Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The proposed legislation before us, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, is fairly unusual in the sense that it solely affects people just in one electorate or one part of my home state of Queensland—parts of the electorate of Hinkler and, most significantly, the communities in and around the towns of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. That being the case, I want to put on the record again how deeply disappointed and, frankly, disgusted I am that the government-controlled Senate committee did not take the time to go to the communities directly affected by this legislation. It simply held a derisory phone hearing, packing in a small number of witnesses, all within a brief half-hour period. I'm sure each of us in this place knows those types of so-called hearings. The nature of the consultation was token in the extreme.

Of course, this issue of the cashless debit card trial is not new. There was legislation relating to this at the start of this year and a Senate committee inquiry into the wider idea of the trials at the end of last year. But, again, the committee did not go to Queensland. They did go and hold a hearing in Kalgoorlie, in an area that was going to be affected by the legislation, but they did not come to Queensland. The Senate quite rightly rejected the attempt at that time to expand the trials to parts of Queensland, and I very much urge the Senate to do the same again now.

Nothing has changed since then. The only thing, really, that has changed is that there is even more information about how badly designed the trial is. There is the very damning Auditor-General report into the trial to date, which I spoke to in this chamber last week, as well as the clear condemnation of the farcical assessment that was released by the government to try to justify the so-called effectiveness of the trials that have occurred to date. Other speakers on this legislation have already gone through the very strong and very valid criticisms of that so-called assessment, a classic case of an assessment designed to deliver what the government wanted to hear based on flimsy or flawed underpinnings. It delivers what I think, frankly, is a false picture of the reality of the impact of the trials where they're already happening. So, if anything, the Senate's got far more reason now to reject this attempt to expand the trial of the cashless debit card than it did when it rejected that aspect of the legislation earlier this year. I repeat my plea to fellow crossbenchers to consider this issue very carefully and to vote against it. It is clear that the numbers on this legislation are very tight, so I urge senators, particularly Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm, to please consider voting against this legislation.

I have been to Hervey Bay and spoken with many people there. I went there last year, before I was back in this place, with my colleague Senator Siewert, and again just a few weeks ago. I also went to a public meeting in Bundaberg on a Monday night, attended by over 50 people, and not just people who are going to be directly affected by this trial. In an effort to get the Senate to agree to this trial, the government has wound it back and reduced the number of people it would apply to—only people under 35 who are on Newstart and parenting payments, including sole parents. That shouldn't matter. There's no logic as to why it should do that. The only so-called logic is political logic: an attempt to try to make it more politically saleable, to reinforce the disgraceful, longstanding myth that people on unemployment and social security payments and sole parents somehow or other are bludgers and unable to manage their money. That should not be a reason to now vote to extend the trial; it should be another reason to vote against it. People receiving Newstart payments are amongst the best money managers in the country. They have to be, because their payments are so low.

The government is handing money over to a private financial company, rather than spending it on assisting people in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, particularly young people, to get jobs or on creating economic activity in those regions. The youth unemployment rate in those areas is significantly above the national and state averages. That's a reason to put more resources into stimulating the economy there with training; it's not a reason to waste money so that a financial corporation can make life even tougher for people receiving those social security payments.

Even just as a matter of principle—that a Senate committee refused to go and listen directly to the community the government wants to impose this on—I'd urge Senator Storer and Senator Leyonhjelm to oppose this legislation. The mayor of Bundaberg, a former LNP state MP, has said on the record that he opposes this measure coming into his community, because the money would be better invested on services and job-generating activity. People can benefit from assistance to address substance abuse or gambling problems and any consequential financial challenges, but that should be personalised for those who need it, not a massive straitjacket imposed upon every single person solely on the criteria that they receive certain social security payments or are of a certain age.

There's no rationale whatsoever for discriminating in that way, other than the supposed political benefits of further demonising the unemployed and those people who receive social security payments. That is something this government specialises in. They don't have terribly many ideas, but the ones they do have usually involve demonising some of the least powerful, poorest parts of the community. They're very good at demonising and dividing. Make no mistake: this is another measure to do that. All you need to do is look at the public debates and some of the online commentary around the card, and you will see what is motivating it. That type of commentary appears whenever this issue is brought up. It's all about reinforcing the myths and stereotypes of people on social security payments as, somehow, bludgers—when, in so many cases, they are people who merit more support and assistance, rather than things that make their life harder.

I mentioned the mayor of Bundaberg before; I also mention the mayor of Hervey Bay, Councillor George Seymour. He was deputy mayor when I went to Hervey Bay last year; he's mayor now. He has spoken out quite eloquently against this card, not only the fact that it won't work for those people it's supposedly meant to assist but also the fact that it would be harmful to his community more broadly. I think, initially, Hervey Bay was seen as a place people went when they retired, but it's changed enormously in recent times. It's grown quite significantly as a community. Its local economy is very much driven now by tourism, by attracting people to the area because of its magnificent natural environment as well as its general attractiveness as a location. The last thing it needs is singling out as a community that has some sort of specific, unique social problem that merits this sort of measure, because it simply doesn't.

As many people who work in this field—with people on social security payments, and with younger people who need assistance because of substance abuse issues—have said: if anything, this is likely to increase related crime. Further restricting people's control over their own income is hardly going to assist them to better manage their situation.

It will impact on some of those small businesses that rely more significantly on the cash-based economy. There is no doubt about that. That is self-evident. The last thing we need is another measure that will somehow or other make it harder for small businesses but easier for the bigger companies and bigger retailers. We need to be encouraging diversity in the local economy, not further restricting the way that it operates.

