Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Today we are about to see another embarrassing backflip by the Albanese Labor government, as it appears they are about to move amendments that will extend the cashless debit card in Australia. The Labor government have misled the Australian public with promises during the election campaign and, embarrassingly, are now having to admit it was a thoughtless grab for votes.

The amendments we are about to see allow Cape York, the cashless debit card trial sites and those people in the Northern Territory who have voluntarily transitioned from the BasicsCard onto the cashless debit card to remain on the cashless debit card. This is an admission they messed up this ill-conceived election commitment.

The amendments put forward by the government confirm even they have had to admit that abolishing the cashless debit card is a really stupid idea. They have now provisioned for $50 million to support drug and alcohol support services because they themselves understand the social harm likely to result from the removal of this card from the vulnerable communities and the vulnerable people that so heavily rely on it. Shame on the Labor government for doing what they've done. They left great uncertainty for vulnerable Australians, and, at the eleventh hour, have had to admit to the fact they got it wrong in the first place.

This bill, as I said, seeks to repeal the cashless debit card. In effect, it no longer will because of the amendments. This card was put into communities as an important financial management tool, developed with advanced technology to help improve the lives of some of Australia's most vulnerable people. It's an innovative program designed to tackle social harm, particularly harm associated with drug and alcohol addiction, in communities where there are high rates of long-term welfare dependency.

The coalition have very serious concerns, and have always held very serious concerns, about any legislation that impacts on repealing the cashless debit card, because we understand the impact it's going to have on the communities it's in and on the people in those communities. There are particular concerns about the way this legislation effectively sends vulnerable people back to a restrictive technology like the BasicsCard—but, clearly, the government have worked that out at the eleventh hour.

Really devastatingly, the election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card was made with no consultation. Those opposite will come in here and say the minister has been widely consulting. Consultation occurs before you make the decision, not after you've made the decision. Anybody who thinks what the minister is doing at the moment is consultation needs to get the dictionary out and have a look at what 'consultation' really is.

Firstly, it's important to understand the cashless debit card is one of two methods of delivery of income management in Australia. It's designed to limit spending on harmful things like alcohol, gambling and illicit drugs. Income management has been in place in Australia since 2007. Until the cashless debit card was developed, the only way people were able to undertake an EFTPOS transaction was by using the BasicsCard. The BasicsCard is a standalone technology that can only be used in about 15½ thousand places. These outlets are designated and have to be approved by government. The limited number of outlets that accept the card makes its use highly restrictive for the participants who rely on it.

In recognition of this, the cashless debit card was developed as a new, approved, advanced technology for the delivery of income management, operating using existing banking infrastructure. CDC cardholders are able to use their card at around a million places across the country that have an EFTPOS facility as well as online and internationally. The program is supported with an overall suite of measures implemented to improve community safety, stabilise people's lives and help them to become job ready. This includes a $30 job fund and job-ready initiative and $50 million for drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation facilities.

Significantly, the development of the CDC program was a direct response to calls from community leaders. In South Australia, my home state, the South Australian coroner handed down an absolutely devastating and heartbreaking report called Sleeping rough, on the deaths of six people on the far west coast of South Australia. The study found that unsuccessful efforts to curb alcohol abuse were having devastating impacts on individuals, their families and the community. Indigenous community leaders approached the government for support and worked with the government to establish and design a program to assist communities to address the social-harm implications of alcohol and substance addiction and long-term welfare dependency.

The continuation of the CDC program in 2020 was also as a direct response to calls from these community leaders, who told us that the card was working in their community. The continuation of the cashless debit card was passed to enable income management recipients in the Northern Territory to voluntarily transition onto the cashless debit card. Nearly 4½ thousand people in the Northern Territory have made their own decision to move to the cashless debit card. That's why it is so concerning that this legislation seeks to repeal the cashless debit card in the communities who directly rely on its support. Evidence given during the hearings showed that the bill confirmed that the government's intention to extend income management via the BasicsCard and through existing instruments was fundamentally flawed.

We are yet to see whether this government is intending to extend those instruments, which expire at midnight on Friday night. That in effect means they will be extending income management in the Northern Territory while at the same time trying to abolish income management in other places around Australia. They need to answer the question of why people in the Northern Territory are being treated differently from people in the other trial sites around the country.

The other thing is that we know the cashless debit card is a really advanced piece of technology. As I said, it works in just about every outlet in Australia, online and internationally, as opposed to the BasicsCard. The BasicsCard is also associated with a massive degree of stigmatisation, because the individual needs to be identified by the cashier. The cashless debit card does not identify the individual—unless, of course, that individual seeks to buy a product that has been banned. Despite this, the Albanese Labor government has sought to tick and flick an election commitment with no regard whatsoever for the impact on vulnerable people and vulnerable communities.

