Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the importance of income management in keeping vulnerable communities safe, particularly women and children, and in protecting the integrity of our social security system;

(b) the Coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities;

(c) the Coalition's plan to reinstate the successful cashless debit card;

(d) that since the abolition of the cashless debit card, there have been reports of widespread abuse of alcohol and drugs, and other anti-social behaviour; and

(e) the Government's decision to spend over $217 million in taxpayers money to launch the so-called SmartCard; and

(2) calls on the Government to join with the Coalition in committing to re-establish the cashless debit card.

This motion today refers to what I consider to be one of the worst decisions taken by this Labor government—a decision to alter income management arrangements in vulnerable communities that we know were working, to abolish the cashless debit card. This has wrought dysfunction and violence in communities that can ill afford the sort of antisocial behaviour that we now see.

The history of the cashless debit card has been told many times before, but it's always good to reflect on it. Vulnerable communities consulted with the government and invited the government to put in place these arrangements, to ensure that there was less antisocial behaviour; that there were fewer drugs, there was less alcohol and less domestic violence; and that more welfare money was used on the essentials of life. There are many things in this place that we can disagree on. There are many things that there is confected disagreement on as well. But the one thing that surely everybody can agree on is that vulnerable communities with more drugs and more alcohol are worse places.

So what did the Labor government do when they were elected as one of their first measures? They abolished the cashless debit card, which quarantined a portion of welfare money for the essentials of life—food and groceries—rather than being used and frittered away on alcohol, drugs, gambling and a variety of other expenditure that did not assist communities. At the time, I was very forceful in my criticisms of the government and said: 'Surely you know the consequences of this decision. Surely you know that unleashing drugs and alcohol into vulnerable remote communities is going to make domestic violence worse. It will mean that fewer children go to school and will mean that fewer children go to school having had breakfast, because there won't be food in the house.' The Labor Party wantonly closed their eyes and ignored that. I know there were some people on the Labor side who shared my concerns but were not able to publicly state them.

So where are we now? Utterly predictably—you didn't need to have a PhD or be a Rhodes scholar or Nostradamus to know this—the antisocial behaviour we are now seeing in communities around our country who had the cashless debit card is getting worse and worse. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Australian people will hear from speakers after me who will talk about their communities—whether those communities are in Western Australia; in Ceduna, in South Australia; or in other parts of the country—that are seeing the antisocial behaviour that was there before the cashless debit card re-emerge, the domestic violence rates skyrocket and the neglect of children skyrocket, all because the Labor Party, in an ideological pursuit, abolished the cashless debit card.

This motion calls on the government to re-establish the cashless debit card—we know it worked—and to swallow their pride, and to stand up to the hard ideological Left of their party that is opposed to any form of income management, and to say that, in the end, the interests of the children in those communities and those children's right not to be neglected and not to be abused are more important to the government than their ideological pursuit. That's what this motion is all about. The cashless debt card should be reintroduced. The Labor government should admit that they got it wrong. They will be applauded not just by me but by those vulnerable communities that are suffering under this very shameful decision.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this motion today to highlight how devastating the Liberals and Nationals' cruel and unfair cashless debit card was on so many communities right across the nation and, in fact, why we got rid of it. Despite it being abolished, this motion contains the coalition's plans to reinstate the cashless debit card and, as we know, roll it out right across the country. We know that that was their agenda originally—they wanted to extend it to all pensioners and all people on income support, including those on the age pension. We know that that was their agenda.

The fact is that the cashless debit card was wrong and destructive. We went to the election last year with a commitment to abolish the card, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cashless debit card was just an ideological obsession of those opposite. It was not a policy supported by evidence. It was the Liberals and Nationals obsession with privatised welfare. They knew all along that there was no evidence or data that the card actually worked, but they kept it in place and wanted to extend it.

I have previously outlined many instances where people's lives were actually destroyed by being forced onto the card, how it stigmatised them and made their lives incredibly difficult. They could only use the card at certain restricted locations and it was often declined. People couldn't buy basic food or groceries. Many people were unable to pay their rent and were forced into bankruptcy. Many were unable to make car repayments and buy school uniforms for their children. The fact is that the cashless debit card stripped away many people's rights and in many cases their dignity.

