Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1) welcomes the Government's commitment to abolish the previous Government's cruel cashless debit card scheme, an insidious form of privatised welfare;

(2) notes that the previous Government wasted over $170 million on its cruel privatised cashless debit card rather than on services that local communities need, despite there being no key performance indicators, evidence or evaluation conducted to support their scheme as the Auditor-General found in two independent reports to Parliament in 2018 and 2022;

(3) condemns the previous Government for its plans to make its cashless card permanent and extend it to all social security recipients including pensioners;

(4) further welcomes the impending liberation of thousands of Australians who were forced onto this cruel scheme in trial sites, and expresses relief that all social security recipients including pensioners will now avoid this fate;

(5) calls on the Liberal Party of Australia and The Nationals to apologise for the harm done to thousands of Australians forced onto this cruel card;

(6) welcomes the Government's commitment to return self-determination to Aboriginal communities, while noting that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were disproportionately targeted by the former Government in what amounted to a racist scheme;

(7) declares that the Government, not private corporations, should run the social security system and Centrelink for the benefit of social security recipients, including pensioners who worked hard and paid taxes all their lives; and

(8) affirms the Government's principles for income management—which are that any income management should be voluntary, non-privatised, supported by evidence and subject to ongoing evaluation.

It's week 1 of the new parliament, and the government is implementing our promise to abolish the Liberal and National parties' cruel cashless debit card scheme. It's insidious privatised welfare, and, under this government, it's going to go. The day that bill passes will be called 'liberation day' for the thousands of Australians who were forced onto this card in the so-called trial sites. It's actually been spreading like a cancer, because once you were forced onto this card in those trial sites, if you moved elsewhere in the country—including in my electorate—it was almost impossible to get off this card. The bill will also protect the millions of Australians who would have been subjected to forced income management had the opposition won the election. What a relief!

The former government's plans were clear: despite no compelling evidence, they were going to force all social security recipients onto this cruel card, including pensioners. The former Prime Minister called it the universal platform. A former minister said it would be subject to a nationwide expansion. Then, when sprung, they tried to deny their own words. They forget that the television actually recorded what they said. They introduced legislation to force pensioners onto the card but then pretended they hadn't. They would have taken 80 per cent of a social security recipient's payment and forced it on this card, meaning people couldn't go and buy fresh food at the market; couldn't pay cash for second-hand goods; couldn't buy a cheap meal down at the RSL if they sold alcohol there; and couldn't give cash to their grandkids for their birthday. The government and a private company, the Liberal Party and the National Party thought, should control what people spend their own money on. The only people who benefited were a private company that ran this card. A hundred and seventy million dollars was wasted on this by the Liberals and Nationals.

The government's principles for income management are clear: (1) it should be voluntary; (2) it should not be privatised; (3) it should be supported by evidence, not prejudice or bigotry or assertions or good ideas; and (4) it should be subject to ongoing evaluation. The government's bill delivers on these principles.

Principle No. 1 is that it should be voluntary. Individuals or communities that want income management should have it. We will liberate the trial sites, and there are consultations underway which will return self-determination to Aboriginal communities, a welcome contrast to the government's former scheme. As a Senate report and others found, it was tantamount to being a racist scheme because it disproportionately impacted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including in the trial sites.

Second, it should be non-privatised. Citizens have a right to deal with public servants when asking for permission on how to spend their own money if they're on income management. They should not have to beg a private company for permission on how to spend their cash. Labor does not support privatised welfare, and the Liberals and Nationals do. That's what it boils down to.

Third, it should be supported by evidence. I think almost the worst and most dishonest aspect was the repeated untruths of the former government and former ministers that this scheme somehow helped people. There was simply no credible evidence over years. I can understand and accept to some degree that this was a trial. I can understand it. The former government put forward this idea and said it would be a trial, it would be evaluated and it would be subject to evidence. That's what they said. That was the legislation that was passed, including with the support, initially, of Labor, the then opposition. But after years the Auditor-General found in two separate reports—not once but twice the Auditor-General looked at this scheme—that there was simply no proper evidentiary basis. The former government committed multiple times to do a proper independent evaluation of the scheme, but they did not do so, and they broke their own promise. They said this would be a trial, it would be temporary and they'd evaluate it, and then they brought legislation into the parliament to make the trial sites permanent and allow them to be expanded.

