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

I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed:

(a) the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018 [F2018L00245]; and

(b) the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Declinable Transactions and Welfare Restricted Bank Account) Determination 2018 [F2018L00251].

These two instruments that we are debating today relate to all three of the current cashless welfare card trial sites—specifically the Ceduna, East Kimberley and Goldfields areas.

The first of these instruments, the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018, sets out a number of matters relating to the Goldfields trial. Firstly, it excludes Plumridge Lakes from the Goldfields trial area. Secondly, it determines the class of participants for the Goldfields trial area. The determination also revokes and remakes the determinations previously in place for the East Kimberley and Ceduna trial areas. The only provisions from the previous determinations that are not contained in this determination relate to the boundaries of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trial sites, as this information is now contained within the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, following amendments made by the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Act 2018. Accordingly, the determination retains the provisions that determine the class of participants for these two trial areas. The determination also repeals and remakes four other legislative instruments—specifically, the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Community Body—Ceduna Region Community Panel) Authorisation 2016, the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Community Body—East Kimberley Region Community Panels) Authorisation 2016, the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Excluded Voluntary Participants) Determination 2016 and the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Variation of Percentage Amounts) Determination 2016. These legislative instruments were due to cease on 30 June 2018.

The second of these two instruments, the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Declinable Transactions and Welfare Restricted Bank Account) Determination 2018, sets out that the kind of bank account to be determined by participants for the receipt of restrictable payments during the trial is a debit card account with Indue Ltd. The terms and conditions in relation to a welfare restricted bank account and declared kinds of business in relation to which transactions involving money in a welfare restricted bank account may be declined by a financial institution. It repeals and remakes two legislative instruments, specifically the Social Security (Administration) (Trial—Declinable Transactions) Determination 2016 and the Social Security (Administration) (Welfare Restricted Bank Account) Determination 2016. These were due to cease on 30 June 2018.

With regard to these two instruments, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reiterated the concerns it raised when commenting on earlier versions of these determinations. Those concerns were specifically in relation to the declinable transactions determination; the compulsory nature of the scheme; the restriction of a person's agency; and, in relation to the trial of cashless welfare arrangements determinations, whether the measures were—or are—rationally connected to the objective. They made specific reference to the Goldfields region, saying:

It is also not clear from the statement of compatibility to the trial of cashless welfare arrangements determination how the findings of the ORIMA report are relevant to the effectiveness of the measure as it applies to the Goldfields region.

In order for the cashless debit card scheme to function according to the government's intentions, a number of rules need to be set out in legislative instruments.

Both of the instruments before us today deal with at least one aspect of the cashless debit card scheme that is essential for the scheme to be implemented. If these instruments are disallowed—and I really hope they are—the scheme could not continue as it is. Just to be really clear, what the Australian Greens are presenting to the Senate is the opportunity to knock off these cashless welfare card trials. The Australian Greens have been opposed to the cashless debit card scheme from the beginning and have advocated for it to be scrapped at every opportunity since its inception. We will continue to do so if these disallowances are not supported.

It is a form of compulsory income management. The evidence from the Northern Territory intervention showed this approach does not work. In fact, the evaluation of the Northern Territory intervention showed that it met none of its objectives. I don't think any fair-minded person would say that the situation has improved in the Northern Territory. In fact, the indicators show that things have become worse. We are seeing an increasing number of children, for example, going into out-of-home care. Of course, we've had the royal commission into juvenile detention since the intervention has been in place. Yet the government decided that 10 years of evidence—in fact, it's now 11 years—were insufficient and decided that they would try compulsory income management yet again.

Given the recent Australian National Audit Office report entitled The implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial, it is clearer than ever that the evidence just isn't there to support the continuation of these trials or, for that matter, a further rollout of the card, which will be debated—well, it's on the red for tonight. Who knows if we'll get there? This week, the government wants to debate the further rollout of the card into the Hinkler region in Queensland. It is, to anybody's mind, a damning report. It found that the department's approach to monitoring and evaluation was inadequate and that, consequently, it was difficult to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare-quarantining approach. Additionally, the report found that there were deficiencies in elements of the procurement process, there was a lack of robustness in data collection and the department's evaluation did not use all of the available administrative data to measure the impact of the trial. Finally, the report found that the trial was not designed to test the scalability of the cashless debit card and that there was no plan in place to undertake further evaluation.