I've outlined many cases to the House, including Kerryn, a mother of five, who said it was a nightmare being on the card and she was unable to provide for her children. There is the case of Joslyn, who, at 65 years of age and on a disability pension, was forced onto the cashless welfare card just because of where she lived. She had always managed her own finances and was very much worse off because of the card.

We said enough is enough and we called time on the punitive cashless debit card, because our approach has always been to fund things that actually make a difference. Of course, our October budget allocated $217 million to abolish the cashless debit card program and fund support services. Some $158 million—over 70 per cent of this funding—will be used to support services for people in those cashless debit card communities. I remind those opposite that this is funding for services that they failed to provide for those communities. We've extended those support services and are funding new ones because we've been told that these are the services that will actually make a difference to those communities. We understand how important it is.

There has never been any evidence to show that the cashless debit card actually works. That's the reality of it—there's no data or evidence. A lot of evaluations, inquiries and audits have repeatedly shown that the card just did not work. In particular the Australian National Audit Office released in 2022 an audit of the performance of the card and found once more a lack of evidence to demonstrate any success at all. Despite this message being delivered twice—the ANAO's first report in 2018 and the second one in June 2022—the former government refused to listen again. It tells you everything you need to know about those opposite and what they think about the disadvantaged and most vulnerable people in our community. They completely ignored all of the evidence in all of those many reports.

As I said, we know the Liberals and Nationals are obsessed with their idea of privatised welfare. They are obsessed with this idea of this cruel and punitive cashless debit card. They're not interested in addressing the real issues that Australians are concerned about. They're only committed to reinstating the cashless debit card. They've said that so many times.

We also do know that they had secret plans to expand the card if they actually were successful at the election. We know this through many means, particularly through the very excellent reporting by Niki Savva in her book Bulldozed. She states there that there were three policies agreed to by Morrison's Expenditure Review Committee ahead of the budget. The first was to expand the cashless debit card. There it was in writing. We have seen other ones. They kept that decision secret when they were asked many times about the expansion, but we know that that was their plan. If they were back in government, that's precisely what they would do. They would bring it back in and expand it to all income recipients and pensioners, including those on age-care pensions.

This card has been incredibly destructive, and the fact is that privatised welfare does not work. Nothing highlights that more than the disaster of the cashless debit card. So many people—hundreds of them—told us how it devastated their lives and took away their dignity. Well, we acted and we got rid of the cashless debit card because we listened to communities and provided support to those who needed it the most.

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

I'd like to begin by thanking my friend the honourable member for Deakin for bringing this important motion to the House and for his longtime advocacy for vulnerable communities whilst in government and now in opposition. Over the parliamentary break, I was very pleased to spend some time in the East Kimberley. It was just so wonderful to catch up with business and community leaders and to attend the annual Kununurra Agricultural Show—like no other show in the world, let me tell you. This is a very proud, tight-knit community that resides in one of the most beautiful parts of the world. This is a community of doers; whether it's tourism or the agriculture industry, there is no shortage of new ideas or new projects being developed.

The East Kimberley has been severely impacted by the floods that were in the Fitzroy River region and later on in the Northern Territory over the past 12 months. There were no tourists and no food, but somehow this community picks itself up and works together to put the community back together. Sadly, some of Australia's most vulnerable people live in the East Kimberley region. Unfortunately, the East Kimberley faces serious problems, particularly surrounding alcohol abuse, child neglect and general antisocial behaviour. Since the repeal of the cashless debit card, we have seen these problems escalate. As I previously informed the House, with the cashless debit card, parents would keep a credit at the school canteen for their children's lunches. Now, with the abolition of the card, this is no longer occurring, resulting in children going hungry at school. This is getting reported time and time again. Locals have stressed to me that Labor's decision to abolish the CDC has directly correlated with a spike in alcohol-fuelled violence and crime. This is backed up by data that showed increased reporting of drinking, gambling, stabbings, domestic violence and school nonattendance in the weeks after the cashless debit card was scrapped. These impacts are, sadly, not unique to the East Kimberley and have also been felt in other trial sites in WA, South Australia and Queensland.