We heard in question time last week the Leader of the Opposition misquoting the University of Adelaide report and confusing correlation with causation. There was no evidence that the card decreased drug and alcohol use. It's assertion. So the former government relied on stereotypes and prejudice—stereotypes that people on social security can't spend their own money. If you ask a pensioner or anyone on social security, they know where every cent of their money goes. It is prejudice—as one member admitted to me quietly, 'Well, it's just red meat to our base, isn't it?'—and racist stereotypes.

The truth is that this card did more harm than good. The final thing I'd say, from talking to pensioners around the country, is that, if you get to an older age, you know someone who's had a drug and alcohol problem, and the truth is that they always find a way around this card. It did more harm than good, and I'm glad it's being abolished by this government.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is one of the more serious motions that we will debate in this chamber, and soon we'll debate it in the House of Representatives when the repeal legislation is before us. I was the architect of the cashless debit card, designing it and implementing it in concert with Indigenous leaders in Ceduna, the east Kimberley and Goldfields. But that is not the reason I am so passionately against the card's repeal. Rather, my passion comes from having worked in and around Indigenous issues for over 20 years now, including as Noel Pearson's deputy director, and seeing firsthand how much damage alcohol abuse paid with welfare cash has on remote communities. My passion comes from seeing how little impact the hundreds of other programs and services have had on addressing this damage. And it comes from seeing that the cashless debit card, while not a panacea, was making an impact like few other initiatives ever have.

Alcohol paid for by the taxpayer through welfare payments is the poison that runs through remote communities, causing devastation that is almost incomprehensible. People have told me that in some of these communities almost every girl has been sexually abused. It is known in some places that a quarter of all children are born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, effectively brain-damaged for life. The assault rate against women is simply off the charts and would never be tolerated in our cities. Some years ago, for example, the Northern Territory government released figures showing that 11 in 100 women were bashed every year and that two thirds of that was related to alcohol consumption.

We've all been complicit in this carnage, because for too long we've stood by and handed over the welfare cash, knowing how it is spent and the damage it does. The cashless debit card changed this. It was deliberately designed to stop the flow of welfare cash being spent on alcohol, on drugs and on gambling. It did this through quite clever technology. In essence, we issued a Visa debit card to each working age welfare recipient and placed 80 per cent of their welfare payments onto this card. This card looked and operated like any other Visa debit card, such as the one you might have in your pocket, with the exception of two things. You couldn't use it to purchase alcohol at the bottle shops, you couldn't use it to gamble at the gambling houses and you couldn't take cash out with it. We were getting results with this.

There are few initiatives which make a difference in Indigenous communities, but this was one. Consider the evaluation from the University of Adelaide. Forty-five per cent of cardholders said it had improved things for themselves and their family. They stated that there was clear evidence that alcohol consumption had reduced. There was evidence that it had been helping to reduce gambling. They found that safety had been improved in these communities. Anecdotally, people reported that people were now buying trolley loads full of groceries at Coles rather than just shopping bags full. The Ceduna mayor said that it had been the best the community had ever been, following the introduction of the card. I challenge the Labor Party to name a single initiative that has ever had such an impact in these remote communities, which we know are so challenged. Soon this will be gone, if Labor gets its way, not because it wasn't having a practical impact—it clearly was—but for ideological reasons.

To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. I am angry about Labor's decision, and so should every reasonable citizen of this country be, because not only are they removing an initiative that is working but, worse, when the card comes off it will lead to a flood of welfare cash entering those communities, which will result in only one thing: more violence against women, more children being neglected. That will be on the Labor Party. If they don't know that it will have this impact then they are being wilfully blind. The additional shame is that Labor has not consulted the brave Indigenous leaders who pushed so strongly to institute the card—people like Corey McClellan in Ceduna, Ian Trust in the east Kimberley and Betty Logan in Goldfields. So much for listening to Indigenous voices.

