Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am strongly opposed to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. In contrast to the previous speaker, I say there are alternatives to the cashless debit card, and that involves putting in proper social supports for families who have difficulties. This is a philosophical problem. It's quite ironic that, on a day when we're arguing about whether we should give tax cuts to people earning $200,000 a year, we're arguing about whether we should extend the reach of the cashless debit card. I have no problem with espousing my objections to this bill. It's paternalistic. There really is no evidence that it is going to change anything. In fact, for some families and some children, it is very likely to make things worse. If there is a problem with gambling, we should look at the gambling issues. Why do we have so many poker machines? Why do we allow people such free access to poker machines? This is a government that is happy to support the poker machine industry but not happy to support families in distress.

I don't like it when politics becomes personal, but, to me, this is a personal issue. This is a government that is prepared to see the most disadvantaged families in our community being punished for being in the position that they're in and not support them. This is how I see the cashless debit card. There's no evidence that it works. There is very little effort being put in place to increase services for families in distress. In fact, we've learnt recently that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs is reducing support for drug and alcohol counselling for Indigenous families. It's no good for those on the other side to say there is no alternative; there is—that is, to provide proper supports for families in distress.

In the Labor Party, we support the will of the community. From what I hear and see, there is no evidence that the community strongly wants the cashless debit card introduced, in spite of what those on the other side say. We have backed community-led trials in the past, but no real evidence has been produced to show that the cashless debit card is of benefit to these extremely distressed families. Yes, many of these families are Indigenous, but there are others. Indeed, in my electorate, many people are very concerned about the prospect of the cashless debit card being given wider acceptance. I think they are right to be concerned, because this is a government that looks at punishing the poor and supporting the wealthy.

What I truly doubt is the cashless debit card's capacity to deliver substantial and lasting benefits over the longer term. I think that, before we introduce social security measures to the poorest in our community, we should be very sure that they work before we punish the poorest further.

I've worked with these families for many years. They love their kids. They love their families. But they have difficulties. We need to change the argument. Families who have drug and alcohol problems have medical problems—these are medical problems—and we need to look at what we can do to support them.

A huge issue in my community is homelessness and the difficulty of getting stable housing. That is one way the government could help these families. The ability to have a stable place of residence is extremely important for many of these very stressed families, particularly in terms of their children getting a stable education. I see families that have to move their kids' school all the time as their housing changes, and the lack of stable housing is a very important social determinant, not only of their health but also of their learning. Yet we see a government that's doing very little to improve housing, particularly Indigenous housing and particularly Indigenous housing in rural and remote areas.

There is an alternative to this punitive measure, and that's to provide proper social supports—something that this government does not appear to acknowledge. We have increasing numbers of children, particularly Indigenous children, in out-of-home care. This government seems to want to argue that we should adopt all those children into other families. What they don't look at are wrap-around supports for these very distressed families. Once again, this is a government that's intent on punishing the poor and supporting the top end of town.

The way the cashless debit card works is that it can be used for purchases except for gambling, drugs, alcohol, tobacco et cetera. It's run by a company called Indue. It can be used in any sort of bricks-and-mortar store that accepts the Visa debit card, unless the store has been blocked—and I believe a few have been—and it can also be used online. Eighty per cent of an individual's payments used will be on the cashless debit card, with the remaining 20 per cent being placed in their ordinary savings account. It is removing these families' ability to manage their own finances. So, rather than putting in place ways they can be helped to manage their finances, we're restricting how they can use their income and we're not giving them any training in the ability to manage their own finances. It is, again, a further punishment, without a solution.

We are seeing the government wanting to roll this out, town by town, community by community. I am very concerned, as indeed are many people in my community, that the government will eventually roll this out around the country without any discussion and without any proper debate. What we see lacking in this government is any understanding of entrenched multigenerational disadvantage. I've worked in my community now for 35 years, so I've seen many generations of disadvantage, and I agree it is a major, entrenched problem in a very wealthy country like Australia. What I don't see is any understanding or any proposal from this government to deal with entrenched multigenerational disadvantage. It's all about punishment. It's all about personal responsibility and blaming people for being sick or disadvantaged.

