Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about why Labor is opposed to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, which we are currently debating. I do so from a position of listening to some of the speeches from government senators. I acknowledge their good intent in wanting to find a solution to what are indeed complex problems that exist in many parts of Australia. I think where that logic fails is to think that the solution is in a single cashless debit card, but I do acknowledge the heartfelt contributions of many government senators to the debate so far.

I participated in the cashless debit card inquiry. I was particularly keen to participate in the Kalgoorlie hearings because, for quite some time, like you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I've been concerned about what's been happening in Kalgoorlie. I note that last year you and I held a public meeting in Kalgoorlie. Many people came along to that meeting, and you and I heard some shocking reports, in particular about the level of racism in that town, which is evident and was certainly reported to us at that open public forum that we held. I do just want to start with that.

Of course, the intention with this card is not just for it to cover Kalgoorlie but to cover the greater Goldfields area. We saw last year the shocking death of young Elijah, a young First Australian boy who was run down by a car, the absolute tragedy that has created and, on the face of it, the very poor sentencing that the perpetrator of that crime received. Now there is further concern in the town because that person will be out on bail fairly soon. So that created a lot of protests in the town. And there is definitely—in Kalgoorlie particularly—a real pervasive element of racism. We saw on Australia Day the emergence of the Nazi flag being carried around at parties. We heard at the inquiry that there are Facebook pages that are dedicated to people who like to make derogatory remarks directed at First Australians and, again, you and I, when we held that open forum, heard about those Facebook pages which circulate in Kalgoorlie. So I say right here and right now that there are much greater problems in the Goldfields region, particularly in Kalgoorlie.

There are solutions to those problems, and they require state, federal and local governments to sit down with First Australians and to listen to the sorts of responses that they want to put in place. Certainly Mr Trevor Donaldson has been a high-profile first nations advocate in the Goldfields area. He's part of the Goldfields Land and Sea Council. He says what they need there is something for youth to do. We know that in country towns there is usually a swimming pool but there is often not much else, and they were seeking the establishment of a youth centre, for which they called upon the federal minister to give them the funds. They've been calling for that for quite some time, and it has fallen on deaf ears, although I think there has been some movement on that recently. But there is a solution where Mr Donaldson is saying, 'Let's divert these kids.'

We heard from a young first nations woman who works with the chamber in Kalgoorlie that she is finding it very hard to get young first nations people the opportunity to work in Kalgoorlie because of the racism. That the evidence she gave to the committee. We've had two relevant inquiries up there recently into both the CDP and the cashless debit card. She told us that the issue of racism often prevents her from being able to place young first nation people into employment. There are much greater issues that the cashless debit card is not going to address. Ironically, as I speak, the Closing the gap report is being delivered by our Prime Minister. Whilst I haven't had a good opportunity to hear everything the Prime Minister has said about that report, one of the things he has said is he wants First Australians to be able to participate equally. Imposing the cashless debit card in communities where the population is predominantly First Australian is anything but equal participation. I call the Prime Minister out on that.

Senator Patrick Dodson has said today on radio that the Closing the Gap results are not a game between the Liberal and Labor parties. That's true: they are not a game. It is about, as Senator Patrick Dodson says, the future of first nation people in Australia and their quality of life. I was very pleased last week to attend the 10-year review of the Closing the Gap strategy and its recommendations. June Oscar gave a powerful speech about what needs to be done. I quote from the review:

The close the gap approach and the Close the Gap Statement of Intent is founded on an understanding that population health outcomes are fundamentally the result of underlying structural factors, such as social determinants, institutional racism, the quality of housing, and access to appropriate primary health care. If governments want to improve and sustain the health of any population over time, these elements must be addressed.

When we are hearing from amazing women like June Oscar about the fundamentals of what needs to be done to address the gap, why is the government so intent upon pursuing a card which will further disadvantage people, that further discriminates, that will not address those issues that June Oscar and others say are needed to improve the wellbeing of our first nation people and of other Australians who live below the poverty line and are simply not able to make ends meet? The cashless debit card is not the response.

I know that as I speak there are some people from Kalgoorlie are in the building, lobbying the crossbenchers about the need to support the cashless debit card, but there is another story, and it is time that we stood back and listened to and acted upon what first nation people and others in this country believe is the way forward. We have evidence from Kununurra and Ceduna to say that the cashless debit card doesn't work. It may work for some people. There is no question that in Kalgoorlie we heard evidence for and against the cashless debit card. Thankfully, that evidence came from First Australians who would, if this legislation were passed, have the cashless debit card imposed upon them. They were conflicted about it. I think there should be options in the future for people who want to volunteer to be able to opt in. I wouldn't stand in their way, but this is not what's being presented with this legislation. It is a catch-all process that robs people of dignity, respect and the ability to make decisions about their own lives.

My key factor in attending the inquiry we had into the cashless debit card was to try and convince myself that there had been real consultation. If there was real consultation, if individuals and community representatives were saying very clearly, 'This is the response we want', and the federal government and, indeed, the opposition were standing in their way, we deserved to be condemned. But what the Kalgoorlie hearing bore out very, very clearly was that there had not been consultation with people who would be affected by the card. No amount of glossing up the inquiry, even for those most passionate supporters of the cashless debit card—you cannot claim that there has been consultation unless you think that consultation stops at a particular rung of society and doesn't continue on.

We had all of the councils come and give evidence about why they wanted the cashless debit card. What is interesting about that, in my view, is that the federal government has used those councils as a bit of a patsy. I can't comment on what councils do in other states and territories. But what I can comment on in a generalised way is what councils provide in Western Australia, and it's not social services. Councils in Western Australia have the traditional role of doing roads, big infrastructure, water in some remote communities and so on, but not the delivery of social services. But who did the government consult with in Kalgoorlie? It seems to me it largely consulted with the local councils—councils who are not delivering social services and councils who, if this card is imposed on the Goldfields community, will have nothing to do with the implementation of the card. So that would surely be the first alarm bell that must ring: why consult with a group of elected representatives who won't actually have anything to do with the delivery of the card?