Labor Party MPs know that, tonight, their own children will sleep soundly, secure in their nice suburban homes. Meanwhile, hundreds of kilometres away, they are about to unleash hell on innocent children and women in remote communities. Shame on the Labor Party.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Buchholz, congratulations on your election to the Speaker's panel. It's very fine to see you there. It is a great pleasure to join with my colleague the member for Bruce in welcoming the end of the cashless debit card in what is my first speech in this new term of parliament. It's almost painful to sit here and listen to the hubris from the other side of the House about how this card has had amazing outcomes and how there has been a lack of consultation on our part with Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal communities who want to can have this card; it can be voluntary. Let's see how many of those communities actually do volunteer to take it up.

I'm glad I am here. I'm glad this is my first speech on this topic, because I remember the number of speeches that were made by members of the then opposition, including me, calling on the previous government to get rid of the cruel, punitive cashless debit card scheme. So, as we have profoundly done on so many issues—aged care, climate, family and domestic violence—we've got on with the job, moving legislation to deliver our commitment in the very first week of parliament for our government, making this a better country. Prior to the election, we spoke of all the reasons why this country would be better for having a Labor government, and, following the election, as I've chatted to my constituents back in Cooper and to people around the country, they speak of a sense of relief, of a weight that has been lifted from government since the end of the former government.

I know this will particularly be felt by those people who were previously forced onto income management under the cashless debit card. Life under the card was difficult. It robbed people who received social security payments of their independence. It was a punitive scheme which sent the message that people on social security could not be trusted with their own money. We heard stories of community members who wanted to pop $20 in a birthday card for the grandkids but couldn't. There were stories of people who had a corner store down the road that wouldn't accept the card, so, rather than walking down the street to grab a carton of milk and a paper on a Saturday morning, they had to get in a taxi and go to town to do so, costing them more of their precious dollars. The restrictions this scheme placed on peoples lives were absurd. They did not deliver the outcomes for communities, and they robbed recipients of their independence and their dignity. Shamefully, it was a scheme which targeted First Nations communities, robbing them of self-determination, forcing those communities onto the card without proper consultation. It was an awful, discriminatory policy of the former government, one which our government is proud to put an end to.

Let's not forget that the cashless debit card was a classic example of the utmost waste of the former government. When we talk about the waste of the former government, how's this: $170 million worth of contracts to roll out a privatised social security program that communities didn't want and wasn't effective. They could have spent this money on programs that communities actually wanted and would have worked. Instead, they gave it out—without evidence, without evaluation and without any key performance indicators—in yet another rorted government contract to a service which took agency out of the hands of communities, particularly First Nations communities, and put it in the hands of a private, for-profit company. The former government should apologise for going down this path. It is a dark period in the history of social security in this country.

Our government has committed, and we are happy to make this crystal clear every single day, as we did during the election, that social security must be managed by the government. It should never have left the government's hands in the first place. We've made that commitment clear to all recipients, including pensioners. We'll never privatise social security, we'll never privatise the pension and we will continue to ensure the independence of recipients in how they spend their money.

Income management is a matter for the individual to decide. If they want to take part, as I know one community has made clear in consultation with us, then, absolutely, the government can work with that community and those individuals on implementing the program. But what we will always commit to is the principle of self-determination, keeping decision-making with the communities themselves and working with them on solutions which have evidence and which communities tell us work.

I'd like to thank the many people who campaigned for so long against the cashless debit card, and in particular the First Nations peak bodies in my electorate who made submissions and met with me relentlessly on this issue. Your voices were strong, they were powerful and they have made this change. It's a credit to all of you, and I'm so proud our government has been able to work with you to put this legislation to parliament. I call on all members from across the parliament to support our bill and to put an end to the racist, discriminatory, ineffective cashless debit card once and for all.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister visited the Garma Festival in recent days in north-east Arnhem Land, in the Northern Territory, and I commend him for doing that and for the genuine work he is doing with Aboriginal people and with all Australians. I want to be bipartisan on that. But I wonder how many people who attended that festival—I wonder how many women in particular—looked the Prime Minister in the eye and said, 'You're making a mistake about this cashless debit card withdrawal.' I wonder how many children looked at the Prime Minister and thought, 'There's the leader of our country.' These are children who, perhaps, in recent years, being children in an area where the cashless debit card was operating as a trial, had, for the first time, lunch at school; had, for the first time, food on the table; had, for the first time, a mother who wasn't being bashed at night. I wonder how many children who were there at that festival were in that position.

