Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be opposing this bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, but that doesn't mean to say we don't hold very serious concerns about how this Albanese Labor government will manage the transition of vulnerable Australians off the BasicsCard and onto the so-called SmartCard. The government has taken an extraordinarily ideological position on abolishing the compulsory cashless debit card, and that has seen an absolute disaster unfold in our vulnerable communities in the country. There is clear and irrefutable evidence showing that, since the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card was abolished by the Labor government, crime rates are already through the roof.

We had a similar debate in this place last year when the government applauded themselves for abolishing the cashless debit card. During that debate we on this side of the chamber made it very clear to the government that serious and devastating consequences would follow the abolition of the card. We pleaded with the government at the time not to do this: if you do this, if you abolish the cashless debit card, 'as sure as night follows day we will see alcohol and drugs flood into vulnerable communities' and the subsequent antisocial behaviour that will inevitably follow. That was not theoretical. It wasn't us making a political point. You don't need to be a genius to work out the consequences of ripping out an important social support system from vulnerable communities, and yet the government went ahead and did it anyway. And now we are seeing the statistics, which don't lie.

I put on the record how disappointed I am in the Greens about their capitulation to the Labor Party on an amendment that we put forward that would have required the government to provide details of the crime and social harm statistics—the Greens teaming up with the Labor Party to deny transparency around something that has such devastating consequences for communities. I still intend to move my amendments in relation to this and hope that maybe some common sense and decency might prevail in this place. I put on the record that I will be moving a second reading amendment to effect.

In a roundtable earlier this year in the parliament, community members and leaders from the Goldfields and Kimberley regions of Western Australia came to the parliament and told us themselves what was happening on the ground. They outlined how now, once again, they are seeing children coming to school having not eaten because there's no food at home. They're having to rely more and more on the school system to try and help them through. But when the cashless debit card was in place, we saw a huge improvement in this area because welfare recipients were spending 80 per cent of the money that they were receiving on everyday goods that you'd find at the supermarket. Now, sadly, we're seeing so much of that money spent in the bottle shop and the pub, and we're seeing the human misery and the suffering that have resulted from more drugs and alcohol in these communities. Story after story confirms these statistics. Towns such as Ceduna in South Australia had been seeing a resurgence of tourism and had a great level of harmony whilst the cashless debit card was in place. Now, they've seen that almost vanish overnight, with many long-term residents of the town opting to actually move away from their community. This is heartbreaking. No-one in this chamber wants to see these people or these communities suffer, I would hope. It beggars belief that the government would put in place a policy that they know will lead to suffering of women and children, because we know that more drugs and alcohol flowing into communities will disproportionately harm women and children.

This is a very narrow bill in that it helps transition people who are on the compulsory BasicsCard in the Northern Territory from the old BasicsCard technology to the updated technology that was the basis for the cashless debit card. Those opposite criticised the government for the CDC, and yet they're now relying on the very technology that the CDC had in place on a compulsory basis. So they're intending to transition everybody in the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard to the CDC technology—technology that was developed by the coalition. On the one hand, we are so appalled by what the government has done here that our first inclination is to say that we don't support anything the government does in this space. They have tarnished themselves so badly and they have disregarded the needs of communities that we should not support anything that they do when it comes to income management.

It's also worth mentioning a couple of things in relation to the so-called SmartCard. The SmartCard is a rebranded cashless debit card. That is all it is. All you have to do is look at some of the providers of those cards and what they've said about the updated SmartCard, a card that has cost $217.7 million. As the Traditional Credit Union explained to its cardholders, the difference between the CDC and the new SmartCard is—drumroll!—its colour and its name. That's what $217 million gets you under a Labor government—a change in colour and a change in name. Why would you spend $217 million to take a technology that was already in place, developed by the coalition, and simply rename it? Notwithstanding the absolutely appalling waste of taxpayers' money, at least those on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory will now get access to the updated technology that the coalition developed with the CDC. In that respect, and for that reason, we will not stand in its way.