I thought maybe the councils then went about consulting with residents, with people who would be affected by the card. So my questioning focused very much on what councils had done beyond sitting in a room and hearing from government bureaucrats and ministers about the so-called benefits of the debit card. We heard evidence from the mayor of Kalgoorlie, Mr John Bowler. He told us—and this is on the transcript for everyone to see; it's public information—that there had been no community consultation in Kalgoorlie before the council decided to support the card. When I questioned him on that, he told the committee that he'd heard Geraldton hadn't agreed to it, so he wrote to the minister at the time, Mr Tudge, and the local member, Mr Wilson, and told them he wanted the city to be in the next trial. This was the mayor of Kalgoorlie operating in a completely independent way—on a bit of a whim, if you like—to ask for the card to come to Kalgoorlie.

When I asked the councils what level of consultation they had done, some of them were quite insulted and felt that they, as elected representatives, had the right to make that decision on behalf of the local residents without speaking to them—which of course they do not. I put it to them that if, as an elected member, I did that I'd soon find myself voted out of office because, as elected representatives, we have an obligation to consult. And yet none of those councils could show us any level of consultation with residents who would be affected by this card. I found it completely appalling that they were prepared to front up to a Senate inquiry and tell us why they wanted the card, but had not actually consulted with anyone.

I'm not going to gloss over the issues in the Goldfields. There are certainly issues in the Goldfields. I started my contribution today talking about the inherent racism in Kalgoorlie and the sad and shocking death of young Elijah last year. There are issues in the Goldfields, as there are across many regions in Western Australia and, indeed, Australia. But the cashless debit card is not the solution to those issues.

We had the Aboriginal Health Council of WA. You would think that the federal government would have consulted with them, as they are an Aboriginal Health Council, but they didn't. Certainly they told us in evidence that what they saw in Kalgoorlie was:

… the continuing harm and trauma that exists today that the approach has comprehensively failed—

so the approach that the government has used to date has failed—

and it must stop if we are serious about improving outcomes in the community.

Those sorts of comments were echoed last week when we heard the Close the gap 10-year report from people like June Oscar, Rod Little and others. Ms Nelson-Cox went on to say that the card:

… has been designed by non-Aboriginal people despite being introduced in regions with high Aboriginal populations.

We heard from Linden Brownley, who since the CDC inquiry in Kalgoorlie has been elected to the council. He said:

… there is this feeling that we are being pushed back into what was described as 'the ration days'. After coming through the policies of self-determination and being able to take control of our own destiny and be able to shape and mould our own future, there is a perception out there that we are going backwards.

Remember I stated earlier that the Prime Minister in his response to Close the gap today has talked about the need for equal representation in our society, equal participation. Well, it isn't going to come through the use of this card.

We heard from Save the Children in Kununurra, who talked about their programs and why they worked in Kununurra. I'm a great advocate of Save the Children. I see the work they do in Western Australia, particularly in Kununurra. We heard about the programs that they put in place, which are about talking, discussing and listening to what elders want and which are led by First Australians. That's where they are seeing some difference. They told us that kids are going hungry now in Kununurra and that's an effect of both the CDC and the CDP on those populations. We heard that from police as well. It's not the sort of response that should be going on.

Last week we heard from the most amazing young woman—Banok Rind, who is a proud Yamatji-Badimia woman. She is a 20-year-old training to be a nurse. She implored the Prime Minister, 'Sit down and yarn with us.' She asked us why is it that two-year-olds in her community are walking around with hearing aids? I want to be able to answer that question. Certainly that is not because of the ability to equally participate in our society. It's about ongoing trauma and health issues which remain unaddressed.

She also put a positive spin. She is from the Geraldton area. For those people not familiar with Yamatji country, it is Geraldton. She talked about the Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service. Most Western Australians with any kind of social conscience would know that GRAMS, an Aboriginal controlled and led medical service, does amazing work. That was what Ms Rind said was needed, not a cashless debit card—and they are my words, not hers. Certainly she was talking about a comprehensive process, a process that involves consultation and a process that involves putting first nations peoples' views first.

The week before we came back to parliament I was fortunate to attend a cashless debit card conference that the University of Melbourne sponsored. There were two participants there: a woman from Ceduna and a woman from the Kununurra region in Western Australia. They talked about how the card has changed their lives, not for the better. In fact, their lives have become much worse. Neither of those women drink or gamble. One of them has worked most of her life and has now got a period of unemployment. They talked about the card not working, they talked about not being able to buy second-hand goods anymore, they talked about not having a lot of cash in their pockets and they talked about the detrimental effects of that card on their families. Those ordinary women are advocating, very strongly, that the cashless debit card is not making this so-called positive difference in their communities. It's certainly not the response in the Goldfields. There are issues in the Goldfields. They need an across-the-board response, but mostly they need to be led by first nations people. That's why Labor won't be supporting this legislation.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cashless debit card was put on trial in the Kimberley and Ceduna. It is not just for the Aboriginal community. It is available to everyone, regardless of their cultural background. For many years now governments have been accused because nothing has changed. We'll look at welfare dependency. It is a big problem in Australia. We have three and even four generations on welfare. The dependency needs to change and we need to address it and we need to ask the question of why.

The cashless debit card was first brought to my attention just over a year ago. I was invited to join some community leaders from Ceduna and the Kimberley to discuss the cashless debit card. These people were Aboriginal and they were elders. I sat down and discussed with them what they thought about the card. Surprisingly, they were very supportive of it. They told me it did have a big impact on their communities. They saw a reduction in crime, they saw children going to school and they believed there was a reduction in domestic violence. They spoke highly of the card and fully supported it.

I have heard arguments from both sides, from the Labor Party and the Greens, with regard to the card. Issues have been raise that you're taking away their human rights and that the card is not working. Well, I say to the senators and anyone else, 'What's your answer to this?' What is happening in these places and in Kalgoorlie—I've sat down and had a meeting with the council there—on the streets is totally out of control. Do you really care about these people's lives and the lives of future generations? There are young kids out there, as young as three and four, who are in the parks and not being looked after by their parents, because there is an alcohol problem and a drug problem. Why? Because the parents have cash in their pockets to go out and buy the alcohol and buy the drugs.

We really need to take a good look at this if we really want to deal with this issue. It's about looking at the facts and how we're going to change it and make a difference. I've spoken to the community leaders there, I've spoken to the Aboriginal elders and I have listened to their concerns. Yes, it was raised that they believe there wasn't enough consultation. That may be the case, but, at the end of the day, we must look at the results. Has anything been achieved from this?

