James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Askew, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiries into the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 is fundamentally flawed. Labor senators listened to all the evidence presented at the inquiries, read all the submissions and carefully considered our response to this bill. This legislation will have a direct impact on the lives of 23,000 people, the majority of them First Nations people living in the Northern Territory. It will impact their families, their communities and their futures.

What this legislation does is turn the entire Northern Territory into one cashless debit card trial, and it creates three classes of people who will be forced to participate. It requires 23,000 people to open a bank account with Indue Ltd. It allows personal data to be collected and shared between the federal and Northern Territory governments, with a lack of clarity and transparency about Indue Ltd's role in data collection and use. It fails to provide a fair process for people to exit the trial, even where it is causing harm.

The bottom line is that there is no independent verified evidence to support the idea that broad-based income management reduces social harm. It might fit with your preconceived philosophy and views about people who receive income support, but the fact is there is no evidence—quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. We have 12 years of experience of it in the Northern Territory. The Howard intervention of 2007 introduced compulsory income management to the Northern Territory. Despite remote areas of our Territory being subject to this unrelenting and costly policy, poverty has worsened there. There is no independent rigorous evaluation of the CDC in the trial sites that indicates it is effective in reducing social harms, particularly the harmful use of alcohol and other substances, and there is no robust evaluation on the BasicsCard showing that it reduces social harm.

Evidence from Danila Dilba Health Service given to the committee that inquired into this bill showed that more than 23,000 Aboriginal people have been subjected to income management or income quarantining since 2007. The original objectives of income management were supposedly to improve the health, wellbeing and education outcomes of Aboriginal children and to protect women and older people from humbugging and violence.

Over the 12 years of compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, Danila Dilba said there has been an astonishing lack of credible evidence that income management has made any significant improvement to any of the key indicators of wellbeing—child health, birth weights, failure to thrive and child protection notifications and substantiations. There are no improvements in school attendance, and certainly nothing we can see would suggest that there has been a reduction in family or community violence.

Given the government contends this bill is a swap for recipients from one tool to another—that is, from the BasicsCard to the cashless debit card—the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of either card brings into question why this legislation is being imposed. In fact, many submitters and witnesses provided evidence of negative impacts of both the BasicsCard and the CDC.

Two of the stated objectives of the cashless debit card are to ensure that vulnerable people are protected from the abuse of substances and any associated harm and violence and to give people an increased ability to meet their basic needs. Some witnesses and submitters gave evidence that a CDC could exacerbate the harms it is purportedly meant to reduce. Money Mob Talkabout Limited, a financial literacy and assistance organisation, told the committee that their data suggests welfare quarantining can cause harm. While older people and people with disabilities won't be directly put on the CDC, it's unlikely to stop them from being targeted because they receive those higher payments, such as an age pension or a disability pension. We're seeing them currently having their cards and income management allocations taken and used by other people who've already expended their income. So it's actually increasing their vulnerability and diminishing their ability to meet their basic needs. One type of vulnerability could be just supplanting another.

This bill gives the minister extraordinary powers to determine the level of restricted payments, and now we see from amendments that have been introduced in the other place today that the real agenda of this government is to increase the quarantined income level for all income support recipients to 80 per cent, in line with the other trial sites. Having your dollars quarantined by 80 per cent—that is the true intent of this government.

There are huge flaws in the operation of the CDC. It's been proven that the CDC can be used to purchase supposedly banned items. The loopholes in the CDC provisions that allow participants to purchase supposedly banned items, such as alcohol, through the use of credit cards and barter-type arrangements with unscrupulous individuals is of great concern. These loopholes bring into question the effectiveness of the card, and they were summed up in comments by Senator Lambie in a hearing of our committee. She said:

So I can go and get eight bottles of wine on my Visa card and you guys—

the department—

have got no idea, and I can just pay it off with my other card. That's a new one. That's a beauty! Everyone will be getting Visa cards tomorrow, watch.

Those are very true words and very valid concerns.

There has been no real consultation with the people of the Northern Territory—none of the stakeholders, affected communities or any of them—on the planned rollout of the cashless debit card. This government is spending $129 million on this expansion of a flawed system that no-one wants and that doesn't even work. If the government really want to spend $129 million to support welfare recipients in the Northern Territory, I've got a few suggestions for them. How about the spending of a few million dollars on the provision of support services in remote regions? It is well established in the medical profession that the treatment of alcohol and drug misuse disorders requires individualised responses and access to services, but there is a shortage of rehabilitation and mental health services, especially in remote communities. The imposition of this cashless debit card, with absolutely no consultation with the community, is reprehensible. Has this government learned nothing since the disaster and the harm caused by the intervention in the Northern Territory 12 years ago?

We know that community developed and run initiatives to reduce social harm have more chance of gaining support and—get this—even positive outcomes. Well, what do you know! There are proven examples of this. The Arnhem Land Progress Association's food card and Tangentyere Council's previous voluntary income management system were cited as evidence of community driven solutions, They should be supported by this government.

