Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm really pleased to rise today to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. Many Australians enjoy the freedom to crack open a coldie—crack open a beer with mates—or have a punt on the Melbourne Cup on Melbourne Cup Day, but we in this House are all aware that the flip side of these freedoms is that gambling, drugs and alcohol abuse can have dire consequences in our society. I see it regularly as the member for Petrie, with different families that come into my office for various reasons. It could be family breakdown or domestic violence, and a lot of the time it is associated with these issues.

The latest statistics—before the member for Newcastle leaves the chamber—from the ABS show that in 2016 374 people died from alcohol-induced causes and 1,808 died from drug-induced causes. That, I think, is very conservative too, because it doesn't look at all the other health effects that are related to it. This is not a subject that members in this place should skim over or ignore.

Beyond fatalities, there are many other associated consequences, including abuse in the family home, depression and ongoing health issues. These ongoing health issues involve chronic diseases that can and will seriously impact on the person's quality of life and their ability to participate in their community. These issues also hinder a return to the workforce. If someone presented evidence to a member of parliament in this place—there are 150 members here from different parties—that a program would reduce drinking abuse by 41 per cent and reduce drug abuse and gambling by 48 per cent, it would be irresponsible for that member not to implement this program. The arguments that I've heard in here today are, at best, very weak. The word 'consultation' has been used, but I'll touch on consultation again in a minute, on the trial programs.

These statistics are very real. They're real. They are the real-life changes that have occurred in two trial sites for the cashless debit cards. The member for Grey in the House yesterday outlined some of the benefits he saw in the community of Ceduna in South Australia. He spoke of the reduction in alcohol use, illegal drug use and the amount of money spent on gambling. He said there was a big reduction. He also spoke on the benefit of the look of the cashless debit card. One of the problems with the BasicsCard, it has been reported, is that it comes with a level of shame; the BasicsCard looks different. The cashless debit card just looks like everyone else's debit card, so there is no shame or stigma attached.

Mr Deputy Speaker, here is my phone. On the back of my phone I carry my debit card. I don't carry cash anymore. If I want to buy a $4 coffee, I don't carry the cash; I just payWave it. And payWave is pretty well accepted everywhere. I would imagine that most people in this House would do the same—that they'd carry their debit card. It's a common form of payment. You don't need cash, okay? It's common to be able to payWave things now.

The cashless debit card takes aim at the social harm caused by alcohol, drug abuse and gambling. I must also give credit to the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, who yesterday spoke about the children that this will affect and the importance of implementing this program right across the country. Participants in the program receive 80 per cent of their welfare payment onto the debit card. So onto the card, like this one here, they receive 80 per cent each fortnight. They can use their card in shops, the same way they use existing debit cards, while restricting the purchase of alcohol or gambling services, or withdrawals or cash payments. And that's fine. The participants still receive the remaining 20 per cent of their payments into their nominated bank account. So they can still actually get 20 per cent as cash. I just don't understand how any member or any senator could vote against this proposal when 80 per cent of the participant's welfare income is put onto a card that can be used for everyday items: grabbing a coffee, going to the supermarket, or buying clothes, schoolbooks or new school shoes for their kids—whatever it is, they can use the card. Twenty per cent they can take out in cash and it can be used for whatever they wish. That sounds very reasonable to me, and not one argument put forward today or yesterday has had a lot of merit to it, if you are against this idea.

In my electorate of Petrie I spoke to representatives from local organisations that see the effects from individuals spending their payments on alcohol and gambling and not on the basic necessities like food and clothing for their family.

Mary-Ann from Kairos Community College, a community college in Deception Bay in my area, thinks this program should be rolled out to all people aged 16 years and over. With her work in the community at Kairos Community College and the school, she knows too many individuals who choose to spend their entire welfare payment on illegal drugs and who, as a result, are currently homeless. That's what she told me. The parliament has the opportunity to help fix this problem. It won't fix the problem completely. People will still have 20 per cent cash, but this will go a long way to fixing the problem, and the statistics in the trial sites currently prove it. Lisa from Active 60 And Better thinks that this is a great program. She believes that intergenerational welfare is an issue prevalent in her community. By helping recipients spend their money on essentials, the program would be a big win for the community. She said it really is sad when you see children at the local pub at midday with their parents rather than being at school.

