Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:

(1)notes that:

(a)thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works;

(b)the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by Adelaide University; and

(c)this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and

(2)calls on the Government to:

(a)not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally; and

(b)invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card".

Labor will not be supporting this bill. We will be opposing this bill. And I am very disappointed to see the government has brought this bill forward to debate in NAIDOC Week. It is absolutely insensitive—outrageous—that the government would think they are going to put this bill through this House in this week. It's also, to me, something that screams of the absence of the partnership approach that the government so much lauds itself on when it comes to working with Indigenous people. It says to me very clearly that this government are not interested in evidence and they will move without a clear evidence base in terms of policy development. It's become crystal clear to me that the example of the Prime Minister's much-lauded changes to Closing the Gap, the promised partnership approach, is not being followed.

This bill screams of hypocrisy, it screams of insensitivity, it screams of racial discrimination, and it also screams absolutely that the government is not at all interested in the evidence base. I can wear something if it's evidence-based and if the evidence shows that it is truly working. But there is no evidence. And the government has brought this bill forward before the Adelaide University evaluation has been read by the minister—which I'll get to in a moment—and before it has been made public. I just cannot believe that the government's hypocrisy, the government's lack of care and the government's lack of respect is on full display this week of all weeks.

This bill will make the cashless debit card permanent in the existing trial sites of Ceduna, East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. But, more than that, it will also permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the whole of the Northern Territory. There has been no proper discussion. There has been no proper consultation. The government talks about 'information sessions across the Territory'—well, big deal!

I will mention in my speech evidence from those information sessions of what people in the Northern Territory told the government in relation to the rollout of this card. People in the Northern Territory have long memories. They still remember the John Howard intervention in the Northern Territory—and this cashless debit card, in my view and in the view of many people in the Northern Territory, is an extension of that dreadful policy. And the member for Lingiari will highlight that in his contribution to this debate.

This bill will also replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in Cape York and extend income management in Cape York until 31 December 2021. It will make it easier for people to volunteer to be placed on the cashless debit card, and allow a person to remain on the cashless debit card when they move outside one of the prescribed areas. Labor has long stated very clearly that if people want to be on the card that is their right, and it is not up to Labor to stand in the way, but it has to be with full and informed consent. I can assure you that there has not been full and informed consent of any of these communities, as far as I can see, in terms of what the government is intending to do in relation to this card. The agenda is very clear. It is a continuation, in my view, of the disdain that this government holds in relation to people who need to rely on social security payments. It will enable the secretary to review and revoke cashless debit card exit provisions if the secretary believes a person who has exited the card is no longer reasonably and responsibly managing their affairs. The only reason that provision is there is Labor's amendments some time ago in the other place. There is no other reason that that provision is there. I suspect the government made a mistake in agreeing to those amendments at the time. Perhaps I'm wrong. But what we do know is that there is an absolute go-slow in the minister's office in terms of going through the administrative processes to give people permission to come off the card.

This bill has finally exposed what many, including the Labor Party, have long suspected the government agenda to be. This is very important. The government's true agenda—and this is the first or the second step—is a permanent rollout of the card right across the country. Those National Party members who hold seats where there are a lot of people who rely on income support should be very worried about this legislation and looking at it very carefully. The cashless debit card was first proposed as a trial, but we now know that the government has never been interested in finding out whether the card works. We often hear the government talking about how it's reducing this and reducing that. I have no idea how the government can actually say that because there is no proper publicly available evidence in existence to back in those assertions. As I said, Labor is not in the business of standing between individuals and communities that want to voluntarily adopt this card. We've been very clear about that. But this is not voluntary and it is certainly not with people's consent.

In Senate estimates, the minister admitted that she had not read the long-awaited review from the University of Adelaide before deciding to make the cashless debit card permanent. We still don't know whether the minister has read the evaluation. We still don't know whether or not the evaluation will be made public. But it is really a moot point, because this government has spent $2.5 million on this evaluation, and it may as well have been tabled and left on a dusty shelf when it comes to providing the advice and the evidence for what should happen now and into the future with the cashless debit card. They say: 'Don't worry about the evaluation. We'll just introduce these permanent arrangements anyhow.'