But leaders from cashless debit card sites, community leaders and Indigenous leaders, are saying, 'Please reinstate the cashless debit card and help us deal with the dysfunction, violence and alcoholism that we are now seeing again.' Sadly, what we've seen from those opposite, from the minister, the assistant minister and the Prime Minister, is this approach of talking down to communities instead of listening to them. At a time when there has been a lot of talk about Anthony Albanese's Voice to Parliament, it is ironic that this government is not listening to the voices of those in these communities who are witnessing the harm of this government's decision and what it has caused to their communities. Speaking to the ABC Goldfields on 15 February, the Assistant Minister for Social Services claimed that communities were being disingenuous in their criticism of the government's repeal of the CDC. I sincerely hope the government intends to walk back those comments. I wouldn't want to be out there as a minister criticising those who are on the front line, on the ground, currently having to deal with the mess that has been created by this government. Those people on the ground are the ones who are having to help intoxicated people in the street find safety. They are the emergency services workers and the police who are there to respond to increased violence, including violence against women and children. So I appeal to the people of the Labor Party and those at the other end of the chamber.

There is an off-ramp here. I think the Australian people will give you more credit if you admit that you've made a mistake rather than push on with this bad policy. Walk back from this catastrophic error which is leading to more crime, including violent crime, in vulnerable communities. This pigheadedness around the cashless debit card, letting politics get in the way of the best interests of vulnerable people in community, is, quite frankly, a shameful indictment on the Albanese Labor government. They are essentially saying, 'Don't worry about the people that suffer along the way, because we don't want to suffer the embarrassment or indignity of admitting that we made the wrong call.' The coalition will unreservedly congratulate the government for admitting that it has made an error. I think we would all walk away from here feeling relieved and grateful that there were women and children who were safer because there were fewer drugs and there was less alcohol in these vulnerable communities, because, let's be frank: that's exactly what we're talking about here today.

Finally, I appeal to the government: it's not too late to reinstate the compulsory nature of the CDC in the sites where it was working exceptionally well. If you don't believe me, then believe the community representatives from the Goldfields, from the Kimberleys, from Ceduna and other places around Australia who have seen a tsunami of drugs and alcohol causing huge crime problems in their communities. Since the card has been abolished in these communities, we've seen crime statistics double—I'll repeat that: crime statistics double. These crimes we're talking about are of public disorder and crimes against property, whether it be a broken window or a fight on the street. But we're also talking about horrific and violent crimes. Tragically, we're talking about domestic violence; we're talking about the neglect of children. If this doesn't tug at the consciences of those in government and encourage them to take action, I really don't know what will.

That is why I'll be moving an amendment that sets out the catastrophic error that Labor has made and calls on the government to reinstate the compulsory cashless debit card to help these communities, because the coalition introduced the cashless debit card to protect vulnerable communities and its people and reduce the amount of welfare payments that were being spent on alcohol, gambling and drugs. Since the program commenced, participants have made more than 20 million approved transactions with the CDC, with over $273 million spent where the primary product is food.

But the harm and hardship that the government's abolition of the CDC has caused some of Australia's most vulnerable communities should not be understated. So we will be calling on the government to, without delay, reverse its decision to abolish the cashless debit card and stop the alcohol-fuelled violence, drug abuse and child neglect in our most vulnerable communities.

But, as I said, the coalition will not be opposing this bill. We won't be opposing it particularly because people in the Northern Territory who have been on compulsory income management, and remain on compulsory income management under this government—that is the BasicsCard—are getting access to the functionality that is the CDC, rebranded. But the opposition's support of this bill in no way means that we walk away from our vehement opposition to the ideological and destructive decision by the government to abolish the compulsory cashless debit card which has proved critical in supporting vulnerable communities. I condemn the government for doing it.