The cashless debit card program, introduced by the coalition, was simple and effective. Cardholders would receive 80 per cent of their welfare benefit as a credit on a card, which couldn't be used to spend on alcohol, drugs or gambling, and the remaining 20 per cent was available to be withdrawn as cash. Over 17,000 participants were given the choice to move to the Albanese government's new smart card, which is essentially a $217.7 million rebrand of the cashless debit card. I'd say that's not that smart. What about you, Member for Deakin? Or they have a choice to switch to 100 per cent being deposited in their bank account. Honestly, the Labor Party is completely out of touch. Did they think that people suffering from serious alcohol and drug abuse would choose to have less funds to be able to feed their habit? This is serious. This is not a laughing matter. But, honestly, they are completely out of touch. Not surprisingly, the number of people on income management in the East Kimberley has been reported to have plunged from 1,209 when it was compulsory to just 43 participants. This is alongside the 43 in the Goldfields, 22 in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and 19 in Ceduna in South Australia. Keep in mind that this is despite the government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new scheme during a cost-of-living crisis.

The Department of Social Services acknowledges that income management and improved control of recipients' finances help people to stabilise their lives so that they can better care for themselves and their children. So it beggars belief that the Albanese government has chosen to abolish the cashless debit card. The cynic in me believes that this decision was less about supporting vulnerable Australians and more about pleasing and potentially grabbing votes from the city elites. It is absolutely shameful. I call on the government to get its priorities right, reverse its reckless action and reinstate the cashless debit card. Get on with supporting our most vulnerable communities, particularly in remote and regional Australia and particularly for my constituents in the East Kimberley.

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

The opposition get to pick any topic they like for private members' motions. They can literally bring a debate on anything. They could have chosen cost of living, energy or aged care. They're supposed to try and pick things that put political pressure on the government, but they choose today to bring a debate on the cashless debit card. Well, bring it on. Let's talk about the Liberals' policy to roll out privatised income management nationwide. You've got to wonder: is there a mole in the opposition's tactics committee that they think this is a good debate that's somehow going to win them votes if they bring it on? They were no good as a government and they're no good as an opposition. This is a terrific topic to debate. You've voluntarily brought a debate where we get to talk about your ongoing efforts. It's in the motion. You've now nailed your colours to the mast. You've finally fessed up. They wouldn't talk about it before the election. They kept it a secret. But there it is in the motion: if re-elected, they want to bring back privatised welfare. They want to bring back forced income management. They want a national rollout of the cashless debit card.

Niki Savva revealed in her book that there were three policies under the Morrison government that were approved by them before the election through their Expenditure Review Committee but that they kept secret. One of them was the national rollout of the cashless debit card. They knew what the broader Australian community would think about this, so they didn't want to tell people before the election. They get very sensitive when you call out the fact that it would have included, to quote the former Prime Minister's words, 'all social security recipients'.

An opposition member: That's not true.

That includes all pensioners, including age pensioners. They say that's not true. Well, why would they have introduced legislation into the House to force age pensioners onto the card if that's not exactly what they wanted to do? They are leftover ideologues still banging on about a failed policy.

This motion could be framed and hung on a wall in glass with a plaque under it saying 'Disinformation'. They talk about 'the coalition's plan to reinstate the successful cashless debit card'. Instead they should admit that there was no evidence to back up the claims or to support the dodgy privatised scheme. In June 2022 the Australian National Audit Office released their second audit report, which said:

The CDC program extension and expansion was not informed by an effective second impact evaluation, cost-benefit analysis or post-implementation review.

Those opposite promised for years in the Senate that they would do the review and find some evidence, but they never did, and the Auditor-General rightly called them out for it.

They should also stop selectively quoting from the 2021 University of Adelaide study. In fact, that study found that any reduction in drug and alcohol use could not be attributed to the cashless debit card. They never quote that bit of the study, the actual conclusion, do they? They could try quoting from the University of South Australia and Monash University study which showed that the card had 'no substantive impact' on crisis or emergency department presentations. They don't like quoting the actual results of studies.

