Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Somewhere in Australia today, a child woke up, put on fresh clothes and sat down to breakfast, because of the cashless debit card. Somewhere in Australia this afternoon, a wife or partner won't be trembling in fear of a man coming home grogged up and ready to fight, because of the cashless debit card. Somewhere in Australia tonight, some elderly people will sleep soundly knowing they are unlikely to be robbed or rolled for cash, because of the cashless debit card. Today we are being asked to vote to take that away from them. I must believe that we as a chamber are better than that, and I have to believe that I as a person am better than that.

Today I would like to talk about two things: how did we come to the point that this chamber, filled with people who care about Australia and Australians, is about to throw some vulnerable people to the wolves; and what are the realities of dealing with these displaced communities? In looking for why people do things I always look at the motive behind the actions. In this case, maybe contrary to some others, I get those opposite took this policy to the election; I understand it and I respect they are trying to meet those undertakings they made. I also get that at the time, without all the information, they may have felt the card was inequitable; I can see where that may have come from. But I also understand that whilst you can't expect people to change their minds you can ask them to make a new decision with new information. As brief as the inquiry was, it came up with some new information, and this process must, at a minimum, be paused.

I won't be going into the stats that many trotted out or the quotes from Noel Pearson that I've probably heard about 20 times in defence of the card here today. But I want those opposite to go and read some of the powerful testimonies of those directly affected—not the agencies, not the industries and not the vested interests, but the people. Imagine their faces when they are talking about the better life they've had without fear. Imagine the hope they have had for life with less crime and better health. And imagine those same faces when we are telling them we're going to take that away. I accept that this was not the intention of this legislation when it was first considered. I can see the care that all in this chamber have for the people this affects. That is why I ask: if a couple of weeks in an inquiry can point out these issues, why don't we take a couple of months to try to find a better way to fix it? Why does this have to happen this way? Why does this have to happen on this day?

I know by the proposed amendments that have been introduced that there is an acceptance that perhaps, for the other side, this is not as cut and dried as first thought. I can see by the looks on some of the faces opposite that even with them it's something that still sits uneasy because of some unexpected consequences. What happens if that child can't go to school because we pass this? What happens if those elders get robbed because we pass this? What happens if that lady gets bashed, or worse, because we pass this? We need to get this right.

I accept that there are some flaws in the cashless debit card. It is not perfect and it can be improved. But I also know that this legislation and the rushed amendments are not the way to do it. Let's take the time and do this properly. These displaced communities suffer from the double barrel of disadvantage, cultural displacement and geographical distance. It is not hard to see that if I were relocated miles from anywhere with little hope of employment or destruction then I would probably hit the cans and have a punt—to what end, I don't know. Throw on top of that an Indigenous community's displacement from culture and generational neglect, and it only gets worse. These things are not fixed by taking away something that at least had some impact. These things are not fixed by tokens or platitudes. We have said sorry. We have closed the gap. We are trying to find a voice. But all the time the problems just get worse.

Today I spoke to Mr Mark Lockyer, and I tell this story of his family with his permission. Just two months ago his niece Alena Kukla and her son Orlando were shot in an apparent murder-suicide at 16 Mile Camp near Alice Springs. The apparent perpetrator, the toddler's father, had a history of violence against women and earlier had been drinking all day with the victim. As bad as all that is, the only witness was Ms Kukla's older son, all of three years of age. After seeing that and losing his mother, he can add another couple of barrels to the challenge that will face him in his life.

But where was the national outrage for this? Where was the media coverage of this horrible crime? It was nowhere, because it is too difficult for us to face the fact that, despite all our best intentions and billions of dollars spent over decades, this problem still exists. And in the absence of answers we give silence and throw more guilt cash at the community so we can pretend we are making a difference. But let's face it, we are not.

We were asked to do that again today with another $50 million being allocated as part of an amendment that acknowledges that there will be increased crime and there will be increased alcoholism because of this bill. A coroner's report has found that 65 Aboriginal women have been killed by their partners just in the Northern Territory since 2000. And we hear nothing and do nothing. Justice Judith Kelly noted:

Everyone is willing to talk about the over-representation of Aboriginal men in prison … But, as I have said before, the stream of Aboriginal men going to prison is matched by a steady stream—a river—of Aboriginal women going to the hospital and to the morgue.

During a 2016 episode of Q+A, Professor Marcia Langton said domestic violence suffered by Aboriginal women ranged from between 34 times the national average and up to 80 at the worst. This was later checked by ABC Fact Check and found to be broadly true.

The problems facing these regional Aboriginal communities are real and monstrous. They are very different to the problems faced by similar communities in the cities. They are harder to see and harder to solve. The withdrawal of this card will be the second blow to many of these communities, after the revocation of the alcohol ban by the Northern Territory. Alena Kukla and Orlando deserve better than that. That is why I cannot support this bill, even with the amendments. And that is why I ask again: delay the bill, enlarge the inquiry and come back to this place with legislation that is designed to make a difference not tick a box.