Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have seen a lot of rough and tumble in this House in the last 24 hours—a lot of politicking and personalities coming to the fore of the political discussion. But I rise today to make a contribution on a matter before this House which is deadly serious. The bill before us is something that raises incredibly complex questions. Watching the discussion from back in my office, what I actually saw was a lot of people in this parliament who are trying to make a good contribution—a real contribution—that grapples with some tremendously difficult ethical, legal and practical questions, specifically in relation to the situation we see of alcohol and gambling abuse in remote and rural communities around this country, and in particular how that problem affects Indigenous Australians.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015 would institute a system that would essentially limit the amount of income that people who live in specific communities around Australia can spend on alcohol and gambling. The first community would be Ceduna in South Australia. If the legislation passes the parliament that trial would begin next year and it would last for an additional year.

The genesis of this idea really comes from the report that was commissioned by the Abbott government, which requested that Andrew Forrest—whom many would know is a business leader in Australia—conduct a review of employment, specifically in its relation to Indigenous Australians. I am not sure of this person's expertise in Indigenous policy generally, but he has some runs on the board in terms of employment. He did produce a report that had a lot of ideas that were incredibly wide-ranging in scope. One of them has been picked up in the bill before us. Essentially, the scheme that the government is proposing would see people who are living in these specific communities and who are on working age payments—things like Newstart and disability support or carer pensions—be issued with a debit card that could not be used to purchase alcohol and gambling products. What the bill proposes is that 80 per cent of regular payments for people who are on regular payments, and 100 per cent of lump sum payments, would be put into this specific card that limits the use of the money.

I want to make it really plain to those listening how significant what is being proposed in this bill is. What the government is proposing is that people, just by virtue of living in this specific town, will have their right to spend their income as they choose curtailed in some way and that those rules would not be applied to other Australians. I think that it is absolutely incumbent on us to be upfront about what a morass of ethical issues is raised by the legislation before us—basic questions like: on what basis can government decide that one community is different to another?

I believe that social security is the right of Australians, living in a prosperous country as they do. But what type of principles should we be applying to the idea that government can put conditions on the payments that people receive? I think that right at the heart of the complexity of this issue is: what are the long-term impacts of policies which essentially take away people's choice? We know that a lot of the issues of Indigenous disadvantage that we see around Australia at their very heart lie in a place of powerlessness, so we really need to consider very carefully the types of policies that may reinforce these ideas.

Labor is not going to reject this bill on the basis of the issues that I have outlined and there are some very good reasons for that, which I will explain. But we would like to have a Senate inquiry into the bill. I think that is key, because there are some real missing pieces to the argument that have been put forward by the coalition here.

One specific and very obvious issue with the legislation before the House is that it attempts to manage alcohol and gambling, which are addictive diseases, by taking away people's right to use their income for these reasons but it has made no specific guarantees about service provision to help people come off those addictions. Coming off an alcohol addiction cannot be managed by an ordinary family. It would be incredibly unfair for us to put in place a scheme that will have that impact without putting in place additional supports for people who will be most affected. People need services to kick these habits and Labor wants to understand the specifics of what will be provided to these communities.

There are many other issues that I think need firsthand, on-the-record representations from the affected communities put into the public realm and discussed in the interests of this parliament because, as I say, some of the things that this bill proposes, frankly, are pretty radical. One of the specifics of this scheme in how it mainly differs from the income management approach that Labor used when in government is that this scheme is not put in place by triggers. The Labor scheme had a series of indicators that you had to reach before you went into an income management scheme. The entire town of Ceduna will be placed under income management. Everyone who receives a government payment of the type that I have described will be captured. Of course, we need to provide the people who will be affected an appropriate, formal opportunity to put their view.

I note that the minister responsible for this area has visited the communities and I applaud him for that. He has spent time talking to community leaders. But I do not think that is good enough. We need to hear more and it needs to be on the public record.

Another point I would just make is that the bill by its name, in every aspect, is a trial. It will last for a year in Ceduna. Another critical missing piece of the puzzle here is how this trial will be evaluated. Deputy Speaker, you and I both know that there are different techniques you can use to evaluate trials and, depending on what outcome you want to see, you can design a process around that. That is not what we want to see. This is a serious policy proposal and we want to understand exactly how it will be evaluated and how the process will fall out as the trial continues.

There are significant reasons for us to consider the merits in this bill. I want to talk about some of the reasons why I think we need to look at what would otherwise be really untenable policies because of the severity of the situation that we are dealing with in some of these communities. I have not visited Ceduna, so I cannot profess at all to be well acquainted with the issues facing that community. But I have lived in a community that faces similar issues. A few years ago I spent nine months living in north-east Arnhem Land, in a small town that sits about halfway between Cairns and Darwin. It is one of the most unbelievably beautiful parts of the country. In terms of the physical environment the beautiful Top End was really paradise. It is surrounded by incredible Indigenous communities which are living quite in concert with the way that their ancestors have lived for thousands and thousands of years.

