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

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. The Australian Greens oppose this bill. That should come as absolutely no surprise to anybody who has been taking an interest in income management in this country. We've opposed the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012, the first two trials of this card, the third trial and now this. We will continue to reject income management as a punitive, top-down, controlling approach to the way we address social security in this country and the way we assume that people on income support can't manage their money and that they abuse the very low payments that they get.

This bill will extend the cashless debit card to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, defined as the Division of Hinkler, on 31 May 2018, and it will continue until 30 June 2020. It will raise the participant cap across the trial sites from 10,000 to 15,000—in other words, it will cover the current three trials and this trial. It will also introduce an exemption to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for merchants who decline transactions that use the funds in a welfare restricted bank account to purchase restricted products, including alcohol, gambling and cash-like products. Cash-like products are defined in the bill, and their inclusion as a restricted product will affect all trial sites. They are products like gift cards and things like that.

The Greens, as I said, have opposed the cashless debit card since its inception. We submitted a dissenting report on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, expressing deep concerns regarding compulsory income management and recommending that the bill not be passed. We subsequently submitted a dissenting report on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, highlighting the flaws of the so-called independent evaluation of the first two trial sites undertaken by ORIMA Research that was relied on to justify the expansion of the card to the Goldfields and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions—and didn't the ANAO report put paid to the reliance on that flawed report! The 2017 bill did not pass the Senate in its original form, allowing only the Goldfields trial to commence, which is why we are here again debating whether or not to extend the trial to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area.

In the intervening period, the Australian National Audit Office released its report, TheImplementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial, which contains the findings of its independent performance audit of the Department of Social Services. On the first page of the summary and recommendations of the report, it said:

The CDCT—

the cashless debit card trial—

was selected for audit to identify whether the Department of Social Services … was well placed to inform any further roll-out of the CDC—

the cashless debit card—

with a robust evidence base.

Bear that in mind. That's what they were doing it for, and that's what we're talking about here. The report found:

… it is 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:

There was a lack of robustness in data collection and the department's evaluation did not make use of all available administrative data to measure the impact of the trial …

Further, and finally, the report found:

… the trial was not designed to test the scalability of the CDC and there was no plan in place to undertake further evaluation.

I'll come back to that further evaluation issue. But the evidence isn't there to justify the expansion of this trial based on those evaluations. The Greens have said that all along. We've said right from the start that there isn't the evidence there to show that income management works—and that is clearly the case in relation to the Northern Territory intervention and the subsequent Stronger Futures legislation.

Clearly, here, not only do you have the flawed information from the ORIMA report but you have the ANAO saying, 'it is difficult to conclude whether there has been a reduction in social harm and whether the card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach'. There isn't the evidence to justify the expansion of this card. Of course, none of this information in the ANAO report was a surprise to me. The Australian Greens have been pointing out flaws in the evaluation reports since each was released—that is, the wave 1 and wave 2 ORIMA reports—and we've been questioning their reliability as a basis for continuing the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and for the rolling out of trials in the additional locations. The Australian Greens want to see the government turn its focus to evidence-based policy, including community wraparound services.

While it's now known that there will be a further evaluation of the current trials, including of the Goldfields area, it beggars belief that there was consideration of not undertaking any further evaluation. I must say, that undermines the next evaluation right from the start, because it starts later—and late. Why would the government continue to call the scheme a trial if it wasn't going to measure the outcomes and inform itself of the results? It just illustrates the government's long-term intention to roll out the card far and wide, and penalise people on income support—who are struggling to find work, due to a lack of available jobs, and living in poverty, which is a barrier to trying to find work.

Compulsory income management, of which this card is one example, is a failed measure. Bear in mind, the Northern Territory intervention evaluation showed that income management met none of its objectives. How many times do I have to say this in this place? None. Yet the government still has an ideological commitment to this flawed, punitive approach. Income management is ineffective. It disempowers people. It stigmatises and humiliates people on the card, and those are the words of participants who are on the card. It causes social harm; it does not repair social harm. It harms those who need help the most. It also imposes significant costs on government—billions, over the years. It's time that it was abandoned as a policy mechanism.

