Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed:

the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—Commonwealth Referrals and Exemptions) Determination 2023 [F2023L01172]; and

the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—State Referrals) Determination 2023 [F2023L01173].

I am moving to disallow these instruments relating to compulsory income management. I want to first paint a scenario for you. Imagine the government restricts what you can spend your own money on. Imagine that you're planning your partner's big birthday party and you're heading out to buy some alcohol for the night, and the government steps into your private financial affairs and says: 'I'm sorry, that's more than you're permitted to spend on alcohol. Big Brother says no. It's for your own good.' You can tell them until you're blue in the face that you don't have a problem with alcohol, that it is a special occasion, that your kids are well looked after, but, no. The computer says: 'No, you happen to live in an area where the government's determined that some people have got a problem with alcohol and gambling and looking after their kids, so I'm sorry, that's how it is. One in, all in. Collective punishment. It's for your own good. Government knows best.'

That's effectively the situation for the vast majority of people on compulsory income management, particularly First Nations peoples who live in the Northern Territory. But it's worse for them, most likely, than it is for you. Because, if you're not living in poverty, you've probably got some money to fall back on and friends who will help you out. Why them and not you? Racism. It's pure and simple.

If you are a First Nations person in the Northern Territory who has been on JobSeeker, youth allowance, parenting payment or special benefit for more than a year, bad luck. You're black, you're living in poverty and, rather than increase the rates of income support to levels that would allow you to be above the poverty line and live a dignified life, rather than funding meaningful employment opportunities, the government wants to punish and to blame you. Most people subject to compulsory income management schemes are First Nations people. Around a third of the total population of First Nations people in the Northern Territory are on compulsory income management.

In the evidence given to the many inquiries into income management over the last decade, First Nations people, particularly those in the Northern Territory, have objected to compulsory income management as racially discriminatory. In evidence given to our Senate Community Affairs Committee's inquiry into poverty, Megan Krakouer, the director of the National Suicide Prevention and Trauma Recovery Project, told us:

In terms of income management, I've seen how it's been rolled out in Kalgoorlie in so many respects, and it's had a very draconian, disastrous impact on a lot of the families that are forced to use it. The way forward is not about penalising the family. It's not about demonising the families. It's about providing that support, that love, that kindness, that respect and giving opportunities that every single Australian brother and sister is entitled to. Not by any means do I support income management, because I know that there are other ways—and it's called kindness.

Mr Damien Griffis, the CEO of the First Peoples Disability Network said:

Income management from a disability perspective is completely inappropriate. I can't possibly support it on any grounds.

… … …

When you place restrictions on people's cash, particularly when they need that cash to access disability aids and supports, that's a major problem, and we've seen that worsen. My personal view, from a disability perspective, is that this has gotten worse since the income management system was established. It's inherently ablest as well. It's not just institutionally racist; we would argue that it's institutionally ableist as well.

Yet in June the Labor government pushed through legislation that continued the destructive and punitive system of compulsory income management, and this was a complete betrayal to people on income support and to everyone who believed Labor's election promise that they would end compulsory income management. In opposition, Labor campaigned hard to abolish the cashless debit card and gave a clear signal it would end the BasicsCard as a compulsory scheme. But instead, Labor introduced the SmartCard regime, trapping more than 20,000 people under compulsory income management. I have said it before and I will say it again: Labor's SmartCard is just the cashless debit card with a different name and a different colour. The SmartCard regime is not simply a matter of improving technology, as Labor claim. It is a sneaky and insidious framework that significantly expanded the minister's power to roll out compulsory income management to new areas and effectively allowed the new cashless debit card to apply nationally.

When these measures were introduced to the parliament for the SmartCard, the Greens moved to disallow this rotten regime, but, not surprisingly, the two parties ganged up and voted us down. So today we are moving to disallow two of the legislative instrument Labor has introduced that seek to perpetuate the punitive system of compulsory income management. Under this system, certain groups of people on income support can be forcibly placed on the BasicsCard and have 50 to 70 per cent of the income quarantined. This can happen to you if you live in a region where income support is currently in place, if you have been on a social security payment for over a year, if you are a young person on income support for an extended period or if you are assessed as vulnerable due to experiencing things like financial hardship, domestic violence or risk of homelessness. You can also be placed on the BasicsCard and have your income support payments forcibly quarantined if a child protection worker refers you to the program.

This is a horrifying and paternalistic system. The BasicsCard was one of the many racist and discriminatory policies that the Howard government introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Intervention. Labor then expanded this program in 2010 to a wider cohort of income support recipients. Today the Department of Social Services reports that there are approximately 24,000 people on the BasicsCard in Australia, with the vast majority of these people living in the Northern Territory.

The legislative instruments that the Greens are seeking to disallow tonight enable the operation of these measures under Labor's SmartCard regime. What that means is that people on the BasicsCard don't have the option to exit compulsory income management; they only have the option to move over to the new SmartCard system or stay put. These instruments also allow for the government to force new income support recipients onto the SmartCard if they are assessed as fitting the discriminatory criteria. Of the 22,000 people on income management in the Northern Territory, only approximately eight per cent have volunteered to be on the program. Most have been forcibly placed on the program because they qualify as long-term welfare payment recipients and they live in the Northern Territory. Evidently, the existing income management regime is not voluntary, and neither will Labor's new SmartCard regime be.