I've got to say that none of this is surprising to me—none of it—because that's exactly what people who read the ORIMA reports, both wave 1 and wave 2, of the first two trials commented on at the time. The academic literature pointed out the extreme flaws in the evaluation process. We said in this chamber what the evaluation process would do. We debated in this chamber that there was nothing to compare the trial sites to and that the adequate baseline data collection hadn't happened. On numerous occasions in this place, the Greens have raised the inadequacy of the evaluations. We have raised the fact that a number of the datasets were conveniently not being used.

When the government first announced the trials, they didn't collect that baseline data. They didn't have the baseline data there. They didn't have a compatible site to compare the two trial sites with—in other words, to adequately test the effectiveness of the card compared to providing decent services to these trial site areas. When the ORIMA reports were released, we and others, as I just articulated, pointed out the flaws and were critical of their reliability. We also pointed out that the government could not use those reports to justify rolling out further trials or the continuation of the trials in East Kimberley and Ceduna, yet that's exactly what the government did: 'Let's not worry about the evidence'—even though they tried to claim there was evidence. 'Let's not worry about the evidence, and let's just proceed.' In other words, it's an ideological decision that this government takes to income quarantining and income management, because quite clearly the ANAO report shows that the evidence of reduced social harm is not there.

We pointed out that connecting the initial two sites meant that we did not get a clear picture of the situation in East Kimberley and in Ceduna independent of one another, because the reports conveniently rolled data in together. It was pointed out that alcohol restrictions in Kununurra made it impossible to make any plausible claims about the card and that the evaluation reports were missing basic information, such as police statistics from the trial areas. We had to get that information through the state parliament of Western Australia. The evaluation was widely criticised by social scientists and academics for not adhering to academic standards, for having major flaws in both methodology and the way it was reported, and for relying on piecemeal and anecdotal evidence. Their concerns included research design, sampling strategy, questionnaire design, recall bias, social desirability bias, rising refusal rates of those surveyed, and the combination of longitudinal and intercept data, amongst others—in other words, a list as long as your arm.

Despite the ANAO's report on the limitations of the evaluation and the general lack of evidence that the trial communities or, indeed, the majority of recipients have benefited and there has been a reduction in social harm, the government is determined to persist with the current trial areas and, in fact, the broader concept of the card and rolling it out further, instead of implementing policy based on evidence. The scheme is ideological and punitive—one that punishes those subject to it purely because of where they live and the fact that they receive an income support payment, regardless of their personal circumstances.

The scheme restricts 80 per cent of a person's income support payment so that it cannot be used to purchase restricted products, leaving only 20 per cent that can be withdrawn as cash and spent at the person's discretion on whatever they want. The scheme discriminates against people on low incomes and indirectly discriminates against First Nations people, who make up a significant number of the scheme's participants. The government believes that the scheme will magically solve problems of addiction; however, if it were that simple, a lot of medical professionals would simply be out of a job. The government also thinks that it will magically produce jobs where there are currently a low number of jobs or where jobs don't in fact exist.

Addressing complex health and social issues through our social safety net is a flawed approach. There is a lack of a causal link between receiving income support and experiencing drug, alcohol or gambling problems. Instead of wasting public money on compulsory income management, the government should be addressing the underlying causes of disadvantage, intergenerational trauma and lack of work opportunity, and investing in well-funded, timely wraparound services that genuinely help those who are struggling with substance abuse or gambling issues. This is what the communities of the trial sites have been calling for. No-one denies that we need to be investing to make sure that we are addressing these very complex issues, but we strongly disagree with the way the government is directing that funding.