The cashless debit card looks and operates like a regular bank card. It cannot be used to buy alcohol or gambling products—that's a good thing—or certain gift cards or to withdraw cash. The communities in which the card is operational include the Ceduna region of South Australia, the Goldfields and East Kimberley regions of WA, the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions—I appreciate that the member for Hinkler is here—and some Cape York communities, including Doomadgee, in Queensland, and the Northern Territory. I visited many of those electorates. I've talked to people affected and influenced by these trials, and they tell me it is a positive experience. I know that some women felt safer at night and, for the first time in a long time, rested easy at night, knowing that this trial was in place and that their partner wasn't going to bash them, that their partner was going to provide and that there was going to be money for the family to provide food for the children.

This decision shows that this government clearly doesn't understand the harsh realities of particularly regional and remote Australia, where some Aboriginal women are subjected to domestic violence every night of every week. How tragic is that? As the new senator for the Northern Territory, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, said in her first speech, just last Wednesday:

We see the news that grog bans will be lifted on dry communities, allowing the scourge of alcoholism and the violence that accompanies it free reign, despite warnings from elders of those communities about the coming damage. Coupled with this, we see the removal of the cashless debit card, which allowed countless families on welfare to feed their children rather than seeing the money claimed by kinship demand from alcoholics, substance abusers and gamblers in their own family group. I could not offer two more appalling examples of legislation pushed by left-wing elites and guaranteed to worsen the lives of Indigenous people. Yet at the same time we spend days and weeks each year recognising Aboriginal Australia in many ways—in symbolic gestures that fail to push the needle one micro millimetre toward improving the lives of the most marginalised in any genuine way.

Of course, she is so right. She knows. She understands. She has spoken to so many people across the Territory and elsewhere. And, more than that, so many Australians have listened to Senator Nampijinpa Price, have seen her wonderful, groundbreaking maiden speech and understand exactly what she is saying.

The member for Hinkler—we'll hear from him in a moment—has told me of the positive impact the cashless debit card has had in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions, where a trial has been placed. People have told him that it should continue. People have told him of their lived experience. It's all well and good for some city types of those opposite to talk about how dreadful this is. I heard the member for Bruce say 'cruel' and 'insidious'—it's Liberation Day; hallelujah! He described it as a cancer, a prejudice. That's totally wrong. It's totally out of touch. This trial is about ensuring that future generations in communities affected by alcoholics, sadly, gamblers, tragically, and substance abusers can eat a meal and can be supported in a way that can give them the best opportunity to break the cycle. I agree with the member for Bruce—it's insidious—because it is an insidious cycle. The cashless welfare debit card was doing just that to break this insidious cycle. I recommend it as a program. I know a lot of thought was put into it. Yes, perhaps on the edges there could have been some improvements—that certainly would have been the case—but I commend it.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on this important motion, and I thank the member for Bruce for raising this topic. Before the election, we made a promise to Australian voters: that an Albanese Labor government would introduce legislation to parliament to abolish the cashless debit card. And that is exactly what we are doing.

The previous government saw the cashless debit card as an easy solution to all social problems. It even planned, as we know and as we've heard, to roll it out to further communities and to further groups, and this put a big panic in pensioners across the country. In other words, where would it stop? It could have seen your ordinary pensioner, who is law abiding and looks after their own affairs, be made to take out a cashless card.

Approximately 17,300 participants are currently in the scheme; of course, a disproportionate number of participants are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. All these participants will now be able to move off the cashless debit card, with the option of voluntary income management. And there are other ways, for people who, for whatever reason, don't have their finances in order and are continuously neglecting their family et cetera. There are schemes in place—and we see them all over the place, in other circumstances—that can be brought to fruition.