I formally move my second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes:

(i) the Coalition introduced the Cashless Debit Card to protect vulnerable communities reducing the amount of welfare payments available to spend on alcohol, gambling and illegal drugs,

(ii) since the Cashless Debit Card program commenced more than $988 million has been spent using cashless debit card accounts; participants making more than 20 million approved transactions with over $273 million spent where the primary business is food,

(iii) the harm and hardship the Government's abolition of the Cashless Debit Card has caused some of Australia's most vulnerable communities,

(iv) the Government's hypocrisy by reintroducing the Cashless Debit Card and rebranding it the SmartCard with the new card supported by the same provider Indue,

(v) the Government has committed over $217 million of taxpayers' funds to this expensive rebranding exercise,

(vi) the Government has failed to provide details of the total cost to taxpayers of the new SmartCard, and

(vii) the Government has rushed and total mismanaged transition to the SmartCard; and

(b) calls on the Government to, without delay, reverse its decision to abolish the Cashless Debit Card program and stop the alcohol-fuelled violence, drug abuse and childhood neglect in our most vulnerable communities".

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

This bill is fundamentally a broken promise from the Labor Party. In opposition, they were, to their credit, very clear: they said that they would abolish the cashless debit card. They said that they would end compulsory income management. There were no asterisks, no footnotes; they simply told people that they would end a horrific practice that had been perpetrated by the Liberals since 2007. I'd like to quote from a statement made by the then opposition spokesperson on social services, the now Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney MP, and she said:

Our fundamental principle on the basics card and the cashless debit card, it should be on a voluntary basis … If people want to be on those sorts of income management, then that's their decision. It's not up to Labor or anyone else to tell them what to do. At the moment it's compulsion and that's not Labor's position.

This was just before the election last year. Labor have broken that promise.

I want to be clear: this isn't a question where the research is open. Despite the opposition's use of cherrypicked anecdotes, there is very clear evidence of the harm that compulsory income management has caused for many years. In 2007, the Australian Human Rights Commission concluded that:

Controlling how a person spends their money is a drastic interference into the way a person manages his or her life and family, and human rights require a proportionate response to a problem. In the context of the NT legislation, this means that governments are obliged to consider less intrusive or voluntary option as a first response before moving to options as broad-reaching as compulsory income management.

In 2014 the Social Policy Research Centre concluded:

The evaluation data does not provide evidence of income management having improved the outcomes that it was intending to have an impact upon.

In 2016 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights said:

… evidence before the committee indicates that compulsory income management is not effective in achieving its stated objective of supporting vulnerable individuals and families.

And in 2020 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights said in relation to the cashless debit card:

The trial evaluations and reviews raise a range of concerns as to whether the cashless welfare scheme is effective to achieve its stated goals, and whether it has caused or contributed to other harms.

That evidence of the human rights violations and the ineffectiveness of the policy were reinforced by the community affairs committee inquiry into the bill. I want to start quoting, particularly, from some of the experts who gave evidence to the inquiry. Professor Matthew Gray, Director of the Australian National University Centre for Social Research and Methods, said in evidence to the committee:

… we are, to put it frankly, horrified by what is proposed both in the legislation and in the documentation which has been provided to the parliament in the form of the explanatory memorandum.Turning to the explanatory memorandum and the document which underpins and is cited in the impact analysis executive summary, the department's Reforming the cashless debit card and income management, the statement grossly distorts the evidence base relating to the effectiveness of the programs.

Emeritus Professor Jon Altman said:

… in 2007, when income management was first introduced, I opposed it as lacking policy logic and lacking any evidence from anywhere globally that it might work to improve the circumstances of targeted Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. Instead, I suggested, it would be expensive to administer and likely ineffective. Sadly, nearly 16 years on, that prediction had proven correct—not just today in 2023 but over many years, many evaluations and many Senate inquiries.

I want to be clear, though, that this isn't some abstract policy question. It has a very real, very devastating impact on people's lives. As the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, APO NT, said in their powerful submission:

It is disappointing to yet again be making submissions on a Bill that clearly ignores the evidence that has debunked compulsory income management.