But, as I said, the most disappointing aspect of this bill is that it does not have the support of community elders where the CDC program operates. These communities support the program. They supported the extension of the program back in 2020 and they continue to support the program in their communities. The community inquiry into the bill highlighted that the government has clearly failed to consult with these communities, particularly the Indigenous communities in which it operates. The evidence given by Indigenous Australian Noel Pearson, the founder and director of the strategy for the Cape York Partnership, was very compelling, when he emotively said at the inquiry, 'I think this legislation will wipe out 20 years of my work.' He said:

in the absence of a solution that had the same functionality as the cashless debit card, our Family Responsibilities Commission and the welfare reform work that we've done via that over the last 20 years will collapse, and that would be a very bad thing. We'd just have to give up. We would come to the point of just giving up on the idea that we can change anything for the future of these communities. You guys will repeal this thing and then you'll walk away. You will repeal the card and then you will walk away and leave us to the violence, leave us to the hunger, leave us to the neglected children. It's very easy to forget about remote communities.

Well, at least we have seen that this government has listened to Mr Pearson, because they have extended the cashless debit card for the Cape York community. What we have seen today and what we will see when the amendments come into this place is that the government is, in effect, going to keep the cashless debit card. They probably will change its name, because they want to con the Australian public into believing that somehow they have done what they said at the election. They haven't. They are lying to the Australian public. They have no intention of getting rid of the technology—it is the cashless debit card—because they have already agreed with Mr Pearson and the Family Responsibilities Commission that they will continue to use the cashless debit card until some new technology that they are designing comes into effect, which I will bet will be the cashless debit card by another name.

We've seen numerous comments from other people where the card works. As an example, Mayor Perry Will from the District Council of Ceduna noted, 'We have had no consultation about it at all. The first we heard of it was the Prime Minister's election promise that he was going to do it. Prior to that we had had no representation from any Labor politicians.' Likewise, the mayor of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, John Bowler, said that he was disappointed the decision to scrap the card was made before the Assistant Minister For Social Services, Justine Elliott, had visited the Goldfields in August 2022. He told the hearing:

It almost seems they are putting the cart before the horse. I would have liked for them to come here, consult with us, consult with the community, and then make a decision.

It has become clear that Labor is intent on taking a backward step on income management in Australia just to play politics. However, they were called out for what they were doing and they have now had to make an embarrassing backflip.

I would say to those senators opposite: be honest with the Australian public. Be honest with this chamber about what you're intending to do, because the cashless debit card was designed with absolutely only the best intentions and the best outcomes at heart for those communities that sought for the cashless debit card to be part of the tools that were available in their community to help vulnerable people, particularly those who were dealing with serious addictions to drugs and alcohol, to make sure they could stabilise their life so that they could put food on the table for their children, so their children went to school and they were supported on their journey away from addiction.

The government's absolutely reckless decision to scrap the cashless debit card has created immense uncertainty in these communities. Right now we only have a, 'Trust us. We will fix it later,' approach from this government. Apparently they're going to change the income management legislation to enable an advanced technology to deliver income management. That suggests to me that they're going to use the cashless debit card under the income management legislation, which in a sense just goes to show that this government is not genuine. They are not honest. They are happy to mislead for an election commitment.

It's clear in the evidence that the government supports the continuation of compulsory income management. We know that it is very likely that this week they will extend the instruments to make sure that compulsory income management is continued in the Northern Territory. We know that they are likely to move amendments in this place this afternoon or tomorrow to extend the use of the cashless debit card.

We would hope that they wouldn't waste the massive investment that has already gone into the cashless debit card platform, a platform that allows the universal network of the Australian banking infrastructure to be able to deliver a seamless product for those people who we are trying to get support to stabilise their lives. We know that the CDC is an effective mechanism. The government must stop playing politics. Stop pretending that you are doing something that you're not and actually be honest with the Australian public about the importance of supporting vulnerable Australians on their journey to recovery.

The opposition condemns the government for this bill. We condemn the government for the way they have gone about putting this bill into this place. We condemn the government because of their lack of consultation—in fact, there was no consultation before they made a decision to rip a very valuable support mechanism out of vulnerable communities.

We hope that the government is transparent and comes clean with their intentions going forward. I would hope that they provide more information as they make their contributions on this bill about what their intentions are for compulsory income management going forward, for voluntary income management going forward. I would hope that they are honest about the technology platform that they intend to deliver income management on going forward.

The opposition are moving a second reading amendment. I move:

Omit all words after "that", substitute "further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the Senate passes a resolution that it is of the opinion that both of the following conditions have been met:

(a) thorough and appropriate consultation has occurred with all relevant stakeholders and communities about the changes proposed by the bill; and

(b) a bill providing a permanent alternative to income management has been introduced into the Parliament".

The amendment, in effect, seeks for the third reading of this bill not to proceed until such time as the government lays on the table, clearly and distinctly, what its intentions are for income management going forward; and that that legislation has the opportunity to have the appropriate scrutiny of this place and the other place before we move to this reckless interim step that is going to damage lives, create greater uncertainty and deliver absolutely nothing to support the lives of the most vulnerable in our community, which is what the cashless debit card has sought to do for the last six years. The opposition will not be supporting this bill.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens have opposed the punitive and discriminatory cashless debit card since its inception. We welcome this legislation to end its compulsory use in the four cashless debit card trial sites.