We've made this decision on the basis of extensive community consultation, including with First Nations community leaders, service providers and cashless debit card participants in these communities. We've heard them loud and clear. They told us that the cashless debit card disenfranchises people and does not allow them to take an active role in their lives. For example, it makes participants' lives, in some cases, much more difficult because they cannot access their money to buy the basic goods that they require to feed their children, their family et cetera. If they wanted to complain or to discuss it, or if there was a dispute over these issues, it was extremely difficult to be heard. They needed to engage with a private company instead of with the government agency.

This is another problem within itself. Under the previous government, the cashless debit card was not run by the government; it was not run by the department; it was run by a privatised company. What's more, there was no evidence that the scheme was helping people on a large scale. In fact, the Auditor-General, in two independent reports to parliament in 2018 and 2022, found that there were no key performance indicators or evidence to support the scheme.

We are listening and we're putting choice back into the system—choice. Anyone currently on the cashless debit card who wants to exit the scheme will be able to do so, and anyone on the scheme that wishes to remain on a voluntary basis on income management will be able to use this basic card. We want to make income management truly voluntary. This will give people back control over their own lives and their finances.

This government is committed to listening to the First Nations communities, community groups and, indeed, all Australians about this issue. We want to make sure that all Australians—and not a private company—have a say over the things that govern them. The previous government wasted nearly over $170 million on this scheme. This is money that could have been invested directly in the services that local communities need to assist them, to get them back on their feet or to assist their families. We want to ensure that we're helping communities and not harming them. We want to return self-determination to Indigenous communities.

Income management is an important tool for social welfare. However, any income management should be voluntary, non-privatised, supported by evidence and subject to ongoing evaluation. Sadly, the previous government's cashless debit card scheme was an insidious form of privatised welfare. We don't want to see anyone held back. We want everyone to have the opportunities to live their life in accordance with their dreams and their aspirations.

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

Labor's proposition on the cashless debit card is pretty straightforward. They intend to remove it, and they will replace it—and I'm sure you'll be surprised at this, Mr Deputy Speaker—with nothing, with absolutely nothing! In fact, we had some $30 million in additional support services committed to those trial sites, and yet the minister will not commit to continuing that funding—$30 million worth of services. I will give those opposite an opportunity here, because I think they've just been significantly misinformed. I am sure it's just straight off the talking points.

I have in front of me table 3.4, 'Assessment of 2020–21 performance measures for the Cashless Debit Card' of the ANAO report. Guess what it says. There are four columns, headed 'Reliable (data)', 'Verifiable (method)', 'Free from bias' and 'Related'. The first item is the 'extent to which the CDC supports a reduction in social harm in communities'. The report finds that it 'fully and/or mostly meets requirements'. The report actually says it meets the requirements for reduction in social harm in communities. The second item is the 'extent to which participants are using their CDC to direct income support payments to essential goods and services, including to support the wellbeing of the participant.' Guess what. It 'fully and/or mostly meets requirements' in the areas 'Reliable (data)' and 'Related', but unfortunately not in 'Verifiable (method)' or 'Free from bias'. If you read the report, you see that it is scathing of the department for not doing what the minister directed. They simply didn't do the work. So what is being put forward by those opposite is complete nonsense. It is just not true. We have a report that supports the rollout of the CDC and that supports the trials in the areas in which they are in place, because it makes a difference.

For those opposite who may or may not live in a city, who may or may not live in an area where these are very difficult issues, we have communities that simply want action. I am pleased to see the member for Grey here. He was first out of the gates. It is a very tough issue; it is incredibly difficult, but we have a Labor Party that is absolutely bound to idealistic views. They are not bound to get an outcome; it is all about idealism. It is all about the Socialist Alliance. It's all about the people from Sydney or Melbourne. It is us that have to live in these communities. The reason it is supported is that it actually works.

We hear all this stuff about how they have consulted with the community, as they committed to during the election campaign before making any changes. I'll tell you what the consultation looked like in my electorate before we rolled this out. The Department of Social Services conducted over 188 meetings in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. This included five meetings with Commonwealth government agencies, 19 with community members, three with community reference groups, two large community meetings with the public, 25 with local government reps, four with peak bodies and 55 with service providers. My office alone contacted 32,000 constituents to get an indication of their views before the trial was even put forward. That's a pretty big proportion of 107,000 voters. We sent 32,000 individuals direct mail, we phone polled 500 people and we sent 5½ thousand direct emails, and, would you believe, the feedback we had was 75 per cent support. The media did not believe that, so they did what was known as a ReachTEL poll, which I'm sure those opposite have heard of. Guess what? There were 27.8 per cent that were opposed—that's all. They know it makes a difference. They know it is tough; it is difficult policy. But they put it in place and they support it in the community because it works.

