David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today we debate the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The bill removes legislative limits on the delivery of welfare through a card instead of cash. A proportion of the welfare on the card, typically 80 per cent, cannot be used to directly pay for alcohol, gambling or illegal drugs. The Liberal Democrats support this bill. Some people find this position confusing. After all, the Liberal Democrats support your doing what you want with your money. The point is that welfare is not your money; it's charity. It's the taxpayers' money, and taxpayers can set whatever conditions they like on the use of that money. If those offered other people's money don't like the conditions, no-one is forcing them to take the money. People have no right to other people's money.

If support were provided via a charity, there would be no question that donors, and the charities on their behalf, are free to provide their support in a form of their choosing and to put conditions on how it is used. This same principle applies for taxpayers, and the government providing support on their behalf.

My role in the parliament is to set conditions on welfare that most taxpayers would want imposed. I believe that most taxpayers do not want their money used to pay for other people's alcohol, gambling or illegal drugs, so I support this bill. And I would go further: I believe that most taxpayers do not want their money used to pay for other people's cigarettes, so I would support adding cigarettes to the list of products that cannot be directly paid for using the card.

I also believe that most taxpayers are concerned that, even with the use of the cashless debit card, 20 per cent of their money is still provided to welfare recipients without any conditions. So, I would support lifting the proportion of spending that is restricted to 100 per cent, recognising that this would leave welfare recipients without so much as loose change.

I believe that the main concern taxpayers would have with the cashless debit card is the cost of the additional public servants required to administer it. So I will scrutinise the continued use of cashless debit cards with an eye to containing the additional costs of delivering welfare by card instead of by cash. Notwithstanding this need for oversight, I consider it my duty, as a representative of taxpayers, to support the continuing use of the cashless debit card. It is what they want and it is their money.