, because here are the numbers. It's very straightforward. In my electorate, of those people who are under 30 and are on welfare today, 90 per cent had a parent who was also on welfare during the past 15 years, the majority of whom were on welfare for at least nine of those 15 years. The second one—and this is the most disturbing—is that it is projected that, without intervention, 57 per cent of those under 30 and on welfare will still be on income support in 10 years time.

We are failing a generation of children. We are failing them. Quite simply, this is something we can address, and we can do it with the cashless card, along with a lot of other measures. I've spoken about what we need to do for unemployment—how we drive infrastructure, how we continue to drive the economy. And along with the investment there'll be an additional $1 million for community services. That's on top of the already 70 federally funded services across the region, which includes drug and alcohol services, financial capability, employment, and family and children's programs. Earlier this year a further $½ million was dedicated to drug and alcohol programs. Surely we need to start to address the cause. We've got very bad statistics. We've got a very low demographic. In fact, the Local Government Association of Australia just put out its State of the regions report and the area of Wide Bay, the statistical region that includes my electorate and of course part of Wide Bay, Mr O'Brien's, indicated that this region has the lowest per capita income of anywhere in the country, at some $34,000—as it has had for some 20 years.

So we need to address that. We need to ensure that there are jobs. But we also need to ensure that people are actually using their money on the requirements for life. I don't think any taxpayer would be offended that people are restricted in purchasing take-away alcohol, by not using the money provided by the taxpayer for the purchase of illicit substances or to pour down the throat of a pokie machine to the tune of $10 million a month in the region. I don't think that is unreasonable in any circumstance.

Regarding the community consultation, my office originally did some mail-outs, up until the announcement. We contacted 32,000 constituents to get an indication of their views. That's a substantial portion of an electorate of just over 100,000 voters—32,000, in the form of a direct mail-out. We phone polled about 500 people. We sent an additional 5,500 direct emails, and we had many calls both in and out of the office. To date the feedback we've received shows 75 per cent in favour of the cashless debit card being introduced, 23 per cent against and two per cent undecided. That was just from the initial consultation to determine whether there was support in the community for us to look at this very, very difficult policy—and it is a difficult policy—in terms of the rollout of the cashless card.

Minister Tudge put in a letter to the editor of the NewsMail, the local paper, on 12 October 2017 about the consultation that was conducted on top of that by the Department of Social Services. They are very professional people. This is the Public Service. It's what they do. They've already been involved in the trial rollouts in other areas. They understand where the difficulties are, and all of those have been addressed. We conducted 182 consultations across Hinkler. That is not 182 individuals; that is 182 meetings with groups and with some individuals who have difficulty working in a group, across the board with those frontline service providers. Importantly, 55 of those consultations were local service providers, those on the front line, with disadvantaged families. We consulted with over 70 community members through direct correspondence or meetings. We held two broad community information sessions, another 26 consultations with local church groups, 25 with local government and three meetings with the state government. We also consulted with the relevant peak bodies.

That was just at that date in October. They continue to work, they continue to push forward, talking to people who are affected and ensuring that this will be functional, that it will roll out correctly with as little difficulty as absolutely possible, because this is about one thing: ensuring better outcomes for our community—and not just the individuals but the children who are affected.

What shocked me was what's come out of this community consultation. I thought, 'Okay, perhaps it'll be an age demographic—those on Newstart.' But what came back, particularly from those frontline service providers, was that we must include parenting payment, because the people who are being affected the most are children. We've had the former local Labor state member come out and absolutely decry it: 'We don't have a problem.' Schools run breakfast clubs. In fact, they run so many breakfast clubs that the state Labor government had to put another $2 million into it—more money for these difficult issues.

