House debates
Monday, 7 December 2020
Bills
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020; Consideration in Detail
4:00 pm
Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I also have some questions for the minister. In the debate on the second reading speech of this bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, a number—well, not a number; there weren't very many government members speaking on this bill, were there? I imagine they were too ashamed to. But at least one government member said: 'Well, what's wrong with the cashless welfare card? I use my credit card all the time!' Just now in debate, the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts interjected to say, 'Don't you know that during COVID most people went cashless?'
Will the minister explain to the government backbenchers and the minister for communications the difference between using a credit card with which you can buy whatever you want, whenever you want, and being forced to go onto the government's mandatory cashless welfare card, which is racist in its application? Will the minister make clear to the other cabinet ministers, who appear not to know what this legislation that they are voting on is about, that this legislation is nothing like Australian citizens choosing to use their cashless debit or credit cards, because this forces people to use a card which stigmatises them, which calls them out as people on unemployment benefits and which applies disproportionately to Australia's First Nations people?
As the member for Barton has pointed out, we know that this government has spoken to the big four banks, supermarkets and Australia Post about the technology to extend this draconian legislation beyond First Nations people who are on benefits. Will the minister stand up in this place today and rule out extending the cashless welfare card to other recipients of government allowances? One person in five in my electorate is on a pension. There are more than 10,000 adults in the electorate of Dunkley on unemployment benefits and more than 1,000 young people on youth allowance. Sadly, those numbers are likely to go up before they come down. Will the minister say, once and for all, that it is not this government's intention to tell people on pensions, family tax benefits, single mothers supports, carers supports and disability supports how they can and can't spend their money?
How many local businesses in the sites where these cards have been on trial have missed out on business because they can't facilitate the cashless welfare card? Can the minister answer that question? And does the minister agree that government policy—particularly policy that impacts on the lives of people by telling them what they can or can't do—should always be based on evidence? Or is that only an attitude that the government took during COVID-19, and it doesn't apply to legislation and schemes that disproportionately impact on Australia's First Nations people? If the minister intends to push on with this legislation, does the minister then concede that this government picks and chooses evidence only when it wants to?
Finally, will the minister explain, or ask the Prime Minister to come into this chamber and explain, how he could stand up in February of this year and tell this parliament that he was the first Prime Minister ever to commit to working with First Nations people, to support their self-determination and to not telling them what to do, and yet vote for this draconian, racist legislation? Can the minister assure this chamber that the Prime Minister didn't mislead this chamber in February when he said he would support First Nations people and communities in the programs that they want to have to assist their welfare?
No comments