The fourth proposed trial site is in the federal seat of Hinkler. I thank the member for Hinkler for coming in and listening to my speech today. It is proposed that those under the age of 35 living in the Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, Childers and Howard regions who receive Newstart, youth allowance and parenting payments will transition over to the cashless debit card. Last night the member for Hinkler outlined his support of the proposed trial in his electorate. That's what we want to vote on here, to make sure that we can get this trial up into the member for Hinkler's area as well. He's right here next to me. He knows his community better than anyone else in this House, and he would like the opportunity. Extensive consultation has been carried out in the member for Hinkler's seat, including 55 local service providers, I believe, and peak bodies on the front line working with disadvantaged families; two community information sessions open to the public; 26 consultations with local church groups; and 25 meetings with local government. The members who are talking about consultation, are you listening? Are you listening to what I'm saying? There have been three meetings with the Queensland state government and direct engagement with over 70 community members, either through direct correspondence or meetings. Some 32,000 emails have been sent out from your office. Is that right?

Mr Pitt interjecting—

5½ thousand—32,000 direct mail, 5,000 emails, and phone polling of around 500 people by the member for Hinkler. He's sitting next to me. I think 75 per cent of the feedback received from speaking with that community supports the cashless debit card. They support it. This region was selected as a potential trial site, and they desperately want it up there.

The same feedback has been received from the government's other trial sites in the Ceduna—I spoke about the member for Grey—and East Kimberley regions. As I noted earlier in this speech, I was interested to read the comments of Kimberley local leader Ian Trust. He said, 'Unlike other reform efforts undertaken by government, it has been the Indigenous leaders of the East Kimberley who have led this reform.' When comparing trends a year on in the East Kimberley region the results are fantastic: a 28 per cent decrease in St John Ambulance call-outs; a 20 per cent decrease in community patrol pick-ups in the first six months of the trial; a 48 per cent decrease in referrals to the Kimberley Mental Health and Drug Service. So I say to the members that come into this place and say there hasn't been consultation: are they looking at the ABS statistics and are they listening to these figures? Because if they were, they would jump at the opportunity to roll this program out right around the country. Mr Trust said the reason he was one of four Indigenous leaders to sign off on this trial is that they have been trying the same programs for 40 years, and nothing is changing. We come into this place every year and we listen to the Closing the Gap report, and then the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and everyone says, 'We're making some improvement, but a lot hasn't been improved. There's a lot more needs to be done.' When a program like this that produces statistics and with extensive consultation shows real results, members come in here and baulk, and I say shame on you.

I listened to the member for Denison. What a pathetic contribution that was to this debate earlier today. It really was quite offensive listening to the member for Denison. He rolled out the excuse, 'Well, it was expensive.' Every other time he looks at a government program, he says we're trying to save money. He said it was racist, but we hear from Mr Truss how well it is working in Indigenous communities. It is not racist, because we want to roll it out in other trial sites, like the member for Hinkler's electorate, where the majority of people are not Indigenous. He said it was an ideological vendetta, but I say to the member for Denison that the only person with an ideological vendetta is yourself. You vote against government policy even if it's good policy, even if it's backed by ABS statistics and consultation through these communities where we want to roll it out.

I have heard from other members here today that there's not enough consultation. They're wrong. I say to the people in this House today, the members and those listening in the gallery, if you think of people that gamble and spend their money, and they come back and they've lost all their money for the week on gambling, how do they feel when they come home? I would suggest they feel depressed, angry and desperate. What about someone who's an alcoholic? The member for Denison says 75 per cent don't have a problem. That may be true. Well, they won't be affected, will they? If they don't buy alcohol or don't go gambling, it won't matter if they don't have access to it on their card and they still have 20 per cent cash in their pocket. But what about the 25 per cent that are affected? What about the alcoholic that comes home in the middle of the night and wakes up in the morning and the 11-year-old son says, 'Dad, there's nothing to eat.' How do you think he feels? I think he feels dreadful. I don't think he'll be able to function properly, and I think that they will, in many cases, need mental health support.

This is a win-win situation. I say to members that if you don't vote for this, you are guilty of maintaining the status quo. Look carefully at what you support. I understand that members opposite don't always want to vote for what the government proposes, but this was supposed to be a bipartisan program that's meant to help Australians, the very people that we're elected to represent. I haven't heard any argument from those opposite. If anyone else gets up and talks about consultation again, give me a break, when I've just read out the statistics and the consultation that the member for Hinkler has taken in his electorate alone. I believe that if this goes through, people will thank us. If you have a gambling problem and you can only lose 20 per cent of your cash, and a couple of days later you've got 80 per cent left, I think they'll thank us. I'd ask members and senators to support this bill.

See this speech in context