…   …   …

APO NT reminds the Government of our support for the repeal of the Cashless Debit Card. We note that while this has allowed some participants to exit income management or voluntarily opt into income management, this is not the case for the majority of NT participants who remain on compulsory income management. Therefore, Aboriginal people in the NT have suffered the longest under this regime and this Bill does nothing to change this.

Despite the Albanese Government's stated intentions of consultation, or stated long term aim that income management is on a voluntary basis, it is important to view the practical and legislative effect of this Bill. The Bill continues the trend of making income management, and in particular compulsory income management, a permanent feature of social services in Australia, without adequate consultation.

I particularly want to quote this point from APO NT:

The legislative effect of the Bill is the opposite of the Albanese Government's pre-election statements that income management should only occur on a voluntary basis.

That is an incredibly strong statement from a peak First Nations organisation, but this government hasn't listened.

I also want to quote the powerful resolution made by the full Central Land Council on 28 April this year, which is included in the Central Land Council's submission to the inquiry:

How many times do we have to say it until the government listens to our voices?

Since Income Management was introduced in 2007 as part of the Commonwealth Government's Intervention in the NT, we have said no.

A different card, a different colour—it is all for the same purpose: to control our lives.

We are not guinea pigs.

The CLC calls on the government to end all forms of compulsory income management now.

Only this week that the parliament passed the bill enabling a referendum on the Voice to Parliament, but here we have the Central Land Council asking government to listen, and they have chosen not to.

In fact, it is government imposed compulsory income management that has in some cases undermined genuinely voluntary community-led services. The Arnhem Land Progress Association said in evidence to the committee:

It is the ALPA board's position that income management should only ever be voluntary, regardless of whether participants have been long-term welfare recipients or not … We have run our own voluntary income management program, known as Foodcard, since 2004 … the introduction of compulsory income management saw the usage of the ALPA Foodcard drop off dramatically. In October 2008 there were over 11,000 community transactions on the Foodcard in ALPA stores and, by 2010, this was below a thousand. The ALPA Foodcard is evidence that community members are more than capable of identifying and engaging with services which can support financial management when they feel that they need to.

We have heard arguments from the minister and others that we need to wait for more consultation. Indeed, I've been told that we need to wait until the Voice is up and running before we can end compulsory income management—before an approach even on compulsory income management can be finalised. That ignores the reality that First Nations communities right now are calling for an end to compulsory income management. The default is simply to rely on the failed and punitive system that was set up by the Liberal Party as part of John Howard's intervention. It was already baked into the system by the Liberal government, and now the Labor government is committed to sticking with it, despite the urgent calls for action. Instead of ignoring the voices of First Nations communities, they should be setting a clear sunset date that ensures that, if First Nations voices call for a form of income management, there's deep consultation and a clear proposal put to parliament—not stringing along on a broken, failed perpetuation of a Liberal Party policy.

I want to thank advocates, campaigners and community organisations who provided important evidence to the committee inquiry on this bill. The Accountable Income Management Network, the Antipoverty Centre, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Northern Territory Council of Social Service, Uniting Communities, Economic Justice Australia, Suicide Prevention Australia and other organisations, advocates and individuals provided powerful and important evidence. I thank them for their advocacy on this issue. I'm sad to say that the Labor Party has chosen to ignore it. It shouldn't have to be this way. We will keep fighting for better policies—ones that genuinely improve people's lives rather than punish them and perpetuate the tired, stale ideas that the old parties have been embracing for decades.

We heard from the minister that consultation is underway. We agree that consultation is important, but it cannot be used as an excuse for inaction when the voices are so clear now. We asked community organisations, such as the Central Land Council, what consultation they had been part of so far. The Central Land Council told us:

In summary, the consultation has been through brief phone conversations and online briefing to the CLC policy team. It's been quite limited, the consultation process. We want the consultation process to be properly carried out and to be an extensive consultation process.

