House debates
Monday, 7 December 2020
Bills
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020; Second Reading
12:36 pm
Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I, too, rise to oppose the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. I personally have always been opposed to compulsory cashless debit cards, particularly given the way in which this government has rolled them out. They're just a blunt instrument. They do not address the underlying social and economic issues that many people who are receiving welfare payments face.
Previous speakers on my side of the House have really gone into detail about this, but it needs to be put on the record again that, since the rollout of the cashless debit card 12 years ago under the Howard government when the Intervention first occurred in the NT, there has been no substantiated evidence that compulsory broad based income management works. It doesn't work. In fact, we have the opposite. We have evidence upon evidence, review after review—independent, government and led by this parliament—and we have individuals, society and state governments all saying that it just doesn't work. Nor was it going to, given the way, and the motivation with which, the Howard government and then this government have continued to roll it out. It comes back to the values and the ethos of a government. And this government—whether it be back in the Howard years or today, the Liberal and National parties—basically seeks to punish. They believe that, when people are on welfare payments, it's their own fault. They believe that people on welfare payments have not been able to pull themselves up and, therefore, need to be punished. They'd rather use sticks to punish people, instead of offering carrots, when there are multiple reasons why people might find themselves unemployed or on some kind of welfare payment.
The government has done little to address the social issues in many of the communities that are on these compulsory arrangements. Take, for example, the cost of groceries and the cost of fuel. They're very, very high in these communities. When you force communities onto these cards, it distorts the market locally. It's done very little to address the drug dependency issues and alcohol issues in these communities, and this government always tends to jump on that bandwagon. There aren't enough social workers, and there are not enough diversion programs. Quite frankly, there is not enough investment in people and in communities to ensure that they are using the means that they have for their children and their communities. The government also likes to overestimate and overemphasise how people use their payments for drugs, alcohol or other purposes.
As people on my side of the House have gone into great detail to explain and as these communities have told us, many people use their payments as they should—for the basics. The problem—and it's a problem that is well known throughout Australia—is that our social welfare payments in this country are too low. That is why families don't have enough money to put food on the table, that is why families don't have enough money to buy shoes for their kids and that is why families who are on basic payments are struggling. This year we have seen some relief. We've seen the coronavirus supplement boost people who are on Newstart payments and parenting payments. That has helped to alleviate some of the poverty that we've seen in these communities—all communities—but it's only been short-term and not enough to undo the ongoing damage that being trapped on a low payment has done.
I do support and encourage the cashless debit card where it is voluntary. Maybe the government needs to focus more attention on encouraging people who may need it. There's a small proportion of people who put their hands up to say, 'I'm struggling with my finances and I do need help'. That may be for multiple reasons—it may not just be addiction related, it may also be because of debts which they've been trapped into through dodgy loan sharks. These people also put their hands up for support. But how you recruit people to put up their hands is where we need the resources.
Again, it comes back to the blunt instrument of this government: time and time again they'd rather go for the stick as opposed to investing in people to support others. Whether it be through robodebt and their blunt approach there, or through the cashless debit card, what they aim to do is control. That's the very opposite of what you'd expect from a party called the 'Liberal' Party. The Liberal Party is supposed to be about freedom but it's very much further from that. If we look at evidence from overseas, we roll our eyes as this government try again to control individuals who are on payments. That is a critical point in this debate: which communities do they want to control? Disproportionately and overwhelmingly it's our First Nations communities. Again, there's this white, imperialist view that white governors—white people in this place—have a better understanding, and feel that it's their place to impose control over our First Nations people.
Those opposite turn their backs and shut their eyes, saying, 'We're doing it for the children'. If they were really doing it for the children, they'd engage appropriately and respectfully with these communities. They'd listen to the evidence, they'd understand and they'd seek out support—and know that it is not working. Far too many individuals who are trying to do the right thing are caught up in these programs. I'm not surprised that the people of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay have pushed back. It might also be noted that since the government have rolled out their cashless debit card, and now seek to do it permanently to these communities—Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—that maybe it has something to do with the remarkable result for Labor in Queensland. It's been a very long time since Labor has held the seats of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, and yet at the last election we saw them swing our way. Maybe the fact that this government—the LNP—are trying to control the lives of individuals means that we're starting to see communities push back.
I've highlighted Bundaberg and Hervey Bay because they're also examples of what Labor can do in a positive way.
No comments