I have heard arguments about the colour of the card. So you don't like that? People in the community may see that you're using the card and, therefore, you think you're going to be looked down upon by them? Most people in these areas know who is out working and who is on welfare. I think that's a pathetic argument: you're worried that people might think that you're on a welfare payment. Being on social security or welfare payments in this country is not a right; it is a privilege, because the Australian taxpayers are paying for it. We are one of the very few countries in the world that has such a generous welfare payment. If we do not start calling for accountability, we will not have the moneys to provide for those in need in times to come—whether they be the aged, the sick or the young. There has to be responsibility.

The money is divided up; you still get the same money. Eighty per cent of the money is put on your card, and you get 20 per cent in cash to spend where you wish. That can be negotiated under certain circumstances, if you let the department know and explain to them the reasons why. That can be sorted out. But, at the end of the day, it's about these people being responsible. I know for a fact that the culture of Indigenous people is that they have friends and family coming to them asking for, and even demanding, money from them. Although it's going to make it tougher for their own families and households to pay their bills, they hand over the money. The card is going to stop that, because they won't have the money to hand over to them.

It is a fact that Minderoo conducted research into the card and its benefits. It has shown that it is having a low to high 40 per cent impact on less drinking, less gambling and less domestic violence. This is happening because people don't have access to alcohol and drugs. When you sit there and listen to the community leaders and those with businesses in the town of Kalgoorlie—I went there and sat and listened to them during the Senate inquiry—they say: 'Well, something has to be done about it. Come up with the answers for it. If it's not the card, what is the answer? Because we're just about finished here.' Their businesses are going under. They're going to lose tourism in the town because people won't want to go there.

You talk about how we should provide more services. In discussions with the council, they said to me that there are between—I have heard different numbers, but I suppose you can look at that—150 and 170 different services that are available in the town. More taxpayers' dollars are being poured into this whole system to provide the services that are inadequate and where there is duplication. It's costing the taxpayer a lot of money. What it has come down to is that those services are only available between nine and five. When you have a lot of the problems, who do they fall to? It is the police and the council in the township who are having to pick up the pieces. When a lot of the Aboriginals come into town and get on the drink, they end up drunk on the streets and then end up in the cells because there's nowhere else for them to go or they can't get transport back to their own communities so they're stuck in town.

I don't believe that how we deal with the real problems there has been well thought out. I don't live there, so it is only speculation on my behalf. But I think the taxpayer services, whether they be not-for-profit organisations or government departments or whatever, need to work together to find the answers to this. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, when you talk about getting rid of the cashless debit card because you want to talk about people's rights. You want your rights, but with rights come responsibilities and obligations. That community needs to be heard.

Senator Lines said that they have a right to shape and mould their own future. Clearly, that is not the case, because over the years that has not been happening. Billions of dollars have been poured into, as I said in my maiden speech in 1996, the Aboriginal industry that is happening in this country. Money has been wasted. There is no accountability. They say that they don't have enough housing. I know that housing costs Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it's not being well respected or looked after. I have been approached constantly by Indigenous people, whether they be elders or just the average person on the street out there, who are saying that there is not enough accountability. They say, 'We are supposed to get the money but it doesn't get down to us.' I believe there is corruption happening and I believe that money is not getting to where it needs to get to. People are abusing the whole system at the expense of the taxpayer.

If you have an argument about this, fair enough, but don't disregard the cashless debit card. Support it for what it is and what it is achieving in these areas. The children are now starting to go to school. Isn't that what we all want? Don't we want to see the kids go to school? Don't we want to see them have a decent feed? Or are you quite happy to say that if they go to school the taxpayers have to pick that up and give them food? Isn't it a responsibility? Because they're Aboriginal, do we treat people differently? You shouldn't be doing that. You talk about racism in this country. That's reverse racism. There is racism, but it's reverse racism. It is about time people in this nation stand up and be responsible for themselves and their own actions. You can't keep passing the buck and saying that we're going to justify this because of their cultural background. That's not the way to go with this.

I know a lot of people out there who need a helping hand and don't get it, purely because of their cultural background. I think it's wrong. Listen to the elders and listen to the people in the community out there who are saying, 'It is working. It is benefiting them. It is helping.' Don't use it on a racial basis, because it's affecting Aboriginal people. The ones out there have the attitude, 'You're not going to tell us what to do.' That has to change in this nation if we are all going to join together as one people. We are one people. We are all Australians. I'm sick and tired of seeing the division that is actually happening between us, whether it be Australia Day or Anzac Day or whatever. We have to start working together and get rid of the divide that's happening.

The cashless debit card is beneficial and it is working. But those on the opposite side here, the Labor Party, are not going to support it. You're not listening to what the people want. You're not even prepared to give it a go. This is a trial period. It is working in these areas. Listen to the people. Let the trial period continue. You want to extend the trial period. I don't agree in any way whatsoever with your amendments to the bill. You want to reduce the trial from three areas to two areas, you want to extend the trial period to 2019, and you say that specific social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare and safety of adults, children and families in the trial areas. They've got that. I just said to you that they have those—160 or 170. How many more do you need to put in at the cost of the taxpayer? If you're really concerned about it, why don't you chase up these departments and ask them why they are not providing the services they're supposed to be providing. Why go out there and spend more taxpayers' dollars? There has not been enough accountability. No-one has gone out there to really investigate where taxpayers' dollars are going and if there is enough accountability. So don't start asking for more services to be provided.

After speaking to the leaders, the councils, Indigenous people, the mayors and others, I do support the cashless debit card. Yes, a few are objecting to it, because they believe their rights are taken. But, as I said, it is not their right to get taxpayers' dollars; it is a privilege, at a cost to the taxpayer. I believe that everyone should contribute to this. If it is benefiting the community, don't throw it out.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that this is a very, very divisive topic out there, but I just have to touch on a few accusations from Senator Hanson. I'm not going to have a crack at her because she's got a different view, but she's so ill-informed. Anyone sitting listening would think that Labor wanted to do everything we could to stop the trials. We fully support the trials, Senator Hanson. We supported them when they came out in April 2016, and we still support the trials. So I apologise to all my blackfella mates in the Kimberley—and I'll be with you next week. This is not a fight about blackfellas versus whites, although Senator Hanson has the unique talent of turning everything into a racist blue. My goodness me: that's 10 minutes of my life I'm not going to get back, listening to that diatribe.

