Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the position put by the member for Jagajaga on behalf of the opposition in respect to this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I have listened to most of the speeches given by members on both sides with respect to this legislation. I don't question for a moment the sincerity of their belief in their remarks and in their efforts to respond to what is a very serious social problem, in which alcohol, drug abuse or gambling—indeed at times a combination of all those—are generally the underlying contributing factors.

The reality is that efforts to manage alcohol abuse, drug abuse or gambling have proven to be very difficult across all communities right throughout Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. It's also the case that alcohol, drug and gambling addictions cause suffering to innocent people, often children, to whom we also have a responsibility to protect. That speakers both for and against this legislation have been so passionate tells me that there is some truth to many of the arguments that have been put forward. More importantly, it tells me that there is not unanimous agreement on the merits of the cashless debit card proposal. For that reason alone, the government should proceed with caution. The fact is that the evidence about the effectiveness of the cashless debit card is inconclusive and opinions are, indeed, divided. That being the case, the extension of the program into more communities—that is, in the Goldfields of Western Australia and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland—should be put on hold.

The fact is that the existing cashless welfare card trials commenced in March 2016 in Ceduna and in April 2016 in the East Kimberly. They were assessed less than a year after that. Unless those trials were an overwhelming success, which is not what the evidence suggests, then the trial period should be extended for a further period and then they should be evaluated. That would enable a much clearer picture of the effects of the trial as well as much more time to consult with local communities about what works best for them. That is what Labor is proposing by extending the trial date of the Ceduna and East Kimberly community programs to end in July 2019. It's one more year. Quite frankly, within that year, there would be a much clearer picture of how effective the trials have been or, indeed, whether they have not been effective.

This is a matter which profoundly affects the lives of people involved in the trials. To tell people that they will not be able to access all of their entitlements other than through a card which limits the way that they spend their money is a fairly profound decision for government to make. Indeed, I ask members of this parliament how many of them would like to have their finances managed the same way. Because it affects people so personally, every member of this parliament should consider very carefully the impact it will have on the lives of the people affected.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquired into this matter and reported to parliament in December last year. Not surprisingly, the report was not unanimous. When a parliamentary committee inquires into a matter and presents a divided report, it is a clear signal to parliament to proceed with caution. That is the very purpose and value of the parliamentary committee process. We should not ignore that. Committees of parliament are used as a tool by the parliament to better inform the parliamentary members before decisions are made. Yet the government wants us to ignore that report, which was not unanimous, and thus make a mockery of the parliamentary process.

Since the trials commenced, I have personally received many representations from people knowledgeable about the trials, who have expressed their criticism of them and concern to me. Not too long ago, I spoke with Aboriginal health workers whose work takes them into the Ceduna area. They raised with me their grave reservations about the trials and the negative outcomes that they noted with the cashless welfare card. These were the very people who have to deal with the fallout of the use of these cards and the fallout of the problems that these cards are intended to try and address, but, because they work for government, they are reluctant to speak out themselves and would prefer not to. I understand that, but, at the end of the day, it's people like them that we should listen to, because they are right in the firing line of trying to manage the problems of the communities that we are targeting with the cashless welfare card.

I also listened carefully to the speech of the member for Lingiari. He supports Labor's position and spoke passionately in defence of it. I've known the member for Lingiari since I first joined this parliament over a decade ago. His experience and understanding in the very communities on whom the trials are being imposed, or proposed to be, should not be ignored. I know that he has the best welfare of those communities at heart when he comes into this place and says, 'Let's proceed with caution.' Let's extend the trials for another 12 months. Let's evaluate them then and we will be in a better position to know not only which other communities they should be trialled in, if at all, but also what changes should be made if they are to be extended into a new community. Indeed, are the current guidelines with respect to the cashless welfare card exactly as we want them. I doubt very much that we got the guidelines absolutely perfectly right the first time round. Have we learnt nothing from the trials that might enable us to change the guidelines and make the card more effective, if that is the way that parliament wants to go? I said earlier on that this is an issue that goes right to the heart of how we treat people. It's an issue that makes a huge impact on the lives of the people who are caught up in these trials. That's why I keep reiterating that we should proceed with caution.

