Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to address a couple of the issues that came up just then. One is that this is evidence based. I have been through a number of examples where it is not evidence based, and I was very disappointed that Senator Scullion referred to the AIHW report. I asked questions in estimates about this a couple of years ago when that quote was being extensively used. The AIHW refused to be involved in that survey process, so their name was put on the report because they looked at one tiny part of that survey. They said that their ethics committee said they would not be involved in that process. To continue to keep quoting it is exactly what the government wanted—they wanted to attach the institute's name to it so they could get some cred for that report. They went around and asked people. It was not a quantitative analysis at all; it was a qualitative analysis. I think we should stop using that report.

The government says this is about the rights of children. I will quote that back to the government every time it says it cannot afford to increase Newstart. Does the government care about the children that it is dumping onto Newstart from Parenting Payment Single? Did it read Anglicare's report from two weeks ago that showed so many children going hungry and that people cannot afford to feed their families? Where was the government's care for the children then? Now the government says it cares about income managing people, but it does not look at the long-term psychological damage it is going to do to those families. We hear there is evidence that so many people, mainly women, in the APY Lands want to go on to income management. The Greens have repeatedly said we do not object to voluntary income management. If people do choose to go on to income management, that is their choice. There is a very different approach between voluntary income management and compulsory income management. I did not talk about voluntary income management because I ran out of time, but I have said repeatedly we do not object to voluntary income management.

Senator Scullion spoke about income management in the Northern Territory, but he did not deal with the trials. These motions relate to the trials in Bankstown, in Rockhampton, in Logan, in Playford and in a small part of the Northern Territory. But Senator Scullion did not talk about how income management is being rolled out without evidence that it works. Of course, he brought up the tried and true, saying it was all based on the Little children aresacred report and that that is the genesis of the Northern Territory intervention. We all know clearly that income management cannot be justified by the Little children are sacred report. That report made a large number of recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. It is a flawed argument to keep going back to that report when even the authors of that report do not support the Northern Territory intervention. But they keep quoting it to justify their stance on income management.

Income management is a flawed policy response. As a country we would be much better off investing the money that is being wasted on income management in really addressing the barriers to overcome disadvantage, to really support families that are doing it tough and help them overcome the barriers that they face. That is where the money would be better invested, instead of spending at a minimum $4,000 per person, a bit more than a third of the money they receive on income support. We would be much better off redirecting that money, and by supporting this disallowance motion you would give us another chance to spend the money properly. I urge senators to support this disallowance motion.