To get back to it, I want to bring a bit of a different angle to this, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher. I respect all the years you spent in Darwin—you grew up in Darwin, lived in Darwin and brought up your family in Darwin—and I know you have a lot of contact with the Aboriginal people up there, a lot more than do most politicians in this building. I am an ex-truck-driver who ran trucks through the Kimberley for 12 years and built my house and my little business—my wife and I—through supplying a lot of the Aboriginal communities. I was a furniture removalist, and we moved a lot of gear in and out for teachers, police and social workers—all sorts of people. So I have a bit of an affiliation to the Kimberley in particular, but also to the Pilbara. I also, in my Senate life, spend a bit of time up there—though I don't spend enough time there; I'd like to spend half the year up there working—and when I come away from the Kimberley, after meeting with Aboriginal leaders, my first comment every Friday, as I sit at the airport in Broome or Kununurra, is, 'My head hurts.' It really hurts when I travel around with my Aboriginal mates and see all the issues that they have—every issue. Yet continually, day in, day out, they don't take a backward step. Leaders in the Aboriginal communities should be on pedestals. I said to one of my really good mates, Marty Sibosado from Broome, 'Marty, you've been doing this for years, mate.' Marty's university educated. He's a proud Aboriginal man, a Bardi man, in Broome. He headed up Nirrumbuk. He's an ex-ATSIC commissioner. He was also a councillor in Broome. He's helped start up Aboriginal businesses in construction, electrics, plumbing and the like. I said to him, 'Marty, how do you keep doing this?' Marty's my age and, like I said, is a very proud Bardi man. Marty said, 'If we don't, who else is going to do it?' So it really annoys me when I hear Senator Hanson try to make this about black versus white. Blackfellas know the dramas; they know the issues that they've got.

But I'm not going to talk about Senator Hanson anymore. Let's get onto the positive stuff. We've heard contributions from both sides of the chamber. I want to talk about Aboriginal people, because that's a passion that I have, and particularly as things aren't getting any better. But we're not going to lay the blame at the feet of one person. We haven't gotten it right in 200 years, so to lay the blame at the feet of one person is a bit unfair. There are a lot that have the responsibility here. I work very closely on the belief that if I want to find people who'll support the card I can walk into any town in the Kimberley and find Aboriginal people who support the card. Then I can go the other way; I can walk into any town in the Kimberley—let's talk about Wyndham and Kununurra, because that's where it is—and find people who hate the card. There are no ifs or buts about that. It's a bit like the climate change argument we were having 10 years ago, when we had eminent scientists saying, 'Crikey, the ice caps are melting and we're all going to drown in 30 or 40 years,' and then we had other eminent scientists who said: 'Nothing to see here; move along. It happens every couple of hundred years.'

But please let me explain something to the Senate and to those who have a passing interest in this. One of the greatest Aboriginal leaders in the Kimberley is Mr Ian Trust. I've mentioned Ian, who is a proud Gija man, on a number of occasions in this chamber and said what a really fantastic bloke Ian is. He won the award for Indigenous business leader of the year one year. He was Indigenous Business Australia's deputy chair. He was the Indigenous Land Corporation's deputy chair. He's currently the chairman of Wunan foundation. Wunan do a lot of good stuff in housing and the like. Ian can't say this in this building, so I want to use this time to give the Senate the opportunity to hear it. Ian's dream and vision, his absolute passion, is to try to improve the lot of his mob and others, and Ian makes very, very clear the challenges faced by Aboriginal people, from their point of view. Mr Acting Deputy President, I must say that I'm not talking on behalf of anyone else. I'm not talking about Ceduna. I have no idea how it's been going in Ceduna. I'm talking about Kununurra and Wyndham.

Ian was one of the first to say, 'We need to do something,' because he recognised the breakdown in culture and the continual severe social problems that are faced by his mob and others. He also recognised—Ian is hot to trot on this thing, which does not rate many mentions down here, and it should—the high rate of suicides within Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley, even among kids as young as 11. This is not normal behaviour. He talks about chronic alcohol issues and chronic drug abuse. Sad as it is, there's not a drug you can't get in the Kimberley; it's there. It's not just in Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and the big cities. As Mr Trust says very clearly, it concerns him and his mob up there. In the East Kimberley, from Halls Creek all the way through to Wyndham, Kununurra and Warmun, 100 per cent of the kids in care are Aboriginal. Ian's dream is to create a future with hope. It is not only Ian; there are so many fantastic Aboriginal leaders, and they all want that. They want to break the cycle of poverty—it's not an unfair request—and they want an empowered, independent future.

It becomes a little bit disconcerting when I hear from white faces in this place from both sides, and everyone is an expert all of a sudden. Everyone is an expert. I hear some of the contributions from Senator Siewert and I think: 'Crikey, talk about far out! Way out there.' Everyone is entitled to their position, but we've got no right to talk about what's good for our Aboriginal mates. What we should do, I strongly believe, is provide them with every tool that they need and get the hell out of the way. That's what we should do. As I said earlier, we haven't gotten it right in 200 years, and not for lack of trying. I don't mean that to be rude or disrespectful. There are a lot of good people in the Kimberley, black and white, who are doing a lot of great stuff, yet we forget their voices. We don't roll them out here. We don't move the whole parliament to Kimberley and Kununurra and say, 'How's it going out there?' Mind you, there are a lot of people who do make an effort and make the phone calls and get out there.

I need to put some things on the record, and it is only fair to put a balanced argument, because the balanced argument unfortunately doesn't get put too often when people are passionate one way or the other. We know that the welfare card was first introduced into Kununurra to encompass Wyndham, which is 100 kilometres to the north-west of Kununurra, and down to Warmun, which is 100 kilometres south. It was done in April 2016. There were four Aboriginal leaders in the Kimberley who were rock solid and who wanted to make it happen. One was Mr Ian Trust. Another one was Mr Des Hill. Des's official title, I think—he will forgive me if I get it wrong; Des has got a number of titles—was chairman of the Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation at the time, and he is also currently chairman of Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation. I will correct the record if I'm wrong. There was also Mr Lawford Benning, a very highly regarded Indigenous leader in Kununurra. At the time, he was the Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation chairman. They were pushing: 'All right, let's get this done. Let's see if we can achieve these goals.'