So at this point it appears that consultation is more a reason for delay rather than progress towards genuine change.

I'm particularly concerned about reports in the pages of the Australian. In an article titled 'Leaders eye Pearson's way on welfare' on 24 March they reported:

Both the Northern Territory and federal governments said they were open to extending the program beyond the cape, with sources revealing senior commonwealth bureaucrats were pushing for its expansion behind the scene.

Closer examination of the FRC's welfare control measures, which require state and federal support, began after the Albanese government fulfilled an election pledge to scrap compulsory income management last year.

The simple reality is that even the cashless debit card, which the Labor government campaigned so heavily against, required a new bill to pass through parliament before it was expanded to other areas. My predecessor Rachel Siewert campaigned against many of those bills. There was a public debate about what the government was intending. But this bill takes the ministerial powers currently available under the BasicsCard framework and extends them to new technology provided by the cashless debit card. The combination means it will be much, much easier for the minister to expand compulsory income management to new geographic areas. It will be possible to do so by legislative instrument, and, given that we know that we've got the full support of the Liberal Party for any of this draconian compulsory income management, there's no way that there'll be any opposition to it. It won't require a bill through parliament. It won't require the transparency and the scrutiny that would take place through that legislation having to come before the parliament.

We oppose this bill. We have an amendment to insert a sunset clause, but fundamentally this bill is one that the Liberals could have only dreamed of passing. But in government we have Labor enacting the Liberal Party's agenda. All the progressive campaigners across the country who fought so hard for the end of the cashless debit card, for what they thought was a progressive political party, will be asking themselves: what was it all for?

We have got some other amendments that we are moving, which I probably won't have a chance to speak to; maybe I will in the committee stage. Imposing a sunset date is the first one of those. The others include requiring regular reporting on the costs of the SmartCard scheme, requiring regular review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—which, given the significant concerns that have been raised about human rights, we think is a small, basic step towards what's required—and requiring review by the community affairs committee on the use of ministerial powers. Given this bill significantly expands the ministerial powers to roll out income management in new areas, we think that would be basic oversight. Our final amendment requires an exit clause for people at risk of harm from the card. There was an exit clause from the cashless debit card for those at risk of harm, but there is none in the SmartCard legislation, so we think this is a very straightforward step.

In summary, we are going to be opposing this bill. We think that it is overreach by this government. It is a broken promise from this government, who promised to end compulsory income management. Compulsory income management has been shown to not work. It has been shown to not be the effective solution. Yes, if there are problems in communities, we'll then address those problems, but don't continue to roll out something on the basis that you are expecting it to solve the problems when it has been clearly shown over so many years that compulsory income management does not work.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been involved with the cashless debit card long before anyone else here in this place. I was part of the initial town hall meeting that we held up in Kununurra, where the idea first emerged. Local Indigenous people and other community people up there said that they wanted something that would help them address the challenges and the issues that they're facing in their community. I was part of a consultation, and those who were in the meeting asked: 'Is there something that can be done? Is there any sort of technology solution?' I have to admit that, when I first heard the idea, I thought it was probably a bit too simplistic to think that a card or some sort of technology implementation would have such a big social impact as to meet the aspirations of those who were calling for it at the time. So I admit that I at first thought it that it might be a bit too far. But, after looking into it, working with the banks and the retailers to see if there actually was a technology solution, finding that there actually was, developing it as a policy to implement and bringing it forward to the government, we saw the trials of the cashless debit card occur in the East Kimberley, in Ceduna, in the Goldfields and in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and we saw a dramatic change in these communities.