Today is a big day for the more than 17,000 people who were forced onto the cashless debit card over the last six years. Anyone living in Ceduna in South Australia, in the Goldfields or East Kimberley regions in WA or in the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in Queensland who has been on the cashless debit card will finally be able to control their own finances again. They will be able to buy clothes for their kids at second-hand stores, able to pay cash for fruit and veg at street markets and able to buy stuff on eBay, rather than having most of their income quarantined on a debit card. I am celebrating with them and for them today.

The evidence provided to our Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 was stark. Two stories collected by the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children exemplify the appalling impacts of the cashless debit card on people. One person said:

I survive on cash, everything I own is from garage sales or op shops. Most of my food comes from the farmers market or roadside stalls. I cannot afford to buy new things from shops, nor can I afford a lot of store-bought items. I'm not alone it's the only way single mothers can afford to live and feed their children on what is the lowest paid yet most important job.

Another person said:

In the 3 years I've been subjected to this lunacy, the CDC has 1) attempted to prevent me from accessing a private speech therapist in my community. 2) prevented me from using my tax return to buy my son a bedroom suite. 3) put a bunch of people with no mental health, disability, or domestic violence skills in charge of my financial situation in an arbitrary manner. When my ex-husband treated me this way, the family court called it financial control.

Compulsory income management has consistently failed to benefit those who it has been imposed upon and has instead had a demonstrably harmful impact. Abolishing this card is an important step towards social equity and racial justice. We thank all the groups who campaigned and fought against this punitive and horrific measure and called for it to end, and we thank the many people who were vulnerable and brave enough to share their stories of what it meant to be on this card and the damaging impact this card has had on them. They did it in evidence to the inquiry and in their advocacy both before and after the election.

To all of the advocates and activists who are watching as the cashless debit card is abolished in the trial sites with this bill: for your courage, your commitment and your advocacy, thank you. But we must not forget the many people who will continue to be subject to compulsory income management, such as the BasicsCard, once the cashless debit card ends. We must remember the people in the Northern Territory who are on the cashless debit card, who are going to be forced back onto the BasicsCard, albeit an enhanced version of it.

At the Senate inquiry into the cashless debit card, the committee heard of the disproportionate impact of the card on First Nations individuals and communities and its contribution to the ongoing injustices of colonisation and persistent economic inequality experienced by First Nations peoples. This stark division in how we treat First Nations peoples compared to non-Indigenous peoples in Australia will be even more acute if compulsory income management in the Northern Territory continues after the repeal of the cashless debit card. This is why the Greens are calling to an end to all forms of compulsory income management in this country.

In the final four months of the Howard government, Australia was one of only four countries that voted against the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As the United Nations described it, the declaration establishes a universal framework of minimum standards and elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms. Article 19 of the declaration specifies:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Although we are glad the Australian government subsequently reversed its position and supported the declaration, there are multiple examples of legislation that has passed through this place that consistently fails to meet the standards outlined in this declaration. Of particular relevance to the bill for us today, Australia's history of colonisation and racism extends into how income management has been designed and deployed in ways that disempower First Nations peoples and that run directly counter to the principles of free, prior and informed consent.

We know this because First Nations peoples have told governments so, over and over again. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory provided evidence to the committee into this bill on exactly this point. They said:

Compulsory income management is a vehicle for disempowerment and perpetuates stigmatisation of Aboriginal people. Rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare.

Change the Record outlined:

Colonisation and the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Country has taken many forms—including theft of land and resources, exploitation of labour, and theft and quarantining of wages and welfare payments. These injustices have caused First Nations peoples to experience persistent economic inequality to this day, and their legacy continues to shape Australia's welfare and social security system.

Compulsory income management is a stark example of the type of discriminatory, coercive and top-down decision-making that has caused very real harm to First Nations individuals and communities.

The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit told our inquiry:

Compulsory income management undermines self-determination for our people. It is a mechanism by which Aboriginal people and communities are further disempowered, particularly given the ongoing impacts of the Northern Territory Intervention.

Dr John Paterson, CEO of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliances Northern Territory, shared with our committee the harm associated with the punitive approaches inflicted as part of the intervention and the racist accusations used to justify them. In a really heartfelt contribution to the inquiry, he said:

This is what happened as a result of the intervention in the Northern Territory all those years ago. . . It causes trauma and stress on us. When you're trying to lead organisations and you're leading your mob, and you've got people out there just casting all these aspersions on you, and labelling you, and you have politicians making all these crazy comments that they can't support with evidence, and you've got to try and live and work with that—I struggle with that.

Fundamentally, this is something we have to talk about with regard to compulsory income management. It is a racist policy that has been imposed by government primarily and predominately on First Nations peoples, and it must end. We know from the evidence that compulsory income management doesn't work. To all those who are arguing for the continuation of compulsory income management as a measure to address social problems, I implore you: listen to the evidence; it doesn't work. We've heard it from the Australian National Audit Office, who said in the second report on the CDC that the Department of Social Security had 'not demonstrated that the CDC program is meeting its intended objectives'. Similarly, the Australian Council of Social Service told our inquiry:

There is no credible or conclusive evidence that these policies have delivered better outcomes for individuals or their communities. Instead, cashless debit and income management are paternalistic policies that restrict basic human rights.