Since then, Mr Benning, it's well known, has pulled out of supporting the trial. Mr Benning makes it very clear that he is bitterly disappointed. I want to use a couple of quotes of Mr Benning's so I do get this right. This is from a news article from 24 August 2017:

But 18 months on—

after it had started in April 2016—

he said he had "crossed the floor"—

that's a term that we have a different meaning for here, but it's the same at the end of the day—

disappointed at the lack of change the scheme had generated as well as what he said was the Government's failure to deliver on promises it made at the outset.

"It didn't do what I thought it was going to do and I don't believe it has had the effect that I thought it would," he said.

That's Mr Benning's view, and no-one could ever argue against his credibility in the community up there.

To go back to the other side of the argument, I want to quote this so people hear Mr Trust's own words. Ian said:

"We've got to start somewhere in terms of rebuilding our community, and it means doing something about welfare, alcohol and drugs—and things like the cashless debit card are the tools to try to help achieve that."

Mr Trust also says:

“Things had got too bad to just tinker around the edges; you only have to look at the suicides, the number of children born with foetal-alcohol disease, the rates of domestic violence, alcoholism and child neglect to see that life is not normal here”

That is from an Aboriginal leader. Mr Trust goes on to say:

“Some of the results are hard to quantify, but there is certainly more vegetables, fruit and food being sold in Coles, more Aboriginal people going to the hardware shop and buying pot plants and furniture for their houses than ever did before, and less alcohol in the streets and parks, and less violence”

That's Mr Ian Trust—of the Wunan Foundation, a proud Gija man from Kununurra—not me. He goes on to say:

“It’s not just about grog or crime either; the card is also about breaking the inter-generational dependence on welfare that we have here and showing that rather than blowing all your welfare cash every week, you can budget and save and give your kids a better life.”

This article continues:

Wyndham Aboriginal leader Jean O’Reeri, the director of the local Ngnowar Aerwah Aboriginal Corporation, believes that in smaller Wyndham, the impact has been more marked.

Ms O'Reeri goes on to say:

“No one’s fighting, no one’s drunk; the town is quieter and cleaner, there’s more kids going to school and supermarket spending is up.”

Ms O’Reeri also works as an aide at the local primary school.

To put some balance into where I'm trying to take this argument—with all the help and thanks of all the experts down here in the cities—Mr Trust also incorporates the idea that this is a pathway to empowerment. And there is a design, with a well-known diagram—I am not using a prop, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I am quoting from it—where Mr Trust and Wunan have really worked on the four areas. One is called 'crisis', where they want to stop; that's been said. Mr Trust and his supporters also want to stabilise the situation so kids can get to school, the parent or parents can get a job, and they can get access to housing. That's the dream, we get all that. And then they want to get them ready for change, so change can take place.

I wanted to say something about the way the government is trying to ram this upon the rest of the nation—that's what Labor doesn't support. For everyone listening out there—and we've heard some of the diatribe from the other side, just then, from the Queensland senator—we're not opposed. I work in the Kimberley, and it hurts me; it hurts my heart when I see the disadvantage. So to cop that crap from her—I'm probably not even allowed to say that. I will retract that. There you go, I've gone and done it: I've talked about her and I've put myself off again.

Let's get back to the positive stuff. I want to see change. Our Aboriginal leaders want to see change, for crying out loud. So why don't we listen to their voices? That's all we're saying: give them the opportunity. Everyone's got a great idea, down here in Canberra, when I'm sitting in a coffee shop! To come back to it, Labor does not oppose the card. But what we are hot to trot on is consultation. I know the Greens are going to have grief with this but, you know, our Aboriginal leaders are speaking.

We've said very, very clearly that we can't support this bill as it stands, but there are commonsense amendments on the table. A couple of the Independents probably don't want to think about that or talk about that, but I ask Australia: what is wrong if we say that we'll support the bill if a number of amendments are agreed to? For example, we can just create a new trial end date, to the end of June 2019. I don't see what the pain is there. If you're going to try and achieve the best for regional and rural Australians and the challenges that they have, what's wrong with trialling it out for three years? This is not a tiny little thing. This is not something as simple as changing the colour of your thongs. This is big stuff. So take it out another 14 or 15 months. That's what our Aboriginal leaders want to do in the Kimberley What's wrong with limiting the trials to the areas that we have—that is, Kununurra-Wyndham/Wunan and Ceduna—and see how they go? Why go in there and tip it all upside down while we still don't have the wraparound services right? I don't think if it's unfair at all if we oppose the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants—nothing difficult yet.

Another amendment that Labor wants to put in is very important. They're all important, but this is a no-brainer: specify how people in trial areas who are on the cashless debit card can have the proportion of their income support payments on the card reduced or exit the trial. Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, I don't expect you to answer from the chair, because you can't. I see no difficulty in this amendment. It's not going to cost the nation anything; in fact, it's a reward. If people have met the level, the kids are at school and they have their spending under control and it has been a great help, what is wrong with that? I know the Greens can't answer this. They will just rabbit on and carry on like there's no tomorrow. They're all good at making suggestions, but there's never an end with the Greens. The final amendment is to guarantee funding for wraparound servicing trial sites formally in the legislation. That's not a big ask. That's what the government started off with. That was part of their sales pitch: all the wraparound services would be provided. We've heard from Mr Lawford Benning that it hasn't been provided.

In saying this, I hope I was able to put a balanced view to correct some of the nonsense that has been said in here. When all is said and done, for want of a better phrase, if our Aboriginal leaders want to try anything that they think will progress their peoples, give hope to their children and grandchildren, and move towards not closing the gap but eliminating the damn gap, who are we whitefellas to say, 'You've got it wrong'? I've turned it into a black-and-white conversation because the senator before me turned it into a nasty black-and-white conversation. This is where a lot of the commentary comes from. I can't stand here and talk for Aboriginal people. My good mate Senator Dodson can. Senator McCarthy can. I can't, but I can bring the messages from Aboriginal leaders from the Kimberley to this Senate, and hope that they sink in for some people here.

I have to say this: we're not all damn experts, even though most of us think we are when we've been to one inquiry or read one piece of legislation. Get off your backside and head into the regions. Never judge a—I might get in trouble for saying 'man'—man or woman until you've walked a mile in their moccasins. Get out and do the hard yards. I challenge any of them to come into this chamber, carve me up, and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about. Labor will not support the legislation as it stands. I urge the government and the crossbenchers to support Labor's amendments. If you are fair dinkum about improving the lot for our mob out there, what the heck is dangerous or hurtful about our amendments?

