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

I rise to speak on a study on income management published by the University of Queensland this week. Here we have a report from academics with research expertise and experience telling us what is actually going on for the people on the cashless debit card. Let's have a look at what they have to say, rather than the usual spin we hear from the people that are proponents of the card.

The overwhelming finding is that compulsory income management is having a disabling, rather than enabling, effect on the lives of people on income support. Their findings show that compulsory income management has in fact undermined many participants' financial capabilities and autonomy. This study shows that many people in the trial areas found their expenses had actually increased, as they were blocked from participating in the cash economy and burdened with new fees and charges. To manage their finances, many participants have become reliant on family members, service providers or automatic payment systems. Dr Michelle Peterie, one of the researchers, said that the study was unique for its focus on individuals' and communities' experiences with the cashless debit card and BasisCard. She said:

These voices have frequently been lost or ignored in the policy debate.

The voices of people on the ground who are actually living with this punitive program are ignored by MPs in this place time and time again; instead, they listen to billionaires and people with vested interests—many of whom are self-appointed, so-called community leaders.

A strong theme in the survey data was that many people had experienced a significant decline in their mental health and wellbeing as a result of the challenges they faced navigating their lives on the card. People on the card said to the researchers:

"I'm embarrassed to leave the house. My mental health has taken a steep decline."

"It is not helping my mental health I can't take my kids out much anymore."

"I feel exhausted all of the time just trying to manage my life on this card."

"So much stress caused by this card that relationships with friends and family become strained just because I am always anxious. It is really bad and friends have told me I am way more stressed now."

Another key finding in this report relates to Newstart. One of the authors, Professor Greg Marston, said:

The majority of people didn't have a problem with spending or budgeting, what they had a problem with was inadequate income support payments. In fact, most of the people we spoke with were very good at budgeting, they just didn't have enough money to cover all their expenses.

The point this study clearly makes is that people simply don't have enough to live on. That is their key problem. They don't need the government to tell them how to manage their money. They need more money to manage. The researchers also noted that other evaluations:

… had raised significant concerns regarding the capacity of income management policies … to meet their stated objectives. Despite this, income management continues to be expanded …

This government is trying to entrench this card by stealth, with legislation continually coming back here, extending the trials year by year, without proper evaluation.

If this government wanted to assist people in facing barriers like poverty, addiction, unemployment and underemployment, they would immediately increase Newstart and invest in community wraparound services, rather than punishing people with expensive and punitive programs. This is yet further evidence that compulsory income management does not work. The study does mention voluntary income management, and suggests there could be a role for it, which I've got to say is consistent with other evidence. The findings in terms of compulsory income management are consistent with other research—independent research, not research funded and initiated by the government, which has been flawed. Again, independent academics have clearly pointed out the flaws in those evaluations, but the independent research, including the independent research on the final evaluation of the Northern Territory intervention income management component, showed it met none of its objectives—none! It failed—the same place that the government now wants to roll the BasicsCard over into the cashless debit card. It is flawed! We need to abandon income management. (Time expired)