The St Vincent de Paul Society told us:

… the card should be scrapped because it is discriminatory, punitive, costly and ineffective. It has not produced significant, long-term reductions in the use of habitual alcohol, gambling or illicit drugs or improvements in participants' budgeting strategies or socially responsible behaviour.

In fact, rather than simply failing to develop the benefits some of the paternalistic advocates claim, it can actually cause harm. Dr Elise Klein summarised in her evidence:

… research published by the ARC Centre of Excellence; the Life Course Centre, examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, and showed a correlation with negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. The research implications are significant and draws attention to several possible explanations for the reduction of birth weight, including how income management increased stress on mothers, disrupted existing financial arrangements within the household, and created confusion as to how to access funds.

So the Greens will support the passage of this bill. However, we strongly oppose the provisions in the legislation that will enable the minister to move people from the cashless debit card onto other forms of compulsory income management like the BasicsCard or the new, enhanced BasicsCard. I want to be very clear that we will be moving an amendment to reflect that and to reflect our fundamental commitment that compulsory income management should not be imposed on anyone. Rather than being a genuine abolition of compulsory income management, the legislation as currently written will simply shift thousands of people, largely First Nations peoples, from one form of compulsory income management onto another with the same failings and the same punitive impacts. The Greens support an opt-in voluntary option for income management for those who want it. We welcome the announcement from the government that they will be moving towards ending all compulsory income management at some stage. But we think it can and should happen sooner. Compulsory income management is a failed punitive policy that can and should be removed as soon as possible.

Beyond removing compulsory income management, we need to be funding the services and the supports for communities that are needed across Australia. It's simply not enough to remove the harsh punitive conditions that have been in place; we actively need to provide the support and the services that are needed in communities across the country. We've had a decade of Liberal government cutting key programs across Australia, and now a Labor government is arguing that because of the decisions a Liberal government made they can't fund the services that we need. People who are struggling in communities across the country deserve better. That's why at the last election we Greens took a platform of providing a billion dollars extra a year in funding for essential social services so that services like drug and alcohol services, family and domestic violence services, and the community services that are so urgently needed can be funded. That's what needs to be put in place. As we get rid of compulsory income management as soon as possible, we need to be putting in place the funding for those support services that will genuinely allow people to be living their best lives.

I foreshadow that we will have a second reading amendment to address this issue and we will call for cross-party support for the basic principle that, regardless of your position on the cashless debit card, we must ensure that services are provided for people in the community. As well as repealing and abolishing all forms of compulsory income management, there is much more that must be done. We need to be funding services and, critically, we need to be ensuring that anybody in Australia has got the income they need to survive. Anybody in Australia should be able to get a guaranteed livable income.

As part of that guaranteed livable income, there are two key things. One is to end the punitive conditionality that permeates so much of our income support system, which the cashless debit card and compulsory income management absolutely exemplify—the mutual obligations, the income management, and the other programs that make it hard for people to access income support. The second thing we need to be doing is raising the rate of all of our income support payments to ensure that all payment rates are above the poverty line. So let's be clear: we are abolishing the cashless debit card in the four trial sites today but more needs to be done because poverty is a political choice, and we cannot end poverty in Australia if we punish those who are suffering without enough to live on. It is cruel, it is often racist and it must stop.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, you foreshadowed a second reading amendment. Are you moving that or will another member?

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be moving it, but we have one before the chair.

The Actin G Deputy President:

Thank you, my apologies.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you, the cashless debit card was flawed from the very beginning, and our government was formed on the platform of no-one being left behind and no-one being held back. The evidence presented to us showed that many CDC participants forced to use the card felt marginalised, embarrassed, and reported a loss of freedom and choice.

Now, let me remind this Senate of a bit of history. It's interesting to hear the other side give a completely forgetful version of history, in my view. In 2016 when I entered the Senate, I spoke about what happened in the NT in July 2007 when the Northern Territory parliament, the Northern Territory people, were intervened on in such an incredibly dramatic way without any input, without any view. It was certainly, when I was the member for Arnhem in 2007 standing in the parliament of the Northern Territory, the most disempowering moment not just for me as the member for Arnhem but for all of those constituents I was there to represent. I could say nothing. I could do nothing. The humiliation of people, the shame that people felt all carried through with the Northern Territory Intervention, which saw the arrival of the BasicsCard. Now I pick up on the reflection of history on the other side, a forgotten reflection of history, in my view, where Senator Ruston says that we on this side don't care about the people of the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard. Well, I ask you: in your time as the previous minister in this role, how many inquiries did you hold into the BasicsCard to actually ask the families of the Northern Territory how they were going?