There are some other matters that I want to raise with respect to the trials. Firstly, the trials are intended, predominantly, to target a particular sector of the Australian community—that is, Indigenous Australians. In Ceduna, my understanding is that 75 per cent of the people who are participating in the trial are Indigenous Australians. In the East Kimberley, the figure is 82 per cent. This is not just coincidence. The reality is that this trial is predominantly targeted towards Indigenous Australians. The fact remains that Indigenous Australians have been racially discriminated against, neglected, abused and disadvantaged for decades. I don't point the finger at anyone at all in that respect; I simply make a statement of fact. Treating them differently to other Australians now not only continues that discrimination but also is demeaning and demoralising, which is the very opposite of what we should do if we are going to ever close the gap.

I understand that there have been some concerns expressed with respect to our human rights obligations to these people and how this measure may, indeed, infringe and impact on the human rights of those who are participating. That may be a side issue for the time being but the reality is that it is a matter that should not be ignored. In my view, the ultimate answer to fixing the problem is to close the gap when it comes to health, education, employment, housing and the like—doing all the things that enable Indigenous people to be able to live a similar life to everyone else in this country. Maybe the gambling, the drug addiction, the alcohol addiction and the domestic violence would also diminish proportionately as that gap is diminished. I would have thought that one of our most important objectives if we're going to close the gap would be to ensure that people are able to take responsibility for their own lives. Yet this very measure does the exact opposite. It takes away the ability of people to take control and responsibility for their lives.

The social problems of remote Aboriginal communities are, indeed, complex, and both state and federal governments of all persuasions have struggled with the problems for decades. Most of the people affected by the trials are not drug addicts, not gamblers and not alcoholics, yet they will be caught up in the trial itself and they will be obliged to abide by the rules that apply to the cashless debit card. Why are they being caught up in a process when they have done absolutely nothing wrong other than to say that they happen to live in the two communities in which the trials are currently underway? Indeed, if a cashless debit card is to be used, perhaps, rather than identifying specific communities, we should be identifying specific criteria for who should be issued with a card. The criteria might be to do with the person's ability to manage their financial affairs or whether the person is, indeed, an alcoholic, a drug addict or so on. It should be person targeted, not community targeted. I would have thought that that would be a much more effective and much better way of dealing with a cashless debit card if that is the direction that parliament wishes to go in.

I turn to a second matter with respect to my concerns: it seems to me that the cashless debit card program is a tough measure. Some people might choose to use the terminology that it's 'tough love'. Serious social problems are rarely ever resolved by imposing harsh measures. Inevitably, all that happens is that a problem is fixed in one area and simultaneously another problem is created, or that the problem that is fixed in one area is simply shifted to another area. I wonder, when parliament flags that we are going to introduce the cashless debit card to the Goldfields area of Western Australia and the Hervey Bay area of Queensland, whether the people in those communities, with advance knowledge of where it's going, will simply move out of those communities to a different location. I wonder how many of them already did that with respect to the card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Therefore, for those who wish to avoid the card's impacts, there are ways out of it and, therefore, in my view, the assessment that then takes place is not genuinely reflective of whether the problem has been fixed—it has simply shifted to another location. That's why—and it's issues such as that—simple observations and simple measurements about the claimed success of a program can so often be misinterpreted.

If we want the best for these communities—and I suspect we all do, from both sides of this House—it would be wise to extend the trials that are currently underway in Ceduna and the Kimberley for another 12 months, because that would enable us, at the end of the 12 months, to not only more accurately evaluate the effect of those trials but also evaluate any unintended consequences that were not foreseen when the trials started. It's a cautionary approach. It makes sense. I see little advantage in moving onto two new sites when we still have more work to do in the existing sites where the trials are underway.

See this speech in context