On 6 October the government announced their intention to make the cashless debit card trials permanent in the budget. On 8 October, the government introduced legislation to make the trials permanent. But, on 29 October, Labor senator for the Northern Territory Senator McCarthy asked Senator Ruston, 'Minister, have you read the Adelaide report?' The minister replied, 'No'. This would have been many weeks after the minister and the government decided to make the cashless debit card permanent, so you tell me where the evidence base is. There is none. It is positive proof that the government had no intention at all of taking into account that $2.5 million study done by the University of Adelaide, which the government only did in the first place when under pressure from the crossbench as part of one of their previous extensions of the cashless debit card trial. Were it not for pressure from the crossbench, there'd be no evaluation anyhow. This comes after the Auditor-General found there was no evidence—the Auditor-General, mind you!—that the card works to reduce social harm, as claimed by the government. That's not Labor saying this. This is the Auditor-General saying this—never influenced, of course.

We have an Adelaide university evaluation that the minister admitted she had not read, despite having introduced this permanency in the budget that the Treasurer brought down. We have that situation. We now have the Adelaide university evaluation, which may well not have been done and has only been done because the crossbench said to the minister, 'We want some evidence'. But big deal! It doesn't really matter what Adelaide university says when it comes to what the government's intentions are. The simple reality of this bill is that it is racially discriminatory.

I will say that again: the simple reality of this bill is that it is racially discriminatory. The rollout of the cashless debit card as proposed by the government will disproportionately impact First Nations people—and I know that other speakers in this debate will refer to that—68 per cent of people who will be forced onto the cashless debit card are First Nations people; over 23,000 out of the 34,000 people impacted by this card will be First Nations people. If that is not racially discriminatory, tell me what is! As the member for Lingiari will expand on, 18,000 of those 23,000 people live in one part of this country: the Northern Territory.

Labor is not opposed to income management in all circumstances. We've been clear about that. There are circumstances, such as where there are issues of child protection, domestic violence or dysfunction, where income management is appropriate. There's no argument about that. But the argument is about broad-based compulsory programs that catch and disempower the wrong people. I went to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, and I heard from several non-Aboriginal young women, single mums, who had been put on to the card without their consent. They are finding it so disempowering, so embarrassing, and their discussions with me left a powerful impact. Income management can be justified when targeted, as I said, in some circumstances. But indiscriminate, broad-based income management simply does not work.

At a recent inquiry into another one of the government's cashless debit card bills, a number of witnesses told the hearing that one of the only credible pieces of evaluation of any form of income management is an evaluation that was completed about income management in the Northern Territory. That report found that compulsory income management usually does not bring about improvements, but that voluntary income management might. But it's not just the evaluation that says this. In a document presented to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Australian government wrote:

… there are more positive results associated with people who volunteer—

this is the Australian government!—

as they have made a choice to change their behaviour and receive assistance, positive findings have been found for people who have been referred for Income Management by a social worker or a child protection officer.

On one hand, you have the government saying something to the UN but, on the other hand, they are doing something very different in this chamber that is going to impact thousands upon thousands of people. I reiterate that the Australian government wrote that to the UN.

Dr Elise Klein of the University of Melbourne told a Senate committee about this issue:

If we … are serious about evidence based policymaking, we must stop the ongoing operations of the cashless debit card … or … make them entirely voluntary.

There is a very real difference between someone who genuinely wants to be on the card and believes it's appropriate for their own circumstances and someone who is compelled to go on to the card and whose circumstances are completely incompatible with the card. When I visited the East Kimberley, I saw this absolutely. There was a woman, a middle-aged First Nations woman, who had a public service job in Perth. She went back to Broome to care for her mother and went on to a carer payment, and then had to go on to the cashless debit card, despite the fact that she has spent a good part of her career as a public servant. Tell me how that's reasonable. Tell me how that's fair.

Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, which includes the Central Land Council and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT, said in one of their submissions on the card:

The continuation of compulsory income management through the transfer to the CDC is being rushed forward despite the lack of any strong or positive evidence drawn from either the 2014 Social Policy Research Centre evaluation of New Income Management in the NT, the 2017 Orima Research evaluation of the Cashless Debit Card Trials in Ceduna, the Goldfields and East Kimberley (Western Australia).

…   …   …

Income management cannot provide a transition to employment in locations where few employment opportunities exist and those that exist are largely done by outsiders. Instead, for many Aboriginal residents of the NT, particularly those living remotely, compulsory income management is long term and, regardless of a person’s lifestyle and financial management capacity, almost impossible to get off. The 2014 independent evaluation of New Income Management conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre found that:

90.2% of those on income management in the Northern Territory were Indigenous and 76.8 of those were on compulsory income management. More than 60% of this group were on income management for more than 6 years.

The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation said in its submission:

The ALPA Board of Directors are disappointed that the Government is moving forward and expanding this oppressive policy when there is no evidence demonstrating that it creates positive change for the people who will be subjected to it.

There is no evidence that this leads to employment. And the rhetoric of the government, which is about employment or about creating jobs—in the face of that, they introduce this very bill that makes it almost impossible to actually get a job. Tell me how that works. Tell me, because I would like to know.

The Anti-Poverty Network SA also told a story about a woman they had met in Ceduna who was on the card. She volunteered at a local craft shop and donated what she could. She used to be able to purchase things online, but, because of the card, can no longer do so. The network told the committee about this particular person: never drunk, never had drugs or anything like that. It's such an inhibitive way of life for her now. Why should anyone that has never engaged in binge drinking or taken illicit drugs be forced onto the card? And yet that was the rationale for the card. It's just mind-boggling that the government thinks that this is a good idea. It seems to me that the government is not interested in answers.

This bill is just the beginning of the government's plan for the cashless debit card, as I said earlier. We know that there are those on the other side who have publicly called for the national rollout. We also know, from Senate estimates, that the government has established a technology working group with the big banks. That tells us something. That tells us something about the government's plan. The supermarkets and Australia Post look at how this can be rolled out through the payment system. So the four big banks have set up groups to roll this out, Australia Post has, and so have the supermarkets. That is evidence writ large of what the intentions are. We also know that this is what you do if you want a national rollout: you put technology working groups into those institutions. You work out how every card from every bank can have restrictions placed on it. That's not about choice; that's not about individual responsibility. It's just not. It is not the way you do business and stay true to what you are publicly saying.

You work out how every card from every bank can have restrictions placed on it so the government can track and control what people on social security do with their money in pretty much every shop around the country. It's actually scary. It's actually scary that the government thinks it's a good idea to do this. It's not about empowering; it's not about jobs. It's not about giving people responsibility and supporting them to manage and grow that responsibility. It's not about enjoying personal decisions; it's about control. It is absolutely about control, so the government can track and control, as I said. I note that my colleague who has responsibility for this area has just taken over the chair.

We already know that people on a disability support pension are on the cashless debit card. It is only a matter of time before more people are caught up in this new so-called system. In fact, pensioner groups are already worried about what this card could mean for them. We are talking about millions of people having restrictions placed on them and control placed on them and their spending being tracked and controlled. In their submission on this bill, the Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association said members had contacted them about 'how very fearful they are' of being put compulsorily on this card.

In conclusion, noting that an amendment has been circulated in my name, Labor will not be supporting this bill. It represents a cynical triumph of ideology over evidence, and the government's plans for a much bigger, broader rollout of social security quarantining have been laid bare in black and white. It is an insult that this is being shoved into this chamber during NAIDOC Week, because it's backward, it's racially discriminatory and it continues the scraps of the last vestiges of the dismal failure of what was the Howard's government so-called Northern Territory Intervention. The processes the government has taken in making this policy are a slap in the face to the Coalition of Peaks Aboriginal organisation. It makes a mockery of the government's new Closing the Gap partnership, an absolute mockery. It doesn't create jobs, it doesn't deliver clean water, it doesn't improve dilapidated remote housing and it doesn't help close the gap.

I truly don't know why the government is doing this, except to blame and punish some of the most disenfranchised people in this nation.

See this speech in context