The other part of the motion, which is fundamentally disinformation—and we heard it from the previous two opposition speakers—is 'the government's decision to spend over $217 million' on the SmartCard. Well, we make no apology for abolishing the cashless debit card. We're doing exactly what was promised. Some people, of course, have volunteered to be on the SmartCard, with upgraded technology, and it's made a positive difference to people's lives. They can shop at the market again, getting cheaper fresh food with cash. They can buy second-hand goods. They can go-to restaurants again. They can give cash to their grandkids. But what is this $217 million they talk about? Well, $158 million of it, 70 per cent—

Opposition members interjecting—

They don't want to listen; they just want to yell. Seventy per cent of this so-called expenditure is to support services for people in the former cashless debit card communities. It's not, as they try to say, for some great big procurement and great big card; it's money going into communities—the communities of Cape York, the Goldfields, the East Kimberley and Ceduna.

So, really, those opposite have a choice. They need to put up or shut up. Either they support the investment in those communities or they go out to those communities and tell them that they don't support the investment, and they stop running this disinformation campaign. They should apologise to the thousands of Australians who were forced onto this card in the first place. They should promise to stop supporting privatised welfare and to never again force pensioners onto income management. They should admit that they're running a tawdry little debate, conflating issues of race and stigma about drug and alcohol and the old bogeyman of people on welfare, with the issue of privatised welfare, which is their real objective. All of us want to see reductions in harm in all communities, but this is not the way to go about it.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about misinformation and disinformation! It was never proposed that pensioners would go on the cashless debit card scheme. That was a Labor lie at the last election. I'll tell you some facts about the cashless debit card, because I've been up to those communities, I've been to the Northern Territory. Once the cashless debit card was abolished, we saw domestic violence incidents go up by 57 per cent, and assaults went up by 48 per cent in those communities. Anecdotally and statistically, we were being told that the cashless debit card worked, because kids were getting fed, they were safe at home and rents were being paid. Labor comes in here and says, 'It's forcing people. It's terrible that we're managing their money.' How much do you spend in your weekly shopping bill? Do you have 20 per cent cash at home? I certainly don't. I wonder if the members across—

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce, on a point of order?

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

I think, in the form of address, that remarks should be addressed through the chair, rather than 'you', which I avoided.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I uphold the point of order.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) | Link to this | Hansard source

Apologies, Deputy Speaker. I was addressing the public of Australia. I should address you directly. My point is that this cashless debit card was working. Since it was abolished, you have seen that the rates of crime have risen, children are not safe at home and food is not going on the table.

In my community alone, I have had people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, speak to me, saying, 'It's a good idea. We should have it in our communities. It helps us. There will no longer be the threat of a man standing over a woman saying, "Give me your money"'—because that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what happened in these communities and what continues to happen in other communities, where grandparents are having their money taken from them by their children and grandchildren. They would like to see the cashless debit card, because they have to hand over the money because of the fear. You hear stories about kids being returned who are clinging to the legs of welfare officers, because their communities are awash with drugs and alcohol. So to suggest that the cashless debit card was something evil—it was doing good in those communities. It was helping those communities.

We see that, because of ideology, Labor has put in a watered-down version. Well, ideology hurts. Ideology hurts people, and bad policy hurts people. I look forward to hearing from the next speaker from our side, the member for Hinkler, because it was implemented in his electorate and he will tell you that it worked. But now we see young kids being abused, being unsafe, woman being unsafe, and crime spiralling out of control because Labor thought, with its ideology, that this was a wonderful, unique world where 'we'll give people the money that they earn on welfare'. Then they go off. It is a fact. Men go off, buy drugs, buy alcohol and inflict pain on the community. That is not me saying it. That is not me making it up. I go back to the statistics, which are conveniently ignored by Labor across the floor. Domestic violence crime rose by 57 per cent. That is women suffering. That is children suffering because of this ideology, because of an election promise. Labor should be ashamed of themselves because they took it to an election and they are now hurting the people in those small communities who need the help the most.

Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the abhorrent cashless debit card that those opposite keep on pushing onto the most vulnerable Australians. This was not a policy supported by evidence, nor was it in the best interest of the communities that were affected by it. The cashless debit card significantly limits the freedom of individuals without sufficient or reliable evidence to show that it works or is justified. Despite all of this, the Liberals continue to push for an extension of the CDC trials. This leads me to question the values of those in opposition. They focus on the idea of empowering people to take agency and make the best decision for themselves, and yet they restrict freedom via the CDC. Which side of the fence are they sitting on?