This has been a very long road for the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, for all of those now who are on the CDC right across Australia. I have objected to this from the day I entered this Senate and I am incredibly proud that our government has brought this as an urgent piece of legislation for this Senate to push through. There are thousands of Australians out there who do not want to be on this card, and it is up to this Senate to make, I believe, the right decision to ensure that this legislation gets through. None of the previous inquiries or reports over four years could say that the CDC was working in such an effective way that it was reducing trauma, that it was reducing domestic violence or that it was increasing people's ability to live a life free of all of that. None of those reports could say that. Let me remind you, senators, that one of the reasons the CDC was introduced was because it was meant to do those things. It was meant to see a better quality of life for Australians. That was the initial intention, but somewhere along the way that got lost, that got forgotten. It took those reports that came to our Senate inquiries—and these were not Senate reports; these were academic reports that were done on each of these communities under the CDC. So when senators opposite get up and say there's been no consultation, let me tell you: this has gone on for a very long time, and that is the very reason why the First Nations caucus committee of the federal Labor Party pushed for this policy to be integral in taking it to the recent federal election.

There is no doubt, Senators, that we from this side of the house are very clear in our objectives here. There has been no mistake. In this term of parliament, in this very short term, through a Senate inquiry that many senators here took part in to look into this bill, we most certainly did listen. And I commend Minister Rishworth and Assistant Minister Elliot for the travels they embarked upon, not long after being appointed in their ministerial positions, to go to each of these CDC sites across the country. They did so straightaway. Why? Because we knew it was important. We knew it was imperative. We knew that there were Australians out there who were suffering, who needed some security about what their future was with this card. That's why Minister Rishworth and Minister Elliot took off across the country, listening, talking and bringing forward this piece of legislation.

And, yes, Senator Ruston, there are amendments to deal with but, hey, that's what Senate inquiries do. Senate inquiries into pieces of legislation do that. Hello? It's what we do with many pieces of legislation because we believe and trust in the democratic process of that inquiry. And that's why these amendments have come into this particular legislation at this particular time—because we waited for the Senate inquiry to see what people were saying. Now, you may jest that we've made an amendment in relation to Cape York. But guess what? We listened to people like Noel Pearson, to organisations like the Family Responsibilities Commission. We listened to them because we knew that it was critical, and that it was different in terms of the way the Family Responsibilities Commission handles the program up in Cape York.

We saw that previously, in opposition, through the many Senate inquiries. In fact, I do recall sitting in Darwin at a Senate inquiry and listening to the Family Responsibilities Commission and others—elders from that community—giving evidence. And I do recall thinking: 'You know what? This is a ground up way of looking at these problems. The elders are involved. They are participating. They're the ones working with their family members, kinship groups, and saying, "Okay, this is the decision we'll make in a consultative way."' And I had thought then that if that particular program had come in in 2014, as opposed to the style of CDC that came in, we might have been in a pretty different sort of place. So I do commend the people of Cape York with what they are trying to do, and we are unashamedly bringing in this amendment because of that.

You ask about the people of the Northern Territory with the BasicsCard. Well, I come back to the start of my speech. I recall the intervention into the Northern Territory in 2007 and what it meant for my constituents, the heavy-handed approach that was used. And, yes, the BasicsCard continued, even under a Labor government—again, to the disquiet and discontent of so many of my constituents—but I never forgot. But I never forgot. I never forgot. I have brought that here into the Senate because I want the Senate to never forget that deep feeling of disempowerment, disrespect and shame.

We may not be dealing with the BasicsCard right now—you can call it whatever you want on the other side—but we are about process on this side. We realise something: you members opposite championed the CDC, yet you had no plans beyond 31 December. For all of those 17,000 people or more on that program, you had no plans beyond 31 December. You just threw it all down, packed your bags, walked off and said: 'It's their problem now. They're the new government; they can handle it.' Guess what? We are handling it, and we are pointing out your inability to have made steps for those thousands of Australians who required greater dignity and greater knowledge of what this parliament was going to do about their future in assisting them in some of the most basic things—financial support, quality of life, being able to pay their bills, being able to pay their rent. The stories of people homeless, not knowing what their future was and still not knowing—that's why we've got to get this bill through. Yes, we will come back to the BasicsCard. I can tell you now, senators, that is one area I will not let this Senate let go of. We need to discuss that with the families of the Northern Territory.

One of the questions I kept asking of the former minister, Senator Ruston, was: How much money was spent doing all those ads across the Northern Territory to get people off the BasicsCard and onto the CDC? How much money did you spend? I could never get an answer to that question, but let me tell you—I'm certainly checking the books now on this side. You spent so much money to try and get at least 4,000 people onto the cashless debit card, but you still didn't worry about the 22,000 people on the BasicsCard. You still had no inquiries, you had no investigations, you had no consultations, and you come in here having a go at us about the BasicsCard? No, no, no, senators. No, no, no, you won't. I will keep reminding you of what you didn't do.

Yes, we have a lot of work on this side, now that we have that responsibility. I am proud to bring this legislation before the Senate, and I have no objections whatsoever to what we are asking of senators here. But I do make this plea to those senators on the crossbenches, and I do remind those senators who came to the Northern Territory in particular—Senator Lambie, from your visit to Central Australia and to far north-east Arnhem Land: remember the Yolngu. Remember the families that spoke to you. They still hold those same messages today about what they want for their future. You know what they said to you. I took the former senator for South Australia Rex Patrick to the Northern Territory, and even he saw the importance of this debate to First Nations people—that, for once, they could be heard instead of being trampled over as we were in 2007, when there was no debate and no discussion.

