Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I will just sum up. I'm a bit concerned about the argument that we're somehow trying to overturn a decision of the Senate and that's not the appropriate thing to do. These are disallowable instruments that are tabled so that the Senate can have a voice, and that's what the Senate is doing: it's having a voice. I, for one, am having a voice to say that the evidence is not there to show that these trials work. My take is that the evidence is there that it has caused social harm, because I've been speaking to people about the harm that it has caused them, and you can't say that the harm that people have expressed through their emails is not real, whereas the government can't point to the evidence to show that social harm has been reduced. That's what the ANAO report says.

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that the government relies on, but likewise there's a lot of anecdotal evidence, from what people are saying, that they feel the trial has not been successful and of the harm it's caused. When people sit in a meeting in tears because they feel humiliated by having to pull out the Indue card when they go to pay for their shopping in the supermarket, that is real evidence. That is somebody's real evidence of their feeling of humiliation.

As for the card working like any debit card, whenever I've bought anything on the internet, I've never had to turn up at the Indue office to ask them if I can use my card to buy something on the internet, which is what has happened to participants in Kalgoorlie. They were on a disability support pension. They wanted to buy a piece of medical equipment. They could not buy it on the internet. You couldn't purchase it in Kalgoorlie, so they had to turn up and line up at the Indue office, or the agency that's dealing with the Indue card, to ask them to turn on their capacity to use that card. That is not a normal debit card. It's certainly not the normal definition of a debit card that any of my friends or family use. When they go to buy something on the internet, they don't have to get anybody's permission to do that. That is what people have to do when they are living on the card. They talk about being called druggies. They talk about people being stigmatised because they're on the card. That is not normal. I don't feel that when I use my credit card. Most other people don't feel that when they use their credit or debit card.

The opposition raised their concerns about the lack of robust evidence. I wish they were concerned enough about that to actually support this disallowance. They talk about the lack of clear empirical evidence and the evaluation being inadequate. That is what the ANAO report has found. It found that the evidence isn't there to show that there has been a reduction in social harm. They talk about some participants who find it useful. In that case, they can opt in to income management that's voluntary. I'm not going to traverse all of the history of the Northern Territory intervention, other than to say that there was a volunteer system by Tangentyere Council where people could opt in; when the intervention was introduced, they overrode that scheme. We don't think that the evidence is there to justify the further continuation of these trials. We don't think that the people in these trial areas should be subjected to a further 12 months of their lives, or any more time, on the card.

There were claims of consultation. When I was talking to people in Kalgoorlie, they talked about information sessions that told you what the card does, but people weren't asked for their opinions. This was for people who were actually living on income support payments. Their views were not canvassed about whether they would support this. In Wide Bay, which is in Hinkler, people told me the same thing. They came to the public consultation process that I held, and it was the first time they felt that they had been asked, appropriately, about whether they supported the cashless debit card being rolled out in the Wide Bay area of Hinkler. We also heard again that there were information sessions, but people felt like they weren't asked for their opinion about whether the card should be rolled out. That is what happened in Ceduna. It wasn't until after the legislation passed here that they actually held a public meeting in Ceduna—because the government were forced to. There was not a public meeting held in the Kimberley.

I've articulated time and time again in this place the concerns that people hold about this card and the concerns that people hold about compulsory income management and its ineffectiveness. The evidence for it isn't there. I'm asking you again: look at the harm this is causing to people and listen to them. The evidence isn't there to support the government's contention that this is lowering social harm. It is causing harm to people. I urge you to support this disallowance. I urge the opposition to say enough is enough in these trial areas. It is causing community division. The services that were promised aren't being adequately provided.

People are suffering under this card. They are, admittedly, being very creative about the way they are getting around the card, and I'm not about to tell you any of the new ways they do that that I found out about. The amount of stigma and humiliation that this is causing to people does not justify this card. The social harm has not been reduced. It is causing harm. Even people in the flawed evaluation are saying that it's causing harm.

Please support this disallowance. Let's end this and start reinvesting the resources that are being wasted on compulsory income management. Let's say 'enough is enough' to our flawed approach to social justice and ensure that our social safety net is genuinely supporting people in need in this country. We have wasted too much time, money and energy on this approach. It's time to rethink it. It's time to scrap this and to reinvest that money in things that actually work. Please support this disallowance.