Additionally, they came up with this policy in an attempt to change behaviours associated with addiction, but what is abundantly clear is that that has been unsuccessful and, even worse, dehumanising. Issues such as alcohol abuse in remote and rural Australian are complex. Using a blanket approach towards such issues will only stigmatise and institutionalise those affected. According to an ACOSS report, 75 per cent of people who were forced onto the card did not change their behaviour in relation to alcohol, drugs or gambling, and 49 per cent of those affected by the CDC said their lives have become worse since the introduction of the program. The results and feedback of the CDC illustrate that social and health issues need to be addressed with a broader approach. Furthermore, more than three-quarters of people that were subjected to the CDC identified as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. However, the CDC fails to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people control over the policies that affect them.

What we are seeing here is a shameless, selfish obsession that the Liberals have with their idea of the privatised, punitive cashless debit card—so much so that, instead of addressing the real issues Australians care about, like the cost of living, which the Albanese government is focusing on, the Liberals recommitted to reinstating the cashless debit card in Mr Dutton's budget reply speech earlier this year. This tells you everything you need to know about what those opposite think of the disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our community. I tell you what: if the member for Deakin is so bent on the reintroduction of the cashless debit card, perhaps he might trial it first in his own electorate and see how that goes.

This is why our government has abolished the cashless debit card. Our approach has always been to fund things that make a difference, and abolishing the cashless debit card has made a positive difference for many people's lives. If a person decides for themselves that some form of income management works for them then that should be an option available to them, and that is where the smart card is made available for them. But that is an option, not something enforced upon them, and that is the difference.

The October 2022 budget allocated $217 million to abolish the CDC program and fund support services, and over 70 per cent of this funding will be used to provide support services in CDC communities—services those opposite failed to provide. To quote Rebecca, a former CDC participant who was forced on the card, the abolition was time to rebuild what people like her lost from being put on this card. Another former CDC participant, Shelley, can finally shop at markets again and take the kids to the show, and people like Lisa can look forward to being able to take their family out to restaurants again for a family meal. Let's take this opportunity to actually listen to what vulnerable communities are saying and deliver justice and support for those affected by the CDC.

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

The first point I'd make is this: the biggest cashless debit card trial site in this country was my electorate. One of the reason we put that trial in place was that we have multigenerational welfare-dependant people in their thousands. We also have an area which is not predominantly made up of Aboriginal communities, unlike some of the other trial sites. I always love to hear the diatribe from the member from Bruce and I thought that I'd do a couple of quick comparisons. The member for Bruce's electorate has a median income for the year of $86,944; in my electorate, it's just $58,396. Approximately five per cent of my community identify as Aboriginal people, and in the electorate of Bruce it's 0.6 per cent. The idea that he would stand here and rave about something that he has no knowledge of, a community he is not a part of, a community which supports the cashless debit card extensively—not only through research and polling but through two elections. It's more than 60 per cent supported because it works, and that is the fundamental reason we put it in place.

My community want change. They want change and they saw that change with the CDC trial. Of course it was difficult, it was tough policy and it made some challenges in some areas, but we dealt with them. We actually had people in place to provide support. We put up millions of dollars of additional support through the CDC trial, which actually made a difference. One of the greatest challenges we've had is that, locally, anyone—any business, support agency and person who was working with people looking for housing—who put their nose up in the public arena was absolutely belted, particularly online, from activists in Sydney, Melbourne and places where they simply have no impact on the outcomes in my region. I can understand why they don't want to go on the public record. I met with one just a few weeks ago and I won't name them for obvious reasons, but they're involved in placing people in housing. When the CDC was in place, their rent roll was paid, which meant they were able to pay landlords and maintain people in accommodation—people who desperately need it. And now it is not being paid.

We hear from those opposite that they're going to spend some $300 million plus on a referendum for the Voice in this country. But they wouldn't listen the voices of the people in the community who were overwhelmingly supportive, from Aboriginal and Indigenous agencies through to people who are frontline service providers. We have lived and breathed this for years, and the reason these people continue to support it is that it works.

