Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is an absolute pleasure to rise after the member for Lingiari, who has a long interest in the issues before us today and whose positions and knowledge, of course, we on this side all value.

Labor have always said that we believe in a community-driven approach to tackling deep and persistent social issues such as alcohol abuse. The cashless debit card trial in Ceduna and East Kimberly was supported by Labor for this reason: because these respective communities, when consulted by us, wanted to take a new approach to tackling alcohol abuse and disadvantage in their community. The cashless debit card system sees 80 per cent of social security payments received by all working-age people in the trial sites being separated. This 80 per cent portion cannot be used to purchase alcohol—feeding into the deep social issues of these communities. Instead, 80 per cent of social security payments are only able to be used to purchase groceries, pay bills and for day-to-day items required to keep households running. It was on this basis that Labor agreed to support the idea of this bill in the House, which saw the implementation of the trial sites.

The bottom line is, we see now that these cashless debit cards are a thought bubble used in theory to assist communities crippled by alcohol abuse but, in practice, we need to fully examine the outcomes and benefits before we glorify them and commission a wider rollout. We need to be listening to the communities involved in the trials, many of whom are feeling disengaged and disenfranchised by the cashless debit card. My Labor colleagues and I have concerns with specific aspects of this bill which will see a further rollout of the cashless debit card trial, which has not had adequate evaluation. The government brings this bill into the House, having failed to establish a formal framework for consultation prior to a further rollout.

The proposed amendments that Labor would see inserted into this bill are around the provision for rigorous evaluation of the existing trial sites in Ceduna and East Kimberly. We suggest that this needs to be done urgently. In order to do this, more time needs to be afforded to the trial sites. We cannot be extending further trials when we do not know the outcomes of already existing trials. This is just common sense and, as you heard from the member for Lingiari, there have been many issues raised about the current sites and the report, which has now been widely criticised. There is no benefit to be made by extending the cashless debit cards if they are flawed and not benefitting the community. A rigorous evaluation might also throw up changes to the current system that would be better suited and give us the outcomes that are desired.

As the member for Lingiari quoted, there are many critics of the cashless debit card, including Dr Jane Hunt from the Australian National University who said that the evaluation does not 'present adequate evidence of the trial leading to successful outcomes for participants'. That pretty much sums up the things that I have read from people very close to and very experienced in this work. And it highlights for us that at this juncture it is not the time to be widening the number of sites before we review and refine the way this system works.

Obviously, this leads to the second issue with this bill—that is, there needs to be a formal framework for consultation and for confirming whether communities support a trial in their area. As I outlined, Labor supported the initial trials on the back of the knowledge that those communities sought to be a part of this process. Now it will be rolled out to other communities without a considerable framework and without consideration of how to best consult with those communities to ensure you've got buy-in from the outset. There has also been a Senate inquiry that has said that the position is inconclusive in terms of what outcomes are being met by this program. And, of course, there is the ORIMA evaluation, commissioned by the Department of Social Services, that's also been widely criticised.

My colleagues and I agree to support the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberly to continue until 30 June 2019, and we agree to move amendments reflecting this position because members of those trials genuinely want to see this through. Specifically, the amendments we seek will see the following changes to the bill in its current form: there is an extension to the current trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberly to 30 June 2019 to allow more rigorous evaluation; the trials are capped to the current two sites in Ceduna and the East Kimberly; it's ensured that places are capped to 10,000 participants in each respective community; it's specified how people in the trial areas can have a proportion of their income support payments in the card reduced or can exit the trial; and there is guaranteed funding for wraparound services in trial sites formally in the legislation. Labor will oppose the bill if the aforementioned amendments are not successful. This is because we need further consultation on the success of this program before further rollouts occur.

