Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I will return in a minute to some of the comments made by the previous speakers from the government side, particularly the members for Warringah, Hinkler and Grey. But, just to put this in context, this is talking about expanding and continuing a trial of a cashless debit card, which is basically a card that, if you're on welfare, quarantines 80 per cent of the payments for government approved appropriate purchases such as rent, food, transportation and education, while 20 per cent of your welfare payments are able to be used as cash and for other things, whatever they might be.

The trials have taken place in Ceduna in South Australia, an area represented by the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and also in the Kimberley. I particularly draw people interested in this topic to the comments by the member for Grey, a government representative who has seen the trial rolled out on the ground. I haven't heard from the member for Durack about the trial in her area, but I look forward to responses from those that have experienced it. Obviously the member for Hinkler has not had the trial rolled out in his area of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, but he has talked about community reaction to it. The Goldfields will be the later trials. That would effectively be at the whim of the government by a delegated instrument rather than necessarily consulting with the community.

I note that, of those opposite, the member for Warringah in particular was very proud of this policy being rolled out when he was Prime Minister—obviously not something that particularly affects the area of Warringah. It has had significant impacts on the Indigenous groups in Ceduna in the member for Grey's area and also in the Kimberley. I guess it's a bit of a philosophical argument as well as a practical solution. I certainly remember the member for Warringah talking about some of these areas and talking about living in remote parts of the Kimberley or even some of the APY Lands in South Australia as being a 'lifestyle choice' rather than a reflection of 65,000 years of connection with a particular part of Australia. The member for Warringah talked about the benefits that come from this.

I think there is a bit of an attempt to set up a false dichotomy here—that without the cashless debit card there can be no focus on how people are caring for their children. That is totally wrong. Anyone who's had any dealings with the department of child safety or even the police, for that matter, knows that any parent who is not providing their children with the necessities of life can be questioned under the Criminal Code, the Child Protection Act in Queensland and similar legislation in every other state or territory.

We have to understand what this is about. It may be motivated by the best intentions for the children; however, I would suggest that this legislation needs extra scrutiny, because it's going to significantly affect Australians. I think the member for Hinkler talked about how his electorate office was contacted by people—not like in a postal survey about marriage equality or anything like that, but just people picking up the phone.

I understand that there are community leaders in Ceduna, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, the Goldfields and the Kimberley who indicate this should be trialled. We need to make sure that the community consultation is thorough, rather than rushed, because, without proper consultation and proper scrutiny, we will not necessarily achieve the best in any community. I think the member for Herbert touched on this from her experience of working with community groups. It's that concept of 'nothing about us without us'. Communities need to own the policy and how it will be rolled out, because it needs drivers. That's the curse of central government: of Canberra directing how 24.5 million Australians work. In this circumstance you need to make sure the local community understands it, owns it and has some responsibility for it.

Labor insisted that this bill be referred to a Senate committee to allow for proper scrutiny of the significant changes that this bill proposes, because it is a significant infringement—taking away the rights and dignity people have. We can dress it up and say, 'It's just another card in your wallet,' but it's much more than that, as we heard from the witnesses that gave evidence in that Senate inquiry. We need to have proper processes and proper scrutiny. This shouldn't be rushed, because, as I said, we need to balance taking away people's rights.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee tabled their report on this bill on 6 December last year. Committee members from the Labor Party and the Greens tabled dissenting reports where they criticised the bill. The government announced in their 2017 budget that it would roll out the cashless debit card in two further locations from 1 September last year. The proposed locations were the Goldfields in WA and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in Queensland. They are communities that do not have the same percentage of Indigenous Australians as the first two trial sites.

The bill does provides the framework for additional locations but doesn't specifically enable the rollout in those locations. The government would need to take a legislative instrument into parliament for further rollout. Legislative instruments are, of course, disallowable, so for any particular location there will be an opportunity for the parliament to support or oppose the rollout. That is an important point, but the government has not yet said when those disallowable instruments will be tabled in parliament.

Labor believes that there should not be any new trial sites introduced. Labor will seek to move an amendment in the Senate to that effect. Labor would only consider the introduction of the new trial site if the Liberals can demonstrate that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community and an agreed definition of 'consent'. They must also have established a comprehensive evidence base through a robust evaluation process.