A delegation of people from the Northern Territory was in Canberra this week, talking to senators and others about why they don't want or need the cashless debit card. These are people with the lived experience, and I thank colleagues in the Senate and those in the other house who took the time to meet and speak with this delegation, who travelled thousands and thousands of kilometres just so that you could understand—or at least try to understand—the pain that is being placed on our First Nations people not just in the Northern Territory but right across the country when governments and representatives of parliament do not listen and do not take heed of the positive programs that are working. Programs work when you work with First Nations people instead of coming from the top down and always imposing your views and your policies on top of First Nations people. Their message was very clear, and it's one that First Nations people around the country are saying louder and louder. Senators, please listen again. Every time I stand I ask: listen to First Nations people. Nothing for us without us. The cashless debit card is not for us, and you will do it without us. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This afternoon I also take note of the additional documents that have been tabled for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill. I know these tabled documents will be part of the submissions that this committee has undertaken. I think it's worth highlighting that, overwhelmingly, the majority of the submissions made to the inquiry condemn this legislation. They're not supportive of the legislation for a number of very, very solid reasons. There has been no solid or rigorous evaluation of the cashless debit card in the trial sites that shows in any way at all that the scheme is effective in reducing social harms, particularly in reducing the harmful use of alcohol and other substances. That's certainly been borne out in large part by some of the evidence that's come through from the East Kimberley, when you look at things like domestic violence statistics.

This bill, which these submissions relate to, has given the minister extraordinary power to determine the level of restricted payments. There are flaws in the operation of the cashless debit card. As Senator McCarthy highlighted, it's not worth all the administration behind it, because people are able to get around it. It doesn't do what it purports to do, but what it does do is subject people to a great deal of inconvenience, in many cases, when trying to meet their basic living needs and costs. As submissions to the inquiry highlighted, there has been no real consultation with Northern Territory stakeholders and affected communities regarding the planned rollout of the CDC, and those communities have been wise to be suspicious about its implementation, based on the experiences in the East Kimberley.

In my own state of WA, I have extreme concern about its rollout. Just this week, we've been in touch with a constituent who has a serious issue with getting by on the card. She was put on the scheme before she moved to a country town in WA. It's a small country town, and it's without the shops that accept the management scheme card. She has been in touch with Centrelink to ask if she can be taken off the scheme until it's rolled out in the new town, but she was told by the Centrelink operator that it would take 13 weeks to process. This means she has to drive some 30 kilometres to the nearest store which accepts the card. There's a reason that she's on the cashless debit card. She's suffering from serious health issues and she has a three-year-old daughter to care for. This commute is very difficult for her, and it's completely unnecessary. Because she can't go to the local shop, she's forced to make a 30 kilometre commute to buy the necessities and basics for her family. It is, indeed, already hard enough to get by on income support without being subjected to the extra cost of the high cost of petrol and travelling that 30 kilometres to buy things as basic as bread and milk.

The inquiry uncovered major flaws in the CDC. It's of no surprise to me there are further submissions that continue to come into the committee that have had to be tabled outside the official committee process in this chamber. The Northern Territory government said:

Our understanding is that this process would be delivered outside the current Centrelink process, with cards delivered by mail, which is of extreme concern to us. People would be required to utilise websites, emails and call centres to receive the card, make balance inquiries, manage loss of cards and make other inquiries.

I know the bureaucrats have been asked to implement the card by the government, but if you've ever been to the places that it's is being rolled out to, you would understand how extraordinarily impractical what you're asking for is. People have to line up outside their local community centre to use a computer. There may be no telephone or mobile reception. The only phone call, in many cases, that can be made in remote locations is often via the community phone. Do you know what happens there? The phone rings, someone answers it, you call around the community to see who it's for and the person on the line will wait ten minutes for someone to walk out to that person's house and back again in order to answer that call. You cannot possibly expect that people who have issues with this card are able to resolve them using the internet. Even if you had the internet in many of these locations, the simple fact that these communities have been without decent internet communications forever simply means that, culturally, people aren't equipped to navigate their life using that kind of technology.

It is little wonder to me that the Northern Territory government is up in arms about this legislation and also made submissions to the inquiry. They said:

This will be difficult for people living in remote locations with limited phone and web access and very poor postal services—and impossible for people living more remotely in one of the Territory's 500 homelands or outstations. It is our strong view that a significant body of work needs to be undertaken to examine how these arrangements can work in remote areas. We do not see this working and remain highly concerned about the impact on existing social crisis services when a number of people will be unable to access their funds.