If we want to talk about those people in the community who don't have a dog in this fight—and let's call it what it is—this is a difficult challenge for the idealists. This is about a practical outcome. One of those is a gentleman called Brian Courtice. Mr Courtice is the former federal Labor member for Hinkler, a very well known former member of the Labor Party, and he is 100 per cent supportive. I ask the rhetorical question: why is he so supportive? Because he knows what is happening to kids in our community. I can tell you that he is so supportive. He has written letters. He has spoken publicly. He has done media. He's been on TV and radio and all of those things because he is concerned about his community and exactly what is going on and he thinks this will help, and I agree with him. Now, I'm just the local member. I've worked there and I've lived there, but I don't deal with it on a day-to-day basis like our frontline community services. I'll be taking their advice, and their advice is that this will make a real difference.

I know that the member for Grey spoke about the Orima report, and I'm not going to buy into too much of that; I'll leave that as stated. But what we do know is that we have support from those people who are not idealists. I spoke about the gambling issue previously and about the amount of money that has been spent. I would like to make special mention of Deputy Mayor George Seymour in Hervey Bay. I know George. I get on with George quite well. He is an intelligent, passionate man who's concerned about his community. But on the one hand he is complaining about the amount of money we are pouring down the gullet of poker machines, and on the other hand he is not supportive of the cashless debit card. This is one way to make a real difference. If we are not here to do that, what is our role? We are local members, first and foremost, to represent our community and their interests and the difficulties that they continue to have. My community, I have to say, needs the support.

I say to the Labor Party: you don't need to believe me. You can believe our local newspapers. You can believe the former federal Labor member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice. You can believe all of those people in the community who are willing to put their names on a piece of paper, to stand up, to be involved, to be in the community reference group and to do media—and they have been absolutely pilloried. People on social media have been basically giving them a very hard time, with all the threats. I know every member of parliament gets threats. We all do; that is just part of the territory. But these are people who have basically been out serving our community for years, and they are telling me, the department and the minister that this is a way that we can address a real challenge in our community. So I would say to the Labor Party once again: please reconsider, because it is not your community which is being affected.; it is ours, and they are absolutely supportive.

I agree there are people out there who are idealistically opposed, and that is their right. This is a democratic country. They are entitled to protest and they are entitled to start their protest groups. But the overwhelming majority of the support in the community is for the cashless card—more than 70 per cent. In fact, I've never seen a policy of government, on either side, supported as strongly as this. It has been quite incredible. I get stopped on the street. I get pulled up by people who say: 'Please do not give up on this. It is something that we need to do.' I see them out there every single day. We take phone calls in my office constantly, from people saying: 'We've got to do this. It is necessary.'

Once again, can I just implore those opposite: please reconsider. We've spoken about the Senate inquiry. Their results were clear. They support the rollout of the cashless card in the additional areas. It is funded. It is in the budget. It is ready to go. There is an opportunity here to make a difference in a community which needs the help. We have an unemployment rate of around nine per cent and a youth unemployment rate of around 23 per cent. In fact, the adjusted unemployment rate, the one used by the Local Government Association—if you remove those on a disability pension, for example—is over 16 per cent, the worst in the country. I say to all of those who may be listening to this broadcast, and with absolute humility: we do need the help. This is one way we can do it.

I once again implore those opposite: please support this legislation. I know there are those in your group who are idealistically opposed, and they are entitled to that view, but listen to my communities, the people of Bundaberg, the people of Hervey Bay and the people of Hinkler, please. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and we need to have it passed. Thank you.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this place today to tell the Turnbull government quite simply that the community in Herbert will not support the cashless debit card in our electorate. In fact, the people in Herbert would much prefer to have funds funnelled into prevention and early intervention strategies.

I have worked for 15 years in the community sector and dealt with many people with drug and alcohol problems and with people who are very vulnerable, and it has become incredibly clear to me that punishing people at the end of a very dreadfully complex and hard life journey is not the answer. The answer is in early intervention and prevention. The other interesting thing that I've learnt over those years is that unless people are invested in their own behavioural change nothing changes. To think that we can simply put a cashless card in someone's hand and they will change their behaviour and do what we want them to do is absolute nonsense.

However, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 does provide a framework for additional cashless debit card locations. But it does not enable the rollout of the card in any specific location without consultation with the people in communities who are most affected. All trials of the card would still require a legislative instrument to be tabled in parliament, and, as I have said, changes in behaviour do not come about through punishment. These instruments are disallowable, which means that the rollout of the card can be agreed to or opposed in specific locations and not others, taking into account the views and/or wishes of the community involved. This is an important point because it means that the potential passage of this bill will not automatically mean that the card can be just rolled out in Hervey Bay, for example. This can still be disallowed through a disallowable instrument in the Senate.

Labor will not support this card being rolled out without proper and due consultation with the communities involved. To have proper consultation before we implement such an expensive so-called solution, it is absolutely imperative that we have a decent evaluation so that we are aware of what we are aiming to achieve and whether it will actually work. It is unfair and completely ill informed to suggest that all people are the same and that success in one trial will deliver a one-size-fits-all solution to all communities. As is evident in my community, rolling out this card is a big decision for any community and for this parliament. It simply cannot be rushed without the express permission and consultation of the individual communities affected. It is also disappointing that the minister has not allowed the time for greater scrutiny and deliberation on this bill before bringing it on for debate today. Labor want to see the findings of the Senate inquiry before determining our final position and, whilst we know that there have been recommendations by the Senate, one of those recommendations was very clearly that there has not been proper and due process in evaluation.

Labor also wants time to conduct consultations with local community leaders in the newly proposed sites of Kalgoorlie, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The government have not said when they will introduce the particular disallowable instruments that will enable the card to be put in place in these locations. Therefore, Labor reserves the right to support or oppose specific locations on a case-by-case basis. The Turnbull government is hell bent on targeting the most vulnerable citizens. The implementation of the card is an assumption that all those who are 35 years of age and under and receiving Newstart, youth allowance, jobseeker payments, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered are using their money inappropriately. I ask the members of the Turnbull government: how would each of you feel if you were to be labelled an alcoholic? How would the members of this government feel about being automatically labelled a gambler? How would they feel about being labelled a drug addict? I assume that they would not be very impressed. Essentially, this is what the cashless debit card is doing to those who are already struggling to survive.

I represent the electorate of Herbert, which also includes the remote community of Palm Island. Palm Island is a small community of over 3,500 people. The island has an unemployment rate of over 29 per cent and an underemployment rate of 20 per cent. According to the 2016 census, 24.1 per cent of households on Palm Island had a weekly household income of less than $650. The census also showed that, of people aged 15 years and over on Palm Island, 74.9 per cent did unpaid domestic work in the week before the census.

Palm Island is a developing community and a hidden gem in North Queensland. Given that Palm Island doesn't have a big economy, people look at the debit card as a way back, certainly not a way forward. The Palm Island council and the residents of Palm Island want job creation. They want economic development opportunities. These are what they see as greater priorities for the island, and I have to say I agree.

Townsville has an unemployment rate of around 9.1 per cent and a youth unemployment rate around 20 per cent. To date we have seen no investment in our region by the Turnbull government, and after two years we are still waiting for a NAIF announcement. Palm Island, Townsville and the entirety of northern Australia need investment—investment in infrastructure projects, tourism and education—which will not only kick-start our economies but create employment with a number of new industries, hence reducing welfare payments because people will be employed.

Labor's position on the cashless welfare card trial has always been to support trial areas where the community has a desire to try something new to address the drug and alcohol abuse problems. I am always open to considering genuine efforts to assist and support people in my community who are struggling with drug dependency to access appropriate treatment. I don't believe that income support is best utilised to support a drug habit. However, vulnerable people's lives are very, very complex. There is no easy solution, and I can assure you punishment is not a solution. As community representatives, we must remember that we are talking about people's lives. There are entrenched social issues that cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. We must address the core issue—that is, establishing the flow-on of drug and alcohol abuse to occur. Issues such as children attending school, having a roof over your head, being able to afford to pay your bills and buy food and having access to health care would be a very good start.

The vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, which noted that the cashless debit card engages and limits three human rights: the right to social security, the right to a private life and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. By reducing a person's choice in how and where they access and spend their social security payments, the cashless debit card program limits the right to a private life.

Labor have said we will never support a blanket approach to income management. We will not support a trial where the community insists it does not want it. By talking with individual communities, we will make decisions on a location-by-location basis. That means that we will get regional solutions that suit regional communities.

Since introducing the legislation, the government has announced that the Goldfields in Western Australia will be a trial site, along with areas currently being trialled in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna, South Australia. Labor's consultations with the communities in the East Kimberley and Ceduna showed that the communities wanted the trial, and therefore Labor supported these trials being established. We also support an extension of these trials to ensure that adequate evaluation can take place. However, since the trials, there have been some community leaders in Kununurra shifting their support away from the cards because community solutions are crucial. This shift must be acknowledged by the government and taken into consideration. The government must act in favour of the communities' wants and needs. Labor will continue to consult with individual communities to ensure their requests are met, whilst addressing social hardships and challenges.

The Turnbull government released the evaluation of the trials on 1 September. The evaluation showed mixed results. There have been serious concerns regarding Kununurra and Ceduna particularly. If you look at the report, 78 per cent of people said there had been little to no change and some people said they were worse off. The Senate inquiry committee heard from the people of Kununurra, who stated that the card isn't working. Police reported increased levels of violence, and the NGOs in the town are reported as saying that kids were going hungry. You can't just put a card in place without anything else and expect conditions and behaviour to change, particularly when our first nations people within that area stated that they weren't asked about the card, they weren't consulted and they weren't asked for their opinion regarding solutions to address these complex issues.

Trials also require solid and robust evaluation. I have received numerous emails and messages from members of my community who are against the implementation of the cashless welfare card in Townsville. There is a grave fear of the invasion of privacy and that the cashless welfare card is a bandaid attempt at dealing with a more complex social matter. The people in my community would prefer the funding of this card to be implemented in other areas. I have mentioned the fact that early intervention and prevention is where we will make significant behavioural changes, coupled with education.

Townsville, for example, is on level 3 water restrictions and is in desperate need of water infrastructure investment. Federal Labor has pledged $100 million towards securing a long-term solution to Townsville's water needs, as well as $200 million towards developing hydro-electricity at the Burdekin Falls Dam. These are only two suggestions for where the money could be better spent in my region, where jobs could be created for people who are trying to survive on welfare. It is no mean feat to try and live your life, raise a family, pay your rent, put food on the table and get your kids educated on welfare.

If the government is looking for further suggestions as to how the money could be spent to address some of the prevention and early intervention strategies that have been raised in my community, I have a list as long as my arm and I would be very happy to pass it on.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I will return in a minute to some of the comments made by the previous speakers from the government side, particularly the members for Warringah, Hinkler and Grey. But, just to put this in context, this is talking about expanding and continuing a trial of a cashless debit card, which is basically a card that, if you're on welfare, quarantines 80 per cent of the payments for government approved appropriate purchases such as rent, food, transportation and education, while 20 per cent of your welfare payments are able to be used as cash and for other things, whatever they might be.

The trials have taken place in Ceduna in South Australia, an area represented by the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and also in the Kimberley. I particularly draw people interested in this topic to the comments by the member for Grey, a government representative who has seen the trial rolled out on the ground. I haven't heard from the member for Durack about the trial in her area, but I look forward to responses from those that have experienced it. Obviously the member for Hinkler has not had the trial rolled out in his area of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, but he has talked about community reaction to it. The Goldfields will be the later trials. That would effectively be at the whim of the government by a delegated instrument rather than necessarily consulting with the community.