When we are having this debate about giving tax cuts to people earning $200,000 a year, it really is time for us to look at lifting up those who are most disadvantaged in our community. That is occurring in education, health, jobs and housing. We need an overall proposal to try to help people on this multigenerational level. Unless we do that we are going to continue with this piecemeal punishment, this blaming, them-versus-us type of mentality. I feel very sad about that, because I've been brought up in a very wealthy country, and there needs to be some acknowledgement that we need to be doing better for those that are most disadvantaged.

We know that the vast majority of income support recipients can manage their own finances if they are taught to do so. In my electorate of Macarthur, the St Vincent de Paul Society, amongst many others, provides some fantastic financial management programs for the most disadvantaged. In fact, at their centre in Campbelltown, they're able to provide interest-free loans, teach people how to deal with their finances and show them how to manage their housing and manage nutrition for their children in an overall package. They do that by providing comprehensive support. They do it in a blameless way, a way that doesn't blame people for being disadvantaged.

In spite of the Prime Minister talking about opportunity and reaping the rewards of hard work, things happen to people, often through no fault of their own, and they end up in disadvantage. We know that we've had increasing numbers of gambling outlets around the country, with poker machines, sports betting companies and online gambling. To me, gambling is a huge problem, and we know that it causes problems, often in those most disadvantaged. We have recently had the rollout of payday lending in my electorate. A machine is now available at Minto, in one of the very disadvantaged areas of my electorate. What the government should be doing is trying to prevent things like that, which will put people at more disadvantage, rather than punishing them by introducing the cashless debit card. It really is not about trying to improve things and help people; it's about trying to corral people who are already extremely disadvantaged in a continuing cycle of disadvantage. It is something I feel very sad about.

We need to look at more radical ways of helping people. We need to look at wraparound services for these very disadvantaged families. One of my paediatric colleagues who works in a very remote rural area has spoken to me about not removing children from very disadvantaged families but, rather, having areas where these families can go and be given wraparound support—where they can stay with their children and be given help with things like drug and alcohol counselling, nutrition and medical problems. These families often have quite significant chronic medical disorders as well. So we need to look at a way of countering this multi-generational disadvantage. The cashless debit card is very likely, I believe, to compound and continue this cycle.

At first sight it may well seem to be an initial way of preventing people from getting their drugs and alcohol. In fact, we know that people who have addictions—and don't forget that addiction is a medical problem—will get their drugs and alcohol in any way they can. That may well mean turning to crime or using the cashless debit card to get things and then on-selling them. This is not an answer, in spite of what those on the other side may think. I would counsel those in the Liberal and National parties to think about what they're doing and think about more comprehensive and more appropriate services for the disadvantaged rather than continuing to blame them. We have had enough of blaming the poor and of corralling those with social disadvantage in a continuing cycle of poverty and dependency. We need to look at more comprehensive ways of getting them out of that. I see the cashless debit card as being part of that cycle and I am strongly opposed to it.

I would encourage members opposite to come into the most disadvantaged areas of their communities and ask them what they think they need. This paternalistic attitude of imposition from above and then not providing support services is becoming a characteristic of this government. We've seen this with cutbacks in Centrelink staff and the difficulty accessing Centrelink for very disadvantaged people. Not infrequently I have people who have no computer skills at all coming into my office to ask me and my staff to help them access Centrelink supports, including, recently, an 88-year-old lady asking for that support. They have no idea. That's very sad and a demonstration of a philosophical problem with the Liberal-National Party government. They do not understand the issues of the most disadvantaged, and I feel very sad about that.

There has been a lot of research work undertaken by those who've had a lifetime in the field of social supports. We know there are social determinants of a whole range of things, including health and education. I would encourage those on the other side to have a look at the social determinants of these things and see what they can do to break the cycle. The continued extension of the cashless debit card is avoiding looking at solutions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context