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we debate the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The bill removes legislative limits on the delivery of welfare through a card instead of cash. A proportion of the welfare on the card, typically 80 per cent, cannot be used to directly pay for alcohol, gambling or illegal drugs. The Liberal Democrats support this bill. Some people find this position confusing. After all, the Liberal Democrats support your doing what you want with your money. The point is that welfare is not your money; it's charity. It's the taxpayers' money, and taxpayers can set whatever conditions they like on the use of that money. If those offered other people's money don't like the conditions, no-one is forcing them to take the money. People have no right to other people's money.

If support were provided via a charity, there would be no question that donors, and the charities on their behalf, are free to provide their support in a form of their choosing and to put conditions on how it is used. This same principle applies for taxpayers, and the government providing support on their behalf.

My role in the parliament is to set conditions on welfare that most taxpayers would want imposed. I believe that most taxpayers do not want their money used to pay for other people's alcohol, gambling or illegal drugs, so I support this bill. And I would go further: I believe that most taxpayers do not want their money used to pay for other people's cigarettes, so I would support adding cigarettes to the list of products that cannot be directly paid for using the card.

I also believe that most taxpayers are concerned that, even with the use of the cashless debit card, 20 per cent of their money is still provided to welfare recipients without any conditions. So, I would support lifting the proportion of spending that is restricted to 100 per cent, recognising that this would leave welfare recipients without so much as loose change.

I believe that the main concern taxpayers would have with the cashless debit card is the cost of the additional public servants required to administer it. So I will scrutinise the continued use of cashless debit cards with an eye to containing the additional costs of delivering welfare by card instead of by cash. Notwithstanding this need for oversight, I consider it my duty, as a representative of taxpayers, to support the continuing use of the cashless debit card. It is what they want and it is their money.

Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. This bill will allow the government to expand the cashless debit card into any new region it chooses by removing the existing limits. The introduction of this card into vulnerable communities is very much a complex issue. There are passionate opinions on all sides, and my office has heard many people who either strongly endorse the card or strongly oppose it. I'm sure other senators in this place have also had similar calls from constituents. This is not an easy issue, and all we can say with certainty is that we do not yet have enough information to take a firm position on whether it benefits or harms participants and communities.

It is an incredibly expensive experiment to continue the card trials, let alone expand them as this bill seeks to do. On that basis, the Nick Xenophon Team cannot support the bill as currently drafted. Why? Because the available data on the trial is inconclusive. At this stage, there are too many unanswered questions, and we have significant concerns relating to the quality of the outcome data for the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. We also do not think the trials have run for long enough to be conclusive.

I need to take a moment to respond to Senator Bernardi's bemusing dummy spit against former Senator Xenophon and NXT when he rose to speak on this bill last week. The debit card is a serious issue that deserves serious debate. But Senator Bernardi was so busy carrying on with his ideological rant that he endorsed the cashless debit card bill outright, without reference to the ORIMA report or any of the criticisms of the evaluation. It was a squandered and selfish use of the Senate's time.

The Nick Xenophon Team does not want the Australian taxpayer to bear the costs of implementing further trials beyond the three the government originally intended. We know that the trial has come at a significant cost of $25.5 million, or around $12,000 for each and every participant. It is important to collect solid trial data so we can know with certainty whether this card is worth pursuing more widely. Many community leaders continue to advocate strongly for the card to continue, and we are willing to offer qualified support to a limited extension of the trial sites allowed for in the existing legislation.

We believe that if proper and full evaluations are undertaken, a further 12-month period should provide enough data to allow us all to properly consider whether the trial can achieve positive social outcomes for the communities affected. Former Senator Kakoschke-Moore visited Ceduna twice and also visited Kununurra to engage with community members, leaders and the local population in the trial communities to better inform her views and those of the Nick Xenophon Team. She had previously summarised the view of the individuals, businesses, community groups, health workers and NGOs as: 'The trial seems to be working, but it is way too early to tell.' My colleague the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, has also undertaken a lot of work on this issue and has spoken in the other place about the need to continue the trial for a limited period.

The ORIMA evaluation reports indicate that the trials have been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling at both trial sites, but these findings have been based predominantly on self-reported data, so we can't discount that survey respondents may have been seeking to present themselves in the best possible light. Seventy-seven per cent of participants reported no positive impact as a result of the trial, with 43 per cent reporting that they had no change in behaviour since the trial began and 34 per cent reporting that they had not engaged in alcohol consumption, illegal drug use or gambling before the trial.

We should also note that Ceduna introduced alcohol restrictions independently of the trial in September 2015 and that the East Kimberley region introduced additional takeaway alcohol management from December 2015. So, without complex analysis, it is hard to know whether it was the trial or something else entirely that is responsible for any of the positive outcomes we currently appear to have. However, more conclusive data was that, in the 12 months after it started, there was a 12 per cent reduction in poker machine revenue in Ceduna and the surrounding local government areas. Yet, even here, I note that there was no equivalent data reported in the East Kimberley region trial site, assuming it was ever collected, and so again it is hard to know whether the trial itself was directly responsible for these outcomes.

There have been no conclusive findings of a reduction in violence or crime at the trial sites, despite the self-reported reductions in gambling and alcohol consumption. I recognise that community perceptions have indicated a decrease in violence and crime, but again we do not yet have hard data to confirm this. Worryingly, domestic violence has in fact increased significantly in the East Kimberley since the introduction of the cashless welfare card. During the Senate inquiry into the bill, the Western Australia Police Force released data on domestic assaults. For the 12 months to June 2016, there were 319 domestic assaults. In the following 12 months, while the card was in operation, there were 508 domestic assaults in Kununurra. As always, we need more information to know the full story. The WA police noted that it is very difficult to fully assess the impact of the card in relation to domestic violence because the Kimberley district revised its approach to include a better first response to domestic violence reports. The police data was available to ORIMA Research when it undertook its analysis of the card, but they chose not to include it in their evaluation report—quite a significant omission. The government must account for the reasons why relevant data was not included in the evaluation.

The Nick Xenophon Team is also concerned to see that the use of methamphetamine, such as ice, appears to have significantly increased amongst participants over the first six months of the trial. We need to know whether the introduction of the card played any part in this. Yet the most concerning finding was that only 27 per cent of family members said that the trial had made their family's life better and 37 per cent had said it had actually made it worse. Amongst the participants interviewed, 22 per cent had said that it had made their lives better but almost half had said that it had made their lives worse. It is one thing to have participants dislike the effects of the card upon their life and their financial freedom, but another thing entirely for their families to also indicate it had actually made the lives of the participants worse.