I reassure the Senate that I will make sure that there is comprehensive, dignified discussion with families about the BasicsCard. I thank the Arnhem Land Progress Association and the work that it has done and continues to do with residents and employees across its many locations. You are the ones that started with your ALPA card, and that was prior to the intervention in 2007. The ALPA card came out months before that did. Imagine if you had been consulted about this kind of income management or money counselling. Imagine if you had been counselled and consulted. Imagine where we could see that ALPA card today, had there been that discussion.

I have a long memory, senators. I will always put on the table where we could've done better on this side, and I will always point out in the Senate where you should've done better on your side.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to make a contribution to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Without a doubt, ending the cashless debit card will go down in history as the greatest piece of ideological madness that this government will perpetrate in this parliament. In fact, what we've just heard today is that at the last minute they will be rushing amendments through this place in relation to this bill.

One needs to ask why the government would do that, particularly when this was one of their election commitments. It was one of their election commitments, yet they are about to rush some amendments through this place. Perhaps the sheer weight of the evidence they were confronted with was so overwhelming that they finally realised this was an act of nothing more and nothing less than ideological madness. The previous speaker, Senator McCarthy, stated that the government was very clear in its objectives here—so clear that at the last minute we haven't even seen the amendments. We hear the minister saying: 'We got it wrong. It's not great that we got it wrong, seeing as we're out there telling everybody we got it right. We got it wrong, and we are going to have to make some changes.'

Perhaps, though, it's because they listened to the coalition. They listened to the weight of evidence that was presented to them. Perhaps now they better understand that this ideological madness that they were about to undertake would actually have made the lives of so many Australians much worse than their lives are today.

If the bill in its current form goes through, this is what the Albanese Labor government are going to be delivering to thousands and thousands of Australians. They will continue to see the scourge of alcoholism. They will continue to see the scourge of drug addiction, gambling and domestic violence in their communities, where—and this is what the weight of evidence shows—the cashless debit card has successfully contained these problems.

What kind of a government would want to inflict this sort of pain upon fellow Australians? The answer is clear: it is a heartless one, and it is a government that cannot see past its ideological bent on this issue. Given the weight of evidence, given that communities are crying out for this card, those opposite should hang their heads in shame on this issue.

Let's look at the purpose of the cashless debit card. It's a very simple purpose. It's to prevent income support recipients from spending a significant portion of their payments on potentially harmful goods, such as alcohol, illegal drugs and gambling. I am still at a loss to understand how the Albanese Labor government thinks, based on the sheer weight of overwhelming evidence, that this is a bad thing. The cashless debit card was introduced by the former government as a means to ensure that those receiving welfare payments were spending taxpayers money on basic necessities such as food, household bills and clothes, and not on habits that enable a destructive lifestyle.

When you look at and listen to the stories, when you understand the impact that this card has had on families, you see that it has allowed countless families on welfare across Australia to feed, clothe and provide for their children—I don't know why that is a bad thing—rather than to see their money be wasted on drugs, alcohol and gambling. In fact, listening to the weight of evidence, in many instances it has reduced domestic violence and it has reduced alcohol consumption, and when you reduce domestic violence and alcohol consumption you see the number of people presenting to the emergency department at a hospital also decreasing.

Let's look at some figures. As at last year, around $2.5 million worth of transactions on restricted products had been declined in the Goldfields. What does that mean? It means that $2.5 million was, therefore, better spent on food, paying bills, clothes and other essentials rather than on the alternative, which Labor and the Greens would like to allow, of pubs, bottle shops and the TAB. Look beyond the card's stated purpose and at examples of people in the communities who had the cashless debit card. What did they say? I remind the Senate that these are not people in Canberra. These are people who are on the cashless debit card who are living in communities, who have real life experience. They are real people who have realised the benefit of what the cashless debit card has offered them. For example, in Ceduna a community paramedic said, 'Since the cashless debit card, we've definitely seen a decline in domestic violence, alcohol consumption and the number of people presenting to ED at the hospital.' I am at a total loss to understand how that is a bad thing and why the Albanese Labor government wants to get rid of it.

What about community leaders in Laverton in my home state of Western Australia? They have pleaded with the government not to get rid of this card. What have they said? They have been forced to plead for an emergency contingent of police officers and paramedics because, as a result of the legislation that we have before us, they are anticipating a surge in violence when thousands of local residents are taken off the card. That is what this government is going to be responsible for.