I note that, of those opposite, the member for Warringah in particular was very proud of this policy being rolled out when he was Prime Minister—obviously not something that particularly affects the area of Warringah. It has had significant impacts on the Indigenous groups in Ceduna in the member for Grey's area and also in the Kimberley. I guess it's a bit of a philosophical argument as well as a practical solution. I certainly remember the member for Warringah talking about some of these areas and talking about living in remote parts of the Kimberley or even some of the APY Lands in South Australia as being a 'lifestyle choice' rather than a reflection of 65,000 years of connection with a particular part of Australia. The member for Warringah talked about the benefits that come from this.

I think there is a bit of an attempt to set up a false dichotomy here—that without the cashless debit card there can be no focus on how people are caring for their children. That is totally wrong. Anyone who's had any dealings with the department of child safety or even the police, for that matter, knows that any parent who is not providing their children with the necessities of life can be questioned under the Criminal Code, the Child Protection Act in Queensland and similar legislation in every other state or territory.

We have to understand what this is about. It may be motivated by the best intentions for the children; however, I would suggest that this legislation needs extra scrutiny, because it's going to significantly affect Australians. I think the member for Hinkler talked about how his electorate office was contacted by people—not like in a postal survey about marriage equality or anything like that, but just people picking up the phone.

I understand that there are community leaders in Ceduna, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, the Goldfields and the Kimberley who indicate this should be trialled. We need to make sure that the community consultation is thorough, rather than rushed, because, without proper consultation and proper scrutiny, we will not necessarily achieve the best in any community. I think the member for Herbert touched on this from her experience of working with community groups. It's that concept of 'nothing about us without us'. Communities need to own the policy and how it will be rolled out, because it needs drivers. That's the curse of central government: of Canberra directing how 24.5 million Australians work. In this circumstance you need to make sure the local community understands it, owns it and has some responsibility for it.

Labor insisted that this bill be referred to a Senate committee to allow for proper scrutiny of the significant changes that this bill proposes, because it is a significant infringement—taking away the rights and dignity people have. We can dress it up and say, 'It's just another card in your wallet,' but it's much more than that, as we heard from the witnesses that gave evidence in that Senate inquiry. We need to have proper processes and proper scrutiny. This shouldn't be rushed, because, as I said, we need to balance taking away people's rights.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee tabled their report on this bill on 6 December last year. Committee members from the Labor Party and the Greens tabled dissenting reports where they criticised the bill. The government announced in their 2017 budget that it would roll out the cashless debit card in two further locations from 1 September last year. The proposed locations were the Goldfields in WA and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in Queensland. They are communities that do not have the same percentage of Indigenous Australians as the first two trial sites.

The bill does provides the framework for additional locations but doesn't specifically enable the rollout in those locations. The government would need to take a legislative instrument into parliament for further rollout. Legislative instruments are, of course, disallowable, so for any particular location there will be an opportunity for the parliament to support or oppose the rollout. That is an important point, but the government has not yet said when those disallowable instruments will be tabled in parliament.

Labor believes that there should not be any new trial sites introduced. Labor will seek to move an amendment in the Senate to that effect. Labor would only consider the introduction of the new trial site if the Liberals can demonstrate that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community and an agreed definition of 'consent'. They must also have established a comprehensive evidence base through a robust evaluation process.

Labor knows the damage that drug and alcohol abuse and gambling can do to individuals and communities. We know that this is a problem that needs to be tackled as a community, by a community. The Australian Drug Foundation has given some alarming statistics. By the age of 12 a child will have seen more than 1,300 alcohol ads on television. Parents are the most likely source of alcohol for 12- to 17-year-olds. Eight out of every 10 Australians over the age of 14 drink alcohol. One in 10 workers say they have experienced the negative effects of a co-worker's misuse of alcohol. One in five Australians over the age of 14 drinks at levels that puts them at risk of alcohol-related harm over their lifetime. Australians aged over 70 years are the most likely group to drink alcohol on a daily basis. Alcohol and other drugs cost Australian workplaces $6 billion per year in lost productivity. Illicit drug use is most common among people aged 20 to 40 years. The report Alcohol's burden of disease in Australia, released four years ago, found that alcohol causes 15 deaths and hospitalises 430 Australians every day, and the number of deaths in Australia caused by alcohol had increased 62 per cent in the 10 years prior to 2014. These are worrying statistics, particularly for those of us who have young children.

