Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. This is an issue that has troubled me deeply. The most recent data indicates that close to three million people, more than 13 per cent of all Australians, are living below the poverty line, despite a quarter of a century of continuous growth. More than 700,000 children are living below the poverty line, and the number has been growing. I find this unacceptable.

With regard to the cashless debit card, I am alert to the claims of restrictions on the autonomy of people to live their own lives. I'm aware of the deficiencies in the evaluations so far conducted. I noted in my first speech my concern about the failures revealed in the latest Closing the Gap statement. Ten years after COAG agreed on the strategy, the results are patchy at best and scandalous at worst. A decade later, four of the seven targets are nowhere near being met. The target to close the gap on school attendance is not on track, the target to halve the gap in reading and numeracy is not on track, the target to halve the gap in employment is not on track, and the target to close the gap in life expectancy is not on track. The government now wishes to extend these trials to an area with a distinctly different demographic to the East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Ceduna, and to a different cohort focus. That is what this bill specifically deals with.

The Department of Social Services noted in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee:

Bundaberg and Hervey Bay has a high level of long-term and intergenerational welfare dependency … Ninety per cent of the people in this region under 30 and on Newstart or Youth Allowance, had a parent or guardian who received income support at some point in the last 15 years. Further still, of that cohort, around 13 per cent had a parent or guardian who received income support at least once each year for the past 15 years.

I have already declared my support for an immediate and substantial increase to the rate of Newstart and, related to that, parenting payments, and I have supported motions calling for an increase of $75 a week to Newstart.

The objective of this trial is to learn more about whether limiting the proportion of welfare payments available to be spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling will lead to a reduction in community-level harm. There have been improvements in the implementation of the card in the Goldfields trial, compared with the initial two trials. I am seeking assurance that the evaluation of the trials will meet the highest standards of best practice so that, after the trials have been completed, the parliament will seek an independent review of the evaluation of the evidence and the data to see whether this drastic approach can work and win broader community support. I noted that the Audit Office found significant issues with the evaluations of the original trials. This is why I believe that the Senate and the parliament need to have an additional safeguard designed to bring about better evaluation of the trials and to benchmark their quality or deficiency.

I have always said that I will treat each piece of legislation on its merits and on the basis of evidence and data. With that in mind, the amendment that I'm proposing would require the minister and the government to conduct an independent review of the evaluation of the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay trial. The review would have to be undertaken by independent evaluation experts with significant expertise in the social and economic aspects of welfare policy. It must begin immediately; after the minister receives its initial evaluation, it must be completed within six months; and it must be conducted by an independent panel with expertise in the social and economic aspects of welfare policy. The experts would consult participants in the trial and make recommendations as to whether the cashless welfare arrangements in the trial were effective and should be implemented elsewhere. This process means—

Debate interrupted.