Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 . Last night, it was my great privilege to be able to speak for the first the time here in the Senate. In that speech, I spoke about my involvement with the cashless debit card in its early formations. I thought I'd take the time now to talk a little bit about the journey and the genesis—how the whole idea of the cashless debit card actually came about—because I was part of the very early discussions with some of the communities where it's now being trialled.

Senator Brockman said that I am a full bottle on this. Well, I think that's very kind and generous, but I think it's a little overstated. The reality is the full bottles on this are the communities. They are the ones that understand the depth and breadth of the importance of this card and the support that's provided with it—the extra supports of services that come with the card. The government is not delivering just that form of administered welfare payments, the social services payments that people receive. There are other supports that are there.

The Cashless Debit Card came about after a review by Mr Andrew Forrest from Fortescue Metals Group and the Minderoo Foundation, where I was working at the time. He was asked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, to undertake a review of the Indigenous jobs and training system. In doing the review, having gone around the country and speaking with many people—there were town hall meetings, lots of consultations around the country and about 400 different submissions as well—what became very apparent was that the focus on training and employment was important and we needed to bring some reforms into that space. I spoke about that last night in my speech. What became really apparent was, if people for six out of seven nights are drunk and affected by drugs, then there's no chance of training those people for jobs, even for jobs that are there or where there's a demand for jobs. And so there was a real cry from communities to try something that was different, to try something that could help people get that circuit-breaker.

Senator Brockman said that no-one in this place, in the government or anywhere, even in the communities, is saying that the Cashless Debit Card would be a silver bullet, but it is a circuit-breaker and it does provide an opportunity. We had a look at what was available. Is there a technology solution that could help? Years ago, you wouldn't have been able to do this, but technology has advanced.

We saw that the basics card was in operation in the Northern Territory. It's a similar model. It works similarly, but there are a few important differences between the basics card and the Cashless Debit Card. One of the problems with the basics card, which all welfare recipients across the Northern Territory and other parts in disparate locations across the country experience, is that the merchant has to install a separate terminal at their point of sale. In the Northern Territory in particular, you'd go into the grocery store, into the supermarket, and there would only be one line that had the basics card terminal installed, and it was the basics card terminal. Of course, you'd see all of the welfare recipients lined up at one terminal and everyone else lined up at the other aisles. It created a stigma for people. It was obvious who was on welfare and who was not, so it wasn't empowering. It wasn't helping people. It was actually driving down the despair further. If you're on welfare, it's a challenging circumstance, and no-one debates that, but what we don't need to do is add further stigma or a further issue to their lives, and the basics card was, in many ways, doing that. We took it to the technology providers, EFTPOS, Visa and Mastercard, and had a discussion with them. We got the banks together and said, 'Is there a way we could use one of the mainstream schemes, Visa, Mastercard or EFTPOS, to provide a more ubiquitous program so that the card could work anywhere in Australia, not just at those locations the merchant had installed a terminal to interface with their point of sale?'

We wanted to find a system that would enable people to go freely about their lives, conduct their business, buy the things that they needed—their groceries—and pay their electricity bill and pay for whatever they needed in a pretty unrestricted way, just with the merchants that sell alcohol and gambling products blocked and of course ensuring that there's no purchase of drugs and perhaps prohibiting taking cash out at the ATM.

This was a real breakthrough. It couldn't have been done 10 years ago. This is something that was new, and we thought it was worth trialling. So, we took it to a number of the communities that are now trial communities, and a few others. There were a few that rejected it; they didn't want it. At the time Geraldton, for example, weren't prepared to bring about the trial. But in the communities of the East Kimberley and Ceduna, the leadership group within those communities, said: 'Look, we think this is worth a go. We think this is worth trialling.' So, at Generation One, in Minderoo, where I was working at the time, we took it to the government. The government worked with us and said, 'Well, if you can actually demonstrate that the support is real, that there are actually people who want to see this happen, where we could break the cycle of welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug and gambling purchases, then this might be worth having a look at.' So we did. We got the support of those communities. They were a part of bringing delegations here into this place, speaking with crossbench members, government and opposition about the kind of support that was there within these communities. The government moved to implement this program, and it's been running now for several years across the East Kimberley and Ceduna, and now into the Goldfields and Hinkler.

It's a circuit-breaker. It by no means deals with all the challenges. I talked to the senior sergeant of police up in Kununurra, who said to me, 'Instead of having five continuous nights and days, after welfare payments hit, of drinking issues and all sorts of social problems that come with excessive drinking, we might now have only one or two nights.' So, it becomes a circuit-breaker. I had the opportunity to go to many of these communities over a number of years, long before the cashless debit card and now since the implementation of the card, and these places really are different. They're very, very different. They're not perfect; you still see issues, you still hear from the nursing staff and police and others, and we know there are still some problems that have to be addressed within these communities.