I have been going to a lot of those communities for a long, long time—more than 15 or so years. I saw what the communities were like before the cashless debit card was implemented and I saw what they were like during the trials, with the changes that were occurring. More kids were going to school, and more were going to school with food in their bellies rather than going to school hungry. I have said in this place before that one anecdote that has probably stuck in my mind more than anything else was in Wyndham. The breakfast program that is run there would have to bring in extra food on a Monday morning compared to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday mornings because students wouldn't have eaten since the Friday before when they last fed them because the money wasn't in the hands of their parents and carers to be able to provide food over the weekend because it had been spent needlessly on alcohol, some drugs and a lot of gambling as well. After the cashless debit card came in, the requirement to purchase and provide the extra food on a Monday was no longer there. It was like any other day because there was more money in parents' pockets to be able to provide the sustenance required for children. So I saw the difference that it made. Sadly, having gone back to some of these communities since the abolition of the card—a decision made by the Albanese government—I have seen these communities regressing back to where they were before the cashless debit card was implemented.

There are many ideologically driven policies that have come into this place and that this government is running with. We are seeing it in industrial relations. We are seeing it in relation to the economy, the budget and so forth. But one that really, really upsets me is this issue of the abolition of the cashless debit card. It is shameful. It is very disappointing. They have taken a political angle, an ideologically driven angle and, sadly, it is impacting upon the lives of vulnerable people in communities. I stood here in this very place and said that the abolition of the cashless debit card would have a catastrophic impact in communities, and that's exactly what we are seeing. We have heard from community leaders, particularly in the Goldfields, who've talked about the increase in domestic violence and alcohol related hospitalisations. It is devastating to see.

But this bill is something that we actually do support because it is allowing people who are on compulsory income management to be able to transition onto a better product. It is not a new product, despite what they like to say. It is not an enhanced new card. It's just the cashless debit card—let's be clear. It has different branding on it, but it is actually the cashless debit card that's being implemented. So we support that.

I have made these points here today to say that we know what it was like before the cashless debit card was implemented, we know what it was like during the cashless debit card's implementation and we know what the immediate differences have been since its abolition.

One of the amendments that has been proposed and which will be moved as a substantive amendment when we get to committee stage is to ensure that there is proper recording and reporting of key metrics to measure the social, health and wellbeing impacts within these communities. I would encourage the government and those in the Greens party to consider at least just supporting that amendment. It is all well and good to come in here with our ideologies, but we need to base them on some data and some evidence. If you don't have that then how do you know whether or not you are having a real impact? By measuring it, by reporting on it and by being transparent the government will have the ability to measure whether or not the decisions they have made are in fact making a difference or being detrimental to people's lives. So I urge the Senate to consider supporting that amendment when it comes before us, because I think it will make a big difference.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 and the government's renewed attempt to forcibly control us as First Nations people through the racist, apartheid-style, paternalistic enhanced income management scheme, newly christened with the name 'SmartCard'. It's very smart of the government to be giving their cashless debit card a new name, hoping maybe we won't notice it is the same gammon scheme that is effective at nothing but further oppressing and controlling us. The government went into this election promising to end compulsory income management. We were promised change. Their blatant hypocrisy and racism, in reintroducing the cashless debit card 2.0 that locks in a compulsory income management, has been blasted by stakeholders across the board.

The committee inquiry into this bill showed almost unanimous calls to abolish compulsory income management. Income management has overwhelmingly been rejected by experts and First Nations communities for being ineffective, expensive and racist. It stands in conflict with First Nations rights, closing the gap, principles of self-determination and free, prior and informed consent. Any real commitment from the government must be to stop its attempts to forcibly control First Nations people, once again, and listen to our sovereign voices.

There is not even any evidence that it works. But there is plenty of evidence that shows the harm and violence it inflicts on individuals and communities, especially on First Nations people and our communities who, by design, it disproportionately targets. Yet for some reason, despite the overwhelming and almost unanimous evidence provided to the Community Affairs Committee on the need to urgently abolish compulsory income management, and the many problems with this bill, the committee report only referred to the government's plans to reform income management and the need for more in-depth consultation for transition arrangements.

