David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I note this disallowance from Senator Rice, and I enjoyed engaging in the Senate committee process when the legislation to transition people off the BasicsCard was before the Senate. We heard from a broad range of stakeholders. The overwhelming majority did not want a cashless debit card imposed on people or on communities. However, there were some people who were of the view that they want it as a tool to be able to make decisions for themselves in their communities and to have the option of putting community members onto some sort of cashless debit card arrangement.

People in the ACT have made it very clear to me that they do not support compulsory income management. It is not something that they want to see imposed on communities across the country. It seems that there is an overwhelming amount of academic research and lived experience showing that this punitive legislation does not lead to the outcomes that are intended.

While I oppose mandatory income management, I'm concerned that the government has not put in the necessary support services needed if this disallowance were to succeed. These support services are crucial. We heard a lot about them during the Senate committee process from people who came from all over the country representing many remote communities. They talked about the lack of services, and the need for more support when it comes to income management and when it comes to dealing with a whole range of people. Clearly, transitioning people from the BasicsCard to the enhanced income management was not the abolition of compulsory income management that Labor promised.

I call on the government, once again, to outline their process to transition people off mandatory income management and to outline the services and supports that will be given to those people.

While I am against mandatory income management, I have concerns that this sort of disallowance will lead to unintended consequences. As I said, there simply aren't the services in place. I guess my vote on this is a little bit nuanced; I support the intention of this but I can't support something that will potentially leave people in the lurch without a solid plan from the government about what services the people will receive and what the transitional arrangements will be to come good on the government's election commitment.