We need to tackle this problem. As the member for Herbert said, we need to tackle it with our communities. What works in the Kimberley won't necessarily work in Moreton. We know that income management alone will not solve entrenched social issues. Governments need to provide additional support for any communities participating in these trials. We supported the first cashless debit trials in the East Kimberley and Ceduna. I visited Ceduna during the trials and have met and spoken with some of the Indigenous Australians there over the years. Also, when my partner was a lawyer working with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, she dealt with some of the members of that community. I'm reasonably familiar with the Ceduna community and I know about the rollout there, and I refer to the comments made by the member for Grey.

When I was on the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I went to Ceduna as part of their inquiry. We heard from the officer in charge of Ceduna police station that boredom contributes to young people drinking, particularly in the sporting off-season or when parents are absent due to their own drinking. We certainly saw some of that in our visit to that community. We also heard about the dangers of humbugging. We know that income management was introduced into the Northern Territory in 2007 to minimise humbugging, to ensure that the funds intended for children's welfare were used for that purpose. The Australian Crime Commission, in their submission to the inquiry, said:

There is evidence to suggest that drinkers on income management are able to maintain high levels of consumption through the Indigenous domestic moral economy (demand sharing) and the substantial outflow and largesse from their drinking cohorts who are employed.

One of the inquiry's 23 recommendations was:

That all strategies developed or funded by the Commonwealth or other governments are developed in partnership with the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and/or their organisations.

'Nothing about us without us.'

Labor supported the cashless debit card being rolled out in Ceduna because we consulted with community leaders and we secured additional funding for the wraparound services that are so essential. As so many speakers have mentioned, this is not a silver bullet. You need the wraparound services if the changes are to have any chance of success, particularly when it comes to drug and alcohol counselling services and increased mental health support services. I note that a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Ceduna region community leaders so that they owned the process.

Sadly, the evidence to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill was that people from the Goldfields and Bundaberg—the sites proposed for the new trials—felt disempowered by the consultation process and that it was not representative of their community. The state member for Bundaberg at the time, Leanne Donaldson, said the consultation process had been 'selective and secretive'. There was criticism to the Senate committee about consultation with the Indigenous community. A member of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Aboriginal community said:

They weren't really consulted … Every time there is something happening and they want to consult Aboriginal people, they haven't got an Aboriginal person there to explain in simple terms what's going on.

Sadly, whilst we are supportive of the outcomes, we can't support the bill in its current form. At best, the evaluations conducted by Orima are inconclusive. Those evaluations were heavily criticised by academics in the field of social science. The current trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have not been running long enough to provide sufficient conclusions about their success. Labor's own consultations with these communities have resulted in mixed feedback, with some community groups advocating support and others very critical of the impact on the community. Labor supports the current trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley continuing to the middle of 2019 so that conclusions can be drawn with confidence from the success or failure of the trials and what works best. Obviously the cashless debit card is not the only answer, as three previous speakers from the other side have said. It is also true to say that in some communities it is not the answer at all. Labor does not believe in a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Many communities are driving their own initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse, and I particularly I mention my home town of St George, which has been dealing head-on with an ice problem. Labor wholeheartedly supports these local initiatives—local solutions, local empowerment.