We are particularly concerned that the government is attempting to roll out the card in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area when there is no evidence that the community is supportive of its introduction. I know the government will argue that there is support, but I have been there. I have held a public meeting and spoken to residents in this area. The committee inquiry was as short as a couple of hours and was not even held in the area. As the deputy chair of the legislation committee, I know that we didn't have the capacity to actually hold a proper, full inquiry into the bill in the time frame within which the government wanted to push this bill through. That's why it was restricted to a couple of hours and why it was not on site—which is what the local community would have wanted.

The government's consultation with regard to this trial was tokenistic. They'll stand here and say, 'We did this, this and this.' But that was giving information, not asking people their opinion of the card. That's very different. The same thing happened in Kalgoorlie. They'll say there were hundreds there, but when you go and actually talk to the people who were going to be subjected to the card because they're on income management, those people will tell you that there were very few meetings they were invited to, I'm told by them, or that they knew about—which is very important. If you don't adequately tell people that you're going to be giving information on the program that you're going to be rolling out—if you don't tell people it's on—they can't very well turn up to participate. The government were providing information, which I'm sure is useful, but that doesn't mean they hear back from the people who are going to be on the card whether they think it's a good idea. Talk to the people who are going to be on the card. It hasn't been done in any of those sites, not prior to the rollout of the card.

I might add that, in Kalgoorlie, people were getting the card before they got the letter telling them they were going to be on the card. So much for consultation and working with the community to help this to be effective, and actually listening to them! The consultation was tokenistic and not representative of the people that will be placed on the card. The voices of those that will be affected are not being heard.

The 'Say No Cashless Welfare Debit Card Australia/No Cashless Debit Card Hinkler Region' submission to the inquiry into the bill said, among other things, that there was concern about the lack of public consultation from the local member and about the costs associated with the card—both monetary and social costs—for those who would be subject to the trial. They said:

The stigma attached to the card through the constant demonising of the people on social security , the media 'welfare bashing' has already changed our local community language and the way people on social security are being treated.

Further, they said:

This card will further divide our community, excluding so many people in so many ways, from community events, school events, charity events, cash economy, secondhand economy, but also the banking economy.

They go on to say:

Just like the people on the card in the other regions, our residents do not deserve to be treated as a sub class citizen with their human rights removed, their freedoms removed, their ability to travel, decided for them …

Instead, they want to see the money that would be spent on the trial going to funding services such as homeless and domestic violence shelters, and to funding education pathways and creating jobs for local young people.

Turning now to our concerns about the bill, it will see those under 36 years of age who are receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance (jobseeker) or parenting payment and whose usual place of residence is or was or becomes a place within the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area becoming subject to the cashless debit card. This is the first time the trial of a card will be limited to a particular age group. The Australian Greens are concerned that targeting a young cohort will further marginalise this group of people, who are already facing high unemployment in the area.

We are also concerned that there is still no way in which individuals can transition off the card, now or into the future. Once they are on the card, they will remain on it, even if they leave the trial area. In relation to the trial applying to those whose usual place of residence was within the area, the Australian Human Rights Commission said in its submission to the bill's inquiry:

The Commission considers that this over-inclusive application of the cashless debit card trial is unnecessary and notes that the statement of compatibility with human rights does not provide a compelling justification for the proposed amendment.

There is also provision for an optional community panel to be established. We are concerned about the inclusion of the community panel model for the proposed new trial area. This concern is exacerbated by the recent ANAO report that researched the community panels in the Ceduna and East Kimberley trial sites. The report indicates that the effectiveness of the community panels was reviewed by the department, which determined:

… that the Community Panels were not as effective as envisaged, resulting in lengthy delays in making decisions and that they would not be introduced into new localities.

Later, the report said:

Social Services did not refer to the evaluation of the trial, which noted other factors that impacted on the effectiveness of Community Panels, including the '…delay in establishing and commencing the Community Panels from the start of the trial' and that '…the panel process was not adequately known and communicated' to the trial participants and communities.