In terms of the evaluation and consultation, the fact is the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberly have not been going for long enough to make a thorough, detailed analysis of the effect being had on the community. In the 2017 budget the government announced that it would establish a further two trials of the cashless debit card. This is presumptuous given the subsequent lack of evidence in the review to support this and the lack of a clear framework for consultation. The bill enables these further trial sites by repealing one section of the Social Security (Administration) Act, which means that all trials must end on 30 June 2018. Trials are limited to occur in up to three discrete trial areas and the trial areas would include no more than 10,000 participants in total. This reflects ridiculous thinking from the government. That it expects a trial can be established almost overnight and then an outcome be reached in a matter of months only demonstrates that this government is not genuine about testing the effectiveness of the cashless debit card. It suggests, in fact, that they are determined to widen the use of this system despite lacking an evidence base that it is achieving the desired outcomes. This smacks of a belief that this is a magic bullet for social ills when we on this side all know that complex social problems require complex solutions. The fact is that although this bill provides the framework to allow additional trials to be implemented, it does not enable any specific trial sites. These trial sites need to be established by a legislative instrument.

Labor believe that in order for the cashless debit card system to be successful we need to ensure that there is proper community consultation. We, therefore, need a framework. The Senate inquiry demonstrated that there has been insufficient consultation with communities, specifically those communities which have been identified by the government to participate in what they consider as the next round of trial sites: Goldfields in Western Australia, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland. Further to the Senate inquiry's consultations, these specific communities have demonstrated again and again that consultation has been minimal and that there is no clear framework to establish whether they consent to trials being established in their community. Ultimately, we need to respect the views of the communities involved. The government, through lack of consultation, have demonstrated that they do not respect a process that would ensure this.

For the Department of Social Services cashless debit card, ORIMA Research was commissioned to undertake independent evaluation. The ORIMA evaluation of the existing sites was flawed, to say the least. The report compares data gathered throughout the evaluation period, being April 2016 to July 2017. Adverse consequences experienced by trial participants included that people who spent their money appropriately felt as though they were being penalised or discriminated against by being forced to participate; the stigma and shame associated with having a cashless debit card was creating other social ills; and being unable to make purchases from merchants or services where EFT facilities were unavailable was limiting their genuine ability to get the best value for money, in some cases, on their weekly purchases. Limiting transactions in regional communities in this way means people cannot access markets or op shops; the cards only work where there are sophisticated EFT facilities available.

As someone who was part of school processes where we introduced the capacity for schools to use EFT, I wonder at the provisions in these regional communities around those sorts of things. If I think about a normal family week and the number of times you put your hand in your pocket to pay for things at school, including excursions and paying for sport through the week—in regional communities, those sorts of things are limited where limited EFT is available. This definitely would be narrowing down people's choices about the way they pay for things.

I have to echo the sentiments of the member for Lingiari in terms of the ability of these trials to bring about the outcomes that are desired. We know that any evaluation stretching over a certain amount of time faces changes, but one would have to ask, in the case of the evaluation done in this instance, what parameters were put in place and who the control group was. If we want to do a serious scientific evaluation of something, it needs to be more than a thought bubble built around the notion of a magic bullet.

Labor will continue to work towards insisting to the government that, if they are intent on pursuing the expansion of the cashless debit card, there are parameters that need to be met, the first of which, of course, is consultation processes and a consultation framework with those communities. The second, which is a priority for me when I think about the way this works, is about the notion of a blanket approach to a card and a system whereby there isn't provision and a clear framework for how people can reduce their use of that card or have the income attached to that card reduced over time. In fact, in education terms, we would call it the release of independence or the release of control, gradually, over time. If somebody needs to have their expenditure controlled in this way, then it needs to be a sophisticated program, in my view, that allows people to demonstrate when they feel more comfortable in managing their own affairs and therefore can be slowly or gradually released from this provision.

It's an important issue. I know everyone on this side of the House is critically concerned about the effectiveness of the card and about ensuring we are not broadening the use of this card outside of those agreed areas where communities had expressed a desire to be involved. Personally, I would like to see that evaluation include measures that might improve this system rather than just assuming that it's the magic bullet that will fix the social ills. I'd also want to, of course, see measures included to assist families and the people involved to ensure they are getting the support services that they require alongside any kind of economic management system.

See this speech in context