These are people who communicate with one another in their Indigenous languages. For many, English is their fifth or sixth language, something I think is not known to nearly enough Australians. The Top End is a beautiful place, but there are communities which are experiencing this incredible blight of violence. In many communities around the country it is absolutely of crisis proportions. It is real, vicious and, frankly, unimaginable to anyone who has not seen it up close.

While I lived in that part of Australia my partner, who was working as a doctor at the time, worked in the hospital that services all of the acute medical needs of the surrounding communities. It was, honestly, a very difficult personal experience seeing someone, day in and day out, coming home and having to manage incredible acts of violence in their everyday work, working in that hospital. They were extraordinary acts of violence. I will not go through the detail for those present in the House because it would not be appropriate. Things were happening in these communities that you would not hear of in many other parts of the country.

I want to make the point that it was not just Aboriginal people who were involved in these violent acts. That was not the source of the problem. It was a community that had been frayed and then ripped because of alcohol, gambling and related activities.

We hear a lot of good talk and positive words in this House about the commitment to tackling domestic violence. But if we are serious about this then the place that we have to begin is in these remote and rural communities. We know that Aboriginal women in this country are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence than non-Aboriginal women. So if we are looking for the epicentre of this crisis, this is where we will find it. While living in this incredible part of the country my partner and I saw that the violence that was so affecting the life of people living in these communities was joined by a common thread and that common thread was alcohol.

I want to make it really clear how pervasive the effects of this problem is in these communities and, without having visited them, I think a lot of well-meaning people would really question the need for legislation such as this. They would argue the ethical points and they would be right to raise issues. Without having visited this community I probably would have shared a lot of those concerns but, having seen it up close, it is really very problematic. I see this bill very much not as taking control away from those communities but as giving it back, because what we are saying is that the people who live in those communities have the right to live a life without violence and without fear of violence.

The theme of control, when we are talking about policies that so affect Aboriginal people, is a very important one, because we know that there is a history here of governments intervening without the willingness and cooperation of Aboriginal people. In the vast majority of instances when that has occurred, the policies have not worked. But what is essential for people at home who are interested in this policy area to understand is that this legislation—this notion, this concept—is coming to this parliament at the request of the leaders of this community. What we have here is a community of people who see a problem and have identified a solution that they want to trial because of the pervasiveness of this hideous issue, and they have brought it to this parliament. So I say to other political parties who may have a different emphasis on this issue: we have before us a united group of largely Indigenous—but not all Indigenous—leaders who are saying that this is a major problem, they want it to stop and this is the solution. What message does it send to these communities if the people in this parliament say, 'Thanks, but no thanks'? As members of parliament, one of the core things that we can do to improve Indigenous policy in this country is to provide people with a voice and then listen to them. That is very much what I see that we are doing in the bill before us. In various parts around Australia, when we provide these communities with the power to drive policy within their own community, we see some pretty promising results—in an area where, let us be frank, there is not a lot of promise to discuss.

One of the really important things about Indigenous policy that I have learnt in my life is that we cannot group Aboriginal people together in one collective. That is completely inaccurate, because Aboriginal people all over the country have wildly different life experiences and very different sets of needs and issues and opportunities and gifts to give the rest of the Australian community. We absolutely see that in the work that I do locally with Indigenous people. It is a completely different policy situation to the one that I experienced where I was up north. We have to listen to the leaders of these communities, because they are the ones that are on the ground and they are the ones that understand the specifics of their situation and the solutions to it. We see, for example, in the Cape York community not exactly the same time of trial, but Indigenous leaders are the ones who are trying to work with their communities to improve behaviour. In those trials, we see significantly more success than we find in many alternative policy approaches.

I trust that the people involved in putting forward this legislation have come to it with really the best intentions, because, for all of the very difficult debates that we have across the chamber about most areas of public policy, when it comes to issues like this one we usually find a lot of common ground across the chamber. We have heard that in the speeches. We have heard some extremely powerful speeches from those on the other side about the concerns that they have, and I respect and acknowledge their willingness to try to tackle these issues. It is an incredibly complex area, a very complex piece of legislation, but one that deserves a proper look by a Senate committee. If the important issues and concerns that have been resolved by people on this side of the House are worked through, through that process, then I believe this is something that we should trial. I say that because we are hearing clear indications from the Indigenous leaders and the other leaders in these communities that this is what the community wants and needs.

See this speech in context