Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Inquiry into Compulsory Income Management Report incorporating dissenting reports; and the Human Rights Joint committee's Scrutiny Report 8 of 2024 incorporating a dissenting report.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I rise to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into compulsory income management report, which was tabled out of session on 3 September 2024, and to table the committee's eighth scrutiny report of 2024.

In September 2023, the committee was given a statutory function to examine part 3AA and part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 so far as they relate to the compulsory enhanced income management scheme, or compulsory income management, for compatibility with human rights and report to the parliament. The first review was required to be completed by 4 September 2024.

The committee received 30 submissions and held two public hearings, during which it heard evidence from a range of community groups, peak bodies, academics and the Department of Social Services. The committee heard substantial evidence challenging the extent to which compulsory income management has been effective to achieve its stated objectives and its proportionality in practice. The committee considers that there is a considerable risk that the compulsory income management constitutes an impermissible limitation on the rights to social security, privacy, equality and nondiscrimination. There also appears to be a risk that, in relation to some cohorts of participants, compulsory participation may not constitute a permissible limitation on the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to health and the rights of the child. In particular, the committee noted that compulsory income management continues to apply overwhelmingly to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and that these groups have been far less likely than non-Indigenous people to secure a temporary exemption from the scheme.

The committee has made seven detailed recommendations, including that the government amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to make income management voluntary, including transitional provisions to facilitate a transition to voluntary income management over a period of time and to immediately establish more pathways out of compulsory income management. The committee welcomes the department's advice that it is consulting with affected communities with a view to making income management voluntary. Such an amendment would address the human rights concerns identified in the committee's report. The committee expects the government's response to this report should include information regarding the specific timeframes and implementation of plans to transition impacted persons off compulsory income management. The committee considers that this transition should be completed in no greater than 12 months.

In relation to the committee's eighth scrutiny report, the committee considered 18 new bills and 141 new legislative instruments and substantively commented on three bills and concluded its consideration of one legislative instrument. In this report, the committee is seeking further information from the Minister for Education in relation to the Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to extend the Unique Student Identifier scheme to all Australian primary and secondary students by enabling the assignment of a school identifier to each student. The bill would authorise the verification, collection and use of disclosure of a child's school identifier and their school identity management information. In doing so, the bill would engage and limit the right to privacy and the rights of a child. If the bill were to have the effect of restricting access to primary or secondary education for students without a school identifier, the right to education may also be engaged. The committee considers further information is required to assess the compatibility of these measures with these rights and is therefore seeking the minister's advice in regard to these matters.

I encourage all members to consider the committee's reports closely. I thank the secretariat for the significant work that they have done over this inquiry and over this latest scrutiny report. I want to thank the deputy chair for the way in which he has conducted himself in the inquiry—always in a respectful and professional way. I want to thank the other committee members for their participation in this inquiry, and I commend the inquiry report and the Human Rights Scrutiny Report:Report 8 of 2024 to the House.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.