Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Well, what a backflip by this Labor government. What a proverbial dog's breakfast. We heard from a Labor senator today—clearly with more than a glance into the issues confronting those who live with addiction—that he didn't want an end to the CDC, because he's seen and heard there has been change. He will vote with his own party. What a brave, honourable senator. It was refreshing to hear earlier today that it is not perfect income management, but it is part of a strategy to provide some stability to the lives of the most vulnerable in the most vulnerable communities.

When in government for two terms, your former Labor minister and minister for Indigenous affairs, Jenny Macklin, whose advice we learned today you still value, was a fierce advocate for income management. Let me refresh memory. I quote from an ABC interview in 2010: 'There's less harassment for money, less money spent on alcohol and gambling, and more money for food and for their children.' Even Graham Richardson, a stalwart Labor person, said in the news media only this month: 'I think it's had a very positive effect and I think we'd be crazy to dump it.'

I quote directly from the University of Adelaide's report, an independent academic evaluation released in 2021. It reported that the cashless debit card had helped recipients improve their lives and the lives of their families and other community members. The findings included that 25 per cent of people reported they are drinking less since the cashless debit card's introduction; 21 per cent of cashless debit card participants reported gambling less, and evidence found that the cash previously used for gambling had been redirected to essentials such as food; and 45 per cent of cashless card participants reported the cashless debit card had improved things for them and their families.

This has been botched, and there's nothing here to celebrate. First responders, the police, the paramedics and the women's and men's shelters, those people who attend the carnage from addiction every single day, know what is coming. There is no stigmatising, because the evidence is right there. I dare you to stay around long enough when there's a battle going on between a couple, one wanting money from the other. What they don't know is that the war for them has not even really begun.

The ANAO report of 2022 is another professional report. It mostly looked at administration. In it there is no recommendation to end the CDC. In fact, there is nothing in that entire 83-page report that smells of scandal or incompetence in service delivery, nor is there anything that suggests it is such a failure it needs to be dismantled. It does not say it does not work. In fact, earlier Auditor-General's reports in 2018 and 2019 said that it was difficult to conclude if the CDC trial was effective in achieving its objective of reducing social harm. It's about the data. It's about the baseline. As politicians, our job is to make Australia a better place, to fix things. This legislation will make a bad situation much worse.

I now want to talk about consultation—or, rather, lack of it—in this decision. It's not consultation. As a senator for South Australia, I visited the community of Ceduna very recently. I've been there a number of times over the years. I walked the streets with Julian Leeser, shadow minister for Indigenous Australians. We went into a gaming room and one of the local bars. People knew we were there, and they were pleased to stop and talk to us. I don't know who you were talking to, but these were not scripted discussions with specially selected people. These were complete randoms.

What they told us, we already knew. These CDC sites were trials. They were not perfect. They felt comfortable telling us they were on the card. They didn't like it, but they needed it to restrict the good times and to ensure their families were okay. I'll translate that. Yes, they didn't like it, but it was an important safeguard for them and their families. These conversations happened in the street, in the bar and in the gaming room.

In the words of Mayor Perry Will from the District Council of Ceduna:

We've had no consultation about it at all. The first we heard of it was in the PM's election promises, that he was going to do it. Prior to that, we had had no representation from any Labor politicians.

Clearly, there was no recent consultation with him. Former Mayor Allan Suter OAM said:

I might also add that Minister Rishworth was encouraged twice by a local member of parliament to contact me, because of my knowledge of the card, when she visited Ceduna, but, despite heavy prompting from our local member, no effort was made to contact me. I made sure I was available if the phone rang, and it didn't.

There is not an education campaign less than a few weeks out from the changes you propose. Time is important to allow those on the card to have conversations with their families on decisions on remaining on the card. It is unbelievable that you would think that it was unacceptable or unreasonable to allow time for those discussions. That is also what free, prior and informed consent is about. It's about giving people the information they need so that they understand it in a timely manner and so that they can have those important conversations to reduce the backlash that might come their way.

