Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 implements the government's election commitment to end a program that has never lived up to its promises. The cashless debit card, implemented over six trial sites across Australia, was designed to deliver a lot. The former government claimed it would help to address adverse behaviours relating to drug and alcohol misuse in communities by quarantining a proportion of a person's welfare payment. But the evidence from numerous evaluations, inquiries and audits simply isn't there to demonstrate that this program delivered on its objectives.

And now, the legislation that underpins the program is due to sunset on 31 December. The bill before us allows for the transition away from the CDC to be considered and staged. It is in response to the sunsetting of that legislation. The issues confronted in the legislation before us are tough and they are complex. I actually chaired the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this, where we heard from representatives from across all of the trial sites in Australia.

We heard, firsthand, the lived experiences of many of those on the card. We heard how it had stripped away people's rights and left them feeling ashamed and humiliated and stigmatised; that it left people unable to buy basic necessities like second-hand school uniforms because there simply wasn't enough cash at hand; of kids being kept home from school to avoid the humiliation of not being able to give that $2 donation needed for an ice cream day on Friday because the cash was gone. And we heard of the workarounds being used to get cash, that compounded disadvantage and which demonstrated that a card—a piece of technology—in and of itself, can never and will never be a simple and single cure-all to drug and alcohol dependency. The reality being that without the right social help, and services to support people, these dependencies continue and they continue to cause harm.

What we heard during this inquiry was not greatly different from what I've heard on the ground in Ceduna in South Australia, where I've travelled with the then shadow minister for social services, Linda Burney, and our now Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, in my work advocating for the Yadu Health clinic. On these visits I sat by Minister Burney and Minister Rishworth's sides as they heard similar stories: that the CDC was stigmatising individuals, restricting their access to the second-hand economy and limiting the ability of communities to make collective financial decisions. In several instances, I was told that, where people felt there may have been a positive impact for the program, it wasn't the card per se but the wraparound support services that were implemented—not always to the extent they were promised, mind you—alongside it. Again, we heard of the workarounds that were happening that were leaving some of the most vulnerable in that community worse off.

We know that for too many people this card, this program, hasn't worked as it was designed to. Indeed, it has made things worse for far too many Australians. I won't pretend that all experiences on the card, or views of the card, are universal. They're not. And I don't pretend to speak on behalf of everyone in the community of Ceduna or elsewhere. As I said, this is a complex issue and it's a complex issue in South Australia. There are supporters of the card as a mechanism for income management, including in Ceduna, and those concerned to see the transition done right. In Cape York, concerns were raised with the committee, as I said, in the inquiry I chaired, about the impact of the legislation on the continued operation of their unique model and the work of the Family Responsibilities Commission. Our inquiry heard these issues, we took them seriously and, as a result, we made a number of recommendations and added commentary in our report.

I'm really struggling to follow the commentary earlier from opposition senators that the government shouldn't have responded to the committee's recommendations, that by responding to these issues there was somehow a failure here. That is absolute nonsense. I've heard so much nonsense on the consultation argument from members of the former government, who never properly consulted before forcing people on this card—forcing them on it punitively in places like Bundaberg, where young people were put on this card without any consultation and without any choice. To the idea that the minister was somehow meant to consult before she was a minister, they know full well the former shadow minister has been out there for years listening to people on this issue.

I know Minister Rishworth is personally and deeply committed to getting this right and to leaving individuals better off. I thank her for the work on the amendments that the government is bringing forward, and the recent announcements that will be brought forward to address the concerns that have been raised. That is an appropriate response. That is what happens when you genuinely listen, like the minister has.

I want to take a moment to talk through some of these things. Firstly, were the concerns raised about technology? An updated income management technology solution with an enhanced card will be available as a voluntary income management tool for those who want to use it, providing access to more merchants, and facilitating BPAY and online shopping. This is in direct response to submissions to our inquiry. But critically, this enhanced technology will be delivered by Services Australia, removing the interface with a private company for customer support and will enhance support. It is not a punitive measure.

Secondly, the transition, of course, needs to be staged, with individual support for those who need it to come off the card. The legislation allows for this, and the minister has made it clear that Services Australia will provide front-of-house staff in trial sites throughout the transition. And the transition of course needs to be backed up with services that are well funded, codesigned and geographically, culturally and linguistically accessible. This is something our committee inquiry discussed.

The minister has announced that the government will continue current community support services, where funding was set to expire under the former government, and will invest $17 million in additional community led and designed initiatives to support economic and employment opportunities. In Ceduna in my home state, this will see some essential support services, such as the community bus for children who don't have access to other forms of transport that were set to have their funding expire next year, continue.

In addition, $49.9 million will be provided for additional alcohol and other drug treatment services and support in four of the cashless debit card trial sites. There was some interesting commentary in the chamber earlier today, but I would remind the chamber that this was support actually promised by the former government, just never delivered. So if that announcement in itself is an admission of failure or admission of error on anyone's policies, it is the government's own. I'm really proud that our committee's work has encouraged these commitments. That is what happens when a committee does its job. The idea that us making these recommendations and comments, which have led to better policy, is somehow a failure, I find absurd.

In Cape York, the government always intended for this unique model to continue. Let's have some facts on the table when it comes to this debate. Where issues were raised that they may be some unintended consequences in the legislation which would impede on this work, we made recommendations. Our inquiry made recommendations for these to be worked through. The government is bringing forward amendments to this end, which allow the work in Cape York to continue. I note those amendments have been welcomed by the Family Responsibilities Commission. I will also say for communities around the country who want their own model of community based voluntary income management, including in Ceduna if that is what the community decides it does want there, the minister left the door open on that too. These facts are important in this debate.

I understand that emotions run high. As I said, these are tough and complex issues, but facts matter, and of course a lot of work ahead remains in the Northern Territory on the future of voluntary income management. Not all of this work can or should happen overnight. To this end, I acknowledge the contribution made earlier of my colleague Senator McCarthy to this debate. If you missed her contribution, go back and listen to it because she could certainly teach a few in this chamber a thing or two about respect, about dialogue and about consultation.

This bill represents the start of the government's work to end what has clearly been a failed program, to end the blanket imposition of compulsory broad based income management that the evidence simply does not support. But of course there is more work ahead.