Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment, as circulated in my name, to the amendment moved by the member for Deakin:

That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the Government committed to abolish compulsory income management in opposition, the House is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed and calls on the Government to:

(1) provide a clear plan for an end to all compulsory income management, which disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples; and

(2) urgently and significantly increase the funding for community and support services through a jobs and services plan, including redirecting any savings from the abolition of compulsory income management to these services".

While in opposition, the Labor Party promised that they would end compulsory income management. Now, not even one year into their term of government, they've put forward a bill to reintroduce it and empower the minister to do so. In April 2022, the member for Barton, now the Minister for Indigenous Australians, was quoted in the Guardian as saying:

Our fundamental principle on the basics card and the cashless debit card, it should be on a voluntary basis.

A day later the ABC reported:

Federal Labor will make the controversial basics card optional within the first term of government if it wins the election next month, making a commitment that any broad-based income management should be voluntary.

Key stakeholders who were working with those who are directly impacted by compulsory income management welcomed this clear announcement from Labor. The Northern Territory Council of Social Service welcomed Labor's commitment to scrap compulsory income management, stating that it is 'a discriminatory and coercive policy, affecting more than 24,000 Territorians, the vast majority of whom are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'. They went on to say that income management should only be ever offered on an opt-in basis. This bill breaks Labor's promise to abolish compulsory income management. It represents a complete reversal of the position that Labor took to the election. So either Labor has had a horrific case of institutional amnesia or there's been a deliberate decision to reverse a clear election commitment. My question to the Labor Party and to the members sitting on the government benches is: which is it? Did someone lose all the election commitments you made before the election, or are you just pretending that they don't exist?

I want to revisit why Labor's position in opposition was so warmly welcomed and why it is so disappointing and concerning to see this backflip from the government. Fundamentally, compulsory income management does not work. We have the submissions of experts and review after review to show that it doesn't. As the Australian Council of Social Service said:

There is no credible or conclusive evidence that these policies have delivered better outcomes for individuals or their communities. Instead, cashless debit and income management are paternalistic policies that restrict basic human rights.

Similarly, Associate Professor Elise Klein summarised the research on the impacts of compulsory income management, stating that peer reviewed research has also shown that compulsory income management 'causes more harm than good'. For example, research published by the ARC Centre of Excellence and the Life Course Centre examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory and showed a correlation between it and negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. In 2016 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted:

… evidence before the committee indicates that compulsory income management is not effective in achieving its stated objective of supporting vulnerable individuals and families.

Why is Labor choosing to ignore pages and pages of evidence from experts and impacted communities that shows that compulsory income management does not work and is actively harmful?

At the same time, the parliament has just debated the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 as part of the journey towards a referendum on the Voice. It is heartbreaking to see the government entrenching a framework that has disproportionately harmed First Nations communities. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory doesn't support compulsory income management. They assert that 'compulsory income management is a vehicle for disempowerment' that perpetuates the stigmatisation of Aboriginal people. They went on to say:

… compulsory income management contradicts the Commonwealth and NT governments' commitments through Closing the Gap …

They also said:

… continued income management, in its current form, breaches the Australian Government's existing commitment to Priority Reform 3: to systemically and structurally transform mainstream government organisations to improve accountability, and to respond to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

It should be noted that this fundamentally unjust, racist policy has its origins in Howard's Northern Territory intervention.

The Greens welcomed the steps by Labor to roll back the cashless debit card in locations across the country, but, at the time, we specifically called for action to support those people in the Northern Territory. Now, with this bill, the Labor Party is reversing its course in an incredibly concerning and harmful way. The bill specifically entrenches compulsory income management by taking the legislative framework for the income management regime—or the BasicsCard—and applying it to what Labor are calling 'enhanced income management'. Let's be clear: enhanced income management may have a different name and a different number to call, but, as my colleague Senator Rice uncovered in Senate estimates, it is still Indue that's running the card. It is basically the same technology, and people still have the same account numbers on the cards that Indue are issuing to them. But what the changes in the legislation do is give the minister power to expand compulsory income management in new areas, using the technology provided by Indue. So, whereas the cashless debit card had a sunset date and required changes to legislation, this bill will give the minister powers to expand compulsory income management without requiring legislation—without a sunset date, without geographic restraints in this act. And it's Indue's card, but with the minister now having the power to roll it out to new areas by legislative instrument.

This bill is the worst of both worlds. It is technology that enables Labor to roll out Indue's cards to new parts of the country and it is legislative powers that give the minister the power to do so at the stroke of a pen. It is appalling and incomprehensible that Labor ran on progressive change to abolish compulsory income management but, now they are in government, they're seeking to entrench it. Fundamentally, many of those members in this chamber who represent themselves as progressives are putting themselves in the position of supporting a failed policy that disproportionately impacts First Nations people. Before the election, the member for Bruce made a lot of public comments about the cashless debit card. He still has a page up on his website, actually, talking about the privatised cashless card. Now in government, he's going to vote for a bill that expands that program by Indue. The member for Lyons still has a page up on his website campaigning against the cashless debit card; now he's about to do the same, and vote for a card that is expanded by Indue. The member for Richmond seconded a bill, introduced by the member for Bruce, abolishing the cashless debit card; now, as an assistant minister, the member for Richmond is part of administration that is giving more money to Indue and giving the minister power—

See this speech in context