We keep hearing about people being able to spend their own money. This is taxpayer support for individuals who are in a very difficult position. Are those opposite seriously suggesting that more than 20 per cent of an individual's payment, whether it's from Newstart or others, should be spent on grog? Is that what you're saying? We are providing 20 per cent in cash. People can do whatever they like with it, but they cannot spend all of their money down at the grog shop, down at the pub, down at the bottle-o or use it for the purchase of illicit substances or gambling products.

Once again, we see those opposite bringing up the great scare campaign about pensioners. Well, every individual that has raised that in the House should stand up and make an apology, because one of your own—the state member of Keppel, Brittany Lauga—was forced to apologise in the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 24 February 2022 for misleading that house on claims she made on 30 November 2021 about pensioners being put on the CDC. It was wrong, it was untrue and it was used as a scare campaign. Those opposite continue to raise it in this place, and they should make an apology because it is false and misleading.

Once again, it is the constituents who live in regional areas who will be impacted. It is those individuals who have strongly supported the rollout because it makes a difference. They know it doesn't fix all ills, they know it doesn't fix all evils, but they know that it makes change, and change is what we are about in this place. It was a change for the positive and should be supported.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in proud support of the member for Bruce's statements regarding the cashless debit card for welfare. For the information of those opposite, it really is getting a bit tiresome to hear the division that they continue to peddle about cities versus regions. I represent the biggest regional electorate in Tasmania and one of the bigger ones in the country, and I tell you what: the people in my electorate did not want this card being rolled out across Lyons and across Tasmania. So this is not about this false distinction between inner-city elites and regional electorates. Regional people did not want this card rolled out into their communities either.

The member for Hinkler just said he got big support for this card in his electorate. I don't know what questions he asked, but people find it easy to say, 'Yes, I want that card rolled out for other people.' But what happens if it's for them? This is why those opposite are so big now in saying that age pensioners were never in their plans. The fact is that the legislation that they had in place before the last election would have made it possible for age pensioners to be put on this card. Their own minister, Anne Ruston, said she wanted this to be a universal platform for welfare payments. All the evidence lined up. They wanted this rolled out as part of a national rollout. That's what the truth is. They ran scared when we told the truth: that their long-term plans were to get pensioners onto this. That's when they ran scared, because they knew that old-age pensioners don't want to be put on this card.

If it's such a wonderful, fantastic card, as members of the coalition have lined up to tell us—including the member for Riverina, the member for Hinkler and, I'm sure, the member for Grey—why don't they want old-age pensioners on it? I'll tell you why they are saying pensioners are not part of their plans: because they're worried about the politics, because they know that it's easy for people to say, 'Yes, I want that card to be for other people, for people in remote communities, for people of a certain colour—I want them on it—but I don't want to be on it.' What the Labor Party says is, 'Nobody should be on this card who doesn't want to be on it.' I spoke last year about this awful card, its impact on thousands of Australians and its potential impact on people in my electorate if the former government's ambitions for the national rollout were realised. I've been a fierce advocate for scrapping it, and I'm very pleased doing so is one of the first acts of this government.

I can't list everything wrong with this card in the allocated five minutes, but I'll just speak for the next couple on one thing, and that's the coalition's ideological obsession with the privatisation of Australian social security. Good government improves lives—that's a simple fact. We have more than a century of evidence to back this up. Health, education, housing, prosperity—nearly every advance in the lives of everyday Australians has been the result of deliberate government policy and intervention where required. Those opposite, the political equivalent of the flat earth society, ignore the evidence and always stick to their ideological opposition. They believe the private market is better at everything, and they refuse to allow facts to get in the way of that stubborn belief. The cashless debit card was privatised welfare, in practice, and the coalition wanted it rolled out as a universal platform for all welfare payments. If they'd been returned to office, the card would not have been scrapped; it would have been expanded.