In fact, Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders in Laverton told the West Australian newspaper: 'The card has ensured children have been fed and clothed.' That's it. The card has ensured children—young children, who have no control over where this money is going unless they have the cashless debit card—have been fed and clothed. That, quite frankly, is something that all of us in this place take for granted every single day. They fear what is going to happen when this legislation goes through. The Laverton shire president, Patrick Hill, said the community 'had been brought to its knees by alcohol abuse in the years before the locals opted to support a trial of the cashless debit card'. He said:

We had the RFDS here constantly to pick up DV victims, kids were not being looked after and not going to school, (and) you know it's bad when the ambulance needs a police escort to go to incidents … We wanted to explain all that to the Government before they took the card away—

listen to this, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath—

because it's the only think in 30 years that has made any difference.

Well, guess what? Today, because of the ideological hatred that those on the other side have for actually giving people a helping hand to survive, we say goodbye to the only thing that in 30 years has made any difference.

Janice Scott, a Wangkatha elder, established a residents group in Laverton in 2016 out of concern for the welfare of local children. Let's have a look at what she said: 'The biggest difference was for the kids. Suddenly they had food. They had clothing. People used to throw rocks on my roof in the middle of the night, saying "I'm hungry," and that stopped. They had food at home.' Shame on those opposite for demeaning Janice with this legislation.

Indigenous man Marty Sealander is chief executive of Laverton's Pakaanu Aboriginal Corporation. His organisation wanted to the card, and it had 'put things on an even keel in town'. He said: 'What you don't see anymore is the gambling, where people are sitting around playing cards with cash. That's finished. Families don't use the food program at the schools as much. They're buying groceries. And people with serious drinking problems are getting really drunk once a fortnight, not three or four times a fortnight like they used to.'

Then, of course, you have the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, which also backed the retention of the card. Again, they highlighted the benefits that they have seen because of this card. What they said is this: 'The program has demonstrated significant value in the community not only by linking participants to employment but also by providing opportunities for them to engage in training and skills development.' The city's submission to the relevant inquiry said there'd been a 57 per cent decrease in crime—wow! a 57 per cent decrease in crime—from 2018 to 2022, following the rollout of the card. The most significant crime decreases observed were in non-dwelling burglary, property damage, drug offences, dwelling burglary and the stealing of motor vehicles.

This is what they said: 'With the abolishment of the cashless debit card, there is no doubt that the region will need to rely more heavily on the state government to provide additional law-and-order services to ensure that the level of crime does not reach the unprecedented levels experienced three years prior to the introduction of the card.' Again, I am at an absolute loss to know why the Albanese Labor government thinks that abolishing the cashless debit card, even with its amendments, is a good thing, given the sheer and overwhelming weight of evidence that clearly supports the benefits that this card has had to some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Then, of course, there is my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price. She is, as we know, an empowered Warlpiri Celtic Australian woman from the Northern Territory. In her maiden speech to the parliament, this is what she said in relation to the cashless debit card. It has:

… allowed countless families on welfare to feed their children rather than seeing the money claimed by kinship demand from alcoholics, substance abusers and gamblers in their own family group. I could not offer two more appalling examples of legislation pushed by left-wing elites and guaranteed to worsen the lives of Indigenous people.

What we are debating here today is a piece of legislation that an Indigenous woman from the Northern Territory who has lived and breathed these experiences says will, when it goes through, actually worsen the lives of Indigenous people in this country; she is very open in saying that. What does she then say? She says:

Yet at the same time we spend days and weeks each year recognising Aboriginal Australia in many ways—in symbolic gestures that fail to push the needle one micro-millimetre toward improving the lives of the most marginalised in any genuine way.

Well, guess what? I know whose view I back in relation to this: Senator Nampijinpa Price's. She is someone who will stand up for the rights of Indigenous people in this country—somebody who will only ever ask what practical difference this policy is going to make to the lives of Indigenous people in this country. She speaks from experience. She doesn't come in here as a left-wing elitist. She speaks from experience. She has seen the benefits firsthand, up close, in her own community. That's who the government should be listening to: people like Senator Nampijinpa Price.

The government should hang their heads in shame over this issue. It is ideological madness, nothing more and nothing less—despite Senator McCarthy saying it clearly is not. Quite frankly, the best thing you could do today is pull your legislation, go back out, listen to the community and then end this ideological madness.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to follow Senator Cash and her comments on this. I'm glad we're having this conversation about the future of the government welfare. It takes many forms and there are many Australian people who receive it. There's doubt many Australians truly need it. There's also no doubt that many Australians who receive it do not truly need it. There are many more Australians who pay for it. It's costing taxpayers almost $200 billion—that's billion, not million—a year. There are almost as many opinions about whether it is too much or too little, and whether it really does any good.

However, there is one opinion which strongly prevails among the Australians who fund this welfare: those who receive it should be accountable for it. This is reflected in some of the conditions and obligations placed on recipients such as education, training and job seeking. Australians who fund welfare with their taxes understandably have an expectation that money is not squandered by those receiving it. They don't like it when recipients spend all their time on the couch instead of actively looking for work, or at least being in training for work. They don't like it when they see recipients spending welfare money on things like alcohol, drugs and pokies. Most recipients don't do this, but it begs the question: why do we have over 900,000 people on unemployment benefits yet jobs aplenty are waiting to be filled? Are these people incompetent, illiterate or just plain lazy, believing everyone else owes them a living, not just a helping hand in a time of need.

