Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm happy to speak on this bill. We don't oppose this legislation, but this is change for change's sake. It shifts people from the BasicsCard to the smart card. It shifts people from income management to enhanced income management, whatever that means in practice. It is what comes next that is of greatest concern for electorates, like Nicholls, that have high levels of disadvantage. This bill extends the enhanced income management regime to include all of the measures that are already in place for the income management regime, and it gives people subject to income management the choice to move to enhanced income management and the choice to move from the BasicsCard to the smart card with an associated bank account.

The bill directs all new entrants to the enhanced income management regime while further consultation is undertaken on the long-term future of the income management and enhanced income management regime—yes, I'm tired of saying it already. But that's the sting in the tail, and those opposite have put their cards on the table. They are against compulsory income management and want to it be entirely voluntary. A voluntary component must remain an option. Greater Shepparton in my electorate was part of the extended trial of income management from July 2012. The feedback I have is that voluntary participants have benefited from income management by better managing their regular bills, removing the stress and anxiety of unpaid bills, forming good financial habits and generating savings for discretionary items or to cover unexpected emergencies. There is a clear pattern of people staying on income management once their finances are under control because they see the benefits and they know it works.

The history of income management is not based on a voluntary system. It was compulsory, and it was mandated for good reasons. Under the coalition government, there were two different cards provided to different groups of social security recipients: the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card. Both were compulsory for the specified groups of social services recipients and the means for payment of social services payment. The BasicsCard goes back to the Howard government's intervention of 2007. It has limited functionality—for example, it has no tap-and-go functionality and can be used for only around 18,000 merchants.

Those on this card are referred to as being 'under income management'. During the Senate community affairs estimates on 15 February 2023, officials admitted that there is no technological difference between the cashless debit card and the government's new SmartCard. The cashless debit card was introduced in 2016 and had greater functionality than the BasicsCard. For example, it allowed product-level blocking and could be used for around 900,000 merchants. Labor has legislated the scrapping of the cashless debit card, with approximately 17,400 participants given a choice: they could receive their social security payments like other participants or they could have it paid onto the government's new SmartCard.

We have legislation to transition around 24,000 people from the BasicsCard, most of whom reside in the Northern Territory and 84 per cent of whom are Indigenous Australians. The BasicsCard has been used in my electorate since 2012. It was one of the five regions chosen by the then Labor government, based on statistical indicators of disadvantage. From perusing various papers examining the trial, it is clear that compulsory participants experienced a higher level of stigma than voluntary participants and both cohorts had issues with the practical use of the card. There was also the view that applying compulsory income management across whole cohorts without regard to their individual circumstances and capabilities was not an effective application of the policy. This is an argument for reform, not an argument for abolition. It also raises broader questions. It's easy to categorise, even demonise, compulsory income management as punitive, but this ignores the original premise—that income management was about helping the most vulnerable.

While the government has not been clear, it is likely it will abolish compulsory income management. This will mean that people who are presently on the BasicsCard or who moved from the BasicsCard to the SmartCard will likely be given the same choice as was given to those on the cashless debit card: to have their social security payment paid into a bank account in the normal way that it would be paid for others.

Compulsory income management has enjoyed bipartisan support since 2007, and it covers some of the most vulnerable in our society, including those who have drug and alcohol dependencies and children who are the subject of abuse and neglect. Labor labelled the cashless debit card a 'failed program', yet they are shamelessly relaunching the same service to provide voluntary income management to vulnerable communities.

Since the repeal of the CDC, at a cost to the budget of more than $200 million, we have seen vulnerable communities feeling the devastation through a spike in crime, gambling, alcohol fuelled violence and child neglect. Removing the compulsory nature of this income management service is not going to change these circumstances or provide vulnerable people with the assurance and the assistance that they need. Already, Labor's SmartCard is beset with problems in implementation and transition, and that is despite the admission by department officials at the Senate community affairs estimates on 15 February 2023 that there is no technological difference between the two cards. In fact, the same company will deliver it.

It might be unfashionable to say this, but the Australian taxpayer also has a stake in this system. There is a view—and I don't share it—that using support payments to impose financial management is unfair and discriminatory. The original intent is contained in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007, and the stated objectives are:

(a) to promote socially responsible behaviour, particularly in relation to the care and education of children;

(b) to set aside the whole or a part of certain welfare payments;

(c) to ensure that the amount set aside is directed to meeting the priority needs of:

(i) the recipient of the welfare payment; and

(ii) the recipient's partner; and

(iii) the recipient's children; and

(iv) any other dependants of the recipient.

Surely taxpayers who foot the bill to provide a safety net—a welfare payment that provides for priority needs of the vulnerable, can have the expectation that the money is indeed spent on the basics of shelter, food, clothing and education. Just one day after the publication of an Australian National Audit Office report in June which reaffirmed the Auditor-General's view that valuations of the cashless debit card program failed to provide evidence that it was effective, the social services minister announced that she was in the process of being briefed by her department on how the program could be terminated. The ANAO report did not recommend that the government abolish the CDC, nor did it say it wasn't effective; it was just that evaluation measures needed to be improved.

Once again we are in this place debating the implementation of ideology, with no regard to the consequences for our fellow Australians. If the SmartCard is a step along the path to scrapping compulsory income management, then those opposite had better be prepared to deal with the inevitable tragic consequences for the most vulnerable in our society.

See this speech in context