Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I second the amendment. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill is a consequential bill. Taken together with the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill, which the House considered last year, this bill directly affects the livelihoods and wellbeing of thousands of Australians. This bill unwinds compulsory income management, a policy regime which has been in place over successive governments since 2007. The government has described its new policy as 'enhanced income management'. In reality this is almost certainly nothing more than a euphemism for abandoning the policy.

This bill effectively abolishes the BasicsCard, to be replaced by the government's SmartCard, a near carbon copy of the coalition's successful cashless debit card. Although, as the shadow minister for social services has eloquently informed the House, the government, while admitting that it simply involves a renaming, seems very keen to describe it as a smart card and not as a cashless debit card. It's a deeply confusing position that the government has taken on this particular issue.

I want to start by highlighting to the House the lessons which are available in plain sight to all of us from this government's ill-judged abolition of the cashless debit card last year. The parliamentary debate on the legislation which abolished the cashless debit card was informed by powerful speeches from a range of members on this side of the House, including the member for Durack, the member for O'Connor, the member for Grey and the member for Hinkler, all of whom spoke of the experiences in their own communities of the positive and profound impact which the cashless debit card had in those communities during the time that it was in operation and, subsequently, the very serious consequences as a result of the cashless debit card being abolished.

Last month the former mayor of Ceduna, in South Australia, Allan Suter, who served as mayor of that community from 2006 to 2018—and, may I say, I had a chance to visit that community during my earlier tenure as the minister for social services—said that his town was, following the abolition of the cashless debit card, experiencing a rise in rough sleeping. He noted there were more children not attending school. He was aware of more people presenting to hospital suffering from alcohol fuelled family and domestic violence.

In Western Australia's remote Goldfields region, the local mayors have spoken up strongly about the deteriorating conditions in that part of Australia. Indeed, they have taken the trouble to travel all the way to Canberra today to speak with parliamentarians about the very serious consequences of the government's ill-judged decision to abolish the cashless debit card. Leonora shire president Peter Craig said:

… we've got all the cash back on the streets, there's an increase in people going to hospital …

Coolgardie shire president Malcolm Cullen offered this assessment:

Compared to where we were four years earlier, the children were behaving better and were being looked after better.

Those mayors, along with Kalgoorlie-Boulder shire president John Bowler and Laverton shire president Patrick Hill, called for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services to visit their communities. Around the time of the Prime Minister's visit to Port Hedland, those mayors invited the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Government Services to spend time in their communities to see firsthand the impact of the abolition of the cashless debit card. I endorse very strongly the call they have made. In my own experience as social services minister—visiting towns in the Goldfields region along with the member for O'Connor, and having the opportunity to visit Ceduna with the member for Grey, and, indeed, the opportunity to join the member for Hinkler on a visit to towns in his electorate—I have seen directly the benefits of the cashless debit card demonstrated, and I have heard from community leaders. I was struck particularly by the quiet conviction of senior Aboriginal women and men community leaders speaking about the benefits they had experienced in their communities from the operation of the cashless debit card. I want to commend all the community leaders I've referred to for their courage in speaking up on behalf of the people they represent. I also want to commend the opposition leader, who has visited the Goldfields region, along with the member for O'Connor; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has visited Geraldton; and the Leader of the Nationals, who has visited Carnarvon.

On this side of the House we have been determined to gather the policy evidence about the effect of the cashless debit card. Of course, we draw on that experience in offering our perspective on the actions the government is now putting before the House in relation to the rebranding of the BasicsCard as a smart card. Conversely, I'm sorry to say, we've seen from the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Government Services and the Minister for Indigenous Australians a determination to avoid an engagement with the facts. For example, we've raised these matters in question time. The member for Durack asked about a rise in antisocial behaviour in Kununurra. This was explained away by the Minister for Social Services as a consequence of flooding. When asked the following week by the member for O'Connor why there had been a spike in alcohol related social harm in his electorate—no flooding in sight in that electorate, no flooding here, but I'll tell you one common element: the removal of the cashless debit card in both locations—what was the response the Minister for Social Services gave to that point? It was that she accused him of peddling misinformation. It's the side of the House, contrary to peddling misinformation, that has been rigorously going to the affected communities and speaking with local residents to understand what the evidence actually says.

Let me turn to the consultation and design process that has occurred in relation to the move from the BasicsCard to the SmartCard. I've no doubt they spoke extensively to high-powered branding consultants who said: 'We need to think about the name. The BasicsCard is not very 2020s. We can do much better than that. How about the SmartCard, Minister?' 'I love that. The SmartCard—that's wonderful.' It would be amusing if it were not so serious in terms of what is at stake for the tens of thousands of Australians whose lives are being upturned by this government's prioritisation of dancing to the tune of activists in metropolitan Australia rather than meeting the genuine needs of Australians all around our country.

