Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That's my language. I was quoting him. Like the Prime Minister's 'act of love' remark, this really was a contender for an 'eggbeater of the month' award. I don't doubt the sincerity of the minister and the government on this matter, but I do doubt their understanding of the concepts.

I can see why some might reasonably conclude that the cashless debit card trials undertaken to date have produced some mildly encouraging results, but this is only in the short term and, overwhelmingly, the trial results are more mixed than conclusive. That's a view I share with researchers and commentators such as Eva Cox, Peter Martin, Dr Janet Hunt of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the ANU, and numerous submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the bill. To quote Peter Martin yet again on the minister's somewhat eccentric reading of ORIMA's final evaluation report:

Forty-five per cent of the of the users surveyed found they were better at saving. Less publicised was that 50 per cent found they were not. Twenty-three per cent said it had made their life better. Less publicised was that 42 per cent said it had made their lives worse.

Forty per cent said they could better look after their children. Less publicised was that 48 per cent said they could not.

Eva Cox noted:

There are serious flaws in data collection, described in the Orima report, some of the limits are acknowledged in the report … These are not acknowledged by the Government.

The Western Australian Council of Social Service says in its Community Affairs Committee submission:

Our overriding concern with the proposed legislative extension of the Cashless Debit Card trials is the significant gap between the actual evidence of the impacts of the trials carried out to date and the claims being made politically about that evidence.

Overstating the positive aspects of the trials not only is misleading and unhelpful but can be harmful, especially if the government falls into the trap of believing its own publicity—something it is very prone to do. A proliferation of further trials or a national rollout of income management would be horrendously expensive and is not supported by the evidence assembled either by the ORIMA study or by earlier ill-fated ventures involving cashless welfare cards and income management arrangements.

The bill has been looked at by two parliamentary committees and is in the process of being examined by a third. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported on 6 September 2017:

… this bill converts authority to run a trial program into a general power to implement that program.

The Scrutiny of Bills Committee also raised concerns that the bill reduces parliament's capacity to supervise the operation of any extended trial. The committee requested additional advice from the minister as to why the primary legislation does not include more guidance and safeguards on matters such as site selection and participation criteria. These concerns are of the sort routinely raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee about this government's social welfare legislation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also examined the bill and queried whether the extension of the trials process is of itself a proportionate limitation on human rights. The Senate referred the bill to its Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which is not due to report until 13 November. The community affairs committee has not completed its inquiries, and a further public hearing is scheduled early in November. Quite rightly, in this instance, where the views of individuals and communities should be afforded the most respect, Labor has decided to reserve its final position on the bill until the community affairs committee completes its work. As part of its consultation process, the relevant shadow minister visited the east Kimberley and Ceduna trial sites, and Labor does still see the need for further evidence before strongly supporting this bill. This is entirely consistent with Labor's longstanding position on income management arrangements. It's consistent, too, with the findings of two Senate committees and many others on both sides of the House. I thank the House.

See this speech in context