If we are serious in our nation about valuing Indigenous culture then people have a right to live on country, but this government seems determined by whatever means to make it impossible for people to do so. Living out on country, there are no grog shops. They're very culturally and lifestyle oriented places, and yet this government is determined to denigrate those communities by saying, 'Well, you can't manage your own finances. We don't trust you to go and do your own shopping.' The simple fact is: this government does not understand the economies of these places where people absolutely have to trade goods with each other, whether it's the fish they've caught, the wild game that they might have caught or a lift into town that you have to exchange for a little bit of cash to cover petrol money. It is absolutely outrageous the way this government wants to interfere with Indigenous economies in our country.

Evidence from the Central Land Council was that a meeting of delegates was the first time they'd heard about the government's proposed rollout of this card. They said:

As with the intervention, the cashless debit card is being rolled forward without consultation or consideration of what might work best for people on the ground … more than 35,000 Territorians have had direct experience of income management over the 12 years, the majority of them being Aboriginal and living in remote communities where life is already very tough.

Why would you not talk to these people about the rollout of the card? Everyone in these communities already has lived experience and are much more qualified than bureaucrats in Canberra or this government to decide what's good for them. So I think it's high time this government woke up to the reality of life for Australians living in these locations, and I really commend people for making submissions to the inquiry.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Community Affairs Legislation Committee additional information. This is important legislation that the committee work has been dealing with and it's something that I have spent time in Queensland dealing with over the last couple of months. Since the election I've been through a number of Cape York communities—Hopevale, Coen, Lockhart River and Napranum. The lack of consultation that has gone on in those communities is stark. The government tried to claim that they've consulted with these communities. They have done no such thing. So there is a lack of information about the impact that this rollout is going to have in these communities, and the government have been treating these communities in the same way they've been treating the communities of Hinkler—Hervey Bay and Bundaberg—like mushrooms: keeping them in the dark and not giving them accurate information to justify the further rollout of this card.

What we know from travelling to these places and listening to people—which is something the government haven't done and the sitting government members in these areas certainly have not done—is you actually hear firsthand the experiences of those people impacted by this card. That's been my experience in the last month, having been to Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, including in Hervey Bay where I conducted a forum for people to come along and have chat to me about the cashless welfare card. The reason why people were so keen to come along and have a chat to me is that their local member refuses to listen and refuses to engage with those people. Indeed Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, rose in the House this week and tried to claim that there were no concerns from locals. That's because he's not listening and he doesn't have an open door for those people who are impacted by this.

What we also know is that the government spin, as they try to justify the rollout of this card, is absolutely lacking. What we've seen through the efforts of the government is that they try and claim that this has led to a reduction in people who are unemployed and they also claim that there are 700 people who are no longer on the cashless debit card in the Hinkler community. When you look at that and break it down and ask the government to provide an example of what those people are now doing, the response from the government is: 'It would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to prepare this data.' So, on the one hand, they're trying to claim how great this is and what a success it has been, but, on the other, when you actually try to pin them down to provide some evidence about this, they provide no such evidence at all.

They try and claim that there's been a reduction in unemployment in the region as well, but when you compare unemployment in Bundaberg to unemployment in Gympie, which is a couple of hours down the road and isn't subject to the cashless welfare card, there has actually been no substantial difference over the last 12 months. So, for all the claims that the government have made to try to say that the cashless welfare card has been a success in Hinkler, there is actually no evidence, once you actually look at what the government are putting forward, to back their claim that it's a success.

The other thing that is important is that the Australian National Audit Office has previously criticised the department's data collection about this and has described the approach to monitoring and evaluation as 'inadequate'. So even the Audit Office is saying there's a lack of robustness in data collection. If they really wanted to treat this trial seriously and actually look at the impact it was having in the community, they would have a much more robust approach to how this was done. But they do not do that. And Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler, has criticised those people who came along to my forum—discredited those who came along to give their evidence. It is really disappointing that he is treating his constituents with contempt.

I just want to briefly talk about Jodie McNally, who came along to my forum in Hervey Bay—and she actually drove from Bundaberg, which is about an hour's trip, because she was so passionate about being able to put her case to an elected official—something that, sadly, Mr Pitt won't do. She talked about her experience of going on the cashless welfare card, and her personal story was covered in the Fraser Coast Chronicle. Ms McNally has chronic pain from arthritis and prolapsed discs. She doesn't gamble or drink alcohol, but has debilitating anxiety, which she says the card has negatively impacted on. Ms McNally has applied to opt out of this trial, but has not heard anything since July. Mr Pitt keeps saying that he has heard anecdotal evidence from people that the card has been a success, but he clearly isn't listening to his local community and is dismissive of people like Ms Jodie McNally.

So I would say to the government and to those government members who are responsible for these communities that are going to be impacted that they need to get out there. They need to listen to those people. They should not roll this out from on high and just say: 'This is what local communities are getting.' This is having a negative and devastating impact on those people who have been affected.

Labor has taken the right position. We opposed the national rollout of this. It is something that we will continue to fight in Queensland, and we will continue to fight it across Australia as well.

Question agreed to.