In relation to the bill abolishing the cashless debit card, the government's regulation impact statement had this to say:

Current IM participants will continue to use the BasicsCard and move to a new card with enhanced functionality from 1 July 2023.

That was the last time that time line has ever been referred to. That time line has been sent to the naughty corner, not to be heard again. The explanatory memorandum for the bill presently before the House omits any mention at all of firm time lines. The bill simply says that the transition would occur 'on a commencement date as outlined in the explanatory memorandum.' The Minister for Social Services has not informed this parliament, nor those vulnerable Australians on income management, when the transition will commence. So we are left with a very obvious question: why is the government no longer committed to a starting date of 1 July 2023?

These matters were examined in the Senate estimates process. Departmental officials were asked what lessons had been learned from the transition in relation to the cashless debit card. They boldly ventured to suggest there had been 'some impact'. A study of the cashless debit card transition by the University of Adelaide, commissioned by the government, has only just commenced. Certainly, the terms of reference for that study have not been shared publicly, nor do we know the findings from the targeted transition interviews that Services Australia conducted. All of this is basic information which should be made available to all members and senators. It is equally disturbing that the government is pushing through this bill without allowing a formal inquiry and consultation process to be concluded. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee has given stakeholders only 22 days to make a submission in relation to the very important matters upon which this bill bears and which will affect the lives of thousands of Australians.

There is one other question which simply cries out to be asked: why has the Minister for Government Services gone missing from this important public policy debate? He failed to make a contribution to the debate last year on the repeal of the cashless debit card, nor does his name appear on the list of speakers in relation to this bill. I hope to be proven wrong. I hope that I am drawing adverse inferences, and the Minister for Government Services is going to surprise on the upside. That's what I hope, but I fear my hope is only a faint one. The simple fact is that the job of managing this enormous agency, the front line of service delivery to hundreds of thousands of Australians, is something that appears to engage the minister rather less than playing politics in the way that he seems to show great enthusiasm for. That's a matter for regret, because the lives of many Australians depend upon the efficiency with which Services Australia operates, and certainly the lives of many Australians will be affected by the success or failure of this transition.

The transition from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard involved around 17,400 people. Just to be clear, people only transitioned if they chose to, whereas in this instance the government is telling us that people will be transitioned from the BasicsCard to the SmartCard. That will impact around 24,800 participants, some of whom are on income management because they've been determined, for example, to be neglectful or abusive of their own children.

It's very important that this transition is managed effectively. It's very important that we don't have administrative difficulties that confound the operation of this transition. Based upon the lack of engagement by the Minister for Government Services in the previous bill that went through this place, and the fact that the Minister for Government Services is not even listed, at this stage, to speak in relation to this bill, it is fair to say that it does not appear to be a matter which is consuming a great deal of his time and attention.

There are possibly some reasons for this, which have been revealed in public. The Sydney Morning Herald, on 5 March, revealed that Services Australia had advised the Minister for Social Services that meeting the government's transition deadline would be highly problematic because of 'IT issues'. The opposition has called on the Minister for Government Services to urgently explain what advice his agency has provided to the Minister for Social Services and whether he, himself, holds concerns about the capacity of his agency to deliver. Are these 'IT issues' the reason why the 1 July 2023 commencement date has vanished into thin air again? To what extent has the public debate been informed by a detailed contribution from the Minister for Government Services on this issue? I'm sorry to tell the House that there has been no contribution from the Minister for Government Services on this issue.

It's interesting that the government's own Office of Impact Analysis has assessed the regulation impact statement, in relation to establishing so-called enhanced income management, as not constituting good practice, which is very far from reassuring, it must be said. Indeed, the Office of Impact Analysis said that the government's transition plan required more detail. We now know that $150 million has been allocated to Services Australia to manage this program, but, as the Office of Impact Analysis has observed, the government has still not clarified 'whether Services Australia has the trained resources ready to deliver this program'.

There will be some who will say I am showing a lack of confidence in the Minister for Government Services and that, despite all appearances to the contrary, he actually has a forensic interest in the detail and a passionate commitment to the delivery of services—nothing excites him more than getting under the bonnet, under the hood, of a major IT transformation—and he's going to be terrier-like on this, going after detail after detail. I'd love to believe that's the case, but, frankly, I'm very sceptical. This is a mess, and the sad thing is that the lives of tens of thousands of Australians are going to be affected as a consequence of this government's mismanagement.

See this speech in context