Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are countless differences between Labor and the Liberals. When it comes to values, we stand on opposite sides of the spectrum. When it comes to policies, we are really, really worlds apart. When it comes to the way we operate, we're nothing alike. There are many points of difference between the Liberal and Labor parties.

The Liberals, our current government, tend to run in, guns blazing, without proper consideration. They base policies on flippant thought bubbles that might make for good sound bites but really do lack in substance and consideration. But we in Labor think things through. We consult with people, we consult with business, we consult with communities and we listen. We use the evidence available to formulate strong, really sensible policy. That's why we in Labor are reserving our position on the cashless debit card for welfare recipients until the completion of the Senate inquiry. For such a drastic overhaul of the current welfare system, it was absolutely crucial that this inquiry was undertaken. I suppose the question is: why would Labor support such a measure if it did more harm than good?

Labor is in this for people. That's how we viewed this piece of legislation. That's how we viewed the Senate inquiry. We view it in terms of how it impacts people, how it helps people and how it assists victims of drug and alcohol abuse and the communities that they live in. Labor will always support community-driven initiatives to tackle abuse. Whilst it's heartbreaking that they are needed in our communities, I have to say my community is fortunate enough to have support from some truly amazing and incredible services. They are services provided by some wonderful organisations in my community like the Caboolture Neighbourhood Centre, our local headspace, the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health and the Primary Health Networks. They're doing wonderful work. These organisations and service providers understand that people who suffer from drug and alcohol abuse are people who need support. They understand that people are all so different. There are different people that may have different needs, different goals and different struggles, so it only makes sense that they may require different approaches.

I don't believe in a blanket approach to income management. I think that's pretty lazy. Neither I nor my party, the Labor Party, believe in a national rollout of a cashless debit card. It's quite clear that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances and that being forced onto income management simply won't help. Labor has said all along that we will consult with individual communities, that we will talk with them and that we will listen—and then, and only then, will we make decisions on a location-by-location basis.

Labor supported the trials of the cashless debit card in the East Kimberley and Ceduna on the basis that the communities wanted to trial the card. After years and years of cyclical issues of abuse and of disadvantage plaguing their areas, they were willing to try something different—a circuit breaker. Labor has been happy to support this test. We've been waiting for the results that have sufficiently indicated whether the trials should be either expanded or concluded, and we're still waiting for these results.

The Senate inquiry has heard that the evaluations of the existing trials have been unreliable and that no judgements can be made on the basis of the information that's been collected to date, so I think it's understandable that Labor won't support expanding this trial until we see credible results. I'd also note that, in addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, the trials haven't really been running long enough to form solid conclusions. I think it would only make sense that the trials on those two sites continue until we can properly formulate accurate results from accurate data. Unfortunately, true to form, we've seen this government announce, in 2017, budget plans to expand the trial to two further locations: the Western Australian Goldfields and, in my home state of Queensland and not very far from my electorate, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. So I would ask those opposite: what if? What if, when we finally get reliable results from these existing trials, we find out that the cashless debit card is ineffective? Or, even worse, what if it had a negative effect on those communities? In particular, we've heard from communities in the Bundaberg and Goldfields regions that there's been insufficient consultation with people who actually live there and know their communities. And yet this government wants to rush ahead without thinking, without talking, without listening and without a clear framework in place. They haven't properly specified how people in trial areas could have a proportion of their income support payments on the cards reduced, and they haven't properly specified how these people can exit that trial either.

There needs to be a plan. We owe it to these communities and we owe it to the people who live there. So until this government can present a plan, we in Labor will oppose expanding this trial. Shaky evidence that's based upon unreliable evaluations and murky consultation processes might be good enough for the other side of the House but it's not good enough for this side of the House, especially when we're talking about people, their lives and their livelihoods, which are all at stake.

The sheer lack of compassion makes me question—it really does—this government's motives behind these measures. Surely, if they truly cared about helping people they'd take the time needed to work out the best possible solution for everyone involved. What they should do is what the Queensland government's done. The Palaszczuk Labor government have been consulting with committees right across the state to formulate an action plan to tackle the epidemic of methamphetamines. One of these consultation events took place in my electorate at Longman, just down the road from my office in Caboolture, down at the Caboolture RSL. I attended alongside our local state member, the Hon. Mark Ryan, who also holds the police and corrective services portfolio. It was a truly valuable experience and a strong reminder of the value of listening. Just to give you an example, when I was attending I came into the Caboolture RSL, signed in and said hello to one of the staff members I regularly see on the desk. She asked me if I was going upstairs to the ice summit. I said, 'Yes, I am.' She said to me, 'I lost two children to ice.' I've been going to the Caboolture RSL for a lot of years and I never knew that story. I never knew that story that she'd lost two children to ice. It just reminds me, re-enforces, how important it is that we consult with people when we're talking about our social issues.

The data and evidence from the round table I attended that day are helping the Palaszczuk government finalise their action plan to really tackle the issue around ice addiction. That draft plan has 65 recommendations. Across different regions and across different demographics, it has 65 actions—not just one, but 65. I think this federal government would need to take a page out of the Queensland government's book. They need to understand the importance of listening, of consultation and how dangerous it is to move with haste and not be patient where it's needed. You can't rush through trials like this.

Labor will not support this trial extending until we have received that evidence of reliable data from the existing trials that suggest they have been successful. We won't support these measures until the government can show us that they have a plan to transition sites following their trials, whether they're successful or not. What's the plan? What's the plan for those people in Bundaberg and the western Goldfields? Of course, we won't support the government forcing such drastic measures on communities that do not want them.

As I said, until the government can agree to Labor's amendments, I won't be supporting this bill, of course. Vulnerable communities like mine deserve the respect of consultation. They deserve to be listened to. Whether it's consultation around matters such as these, such as major overhauls, or changes to systems or services, communities deserve respect in being consulted. Vulnerable communities deserve respect. They need to know that they've got measures that work, not just ones that the government assume do because they've written them on a piece of paper, so of course they must work. They need to be consulted on these.

I've seen the damage that substance abuse can do to a community, and it's heartbreaking. I've heard the stories of lives that have been shattered, of families that have been shattered—of how the life of that woman at the Caboolture RSL and her family have been shattered. More needs to be done, not less. More support needs to be given. But rushing through these measures in their current form won't help with the help that vulnerable Australians need.

Just prior to the member for Kennedy, the member for Scullin spoke, and he was sharing with us a story about a woman re-establishing her life after domestic violence. Part of that re-establishment meant buying second-hand furniture—plates, cups; some second-hand items to get her house re-established. This could be a woman in any part of the country. It could be a woman in my electorate. It could be a woman in Bundaberg. It could be a woman in the western Goldfields. Has this government stopped to think about how important that is for that woman to re-establish herself, to re-establish a home, and what a cashless debit card would mean to her—what it would mean to have income management forced upon her?

I mentioned before that in my electorate, down in Caboolture, we have a great market on a Sunday. It overflows with people buying their fruit and vegies. They're affordable fruit and vegies from local growers. For a lot of people, this is how they feed their family. Could you imagine having a debit card forced upon you if this is where you get your family's food from?

This legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, needs sensible amendments, ones that of course I agree with, the ones that Labor has put forward. They ensure consultation. They will take a good hard look at the evidence and ensure that people who live in those communities that will be impacted by the introduction of a cashless debit card are consulted and that there is actually an appetite and a welcoming of this as a way of dealing with some of their community's issues.

See this speech in context