Labor does understand that some communities want assistance to address chronic alcohol and drug related abuse, and it is important that we listen to those communities about what their needs are and how they think those needs should be addressed by them. We do not take the patronising view that all recipients of welfare are incapable of managing their personal finances. We know that the vast majority of welfare recipients are more than capable of controlling and managing their own finances. They are good citizens, doing the right thing by their families and communities. It is important we recognise that. It is also crucial that the wraparound services are provided for these communities where the trials are occurring. Labor calls on those opposite to support Labor's amendment for funding these critical wraparound services. Fairness is something that runs through Labor's veins—fairness for all Australians, whether they are millionaires or whether they receive welfare.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, like you, I am in our parliament to do everything I can to make lives better. I am in this place to empower people to take control of their lives and for the government, if need be, to co-invest in people's futures, to help aspirational Australians reach their full potential. This is my absolute focus when we consider social policy and our welfare system, and it is my focus when we consider the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017.

Sadly, the lazy application of cashless welfare in some cases is making lives worse, not better. Even in my own family, I have seen how drugs and welfare can mix and the detrimental impact that welfare as easy cash can have on families, particularly children. The cashless debit card is changing lives for the better. The strongly independent evaluation results of the trial tell us just how big the positive impact is. We know that the card is not a silver bullet, and we acknowledge that, but it is an important tool in the fight against alcohol and drug abuse and the violence and crime that comes with that.

This bill removes the current limitations on the cashless debit card to three discrete locations and no more than 10,000 people who are able to access the card, and it deletes the 30 June 2018 end date of the current program. Removing these limitations will support the extension of the cashless debit card in East Kimberley and Ceduna and enable the expansion of the card to further sites, including the Goldfields in Western Australia and Hinkler in Queensland. The trial of the cashless debit card in East Kimberley and Ceduna has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling: 25 per cent of participants and 13 per cent of family members reported drinking alcohol less frequently; 32 per cent of participants and 15 per cent of family members reported gambling less; 24 per cent reported using illegal drugs less often; and 31 per cent reported being able to look after their children better and being able to save more money.

I don't just speak in this place as someone who has read reports. I think it is important as parliamentarians that we look firsthand at the issues that we are trying to solve. I visited Kununurra and Wyndham to see the trial of the cashless debit card. It was so important for my understanding to learn from community leaders and locals how the card was making their lives even better. I met with many people in Kununurra and Wyndham who supported the card, and I met with those who didn't. The number of pick-ups made by the Kununurra community patrol was almost 20 per cent lower last year compared to the year before. Admissions to the Wyndham sobering-up unit were 49 per cent lower than before the trial. Ambulance alcohol-related call-outs were down by 30 per cent, and sales at the Wyndham bottle shop had dropped by 40 per cent. It was really interesting that some sales were up. When I visited the supermarket, I asked what they were selling more of or less of. They reported that, as a result of the drop in the economy overall, sales were down, but there was one particular product that was still being sold in Wyndham at the same level, and that was baby products. The sales of baby products remained constant when other products in that same store were dropping as a result of the economic downturn.

I met with community leaders, who helped me get to the nuts and bolts of this policy. I sat with mums at the Wyndham Early Learning Activity Centre. I met with the chamber of commerce and a number of health and cultural organisations. When meeting with the police in Kununurra, I heard about the issues which they have to deal with day and night, but I was so pleased to hear that alcohol-fuelled call-outs were down. I spent a 12-hour overnight shift with the volunteers of the St John's Ambulance in Kununurra, who were out from 6 pm to 6 am. In Kununurra, the ambulance service is provided by volunteers, and in each and every one of the call-outs—which I can't go into detail about with you today—alcohol played a significant part. Alcohol played a part in the sickness and injuries of every visit we made. It played a part also in the haze of the information we received on some of the calls. Those volunteers don't have a full brief on the situation they're heading into because the information from the person dialling triple 0 is sketchy and inaccurate due to the influence of alcohol and drugs. Attendance with police protection is the norm, and ongoing conflict on— (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.