The Australian National Audit Office reported there was a lack of evidence about the card's effectiveness, despite the fact those opposite signed a multimillion-dollar contract with a private company to run it. That's $1,200 per participant, at least—ching-ching!—easy money, straight from the taxpayer into the pockets of company directors. That's money that could have been spent on health services, mental health services, addiction clinics, housing, education and training, or employment assistance.

More than 16,000 Australians were on this card when Labor scrapped it. That's 16,000 Australians having to answer to a private company, having to beg for access to payments for items like specialised brassieres. A woman was told she couldn't have a brassiere that she needed; she had to phone up. It's humiliating. She was told to provide photographic evidence for her needs—outrageous. You don't treat human beings like that. And that 16,000 would have grown to millions if the Liberals had been re-elected to government, with hundreds of millions of dollars more in fees. I'm pleased this card is gone. May it rot in hell.

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

I must take issue with some things the member for Lyons has just raised, certainly when it comes to age pensioners. There was no intention of the former government to put age pensioners on the cashless debit card.

I've heard the member for Bruce speak about this many times in the House, and for his information: there are age pensioners on the cashless debit card. Do you know how they can get there? They have to request it. If they don't like it, do you know how they get off it? They have to request it. That's why age pensioners are on the cashless debit card: because they want to be there, because it protects them against the humbug, the bullying and the violence that accompanies many of these families when there is a drug addict or an alcoholic in the family. So, they seek that protection, as do many other people.

The community of Ceduna led Australia in the cashless debit card trial. And I make the point that the 80-20 split was suggested by the Far West Aboriginal Communities Leaders Group. The Far West Aboriginal Communities Leaders Group was instrumental in the rollout of the card in Ceduna. The current Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, has been to Ceduna three times and refused to meet with the council or the Far West Aboriginal Communities Leaders Group, because they didn't agree with her point of view. They didn't agree with the view of the Indigenous Affairs minister that the card should be rolled up. They actually want the card to keep going. The people of Ceduna have once again voted in a strong majority to return me to the position of Grey; 62 per cent of them voted for Rowan Ramsey. They know my position on this. I think that's a pretty fair marker on their opinion.

It's worth remembering that the introduction of this card came about as part of the response to the South Australian coroner's report delivered by Anthony Schapel in 2011. Six Indigenous people, as it turned out, had died in recent times, in the five years leading up to that in Ceduna. By the time he finished his inquiry, it was seven—all alcohol-related deaths. He said, when he'd been to Ceduna, 'It's a bleak picture of local alcohol abuse, chronic sickness and self neglect.' A cashless debit card is by no means a silver bullet, and we've had issues since. But I can tell you, Ceduna is not the place it was in 2011. It is vastly improved and—touch wood—as far as I know we have not had a similar death in the decade since. That's really quite stunning.

I don't know what the future will bring, but there's a part of me that says there will be deaths as a result of the rolling up of this cashless debit card. I think, and so do many of the people of Ceduna, that we are heading back to the bad old days. There were a couple of occasions in the last two or three years when a stream of cash came through to the other half of the cashless debit card—to their normal account, if you like, where the 20 per cent goes. One of them was around a superannuation issue, working for the CDP, and it was cashed out. And there was another one, and I just can't remember what it was, but it resulted in cash in pocket, and we ended up with a flood of remote people coming into Ceduna, maybe in the first instance to access medical services, but not going home because they got on the grog, they got on the drugs, they got on the gambling machines and they would not go home. And we've got an issue at the moment with the CDP, which is no longer requiring presentation for work, which is adding to that difficulty. But, certainly, rolling up the card can only force Ceduna to go backwards.

I often visit Ceduna. On a recent visit, I dropped in to a number of businesses. I dropped in to one of the schools; there are two there. We were talking to three administration workers. They all told me they were fearful of what Ceduna would become with the abolition of the cashless debit card. Certainly, they are not looking for the removal of it. There are people in Ceduna that want to see it removed—of course there are; there is always a contrary opinion. But I thought we came to this place because we believed in democracy and that the majority should have their view. I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of people in Ceduna want the cashless debit card to continue.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal 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.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00