Labor knows the damage that drug and alcohol abuse and gambling can do to individuals and communities. We know that this is a problem that needs to be tackled as a community, by a community. The Australian Drug Foundation has given some alarming statistics. By the age of 12 a child will have seen more than 1,300 alcohol ads on television. Parents are the most likely source of alcohol for 12- to 17-year-olds. Eight out of every 10 Australians over the age of 14 drink alcohol. One in 10 workers say they have experienced the negative effects of a co-worker's misuse of alcohol. One in five Australians over the age of 14 drinks at levels that puts them at risk of alcohol-related harm over their lifetime. Australians aged over 70 years are the most likely group to drink alcohol on a daily basis. Alcohol and other drugs cost Australian workplaces $6 billion per year in lost productivity. Illicit drug use is most common among people aged 20 to 40 years. The report Alcohol's burden of disease in Australia, released four years ago, found that alcohol causes 15 deaths and hospitalises 430 Australians every day, and the number of deaths in Australia caused by alcohol had increased 62 per cent in the 10 years prior to 2014. These are worrying statistics, particularly for those of us who have young children.

We need to tackle this problem. As the member for Herbert said, we need to tackle it with our communities. What works in the Kimberley won't necessarily work in Moreton. We know that income management alone will not solve entrenched social issues. Governments need to provide additional support for any communities participating in these trials. We supported the first cashless debit trials in the East Kimberley and Ceduna. I visited Ceduna during the trials and have met and spoken with some of the Indigenous Australians there over the years. Also, when my partner was a lawyer working with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, she dealt with some of the members of that community. I'm reasonably familiar with the Ceduna community and I know about the rollout there, and I refer to the comments made by the member for Grey.

When I was on the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I went to Ceduna as part of their inquiry. We heard from the officer in charge of Ceduna police station that boredom contributes to young people drinking, particularly in the sporting off-season or when parents are absent due to their own drinking. We certainly saw some of that in our visit to that community. We also heard about the dangers of humbugging. We know that income management was introduced into the Northern Territory in 2007 to minimise humbugging, to ensure that the funds intended for children's welfare were used for that purpose. The Australian Crime Commission, in their submission to the inquiry, said:

There is evidence to suggest that drinkers on income management are able to maintain high levels of consumption through the Indigenous domestic moral economy (demand sharing) and the substantial outflow and largesse from their drinking cohorts who are employed.

One of the inquiry's 23 recommendations was:

That all strategies developed or funded by the Commonwealth or other governments are developed in partnership with the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and/or their organisations.

'Nothing about us without us.'

Labor supported the cashless debit card being rolled out in Ceduna because we consulted with community leaders and we secured additional funding for the wraparound services that are so essential. As so many speakers have mentioned, this is not a silver bullet. You need the wraparound services if the changes are to have any chance of success, particularly when it comes to drug and alcohol counselling services and increased mental health support services. I note that a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Ceduna region community leaders so that they owned the process.

Sadly, the evidence to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill was that people from the Goldfields and Bundaberg—the sites proposed for the new trials—felt disempowered by the consultation process and that it was not representative of their community. The state member for Bundaberg at the time, Leanne Donaldson, said the consultation process had been 'selective and secretive'. There was criticism to the Senate committee about consultation with the Indigenous community. A member of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Aboriginal community said:

They weren't really consulted … Every time there is something happening and they want to consult Aboriginal people, they haven't got an Aboriginal person there to explain in simple terms what's going on.

Sadly, whilst we are supportive of the outcomes, we can't support the bill in its current form. At best, the evaluations conducted by Orima are inconclusive. Those evaluations were heavily criticised by academics in the field of social science. The current trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have not been running long enough to provide sufficient conclusions about their success. Labor's own consultations with these communities have resulted in mixed feedback, with some community groups advocating support and others very critical of the impact on the community. Labor supports the current trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley continuing to the middle of 2019 so that conclusions can be drawn with confidence from the success or failure of the trials and what works best. Obviously the cashless debit card is not the only answer, as three previous speakers from the other side have said. It is also true to say that in some communities it is not the answer at all. Labor does not believe in a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Many communities are driving their own initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse, and I particularly I mention my home town of St George, which has been dealing head-on with an ice problem. Labor wholeheartedly supports these local initiatives—local solutions, local empowerment.

Labor does understand that some communities want assistance to address chronic alcohol and drug related abuse, and it is important that we listen to those communities about what their needs are and how they think those needs should be addressed by them. We do not take the patronising view that all recipients of welfare are incapable of managing their personal finances. We know that the vast majority of welfare recipients are more than capable of controlling and managing their own finances. They are good citizens, doing the right thing by their families and communities. It is important we recognise that. It is also crucial that the wraparound services are provided for these communities where the trials are occurring. Labor calls on those opposite to support Labor's amendment for funding these critical wraparound services. Fairness is something that runs through Labor's veins—fairness for all Australians, whether they are millionaires or whether they receive welfare.

See this speech in context