I mentioned the public meeting I went to in Bundaberg. Many of the people there were not people who are going to be affected by the measure directly. In fact, the majority of them weren't. There were many there who are social security recipients; though they won't be subject to this trial because of their age, or because they're on disability or carer payments—at least at this stage, they aren't subject to this measure. But they know that measures like this reinforce the discrimination that they already face as people on social security payments, so they will still cop the public abuse. They will still cop the increased public cynicism that comes when these myths are reinforced by political leaders. And, of course, they know that the more this is rolled out, the more chance there is that it will become entrenched, and that it will become a measure that is slowly wound out to more and more of them and will eventually, potentially, catch them in its net.

Many of the other people at these meetings that I went to, in both Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, were people who worked in schools—for example, guidance officers. The supposed benefit of this card would be that it would help parents on Newstart or parenting payments to manage their money and, therefore, better able to have money available to feed their kids—those sorts of ideas. As I said, people on social security payments are amongst the best money managers in the country because they have to be. If there are challenges for people to get by, those challenges are magnified because of the inadequacy of the payments.

Many of those people at those meetings were from other local, not-for-profit organisations and support services that work in areas with low-income people. I mentioned that the mayor, George Seymour, had a background in youth work and working with people in the community around social issues. All of those who were there not only said this measure wouldn't work but that it would make things worse for the majority of people. There'll be a group of people who will be fine: they'll adapt, they'll work with it and all of that. It will just be another piece of unnecessary bureaucracy and a waste of government money for no great purpose. But there will be a group of people for whom this will make it harder—it will make it more challenging for them to get by. Part of how people do get by when they're on very low incomes is through the cash-based economy. It is through finding bargains at op shops and markets, or paying friends to do maintenance, and those sorts of things. This will make it more difficult for them to make those dollars stretch out as far as possible.

If the government want to assist people with managing their finances, and want to put money into this, how about they fund not-for-profit financial counselling better?

I had a visit yesterday from people from the financial counselling field, who pointed to the significant problems faced by people who need to manage their debt. I'm sure any of us here who had to get by on just the amount of Newstart would find it extremely hard not to end up in significant debt and having to juggle that. Household debt for people of all incomes is at record levels in Australia, and more and more people are becoming vulnerable to for-profit debt management firms that prey on people who have low incomes. I'm not talking about just payday lenders and the like; I'm talking about professional debt management firms, who advertise. I'm sure we've all seen the advertisements. They actually charge people and further exploit them, and there's no regulation around that industry.

If the government want to help, how about they better regulate the for-profit debt management organisations to ensure they don't exploit people in the way many of them do? How about they use the money that is being used on this card to properly fund financial counselling more generally—not-for-profit financial counselling? The federal government currently spends about $20 million to fund financial counselling services, and the states spend an estimated $26 million. There's certainly a significant and growing need there. More funding would go a long way in assisting people who do have genuine issues with managing their money and in protecting them from being exploited. We could put a levy on the industry to fund financial counselling, as happens in the UK and as already happens here regarding an industry levy to fund ASIC, for example. Those are the sorts of measures this government could use if it actually wanted to assist people who are having challenges with managing their income, rather than just putting a punishing straightjacket around an entire group of people and a using a measure that reinforces the stereotypes, the false prejudices and the myths around people who are unemployed.

We all know—and we've talked about this in different contexts in this place in recent weeks—how much responsibility we have as public leaders in the language we use, in making sure that we do not further divide the community, that we do not demonise and single out parts of the community. This is another group of people who are deliberately demonised and have been for a long, long time. Because of those debates we have acknowledged that it is damaging and harmful to people both as individuals and as a group—to our community and the general social fabric—when false myths and stereotypes are reinforced and peddled, or even if they're allowed to flourish without being countered. But that is what is going on here. That is why the government, even though they got part of their measures through at the start of this year, rolled this one out again straightaway, had a sham Senate committee inquiry and didn't bother going to the communities that they are actually going to target with this and are trying to push this up again.

It's a speciality of this government, whether in this type of area, in regard to social security recipients, or whether in other sections of the community, to demonise, single out and create division. That is the overarching goal of this measure. All the independent evidence and the experts in the field say it won't work, it won't deliver the supposed benefits that the government said is their motivation. So many of the people in the communities that are directly affected say they don't want it and that it will be harmful to their community in general, let alone to the individuals there. It's expenditure of public money that would be far better spent to create benefits on the ground in those communities, whether that be direct economic stimulation and employment or funding for some of the social services that work directly on the issues that the government says it's trying to address.

It is also, of course, a massive Big Brother measure. I would appeal to Senator Leyonhjelm—perhaps on those grounds, given his general dislike of red tape and regulation—that he not support the government in spending money to enforce more regulation and red tape, particularly in a discriminatory way against a particular part of the community in a particular part of the country. I again repeat my appeal to him and to Senator Storer to please vote against this legislation. Their votes will be the critical ones with regard to a piece of legislation where the government has made no effort to consult with the community and has made no effort, frankly, to work constructively on so many issues. There is Senator Leyonhjelm's experience of the government breaking the commitments that it had given him. This is a chance to demonstrate his unhappiness about that as well. There are many, many reasons to vote against this legislation, but perhaps the simplest one is that it won't work. Why waste more money on something that isn't going to work?