Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Brisbane, and also Senator Rice for her engagement on the amendments. I understand that it's a long-held view of the Greens party to oppose income management. We made a very clear election commitment that we would consult on the future of income management; we do understand that there are mixed views about it within communities. We certainly believe that it's not only an individual option for income management; we also speak with communities about community decision-making. We've had preliminary discussions on that consultation; that consultation work is currently being undertaken, and we're discussing how we would consult. So, firstly, these amendments pre-empt that work and the outcome of those discussions, noting that there are many communities that would like to opt in and have income management for themselves.

Secondly, this would have some very practical implications. These amendments would potentially have more than 24,400 income management participants able to exit without the right support services around them. Once again, as I said, that would pre-empt that community decision-making. There are also some concerns around the intent of the opt-out amendments, which could create some confusion. While it seemingly allows people to opt out of enhanced income management, in the reality of the full legislation these amendments mean that people would get placed right back in the program. So there is potentially some confusion there and it would provide a lot of uncertainty for vulnerable people.

The amendments also undermine the Family Responsibilities Commission operating in Cape York. This was a pretty significant debate. In the most recent bill, the one to abolish the cashless debit card, we recognised that the role of the Family Responsibilities Commission in the Cape York region was a self-determined process and that careful consideration needed to be given to its operation. These amendments would affect the way that referrals are done, and the Family Responsibilities Commission has outlined some concerns about that.

The amendments would also disregard and undermine the role of the states and territories, particularly around referrals to the child protection authorities—referring for the benefit of individuals and contributing to meet the priority needs of the children under their care. There is also the banned drinker register in the Northern Territory, the objectives of which are to reduce the harm to individuals, families and the wider community caused by alcohol misuse, and to reduce antisocial behaviour. These already exist in the income management legislation; the amendments would actually undermine that in the enhanced income management legislation as well as in the income management legislation.

I would like to thank Senator Rice for her engagement on this, but we are not able to support these amendments. Not only do they pre-empt the government's consultation and discussion with communities but many communities have already discussed this and want to talk about ways that their communities can be part of income management. It would also, practically, be very disruptive and difficult for many—for those 24,000 people on income management.

See this speech in context