This was made crystal clear in a recent Scrutiny report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. With regard to the instruments we're debating today, they concluded:

While facilitating the operation of a regime that provides participants with access to superior technology and improved banking functions is, in itself, an important aim, it remains unclear why this enhanced income management regime must operate on a mandatory basis (or why legislation is required to improve this technology).

The committee also noted:

For many years the committee has raised concerns regarding the compatibility of compulsory income management with multiple human rights. In particular, by subjecting an individual to mandatory income management and restricting how they may spend a portion of their social security payment, the measure limits the rights to social security and a private life, and possibly the right to an adequate standard of living. Due to the disproportionate impact on certain groups with protected attributes, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and children, the measures also engage and limit the right to equality and non-discrimination and the rights of the child.

Let me be clear: compulsory income management in any form, from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard or the BasicsCard, does not work. As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, it only restricts people's rights.

But this isn't a new finding. For the nearly two decades since the introduction of the BasicsCard in Australia, in 2007, we've heard evidence from parliamentary inquiries, the Australian Human Rights Commission, researchers and community organisations about how compulsory income management violates human rights. Compulsory income management demonises people on income support. It stops people from accessing the support they need. It removes their dignity and independence. Ultimately, it punishes people for seeking help from our income support system.

We've heard account after account of the real harm these programs cause. In addition to the evidence from a First Nations perspective that I shared earlier, other people have shared their experience in recent inquiries into compulsory income management. One person on compulsory income management explained:

It has stopped me paying rent on time to a private landlord. I could not purchase second-hand items which I needed when my fridge and washing machine died. I felt very alone and socially an outcast. I didn't have enough cash to buy cheap market goods.

Other people have echoed feelings of social isolation while in the regime. One person said they are 'not able to rent, not able to go out and meet people' and that it's 'not good for young people'. Another expressed how limiting having their income forcibly quarantined can be. They said:

Coming from an abusive past relationship I would have less access to flee as I would not have options that don't require cash. I could not hide from my partner to set myself up to flee. No life.

This is horrifying. Our social security system is supposed to provide people with a robust safety net. It's supposed to support people when they need it most, not restrict them in accessing basic needs like shelter or food or stop them finding social connections. Most importantly, it should never be an additional barrier to someone leaving an abusive relationship. Yet under compulsory income management this is the reality. This is the reality that Labor are forcing upon 20,000-plus people as they wilfully march forward with the SmartCard regime.

Labor made a clear commitment to end compulsory income management before the election. In April 2022, when asked about the BasicsCard, Labor's social services spokesperson Linda Burney said that they believed this regime should be voluntary. She said, 'If people want to be on these sorts of income management, then that's their decision.' We agree, Minister. If people find income management useful, they should have the option to enter into it voluntarily, but they should not be compelled to be on it. Labor also promised to leave no-one behind. Yet, since Labor has been in power, they have consistently made the decision to keep people who are on JobSeeker and other payments well below the poverty line.

Labor cannot be trusted with our social security system. They have broken promise after promise. We saw in the recent budget hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, yet they only managed to find $4 a day for people on JobSeeker and other payments. Four dollars a day can't even buy a coffee, let alone pay for rent or groceries or medical expenses. So, as we debate this disallowance and the impact of compulsory income management on people relying on income support, this is a stark reminder that poverty is a political choice, and right now the Labor government is choosing to keep the millions of Australians who are on income support well below the poverty line. They are choosing to force over 20,000 people into the destructive practice of compulsory income management.

Labor may argue that this disallowance shouldn't proceed because it has unintended consequences. They'll say it will prevent people from accessing the so-called improved technology of the SmartCard. Let me remind Labor of the scathing assessment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights of these instruments. It remains unclear why income management must operate on a mandatory basis or why legislation is required at all to improve this technology. So, Labor, what is your reason? Why are you choosing to perpetuate the destructive and racist policies of compulsory income management? If you actually listened to the people who are affected by these policies, if you paid attention to what First Nations groups and people with direct experience are saying, you would fund services that actually work instead of continuing to spend taxpayer money on the rollout of the discriminatory SmartCard regime. You could substantially increase your investment in social and affordable housing, and properly fund financial counselling services and First Nations controlled community organisations. You could raise the rate of income support to above the poverty line for everyone who needs it.

Until Labor comes to parliament with a bill that introduces income management that is genuinely voluntary, the Greens will not stop fighting until all compulsory income management is abolished. We will not allow the government to continue to force people on these punitive and damaging programs under the guise of another name. We will continue to disrupt, and to attempt to disallow, any harmful legislative instruments under Labor's SmartCard regime, and we will keep fighting until our social security system actually supports the people who need it. I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed:

(a) the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—Commonwealth Referrals and Exemptions) Determination 2023 [F2023L01172]; and

(b) the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—State Referrals) Determination 2023 [F2023L01173].