The community panel model raises issues regarding the privacy of participants and the potential for bias, conflicts of interest and discrimination, particularly in small communities, where neighbour may be judging neighbour. The lack of independent review of their decisions also raises concerns. The Australian Greens are concerned that the bill amends how the authorisation of community bodies will occur for the new site. Instead of authorisation being by legislative instrument it will be by way of notifiable instrument, which removes the ability for parliamentary scrutiny, which I have been using very strongly in this process.

We are also concerned about safeguards. While the government may argue that there are safeguards in place to protect vulnerable individuals from the impacts of the card, due to the wellbeing exemption, the bill qualifies this exemption, saying:

The Secretary is not required to inquire into whether a person being a trial participant under this section would pose a serious risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

This means that, unless the secretary is informed of a participant's wellbeing by either the participant or another source, the participant will be forced onto the card—an ineffective mechanism. While this aligns with other trial sites, it is concerning to us that the burden of proof is placed onto the income support recipient. In addition, the ANAO report, in its assessment of the evaluation of KPIs, identified that the wellbeing exemptions, along with other administrative and operating aspects of the first two trial sites, were not measured with KPIs.

The bill seeks to exempt the declining of a transaction from the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, if it involves money from a welfare-restricted bank account and the purchase of alcohol, gambling or cash-like products that could be used to purchase alcohol or for gambling. This will affect all trial sites. Cash-like products are included in the definition of the bill as follows:

(a) a gift card, store card, voucher or similar article (whether in a physical or electronic form);

(b) a money order, postal order or similar order (whether in a physical or electronic form);

(c) digital currency. The National Social Security Rights Network said in its submission to the inquiry on the bill: 'This amendment will unnecessarily expand the gambit of the control exercised over the restricted portion of a cashless debit card.' Under this measure a person will be restricted from buying a gift or store card from a merchant that does not even sell any of the target prohibited items. This provision will further act to disempower cardholders and limit their economic and social participation in their communities.

ACOSS pointed out that this exclusion could lead to a situation where a participant would be unable to pay their bond or send money via post, for example, to their child at boarding school.

The Australian Greens also have concerns regarding the contingent amendment in the bill, item 20, which will come into effect if the applicable amendments in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 have commenced, at the time these amendments commence. The contingent notice would uphold the deletion of the current section 124PM(b) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which allows participants to spend the unrestricted portion of their payment as they wish. It also expands the restrictions placed on the restricted portion of the payment to include cash-like products that could be used to obtain alcoholic beverages or gambling. The Australian Human Rights Commission said in relation to this amendment:

... by removing the safeguard for persons to use the 'unrestricted' portion 'at their discretion' and by further restricting the uses to which the 'restricted' portion can be directed, both Bills are therefore detrimental to the economic freedom of trial participants.

In plain speaking, this means that of the 20 per cent cash—which is so important if you are on income support, because you have to transact so much in cash; for example, buying secondhand goods—the government's bill says, 'We are going to use the 20 per cent that we said you could have in cash to pay your rent.' It doesn't come out of the 80 per cent; it comes out of the 20 per cent if you're in social housing. That means it has even more of an impact on people who are struggling to survive on income support.

So there is now in place a mechanism for the government to set aside perhaps nearly all of your income support. Why not put the rent—not that we support that bill—in the 80 per cent? I'll tell you why: because the government is ideologically driven to tell people on income support, who are some of the best money managers in the country, how to spend their money. This is a top-down, punitive approach that takes away people's agency. One of the most important things for people in maintaining their dignity is their ability to make those day-to-day life decisions around how they spend their money and how they look after their children. Now the government want to do this to people under the age of 36, who in some cases are still developing these skills. Now they are going to take all of their agency away. This is discriminatory. It's ideologically driven. It humiliates and stigmatises people. It should stop in this country. We are better than this. I'm glad the opposition are opposing this legislation, but I hope they have finally seen the light and will also help us to stop these appalling trials in the East Kimberley, the Goldfields and Ceduna. You can probably tell that we oppose this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. We oppose income management, and we will continue to campaign against it.