Some of these people have English as a second or third language. These are smart people. They should have been properly consulted. Even worse, I don't think I've seen, in all the material I've read, anything that looks even remotely like a social impact statement—a social risk assessment. Sure, the Senate committee looked at it, but we've also heard that it was rushed and prevented many people from being included. I would have thought that, at the very minimum, if you were going to take apart a program that had been in place for so long you would have done a proper, rigorous, independent risk assessment. Your decision should have been informed by the most recent data. We now, however, have a baseline, and from that you should be monitoring hospitalisations, incarcerations and child protection notifications from the date of the end of the card. Are you even planning to do that? Or has that just been conveniently forgotten? We won't forget those people who have been affected by the card.

We've heard time and time again that it is about delivering on an election promise. Are you serious? There are 151 electorates in this country, yet only seven of them are in areas where the CDC currently exists. That's hardly a mandate, if that is what you're suggesting. If those who are on the card want an alcoholic drink or want to have a flutter or to play the pokies, I will celebrate and join in with them. In fact, they probably have enough cash that they can shout me, too. We could have a good time. They have cash available to them. There's a component that's quarantined, and there's also a cash component—discretionary; they can spend that at the local fete or they can choose to spend it on a drink, on the pokies or on anything else they want to.

This is about living with addiction, binge drinking, drug abuse or gambling and providing some protection from the consequences of those things for those who need it most to protect themselves and others. I've heard directly from the people at the Sobering Up Centre in Ceduna that a blood alcohol level of—wait for it—0.02 is pretty matter of fact. I read the coronial report that led to Ceduna being established as a CDC location, and it refers at one point to regular levels being 0.02. But wait for this: it even refers to a 0.4—yes, a 0.4. I've heard medical people say, 'That's ridiculous; you should be legally dead.'

These people walk around every day with these blood alcohol levels, and their bodies are ravaged by it. Their families are ravaged by it. They are completely ravaged by it. Their communities are ravaged by it, and the non-Aboriginal people in those communities are ravaged by it. Nobody wants to live like that. You should see the coronials: cirrhosis, bleeding of the liver—it goes on and on. The age of death is much lower than what you or I will expect to reach. That's the reality.

Flip-flopping and confusion by this government at the 11th hour only adds to confusion for those who are currently on the card and already disadvantaged, mostly in education and employment and even in communication. You are not getting rid of income management in the Northern Territory; you are simply referring people to an inferior card with inferior technology while you work out the other bits—the technology. Well, when you live in a regional and remote area, communication is always a challenge. So, going into the Christmas period coming up, wondering if the technology is going to work, not even knowing what card you're going to be on and how that transition might happen is terrifying for these people.

The CDC is an advanced technology that enables recipients to access their welfare payments using the universal banking system. The BasicsCard is a limited delivery mechanism. In fact, when I learnt of the benefits of the CDC as opposed to the BasicsCard a few years ago, I encouraged people to change over. I was absolutely gutted by what people were telling me. They had heard from mischievous people hellbent on progressing their philosophical agenda of all sorts of evils. It was ridiculous the stories I heard—cruel even.

You know there is a terrible time ahead not just for individuals with addiction, their families and their communities—yes, even the non-Aboriginal residents—because you have provided $50 million for additional drug and alcohol support services. Is that for one year? Before you say it's good, is that for one year or is that for every year for the next few years? How many years is that for? It's light on detail yet again. What about the other services such as domestic and family violence services or financial counselling? We're not very far out from the end of this card, and you still haven't explained it to the people who rely on those services.

Drug and alcohol and gambling addiction is about losing control and doing things to harmful levels because you simply can't stop on your own. You might take several attempts to actually get help, even if you know it's available to you. It takes at least three times for a person with addiction to be successful in conquering it. That's a lot of time for people who rely on not having a drunk come home, on not having an abusive person come home, on not having food taken from them, to wait while the card is fixed or while that person gets help.

Changing the CDC to a voluntary card will make the most vulnerable in our communities more vulnerable. I have said it before, I will say it again and I will keep saying it. Whether you are living with or love those with an addiction, a frontline worker, a member of the public or the family or generation left to deal with the chaos and grief, there is no escaping the consequences of addiction and substance misuse, or the coercion and control that often follows. Addressing it benefits us all. In removing the CDC you have failed to respond to that. Your abandonment of the most vulnerable is a disgrace, and the way you are going about this transition is irresponsible and reckless. Delay it, like you're going to delay the other card, to reduce further damage and disruption at the worst possible time on the calendar year for those people it is going to affect the most.