In summary, the data seeking to track the outcomes of the trial are less than robust and the data surrounding the secondary social and economic impacts are also less than robust. The lesson here is that greater longitudinal data needs to be collected, and more effectively collected, before we can make any final conclusions. Any trial must be supported by what are known as wraparound services—namely, all of the social support programs and services that can leverage any positive outcomes that the trials might possibly produce. For example, there's not much point in hoping the cashless debit cards will restrict illegal drug use without also providing the addiction and rehabilitation support services that address the problems created by addiction withdrawal. In short, interventions should not be considered in isolation from their expected consequences.

I turn to the ALP amendments, which, while well intentioned, will place unreasonable restrictions on a trial that is meant to be responsive and flexible to community needs in relation to wraparound services. As this program is a trial it is necessary for the program to react quickly to community feedback and be able to record the impact of that response. Placing legislative regulation on the trial sites would only slow the process of providing services to the communities or add unnecessary constraints on what services could be provided.

The government is on notice that it must work with the relevant communities to ensure the appropriate wraparound services are provided and funded adequately. The Nick Xenophon Team will closely monitor the continued implementation of these measures and will view it as a deciding factor in any future attempts to expand the card's reach or make the card a permanent fixture.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, and I do so with great frustration. Let me say from the outset that I will not be supporting the expansion of these cards and, in turn, I will not be supporting this bill. I will certainly not subject further people to what I believe is an experiment that doesn't address the core issues faced by regional and rural people and their communities.

Throughout the committee process examining this bill, which I was a part of, it became clear that there has been insufficient consultation with the communities subjected to the expansion—namely, Bundaberg in Queensland and the Goldfields in Western Australia. Witnesses at the Kalgoorlie hearing in particular expressed serious dissatisfaction with the consultation process that was undertaken prior to the announcement of the Goldfields trial site, describing it as 'very lacklustre'. Senators at the hearing heard that the consultation process in the Goldfields was not broad enough and that participants often felt disempowered by the discussions. Phrases that the committee heard from people in the communities to be targeted by these trials, including in Bundaberg in Queensland and also the Goldfields region of Western Australia, included 'my presence at that meeting was irrelevant', 'they don't listen', 'they've got their minds made up', 'it fell on deaf ears' and 'they've made a decision anyway and all we were doing was rubber stamping'. Other words used to describe the consultation process included 'selective', 'secretive' and 'behind closed doors'. This is the deeply troubling language of exclusion and it is a hallmark of this government.

Further, the bill provides absolutely no guidance as to how consent is to be obtained in the proposed new trial sites. How did we get here? The cashless debit card trial in the East Kimberley in Western Australia and Ceduna in South Australia began by quarantining 80 per cent of state benefits received by all working-age people of 15 to 64 years of age. This compulsory trial included people receiving disability, parenting, carers, unemployed and youth allowance payments. The Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, based out of ANU, detailed some of the shocking ramifications for local communities as a result of this policy. In their recent working paper entitled The cashless debit card trial in the East Kimberley it was noted:

Although Australian Government communications state that the CDC is for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous welfare recipients, both the trial sites target Indigenous people disproportionately. Specifically, 75% of people in the Ceduna trial and 82% in the East Kimberley trial are Indigenous.

The origins of this policy were a key recommendation in a review by mining billionaire Andrew Forrest which examined Indigenous employment and training.

So let's have a look at the criticism of Labor's position—and I note there has been criticism of Labor's position in relation to this particular policy, claiming that, if Labor really cared, we'd offer our unwavering support. Some have the view that this card will reduce alcohol-fuelled violence, drug use and gambling in our regional and remote communities. We have heard it spoken many times in this debate. However, the evidence I have heard both in committee hearings and on the ground in the Northern Territory and beyond has been different. Like many dramatic changes to income management schemes, the assumption that people subject to the policy are directly engaged in the overconsumption of alcohol and illegal drugs is unfair and should not be the guiding reason to implement such a measure.

We have never been opposed to this policy in principle. Targeted welfare is one aspect that makes Australia's social safety net so strong. However, I am vehemently opposed to exposing our communities to policies that are not properly consultative or that lack the proper evidence and data to show that they are effective. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, this lack of consultation was a constant and re-emerging theme throughout evidence received during the Senate committee process. The cashless debit card has so far delivered inconsistent results. Before expanding this program, we need to make sure it's producing the right results with the people it's intended for.

Take, for example, a witness in the Kimberley region. Superintendent Adams of the Kimberley police district told the Senate inquiry that, in the 12 months to 30 June 2016, there were 319 domestic assaults in Kununurra but, in the 12 months to 30 June 2017—the time of the trial—this figure had increased to 508. Calla Wahlquist of The Guardian published a damning piece following a symposium on the policy at Melbourne University, and in her piece she detailed the harrowing experience of a domestic violence survivor in which the victim, who was from Ceduna, expressed the view that the cashless welfare card would have stopped her being able to escape a violent and oppressive marriage.

Perhaps most significantly, Dr Janet Hunt from ANU states:

… the expansion of CDC is based on the results of ORIMA's final evaluation report, which shows a questionable effect of the trial and, of which, concerns have been raised about its methodology.

She said:

Just before the report was released, the Minister issued a Press Release which hailed the success of the trial without qualification. But once the Report was public it was clear that the Report's authors had in fact qualified their positive findings with many caveats which have been completely ignored by the Minister in his public statements about the evaluation.

There were major issues around the baseline evaluation assessment prior to the establishment of the CDCT. There was no survey of potential CDCT participants to assess their usage of alcohol and drugs or the extent of their gambling. This did not occur until some months after participants had been on the card. There was never in the later analysis a breakdown of these income support payments, or ISP, categories among people interviewed. So one cannot tell whether the card is good for some groups of ISP recipients and not for others. Despite these circumstances, Labor supported the establishment of the trial in East Kimberley and Ceduna on the basis that these communities wanted to trial the card.

In the interest of supporting the communities who wanted to trial the card and of there being a thorough and proper examination of the outcomes of this policy, I do not support cancelling the framework. I do, however, strongly oppose the expansion of this policy to additional communities until we can examine the proper outcomes of the trials in these regions, which at this point appear to be of little benefit to the people on the ground.

