Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into compulsory income management, and specifically on the dissenting report presented by the coalition members of the committee and Senator Rennick. The majority report supports the elimination of all forms of compulsory income management. However, the dissenting members contend that compulsory income management is consistent with our human rights commitments and has positively impacted some of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. This view is informed by the comprehensive review of the University of Adelaide into the impact of the cessation of the cashless debit card.

The report of this review outlines the benefits of the former program and the problems emerging following its cessation—evidence, through a depth of research, that reflects a wide range of perspectives. The review included interviews with 290 stakeholders and past CDC participants over the course of 12 months. It is the view of dissenting members of the committee that this report is the pivotal piece of evidence informing us on the effects of the cashless debit card's cessation in these Australian communities. Dissenting members hold that the majority report has cherry picked the aspects of the University of Adelaide report that fit an ideological narrative, rather than considering the full gravity of its astonishing findings.

We also note that most of the evidence presented during this inquiry related to income management in the Northern Territory and other compulsory IM locations, which have historically operated using the older BasicsCard platform. Under this system, only 50 per cent of income support payments were subject to restrictions, and the use of the card for cardholders was limited to merchants that had signed onto the scheme. This contrasts with the cashless debit card trial sites in East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Ceduna and Bundaberg-Hervey Bay, which utilised a more modern and ubiquitous visa card platform, where up to 80 per cent of income support payments were restricted. Dissenting members acknowledge these critical differences and, based on the substantial evidence presented by the University of Adelaide report, conclude that the CDC should not have been removed from the trial sites, and they have recommended its prompt reinstatement.

We hold that a fair reading of the University of Adelaide report would conclude that the rushed cessation of compulsory income management has led to a decline in wellbeing of individuals and communities within these regions, including evidence of increased alcohol and gambling abuse, declines in child welfare and an increase in violence. Members on this side don't have to just rely on University of Adelaide researchers. The members who represent these communities have seen these same results through their own first-hand experiences as they work with constituents from these areas. The committee also heard that the rushed nature of the cessation also ensured that many program participants were unaware that voluntary income management was an option for them. Additionally, this hurried transition may have created the circumstances for former program participants to be coerced into not subscribing to voluntary programs, often by intimate partners. As one stakeholder from Ceduna noted:

There's a lot of families out there who get pressure from their partner. They might want to go on it, but they can't.

Dissenting members contend that voluntary income management cannot be considered a viable alternative policy. The individuals that the policy seeks to support would self-evidently be largely unwilling to voluntarily subject themselves to this limitation. Where they may be willing, the risk of coercion to prevent their participation in a voluntary program is too great.

We consider that the Commonwealth government's previous policy of compulsory income management was targeted to meet a legitimate objective, that had had a rational connection to this objective and that it was proportionate to the objective being sought. Dissenting members also contend that compulsory income management is entirely compatible with Australia's human rights obligations and that it had a beneficial impact on some of our most vulnerable Australians. The swift cessation of the program has led to negative outcomes for vulnerable Australians, as it has provided them with the means to inhibit their own wellbeing.

On behalf of the dissenting members of the committee, I want to thank everyone who engaged with the committee's inquiry process and the committee secretariat for their tireless efforts in supporting our work. I conclude with the thoughts of Bundaberg-Hervey Bay CDC participant 21, who shared his views on compulsory income management with the University of Adelaide research team. He said:

… for me it was a Godsend because I was able to pay my debts instead of just wasting money … It helps me save money so it taught me a life lesson being on it … not going to lie, the government, it's probably the best thing that they've brought out.

I ask members to reflect on this man's human rights and how they have been impacted by the ideologically driven decisions of this government.

See this speech in context