Unfortunately, communities have been subject to the card regardless of whether or not they wanted it, which appears to have led to divisions within the communities. Despite the government's claim, consultation has been poor, particularly with those who are subject to the cashless welfare card. In some cases, it has been secretive. Communities have certainly been unable to provide free, prior and informed consent. For as long as the scheme has been running, we have heard from those subject to it that it is disrespectful, stigmatising, humiliating, intrusive, harmful and disempowering.

We have heard accounts of individuals having difficulties using the card to purchase necessities and pay their bills, experiencing increased hardship, and running out of money to buy food or pay for items for the children. There is also no ability for joint accounts to be linked to the card. Individuals have been unable to buy second-hand goods due to a lack of cash, which is particularly disruptive for people on low incomes. We know that, in so many cases, people on Newstart and other income support payments are already living below the poverty line and that they rely on second-hand goods to get by. They cannot afford to buy all the second-hand goods that they need with the 20 per cent that remains under their full control.

The government says the card will help people, but, in reality, it is making their lives more difficult and making it harder for those on low incomes to manage their limited resources. It is entrenching poverty. People speak very strongly of the humiliating experience of feeling stigmatised when they're standing in a shop having to use the card. Without cash, parents have reported not being able to buy second-hand textbooks for their children, families have not been able to shop at the many op shops that don't have EFTPOS facilities, and people have reported not being able to afford to buy their children canteen lunches. Some individuals have also found it impossible to pay their rent. We also know that some people left their communities when they heard that their area might be a trial site. This is particularly devastating for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and those in remote locations. First Nations people should not have to choose between living on country and having proper access to income support.

I received an email in July from a constituent living in one of the trial sites. She is a mother with two children and is a trial participant. She escaped domestic violence twice. She told me in great detail about the problems that she has had in being able to budget and survive in her particular circumstances. She talked about how she is not able to buy second-hand clothes through the internet now. She talked about having to choose between buying clothes for her children and giving them a treat. She said that the stress over the last year, and especially the last few months, would be enough to make the strongest person break: 'I have come so close to breaking point, and I feel personally attacked by this card. Strangers in shops judge me like a criminal. Other kids and parents judge my son when he has to buy his school lunch with 5c, 10c and 20c pieces.' This is not an isolated email. This is not an isolated example of the stigmatisation that people feel and the despair that people feel. This is one of many emails I've received from participants over the years. I find the emails heart-wrenching, and I know that we can and should be doing better for these individuals who are being put through this.

Today we have an opportunity to put a stop to this card, and the stress and the shame and the harm it is causing participants in the East Kimberley, Ceduna and Goldfields areas. These communities have been through enough of this social experiment. We've been doing this 'experimental' trial with income management for 11 years. For 11 years, we have been harming people with this approach. It can't be properly demonstrated that social harm has been reduced, and the evidence to support the continuation of these trials does not exist. We've had enough. We don't need to keep putting these people through this harm.

I urge members of the Senate, the opposition and the crossbench—in fairyland, I can imagine the government would actually look at the evidence and see that this causes social harm, and drop their ideological support for this failed social experiment that causes harm to our fellow Australians and, particularly, to First Nations people—let's learn the lessons from the intervention. Let's learn the lessons from this trial, and from the trials that have already happened. Seriously, how many of those in the government and the opposition have read the ANAO report? And what about the other reports that have been done on the flawed ORIMA evaluations, showing that this has not reduced social harm? In fact, it's caused harm to many people. They have reported that. I'm sure others have had emails, too, about how distressing people are finding this. Let's invest in addressing the social harms—because I acknowledge that we do need to be addressing issues like addiction, intergenerational trauma, entrenched poverty, and disadvantage. But this isn't the way to do it. It hasn't been proved that it has worked. The ANAO report shows that the government can't demonstrate a reduction in social harm; but I can demonstrate the harm, the stigma, and the humiliation that people have felt through this card. Please support this disallowance motion, and let's invest the money we're wasting on this into genuinely helping people.