Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. Labor does not believe in a blanket approach to income management. We do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. I speak as a mental health and drug and alcohol worker and as someone who strongly supports community-led, evidence based initiatives that address drug and alcohol dependency. I make the point that drug and alcohol dependency is not something that discriminates. It affects people across our communities.

Labor believes most income support recipients are capable of managing their own finances. Labor has said all along that we will listen to individual communities and make decisions on a location-by-location basis. The cashless debit card is currently being trialled in the East Kimberley in Western Australia and in Ceduna in South Australia. The government announced in the 2017 budget that it would establish trials of the cashless debit card in two further locations from 1 December 2017, and this bill enables that. Since introducing this legislation, the government has announced that it wants to establish trials of cashless debit cards in the Goldfields in Western Australia, and in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland.

This bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which has now reported. After hearing the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry and after speaking with people in Bundaberg and the Goldfields, it has become clear that Labor cannot support this bill in its current form. The dissenting report by the Labor members of the committee identifies a number of significant concerns. It is apparent that there has been insufficient consultation with the communities in the proposed new trial sites and that there is no clear framework to establish whether these communities consent to trials being established in their areas.

There is insufficient evidence at this point to support the establishment of further trials. The ORIMA evaluations are inconclusive at best. The evaluation has been thoroughly criticised by leading academics. We are also concerned that two years is not long enough for communities to see whether there has been any real benefit from the introduction of the cashless debit card. Given the significant costs of the trials, an accrued cost of around $25.5 million, which equates to around $12,000 per participant, we need to be sure that the cashless debit card can achieve its stated objectives. We're hearing that the communities in existing trial sites want to continue using the card and see the trial through. For these reasons, we will support the continuation of the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley.

Labor knows that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we insisted that the government provide additional supports for participating communities. We are calling on the government to support our amendment that funding for these critical wraparound service will be guaranteed in the bill.

As someone who has worked in mental health and drug and alcohol areas for most of my life, I know that this is a complex problem and it's not one that can be addressed by one measure. This must be community led in order for it to be successful. Labor will also move an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be introduced, by changing the allowance of three discrete trial sites to the existing two. In the future, Labor will only consider the introduction of new trial sites if it can be demonstrated that the community have agreed that a formal consultation process with the community has occurred, that there is an agreed definition of 'consent' and that there is an evidence base established through robust evaluation.

As I have said, Labor does not support a blanket approach to income management or a national rollout of the cashless debit card. In my electorate there is a real concern from people who are currently recipients of income support that this will be broadly rolled out and that they will be captured by this. Two young men in my electorate, Daniel and Danny, both currently disability support recipients, raise this concern with me often. I spoke to Danny's dad, Ken, today. They make the point that having a disability does not make them incapable of managing their finances, but this would be the inference made about them if they were forced onto a cashless debit card. Wendy, a Toukley constituent, wrote to me:

I am rather worried about the Cashless Card proposed as they will probably want to roll it out to everyone on benefits. I pay private rent. So what would happen to someone like me? Could I end up homeless with a card in my pocket because who knows if a real estate agent would take it for rent. There is so much wrong with the whole idea of a card that it staggers belief that they would consider this.

These are real fears that people are experiencing in my community, because this is being discussed, because of the government's overall approach to income support recipients—people in our community who are most vulnerable.

Matt, from an adjoining electorate, wrote the following about the cashless card:

I despair that the goal of the Coalition is to roll it out nation-wide. I want it stopped in its tracks and for the government to treat social security recipients and pensioners more empathetically.

In addition to concerns about what the cashless debit card might be seen as saying about their standing in the community, my constituents have practical concerns relating to its implementation and impact.

Another constituent, Margaret, also from Toukley, said:

The 'Cashless Welfare Card' is a big mistake. I know from experience that many purchases of groceries etc. were not made from big supermarkets. Much was sought and bought by joining with others in similar situations and purchasing in bulk and dividing the burden. This would not be possible with the welfare card. Other household items were sourced second-hand and again the Welfare Card would not work. So forcing people onto this system would only disadvantage them more.

Again, these are real fears held by people in the community who are most at risk.