We hear about data and statistics. Well, look at your own local plans that you've issued just this year, which clearly identify that these things are challenges. We have enormous amounts of individuals—far more than we should—who utilise alcohol as a crutch and abuse and drink at high levels. That is in your statistics from the local plan that you have put out. And by 'you', I mean the Labor Party—I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is something which, of course, I am incredibly passionate about, as a local member. We hear about privatising welfare. The Labor Party has the same card with the same provider and the same bank, but with $217 million of additional expenditure. At the time of estimates earlier in the year, in my electorate there were 22 people on it, and that has increased enormously to 31. We now have 31. The allegation from the Labor Party is that the coalition privatised welfare. But the Labor Party uses the same provider, the same bank and the same card with the same people, but it has changed colour; it is now blue.

This is the one of the issues that people stop me on the streets in my electorate to talk about, because people support it. I have lost count of the number of grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins and parents who said to me, 'Keep going, because this has made a difference for our kids.' We saw an enormous reduction in youth unemployment. The police, once again, can't go on the record, but every time you talk to them they are supportive, because it works and they want to see change.

But we see, under this government, simple, idealistic commitments against things which don't sit with the Labor Party's ideologies but are supported locally. Why won't you listen to local people? Why won't the Labor Party listen to my community, who have supported this for years? They understand what the challenges are. They know this is not a silver bullet. They know that this won't change everything overnight. But they want to see change. It's the reason they send me to this place: to deliver change for them. These are tough but necessary policies. They will never be a silver bullet, but I'm very pleased that Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson and the Leader of the Opposition, has committed to a national rollout of the cashless debit card, because it works.

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion moved by the member for Deakin refers in paragraph (1)(b)—I assume ironically—to 'the coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities'. We're here today talking about the cashless debit card, which, not exclusively but overwhelmingly, was placed upon Indigenous communities. There were some examples of Indigenous communities that wanted it, but overwhelmingly it was implemented to and on Indigenous communities, and we have a former minister of the former coalition government—one who has been quite vocal about his opposition to the Voice—putting in a motion 'the coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities'. It is rank hypocrisy for two parties that are opposing the Voice to Parliament to suggest that they listen to Indigenous communities.

In May of 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was signed by over 250 people among some 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates to Uluru, who were chosen by an exhaustive process across the country, a democratic process of selecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to meet at Uluru to say: 'Where to from here? Where to for reconciliation? Where to for closing the gap? And how can we be listened to? How can we be a part of reconciliation and closing the gap?' I know that the members who are in the Federation Chamber as I speak all know what's in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It's not clear to me that, were there any members of the coalition in this chamber, they would know what is in it. The Uluru Statement from the Heart includes this line:

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

Its final stirring paragraph says:

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

Every single member of the coalition that stood up and professed to support the cashless debit card because they want a better future for Indigenous communities and passionately—and, I think, in many respects truthfully—stood in this Chamber and said they want to be able to address the issues that are affecting the communities that they represent has said no to a Voice enshrined in the Constitution, which is what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities asked for. So they come into this Chamber and they try to get the House to note 'the coalition's commitment to listening to affected communities' while taking every opportunity to run every bit of misinformation and disinformation and every overtly or implicitly racist argument, with tropes that don't belong in public debate in this country and haven't for decades, and simultaneously they want to cry their hearts out because of the disadvantage that exists in Indigenous communities.

Just last week, we had the Productivity Commission, not necessarily known as a woke organisation with progressive policies, hand down its Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap: draft report. The executive summary says this:

It is too easy to find examples of government decisions … that do not reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's priorities and perspectives and that exacerbate, rather than remedy, disadvantage and discrimination.

And the Productivity Commission notes that 'a legislated Indigenous Voice to Parliament in South Australia, legislated Treaty and Truth telling processes in Victoria and Queensland, and the upcoming referendum to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice' are initiatives which 'may result in new decision-making and accountability structures that could provide a further catalyst for changes to the way governments work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.' The coalition should listen. (Time expired)

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dunkley. 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.