Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

Before the 90-second statements, I moved the amendment circulated in my name. In those amendments, I made clear that while not declining to give this bill a second reading, it sadly needs to be seen in the context of the absolute disaster that has fallen on vulnerable communities throughout this country as a result of the ideological position that this government has taken with respect to abolishing the compulsory cashless debit card.

We have seen clear, irrefutable evidence, just as recently as on the weekend. South Australian police statistics show that since the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card was abolished by the Labor government in Ceduna, crime has doubled. Crime has doubled in that time. In a debate not too dissimilar to this last year, when the government applauded themselves when they abolished the cashless debit card, we on this side were very clear with the government that the human misery that would follow the abolition of the cashless debit card was not theoretical; it wasn't asked making a political point. I pleaded with the government: 'Do not do this. If you do this, if you abolish the cashless debit card, as sure as night follows day, we will see alcohol and drugs flood into vulnerable communities.' You don't have to be Einstein or have a PhD and you don't need to sit at the dinner parties that those members of the government sit at with their high-minded discussions to know that if you allow vulnerable communities to be flooded with more drugs and alcohol, the dysfunction in those communities will go through the roof. You don't need to be a genius to work that out, and yet the government went ahead with it anyway. Now we see the statistics don't lie. The South Australia Police statistics show crime out of Ceduna has doubled.

I was in a meeting this morning, in fact, with community members and community leaders from the Goldfields and Kimberley regions of Western Australia, which had compulsory cashless debit cards previously. We had the member for Grey there as well and all of the members that represent cashless debit card sites. It was story after story that just confirmed the statistics—that towns, such as with Ceduna, that had seen a resurgence in tourism and had been seeing great harmony since the cashless debit card was put in place are now seeing that absolutely degenerate.

I always make this point in this debate. This is the heartbreaking thing. It really is. I'm not known in this House for my sentimentality. I'm not known for my sentimentality generally. But I must say that the things that do tug on my heartstrings as a father and as a husband are when I see the outcomes of this decision of the government leading to women and children suffering. I always make this point. I think I am a bit more generous to the government than they are to the opposition. I always make the point that no-one in this chamber wants to see people suffer. So it beggars belief that the government would put in place a policy that they know with certainty will lead to women and children suffering. More drugs and alcohol flooding into these communities hurts women and children the most.

Today, in our meeting with community leaders, including Indigenous leaders, from the Goldfields region of Western Australia, one remarked on how now they are seeing children coming to school again having not eaten, with there being no food at home. They're relying more and more on the school system to try and help them through, whereas when the cashless debit card was in place a huge improvement had been seen because welfare recipients who were subject to the cashless debit card in a compulsory fashion were forced to use 80 per cent of their welfare for staple, everyday goods you would find at a supermarket. They could not go and spend it at the bottle shop. They couldn't go and spend it at the pub. Now we see that money being spent at the bottle shop and the pub. How could anyone in good conscience go ahead with that policy? If you've got a brain, you would know that more drugs and alcohol are going to have that consequence. We now see the human misery and the suffering that has resulted from it.

This is a very narrow bill in that it helps transition people from old BasicsCard technology, effectively—those who were on the compulsory BasicsCard in the Northern Territory—to the updated technology that was the CDC technology. Those opposite criticised the former government for the cashless debit card and yet now are utilising the cashless debit card technology that we had in place on a compulsory basis. They have now turned it voluntary. They are now transitioning everybody in the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard to that cashless debit card, the technology of which we developed.

On the one hand, we are so utterly appalled by what the government has done here on the CDC that at first inclination we would say: 'Don't support anything the government does in this space. They have so tarnished themselves, they have so tarnished these communities, that we shouldn't support anything they do in the cashless debit card space.' But, if we were to take that position, we would deny people on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory the better functionality of the cashless debit card, which was the card that we had in place and was the card that the opposition at the time criticised and said was terrible. Now they're using our technology in the transition for those who are on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory. Above my deep disgust, to be frank, of what the government has done here, we will place their interests above that deep disgust that we feel and, subject to my amendments, which I've circulated, we will not deny those recipients of the updated card.

It's worth mentioning a couple of things in relation to the so-called SmartCard. The SmartCard is a rebranded cashless debit card—that's all it is. All you have to do is look at some of the providers of those cards and what they've said about the updated card, a card which has cost $217 million. As the Traditional Credit Union explains to its cardholders, 'The differences between the CDC and the new SmartCard are'—hold your breath—'its colour and its name.' That's what $217 million gets you under a Labor government—a change in colour and a change in name. Why would you do that? Why would you spend $217 million to take the technology that was already there and that was developed by the coalition, rename it something else—the SmartCard—but then only change the colour and the name?

See this speech in context