When there are others depending on them, like children, there can be big problems. This is especially the case in communities with higher levels of long-term welfare dependency. I won't beat around the bush. Many of these communities are predominantly Aboriginal. It was these problems—children going hungry and without education, alcohol and drug related violence, family and domestic violence, poor health outcomes, widespread crime and social unrest—that the cashless debit card was aimed at addressing. It did this by limiting the spending of up to 80 per cent of a person's welfare income to essential items like food, clothes and rent. The basic idea was to ensure the people on welfare experiencing difficulties with prioritising the essentials themselves no longer had to.

The trials were limited to a few areas, some of them with high levels of long-term dependency and a history of related social problems, particularly alcohol fuelled violence and neglect: the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region in Queensland; Doomadgee in remote north-west Queensland; Cape York in Queensland; parts of the Northern Territory; the Goldfields region around Kalgoorlie and Esperance in Western Australia; the East Kimberley region in Western Australia; and the Ceduna area in South Australia.

The introduction of the cashless debit card was not without controversy or teething problems, some of which persist. It has not been entirely successful in completely quarantining welfare income for spending only on essentials. People have found ways around the restrictions—for example, buying someone else's groceries with the card in exchange for cash, which is then spent on things that cannot be bought with the card. There has also been frustration at its limited utility, especially in online transactions, and also because some shops in the trial communities did not or could not accept the card. However, these problems have been outweighed by some very good outcomes. Violence related to alcohol and drug use has declined significantly in some of these trial regions. More kids are going to school, and more of them are being better fed. Quite a few people on the card have reported that it helps them manage their household expenses much better than before.

I went to the Goldfields region in Western Australia and saw this for myself. I spoke to Indigenous elders, local government leaders, local public servants and others in these communities. I spoke to many who were literally pleading for the cashless debit card to be rolled out much more widely. I heard how, before the card, older family members would force younger ones to hand over all their welfare money. It's a cultural thing for Aborigines to hand over money to other family members. Some who refuse face the risk of being bashed. One employer told me that a young Aboriginal man who worked for him quit his full-time job because his family forced him to hand over his pay. Working provided no future for him. The card prevented a lot of this sort of thing from happening.

One Nation supports the cashless debit card and income management being imposed on people and communities that clearly need it. I'm convinced that it does little harm and does much good, and I want to see the concept extended. To those who say that it unfairly targets Indigenous communities, I say: you're wrong, and you need to get out into those communities like I have. You need to be honest with yourselves and the Australian people and admit that problems like domestic violence, sexual abuse, drug and alcohol dependency, and unemployment are highly prevalent in Indigenous communities.

But wait—there's more, isn't there? 'The Voice will end all that, won't it/' We're going to have the Voice and it's going to fix all these problems! You need to witness and experience the unrest, the violence and the poverty for yourself and understand how income management makes a positive difference. Those supporting this legislation must explain to these communities and the Australian people what you're going to do about the fallout. What are you going to do about the return of the alcohol related violence, the increasing social unrest and the children who will again go hungry when the card is gone? How are you going to ensure that Indigenous children have the same education as non-Indigenous children? You can't—and won't, until you enforce the same laws that require every child to attend school, regardless of race.

Aboriginal parents can be reluctant to send their children to school for fear of them being better educated than themselves. In many cases, it is the parents holding back future generations. Yet the activists and self-interest groups blame white Australia for poor education outcomes and lack of opportunities for Indigenous Australia. Education is the key for Indigenous Australians to pull themselves out of the quagmire of welfare dependency and into a better lifestyle. People in these communities are furious about the government's plan to make income management strictly voluntary for all but a few. They fear that the vacuum from the loss of the card will be filled with more problems, more unrest, more violence and more crime. They fear the return of the chaos and dysfunction that the card was helping to stop.

I note that the government is tacking more money onto this legislation. They've plucked another $65 million to throw at alcohol and drug services, to fix the problems that neither major party has been able to solve for decades. There are people in these communities who are paying over $100 or $150 for what's called a 'pillow'—a five-litre cask of wine. And in some areas they're paying $200 to $300 for a bottle of rum. So, we're going to put in more health services, like dialysis machines, and that's going to solve the problem? Whereas if you restrict the money that they have, so that they're not spending it on this alcohol and drug abuse that is happening—and with the young ones—that might be a good start. It's been proven that it has worked and that it has helped. I'm reasonably confident this won't substitute for the good outcome produced by the cashless debit card. I know it won't. So another $65 million will be thrown at it. I'm sure the Australian people are going to be happy about that one.

This government must prioritise investment in the skilled, homegrown Australian workforce to fill Australian jobs instead of outsourcing them to overseas workers. Higher immigration is not the solution. It's about getting Australians into jobs.

I fully support this cashless debit card. I've been to the meetings and I've actually spoken to the people on the ground. I've been to Doomadgee. I've seen the problems that these communities have.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, we've now reached a hard marker. It's 1.30, so we're going to proceed to two-minute statements.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright, and I'll continue my remarks.