There are certainly issues with other cards, and I refer in particular to the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. While many of these income management schemes appear to work well on paper, the mechanics of implementing cashless income management systems in regional and remote communities are not without significant difficulty. I say this because only recently a violent storm on the Tiwi Islands disabled the only communications tower in the community, essentially rendering useless the BasicsCard that people there use. People were unable to purchase food, fuel or even power for their homes. And the government's response? I quote: 'People can contact the Department of Human Services Income Management Line, 1800132594, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for assistance in accessing income-managed funds.' Well, that's pretty difficult, considering that there's no working phone to call the Department of Human Services.

There are similarities here with other programs. This approach to income management and the implementation of the cashless cards on the presumption that it will reduce some of the negative aspects of life in regional and remote communities fails to consider more prevalent barriers to meaningful employment which would ultimately dismiss the need for such policies in the first place. Yes, we need employment.

During the Senate inquiry into the government's disastrous Community Development Program, Labor examined the true foundation of why people in remote and regional communities struggle to gain and maintain employment. As part of the report that followed the inquiry, the committee made reference to several papers which highlighted barriers to employment for people in regional and remote communities. In a 2010 paper, McRae-Williams and Gerritsen explained the unique economic and employment challenges within remote communities. They went on to say:

There are limited employment opportunities with a significant gap between the size of the labour force and the number of jobs generated in the local economy as well as inadequate physical infrastructure for many economic development proposals.

Similarly, a 2014 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare also found that Indigenous Australians generally experience multiple barriers to economic participation, including lower levels of education, poorer health and more difficulties with English.

We know that in the Northern Territory in particular we have over 100 Aboriginal languages. That's why we have the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. We know that English is not the first language for many of our first-nations Australians in the north. There are high rates of incarceration. We've seen the rates increase at such a rapid rate, in particular for Indigenous women. The rise in incarceration rates is an absolute disgrace. There is inadequate housing. This week we've also seen the federal government renege on the most important area where we clearly need to close the gap, and also for the homeless in this country, and that is the partnerships in housing with each state and territory jurisdiction. There is an inability of this government to focus on that and see that clearly as a major economic driver in our remote and regional areas of this country. There is a lack of access to social networks that may help to facilitate employment. All of these things are critical.

There are practical challenges, such as needing to travel to buy groceries and attend medical appointments. These services are either too expensive or simply not available in remote communities. Again I can give you numerous examples in the remote regions of the Northern Territory where food prices are still questionable and too high. When road access is cut because of the wet season, particularly at this time of year, the only opportunity people have to get out of their communities is by air. The cost of those air charter flights is extremely significant. I get phone calls from residents around different parts of the north. Family members tell me the problems they are having in trying to get from Doomadgee back to Borroloola and over to Katherine, where they seek medical assistance, or fly on to Darwin. This is the reality of life in the bush and the regions for first nations Australians. This is what they have to endure. This is the life people live. Let's not make it harder by cutting their access to what little funds they have.

In light of these issues, particularly the lack of consideration from the government of the root causes of so many problems prevalent in regional and remote communities, I cannot support this bill which ultimately seeks to expand the current program to additional regional and remote communities.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by thanking senators who have contributed to this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. This bill will extend the trial of the cashless debit card to 30 June 2019. The government's proposed amendments also specify that the trial will be limited to three sites—namely, the East Kimberley and the included communities; Ceduna and the surrounding region; and the Goldfields. The bill retains the existing legislated limitations on the number of sites, participants and duration of the cashless debit card trial. Passage of this bill will ensure that the cashless debit card can continue to deliver the positive impacts already felt in Ceduna and the East Kimberley and will allow roll out to the Goldfields.

The CDC aims to limit the amount of welfare payments being spent on products that can harm the broader community. This means it is applied to most people on welfare payments in order to reduce the cash available to spend on harmful goods. It is not a punitive measure and does not target problem individuals. An independent evaluation of the existing trial sites was conducted by ORIMA Research in 2016-17. The evaluation found that the card had a considerable positive impact in both trial sites. Overall, the research found that the cashless debit card had been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling, and it was also suggestive of a reduction in the use of illegal drugs. Continuing the cashless debit card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley will focus on sustaining these impacts in the longer term. If the current end date is not extended, the program must end by 30 June 2018, which will risk undermining the positive outcomes already being experienced by these communities.

This bill will also allow the government to meet its commitment to expand this initiative to the Goldfields in Western Australia, where there continues to be widespread community support for its introduction. In September 2017 the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to expand the cashless debit card to the Goldfields, following extensive consultation across the community. Between May and December 2017 over 300 consultations, with over 86 organisations, and 10 public information sessions were held. Consultation continues in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation. Momentum in the community for the trial has been considerable, with a number of working groups established in late 2017 to assist with implementation, planning and oversight.

There is a strong need for additional tools to address social harm in the Goldfields. Western Australia Police Force data indicates that the domestic and non-domestic assault rate in the Goldfields is more than twice the state average. Alcohol was a factor in two-thirds of all domestic assaults from 2009 to 2013, and half of all non-domestic assaults. Alcohol-related hospitalisations and deaths were 25 per cent higher than the Western Australia state average from 2007 to 2011.

The government has rejected amendments proposed by the opposition, primarily because they would prohibit the expansion. The opposition's amendments would also decrease the flexibility available to tailor the cashless debit card program to meet individual community needs. The initial trials were designed and implemented in close consultation with community leaders. Aspects of the program, including the package of wraparound support services and the community panels, are reflective of individual community requirements. Learnings from existing sites indicate that services may need to be adjusted over time as demand for a particular service type has not always met expectations and as we get a better understanding of what is or is not working on the ground. The opposition's amendments would impact upon the current level of flexibility to respond to these requirements, particularly as needs evolve.

In drafting the bill, the government has carefully balanced community support for the cashless debit card in existing sites and in the Goldfields with the concerns raised in parliament around allowing additional time for gathering of evidence on the card's effectiveness. This bill will provide more time to study the impacts of the cashless debit card and maintain parliament's right to consider any further extensions. The continuation of the cashless debit card demonstrates the government's commitment to providing a strong social welfare safety net, to reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and to supporting vulnerable people, families and communities. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.