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

I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this disallowance motion for the same reasons that we just tried to disallow the regulations in the other trial sites. Of course, we will be supporting this motion, given that, if it's supported, we have made a little bit of progress and stopped the harm that this trial is having in the Goldfields. But we don't think the people in the East Kimberley or in Ceduna should be subject to these punitive measures either. Why subject people in the East Kimberley and Ceduna to this punitive top-down approach? I recently articulated the harms that people are experiencing because of this card? The same arguments apply to East Kimberley, Ceduna and the Goldfields.

I've visited and spoken to people who are now on the cashless welfare card in Kalgoorlie, and they talked about its impact on their being able to buy things on the internet. They talked about the fact that they can't afford second-hand goods on the 20 per cent cash that they get. They also talked about the late fees, because their bills, which they've asked to be paid with the 80 per cent that's on the Indue card, haven't been paid on time. So they have been charged late fees for the payment of bills that they thought were being paid on time. They talked about the fact that they can't have joint accounts, which I mentioned earlier. They talked about having to have two cards. A carer I spoke to who is looking after somebody on DSP said that the cards require two different types of handling—two different cards. People are having to get permission to buy things on the internet for medical purposes. They can't use PayPal. They can't pay some bills. For example, in Kalgoorlie I was told that you can't pay RAC Life Insurance on the card. In Kalgoorlie, they got the card before they got the letter saying that they were going to be put on the card. I've already shared with the chamber their concern—