Senate debates

Wednesday, 9 December 2020

Bills

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020; Second Reading

10:39 am

Photo of Katy GallagherKaty Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I'll withdraw, according to your ruling. But what we've learnt and what Australians are quickly discovering is that, once the sugar hit of a headline has dissipated, any close review of those policies exposes that they chronically underdeliver or are even counterproductive, as is the case with this legislation. That's certainly part of Labor's opposition to this bill. It's also that it's an enormous missed opportunity, a classic case of opportunity cost—and that's before factoring in that too many of the people and communities that this bill would impact most heavily were experiencing long-term or intergenerational disadvantage well before the pandemic arrived on our shores. Yet the Morrison government's focus in this final parliamentary week of the year is not on evidence based policy that empowers or supports some of the most vulnerable in our community. Instead it's seeking, with unjustified haste, to push through another ideologically motivated program.

I'd like to turn to an issue that I alluded to earlier, and that's about the bill not being supported by evidence. Analysis from a broad range of specialists, many of whom contributed to the recent Senate inquiry, have provided compelling evidence that, when the cashless debit card and similar schemes have been compulsorily imposed, they have not worked. Professor Dreise, director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the ANU, succinctly characterised the evidence supporting both the cashless debit card and the BasicsCard as 'flimsy and largely anecdotal, not rigorous and reliable. The evidence does not stack up'. On the contrary, he asserted that 13 years of compulsory income management practices in the Northern Territory had produced 'a very large amount of evidence' showing that 'it has had almost no positive impact'.

These findings are supported by the University of South Australia's recent independent analysis of the CDC trial in Ceduna, South Australia. With explicit reference to the issue of gambling and substance abuse amongst welfare recipients, which is often proffered by proponents of compulsory schemes as justification for intervention, UniSA's independent analysis determined:

… the CDC policy … had no substantive effect on the available measures for the targeted behaviours of gambling or intoxicant abuse.

We've also heard from the pre-eminent experts in addiction that the approach championed through this bill by the government is completely wrongheaded, particularly its focus on compulsion rather than employing proven methods which leverage voluntary involvement and positive reinforcement. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists stated in their submission that there was not clinical evidence to support the CDC. They said:

… we are concerned at the continued pursuit of this policy against the advice of addiction specialists.

…   …   …

More than 50 years of psychological research shows that positive reinforcement strategies are more effective than punitive strategies in bringing about behavioural change.

So why is the government proceeding in the face of this evidence? It's especially bewildering when you couple the highly questionable effectiveness of the program with its costs. Dr Luke Greenacre's more recent research with the University of South Australia 'examined the change in targeted behaviours following the introduction of the scheme in a South Australian trial area, finding no statistically significant improvement in any behaviour'. Dr Greenacre's research suggests the CDC offers a marginal return, 'if any' return at all, on government investment. He said:

We found no substantive impact on measures of gambling, drug and alcohol abuse, crime or emergency department presentations.

There you have it from the experts, but this government isn't listening to them.

The Liberal member for Bass, Bridget Archer MP, has spoken out against the government's cashless debit welfare card program, saying:

There is just not enough evidence … to justify the associated harm that it causes.

In her contribution in the other place, the member for Bass said:

I have been a recipient of government assistance at different times in my life and I can understand the distress that so many forced on to this card would feel … The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays in to the very worst of human nature; we're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something 'other' or 'less than'.

She said:

Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help.

I'd like to associate myself with those thoughtful remarks and reflections, brought out of her personal experience, which mirror my own.

Ms Archer's dissent has also been supported by the Liberal member for Monash, Russell Broadbent, who has registered his concern about the bill, specifically questioning the merit in singling out communities for a cashless debit card. I certainly hope that members of the Senate crossbench—and indeed, any members of the coalition in this place who are listening to these contributions and listening to the evidence—will have the courage of their convictions to join us in opposing this legislation.

Let's be very clear about what's happening here. The Morrison government are seeking, through this bill, to permanently establish the punitive cashless debit card, despite knowing it does not work; despite knowing it unjustly and disproportionately targets First Nations Australians; despite having failed to adequately consult with affected communities; despite having failed to invest in job creation, housing or adequate community services; despite knowing this bill is yet another step in a barely concealed plan to roll out this regime on welfare recipients right across the country; and despite the government's own members having conceded in parliament that all of this is true.

Why is this bill the government's No. 1 priority this week? Why is this the Prime Minister's No. 1 priority—to impose the cashless debit card, which disproportionately targets First Nations Australians? That, seriously, is his No. 1 issue this week. When we have so many people unemployed, so many businesses struggling and so many families trying to make ends meet, shouldn't that be the focus? But, no, it's this one. At the same time, we have the Prime Minister saying, 'We prefer to let Australians make decisions about how they spend their money.' He's been saying that all week, and then he turns around with legislation like this, which takes that right away from those communities where this is going to be imposed permanently. And then it will be rolled out across the country. So he says one thing to one group of people in this country, and then he acts this way towards some of the most vulnerable, isolated and marginal communities in this country—instead of working with them and listening to them. God help us if you actually listened and asked and worked with communities about how to support them and respond to some of the challenges that they may be experiencing in their homes and their communities!

'We've got it right. We won't listen to the experts. We won't listen to the report that we've commissioned. We won't even read it. We'll spend $2½ million of taxpayers' funds on commissioning a report that the minister herself has acknowledged she didn't read before taking the decision to permanently impose this on a number of communities in Australia, with the long-term view of rolling it out across the country.' That is the priority of this government. It's mean, it's nasty and it's playing to base politics. And they won't listen, because this is exactly what they want to do. All the way to the next election, they seek to marginalise, disenfranchise, demean—in the eyes of other Australians—the rights of some of the most vulnerable communities in this country. The Labor Party will not be a part of it. We will call it out, and we will call it out all day. I know many other senators in this place will call it out, too. Like Senator McCarthy said, I urge the crossbench: do not be bullied into voting for this bill. The government has got itself into a problem about timing because they've mismanaged their own program. Don't help them out. They don't deserve it. And the communities that are going to have this imposed on them don't deserve it either.

Comments

No comments