Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in this place today to tell the Turnbull government quite simply that the community in Herbert will not support the cashless debit card in our electorate. In fact, the people in Herbert would much prefer to have funds funnelled into prevention and early intervention strategies.

I have worked for 15 years in the community sector and dealt with many people with drug and alcohol problems and with people who are very vulnerable, and it has become incredibly clear to me that punishing people at the end of a very dreadfully complex and hard life journey is not the answer. The answer is in early intervention and prevention. The other interesting thing that I've learnt over those years is that unless people are invested in their own behavioural change nothing changes. To think that we can simply put a cashless card in someone's hand and they will change their behaviour and do what we want them to do is absolute nonsense.

However, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 does provide a framework for additional cashless debit card locations. But it does not enable the rollout of the card in any specific location without consultation with the people in communities who are most affected. All trials of the card would still require a legislative instrument to be tabled in parliament, and, as I have said, changes in behaviour do not come about through punishment. These instruments are disallowable, which means that the rollout of the card can be agreed to or opposed in specific locations and not others, taking into account the views and/or wishes of the community involved. This is an important point because it means that the potential passage of this bill will not automatically mean that the card can be just rolled out in Hervey Bay, for example. This can still be disallowed through a disallowable instrument in the Senate.

Labor will not support this card being rolled out without proper and due consultation with the communities involved. To have proper consultation before we implement such an expensive so-called solution, it is absolutely imperative that we have a decent evaluation so that we are aware of what we are aiming to achieve and whether it will actually work. It is unfair and completely ill informed to suggest that all people are the same and that success in one trial will deliver a one-size-fits-all solution to all communities. As is evident in my community, rolling out this card is a big decision for any community and for this parliament. It simply cannot be rushed without the express permission and consultation of the individual communities affected. It is also disappointing that the minister has not allowed the time for greater scrutiny and deliberation on this bill before bringing it on for debate today. Labor want to see the findings of the Senate inquiry before determining our final position and, whilst we know that there have been recommendations by the Senate, one of those recommendations was very clearly that there has not been proper and due process in evaluation.

Labor also wants time to conduct consultations with local community leaders in the newly proposed sites of Kalgoorlie, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The government have not said when they will introduce the particular disallowable instruments that will enable the card to be put in place in these locations. Therefore, Labor reserves the right to support or oppose specific locations on a case-by-case basis. The Turnbull government is hell bent on targeting the most vulnerable citizens. The implementation of the card is an assumption that all those who are 35 years of age and under and receiving Newstart, youth allowance, jobseeker payments, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered are using their money inappropriately. I ask the members of the Turnbull government: how would each of you feel if you were to be labelled an alcoholic? How would the members of this government feel about being automatically labelled a gambler? How would they feel about being labelled a drug addict? I assume that they would not be very impressed. Essentially, this is what the cashless debit card is doing to those who are already struggling to survive.

I represent the electorate of Herbert, which also includes the remote community of Palm Island. Palm Island is a small community of over 3,500 people. The island has an unemployment rate of over 29 per cent and an underemployment rate of 20 per cent. According to the 2016 census, 24.1 per cent of households on Palm Island had a weekly household income of less than $650. The census also showed that, of people aged 15 years and over on Palm Island, 74.9 per cent did unpaid domestic work in the week before the census.

Palm Island is a developing community and a hidden gem in North Queensland. Given that Palm Island doesn't have a big economy, people look at the debit card as a way back, certainly not a way forward. The Palm Island council and the residents of Palm Island want job creation. They want economic development opportunities. These are what they see as greater priorities for the island, and I have to say I agree.

Townsville has an unemployment rate of around 9.1 per cent and a youth unemployment rate around 20 per cent. To date we have seen no investment in our region by the Turnbull government, and after two years we are still waiting for a NAIF announcement. Palm Island, Townsville and the entirety of northern Australia need investment—investment in infrastructure projects, tourism and education—which will not only kick-start our economies but create employment with a number of new industries, hence reducing welfare payments because people will be employed.

Labor's position on the cashless welfare card trial has always been to support trial areas where the community has a desire to try something new to address the drug and alcohol abuse problems. I am always open to considering genuine efforts to assist and support people in my community who are struggling with drug dependency to access appropriate treatment. I don't believe that income support is best utilised to support a drug habit. However, vulnerable people's lives are very, very complex. There is no easy solution, and I can assure you punishment is not a solution. As community representatives, we must remember that we are talking about people's lives. There are entrenched social issues that cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. We must address the core issue—that is, establishing the flow-on of drug and alcohol abuse to occur. Issues such as children attending school, having a roof over your head, being able to afford to pay your bills and buy food and having access to health care would be a very good start.

The vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, which noted that the cashless debit card engages and limits three human rights: the right to social security, the right to a private life and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. By reducing a person's choice in how and where they access and spend their social security payments, the cashless debit card program limits the right to a private life.

Labor have said we will never support a blanket approach to income management. We will not support a trial where the community insists it does not want it. By talking with individual communities, we will make decisions on a location-by-location basis. That means that we will get regional solutions that suit regional communities.

Since introducing the legislation, the government has announced that the Goldfields in Western Australia will be a trial site, along with areas currently being trialled in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna, South Australia. Labor's consultations with the communities in the East Kimberley and Ceduna showed that the communities wanted the trial, and therefore Labor supported these trials being established. We also support an extension of these trials to ensure that adequate evaluation can take place. However, since the trials, there have been some community leaders in Kununurra shifting their support away from the cards because community solutions are crucial. This shift must be acknowledged by the government and taken into consideration. The government must act in favour of the communities' wants and needs. Labor will continue to consult with individual communities to ensure their requests are met, whilst addressing social hardships and challenges.

The Turnbull government released the evaluation of the trials on 1 September. The evaluation showed mixed results. There have been serious concerns regarding Kununurra and Ceduna particularly. If you look at the report, 78 per cent of people said there had been little to no change and some people said they were worse off. The Senate inquiry committee heard from the people of Kununurra, who stated that the card isn't working. Police reported increased levels of violence, and the NGOs in the town are reported as saying that kids were going hungry. You can't just put a card in place without anything else and expect conditions and behaviour to change, particularly when our first nations people within that area stated that they weren't asked about the card, they weren't consulted and they weren't asked for their opinion regarding solutions to address these complex issues.

Trials also require solid and robust evaluation. I have received numerous emails and messages from members of my community who are against the implementation of the cashless welfare card in Townsville. There is a grave fear of the invasion of privacy and that the cashless welfare card is a bandaid attempt at dealing with a more complex social matter. The people in my community would prefer the funding of this card to be implemented in other areas. I have mentioned the fact that early intervention and prevention is where we will make significant behavioural changes, coupled with education.

Townsville, for example, is on level 3 water restrictions and is in desperate need of water infrastructure investment. Federal Labor has pledged $100 million towards securing a long-term solution to Townsville's water needs, as well as $200 million towards developing hydro-electricity at the Burdekin Falls Dam. These are only two suggestions for where the money could be better spent in my region, where jobs could be created for people who are trying to survive on welfare. It is no mean feat to try and live your life, raise a family, pay your rent, put food on the table and get your kids educated on welfare.

If the government is looking for further suggestions as to how the money could be spent to address some of the prevention and early intervention strategies that have been raised in my community, I have a list as long as my arm and I would be very happy to pass it on.

See this speech in context