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

I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the review of legislative instruments made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, together with accompanying documents, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This review examines six legislative instruments made by the Labor government under Australia's income management system and was the result of a Greens amendment to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill in 2023. That bill established the Labor government's enhanced income management regime and effectively expanded the destructive and punitive system of compulsory income management.

For nearly two decades, since the introduction of the BasicsCard, we have heard evidence from First Nations people, parliamentary inquiries, the Australian Human Rights Commission, researchers and community organisations about the failure of compulsory income management as a tool for alleviating poverty, addiction and other social issues, and we've heard time and time again how it disproportionately impacts First Nations people and violates human rights.

While we were unsuccessful in our attempts to block that legislation, the Greens were able to secure an amendment requiring a Senate committee review of any legislative instruments made on income management. One of the key concerns we had and still have about this legislation is that it expands the minister's powers in a dangerous way, and this review process that we have added adds a basic level of scrutiny and accountability to that process. The report that I am speaking to today is the first such review by the committee since the passage of the income management reform bill. I want to begin now by thanking the community affairs secretariat for their work on this inquiry; my fellow committee members; and all the participants, who gave compelling and important evidence.

This inquiry exposed the complete inadequacy and unsuitability of the legislative instruments underpinning Labor's Enhanced Income Management regime. An overwhelming number of inquiry participants expressed their concern about the extent and nature of the consultation on these instruments and, when asked during the hearing if the government had engaged in a formal consultation process on the instruments with any of the diverse range of witnesses, many, including the Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service, Economic Justice Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Accountable Income Management Network, they said, no, they had not been consulted.

Further, many participants raised concerns about the level and type of consultation that had been undertaken with First Nations communities. A representative from the Queensland Indigenous Family Legal Service highlighted how the lack of consultation does not align with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap priorities, and participants also raised issues about the lack of public information about who and what kind of consultation that had been undertaken. This firsthand evidence of the lack of consultation completely contradicts the claims in the government's explanatory material for these instruments, which stated that 'extensive' consultation had been undertaken.

And this wasn't the only issue raised by witnesses about the explanatory material provided with the instruments. Many emphasised how the explanatory materials lacked adequate information for parliament and the public to properly scrutinise their impact. Even more alarmingly, witnesses highlighted how the impact analysis mentioned in each explanatory statement concerned the cashless debit card rather than Enhanced Income Management. It was also pointed out that, despite this analysis being outdated, this wasn't mentioned in the explanatory material at all.

For the parliament to properly scrutinise legislative instruments, we rely on explanatory materials. Tabling instruments that lack adequate and relevant information is lazy, deceptive and potentially harmful. And, while there were more issues raised by inquiry participants, another significant flaw in the instruments was the failure to address years of documented human rights concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It's clear that, in developing these legislative instruments, the Labor government had no regard for transparency, human rights or working in partnership with First Nations communities.

We're extremely disappointed that the Senate voted down the Greens motion to disallow three of these instruments last year. However, we urge the Senate to support our upcoming motion to disallow the declared child protection state determination, the recognised state or territory determination and the specified income management instrument in the coming weeks.

So, in response to the evidence presented before the committee, the report makes one clear recommendation: that, for any future income management legislative instruments, the Australian government give consideration to undertaking genuine consultation, to provide adequate and relevant explanatory material to parliament to enable appropriate scrutiny and to provide a detailed report on the consultation process and outcomes regarding the proposed determinations. The Greens support this recommendation, and I want to emphasise that implementing this recommendation is an important measure to improve the overall transparency of the Enhanced Income Management scheme. However, the Greens are of the firm view that all forms of compulsory income management should be abolished. They do not work, and we do not believe that this recommendation of disallowing these instruments goes far enough. As the Australian Council of Social Services said during the inquiry hearing:

… any amount of amendment to these instruments would fail to address the core problem of continuing mandatory income management, which now mostly affects people in the Northern Territory.

While this inquiry only examined six legislative instruments in Australia's income management system, it reinforced a long history of evidence showing compulsory income management schemes are ineffective and incompatible with human rights. For example, the Central Land Council wrote in their submission:

… while Indigenous poverty rates are decreasing (albeit to a small degree) across most parts of the country, in remote NT and the West Kimberly, they are escalating—significantly. In these regions, poverty rates are more than 50 per cent, and in some cases, much higher. This level of poverty is unparalleled elsewhere in Australia and evidence of serious policy failure—and income management is a wholly inadequate policy to address it.

The Central Land Council go on to suggest:

Genuine efforts to address the poverty crisis in remote NT will focus on policy measures that are preventative, strengths-based and systemic—designed with Aboriginal people and their representative organisations, consistent with the commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

Dr Elizabeth Moore, the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said:

… we have advocated for the abolition of welfare quarantining because schemes like this are inherently flawed in their logic and the research indicates they don't actually reduce the purchasing of prohibited items. They have a range of impacts, some of which are negative rather than positive. In fact, the research shows that some of the earlier schemes did not reduce the impact of children not going to school. These schemes failed to support people with concurrent addiction and housing and employment issues, and they failed to support them in bringing around behavioural change; we've heard this from previous speakers. Positive reinforcing strategies and the fulfilment of mental, emotional and social needs have been shown to be much more effective. There is also concern around stigma, discrimination and disempowerment. They may in fact exacerbate grievance, unrest and retraumatisation, especially of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The evidence is clear: compulsory income management does not work. Rather it is a punitive and harmful regime that disproportionately targets First Nations peoples. As noted, this inquiry builds upon years of evidence pointing to the failures of compulsory income management. It also reinforces the ongoing calls from First Nations organisations for preventive measures and services that genuinely support people living in poverty and who potentially face addiction issues—services that are First Nations led and co-designed.

Before the 2022 election, the Australian Labor Party made a clear commitment to end all forms of compulsory income management. Disappointingly, the Labor government broke this promise when they chose to maintain the BasicsCard and establish the enhanced income management regime. Labor, it is time that you honour your commitment and listen to the voices of First Nations communities, social service organisations and those impacted by these punitive policies. It is time to end all forms of compulsory income management.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.