Another letter, from Greg, who is associated with a local food bank, shows that there is a belief that a blanket rollout is already happening and also raises a further practical concern. Greg wrote to me—and he also raised this when I visited their food bank in Toukley:

With the introduction of the new cashless Welfare card for Centrelink recipients, who make up a large number of those we help, we have recently purchased an EFTPOS terminal, so that card holders will still be able to purchase food from us. We are a NFP—

not-for-profit—

organisation. My question is will the Government subsidise the purchase of the terminal and reimburse the cost charged for each transaction? From memory I think ours is 1.98% of the total amount.

Further, Greg says:

As you are aware, with the more outlay we save the more food we can purchase from Foodbank so it follows that we can help more families and individuals in distress.

So it's not just individuals in the community who have concerns about this; it's not-for-profits and other providers who are concerned about the direction in which the government is heading.

To reiterate: Labor supports community led initiatives to address drug and alcohol dependency. As I've said, as someone who has worked in inpatient mental health and drug and alcohol wards in our community, I understand that there needs to be a wraparound approach. No single measure is going to address these issues, and it needs to be done with respect. As a mental health worker what seems to me to be missing in this debate is respect, dignity and real empathy for people who are experiencing drug and alcohol dependency. As I said, there seems to be this view that drug and alcohol dependency affects only certain pockets of our community. Drug and alcohol dependency does not discriminate; it affects across our communities.

To reiterate: Labor supports community led initiatives to address drug and alcohol dependency. Labor does not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Further, unlike the current government, Labor does not believe in marginalising income support recipients. Unlike the current government, Labor doesn't believe in kicking income support recipients when they are down. Unlike the current government, Labor does not believe in slashing programs designed to assist income support recipients to improve their education and boost their job prospects.

I said 'unlike the current government' because time and again we see the government proposing measures that do these things—measures like establishing a trial of drug testing for jobseekers and compliance changes relating to drug and alcohol testing, a measure for which there was no basis in evidence, a measure which united the entire medical profession in opposition and a measure which was roundly condemned by charities, welfare bodies and experts. So why would the government propose such a measure? It is because the government wanted to hint—just hint—that some income support recipients are simply not worthy of a helping hand from fellow Australians.

Unlike the government, Labor does not believe in hurting income support recipients. Labor believes that everybody, particularly the most vulnerable in our community, must be treated with dignity and respect. Let's look at the mean-spirited measures this government has in store for income support recipients—measures like cutting the bereavement allowance, a measure which will hurt people at a particularly vulnerable time in their and their families' lives. Unlike the government, Labor does not believe in cutting programs which will assist income support recipients to take up study to boost their employment prospects. In the last sitting we debated a government proposal to reduce the education entry payment and pensioner education supplement—modest payments made to people with a disability, carers, single parents and jobseekers who study so they can meet the additional costs arising from that study. Those measures are yet further examples of this government cutting support to low-income and vulnerable Australians.

I grew up in Wyong on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I worked in our local Wyong hospital for the 10 years before I was elected. For most of that time I worked in mental health wards, inpatient units and drug and alcohol services. We need measures that are evidence based. We need measures that are community led. We need measures that are just. We need measures that are fair. We need to treat people with respect and dignity. We cannot continue to let people down, to marginalise people and to victimise the vulnerable people in our community.

What the government is doing continues to send a signal to people who are vulnerable in our community, who most need our support, that it doesn't care and that they don't matter. Unlike the government, Labor understands that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we insisted that the government provide additional supports for communities participating in trials of cashless debit cards. That is why we are calling on the government to support our amendment that funding for these critical wraparound services be guaranteed in the bill.

Last week I met with Coast Shelter, who provide a range of services to vulnerable people in my community. I met with them at Rondeley, which provides housing for women and families, particularly women with children who are fleeing family violence. Those are the sorts of services that we should be supporting; those are the sorts of services that we should be boosting. The government cannot continue to undermine, to victimise, to marginalise the most vulnerable people in our community. I go back to Danny and Daniel, young men in my electorate, young men who work hard, young men who live with disability, young men who have a very real fear about what this might mean and how this might be rolled out. As I said, I spoke to Danny's dad, Ken, this morning and let him know that this is being debated in the House today. They have grave fears for Danny and his welfare, and other people like him living with disability. I oppose this bill. I ask that the amendments be looked at very closely in the Senate and that a fair, dignified and empathetic approach be taken to those in our community who are most vulnerable.

See this speech in context