To me, employment is clearly the way to deal with this, because when someone has to take the responsibility of getting up for work and the responsibility of providing for their family, they make better choices, because they can't be staying out late every night, using all their money to purchase copious amounts of alcohol and drugs and not putting that into their family. People take responsibility. So, this is a real opportunity, and people seize that opportunity when they've got a job. That really is the focus that we need to have.

So, this legislation and the amendment here deals with an important thing that the community is looking for. As Senator Brockman said, this is a trial. This is about moving and adapting to the program and how it's working and how it can be improved. Here we have a situation where community members are saying, 'We think there are circumstances where people can demonstrate that they don't need to be on the cashless debit card and they can transition off that.' The government's listened to what the community is saying. There was a part of the legislation that established a reference group that people would have to go to and make their case, and then that would be able to take them off the cashless debit card. But the community responded, saying: 'Actually, we don't want to be set up against our communities. We don't want to have that sort of involvement. We just want to be participants within our community and not have that sort of role.' So I think this amendment is a very important amendment. It takes pressure away from community members within the group. This is an important change that we would make here today.

In order to make the card even better—it's never going to be perfect—we can invest in the technology that the card operates on. At the moment, it works by blocking an entire merchant. If you use that card at a grocery store, a supermarket, it will work. If you use it at a petrol station, it will work. If you use it to put new tyres on your car, it will work. This is not just in communities where the trial is in operation, but anywhere across Australia and, in fact, the world. However, if you use that card at a liquor store, it won't work. If you try to use it at a casino, to purchase some gambling products, it won't work. This is anywhere across Australia, not just within those trial communities.

The problem is, if you want to see it go into other regions where you don't have these discrete communities, there are mixed merchants that sell both alcohol and groceries through the same point-of-sale system. What we really need, to enable it to expand and go further and to take away any of that stigma that is attached to it, is the ability to limit the sale of particular items. So we need to ratchet up the scale of the technology to limit items rather than an entire merchant. One of the problems is, you can go to a mixed merchant, or even an existing merchant that's allowed—for example, at the service station—and buy a gift card and take that gift card that you purchased in the service station, or the post office or wherever you can buy gift cards, straight down to a liquor store to purchase a trolley full of booze. It's defeating the purpose of the program.

I'll be working with the minister and the government to look at ways of developing the technology to improve its efficiency, to improve how it works, so we can restrict the sale of particular items rather than entire merchants. You certainly wouldn't want to restrict the ability to shop at a supermarket. It has basic provisions that people are going to need. And we can't stop people purchasing fuel from a service station just because they also sell gift cards.

In the trial communities they've got around it with a manual override process, by limiting the sale of particular items. But if we're going to take it broadly we need to invest in the technology. This will further support the communities and the intent of the program, which is not to limit people's lives, not to impose upon them any unnecessary, undue, process. They will be able to go about their lives freely, without any encumbrance, and provide for their families. We've seen some great results in the trial communities. The key finding from the initial evaluation was that 41 per cent of those who reported drinking before the trial were now drinking less, while 37 per cent reported binge drinking less frequently. It doesn't mean they've stopped; it just means there's been a reduction.

I spent many years as a youth worker, and I have never seen a program have such a dramatic social impact. There's no amount of counselling or support that you could provide—I've worked with many young people who have had issues with this. I've never seen such a dramatic change in a community brought about, as we've seen in this community, with that sort of result. Of participants who reported that they were gambling, 48 per cent said that they were gambling less. Of those who said that they were taking illegal drugs before the program commenced, 48 per cent said that they reported using illegal drugs less often.

The evaluation also found widespread spillover benefits from the card. Forty per cent of participants surveyed that they were better able to look after their children. Forty-five per cent of participants were better able to save money. There was a decrease in requests for emergency food relief and financial assistance in the Ceduna region, and merchants reported increased purchases of baby items and food, clothing, shoes, toys and other goods for children. In the Wyndham store that I went into, for some reason, there's been a big run on fish fingers. There were copious amounts of fish fingers being sold. It's often the food of choice for my children, I've got to say, when you're just trying to put a quick meal together on a Sunday night! The point is people are using more money for important support for their families.

Of course, we're also hearing from teachers and schools that they're having to provide less food at the breakfast programs in Wyndham primary schools. Instead of kids coming and filling up because they haven't had any food at home, there are fewer kids now coming to school needing that service and assistance—that wonderful program that's run in the schools.

In closing, this is an small amendment to this program, but it is very important. This is something that is in response to what the community is asking for. None of us here in this place are necessarily experts on this. The people we need to listen to are those who are on the ground. When the people in the community are saying that this is something that we need to further improve the program and to ensure that it has the best opportunity for success, then that's something that we should respond to. I commend the bill.