Evidence shows there is no need for transition arrangements. If there were a full shift to voluntary income management, that would mean those who want it can still use it. But, in practice, this government continues to force more than 20,000 of almost entirely First Nations people in the Northern Territory, alone, to be on the scheme. And when will this forceable management end? Who knows. The lack of sunset clause of the bill means, yet again, people will be caught up in an even farther-reaching violent income management system.

This bill grants the government the power to expand income management across the country, where the social services minister can designate any state, territory or area as a voluntary income management site. The government is even collaborating with the same company, Indue, that ran the cashless debit card scheme. Every $6 spent on the administration of these cashless cards reaps in just one dollar benefit. It's full abolishment would save $286.5 million over the forward estimates.

I see no change here. I see absolutely no sense here. Think of where that money could go. If the minister cared for what our people needed, they would be bending over backwards to fully fund and resource Aboriginal community controlled organisations to provide services to our people on our terms. Instead, they opt for control, coercion and power over us—yet again.

All forms of income control have roots in the paternalistic racist systems of control over incomes, which were operated by Aboriginal protection boards for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. These so-called protection acts were used to forcibly separate our families, create division, disempower our people, try to destroy our cultures and assimilate the oldest culture in the world into the settler colonial society.

Our people were subject to near total control of movement over who they could marry or what jobs they could do. Our wages were stolen, our savings were taken and our property was seized. Your police services in this country stole our children from their families and put them to work. You continue to steal our children today at even greater rates. You do all this in the name of protection. The only thing we need protection from is colonisation. John Howard would be so proud of this Labor government. He championed income management during the NT intervention, where he said that First Nations people were incapable of self-determination, of managing their own affairs, of looking after themselves.

As the Labor government puts this bill in front of us, as the white saviours they are, once again, they are telling us what's good for us. We see through it. We have seen this type of protectionist colonial interference in our lives before. Labor needs to keep its election promise to abolish not just the name of the system but the nature of it.

To remind them of their promises, I will go through a list of all the times the government promised to end the cashless debit card. In April 2022, before this government was elected, Jim Chalmers, in a doorstop interview in Brisbane, said: 'Labor will abolish the cashless debit card. We couldn't be any clearer than that.' Mark Butler, in an interview on ABC Radio Adelaide, said, 'What we've said is we'll abolish the cashless debit card.' Katy Gallagher, in a TV interview on Sky, said, 'It shouldn't be used,' and that, 'We should abolish it.' Jim Chalmers, in a doorstop in Sydney, said, 'Our commitment, our assurance to Australians is that we will abolish the cashless debit card.' In June 2022, Amanda Rishworth, in a radio interview on ABC Eyre Peninsula and West Coast, said, 'We want to abolish the compulsory cashless debit card.' Amanda Rishworth, in a post-election statement on ABC radio interview, said, 'Labor made a commitment to abolish the privatised cashless debit card.'

In July 2022, Justine Elliot, in a media release, said:

… the government is delivering on its commitment to abolish the Cashless Debit Card program …

Amanda Rishworth, in a media release, said: 'The Albanese Labor government will abolish the cashless debit card.' Amanda Rishworth, in an interview on Sky News, said, '$170 million of taxpayers' money was spent on this with no evidence that it will work.'

Amanda Rishworth, in a media release, said:

The Albanese Labor Government is delivering on its election commitments and will today introduce legislation to Parliament to abolish the Cashless Debit Card.

Justine Elliot, in a radio interview on ABC Perth, said: 'We know how destructive it's been, right throughout the country. I've spoken with many people whose lives are being destroyed by being forced onto the cashless debit card.'

Anthony Albanese, in a question without notice—from the Hansardsaid:

… we're about empowering communities, not taking power away from them … not a patronising position that says, 'We know best,' not one that extended the cashless debit card into communities.

In August 2022, Amanda Rishworth, in a TV interview on ABC, 'It will just be a matter of calling up Australia to exit from the program.' Amanda Rishworth, in a press conference in Darwin, said, 'We've been very clear that our first point is to abolish the cashless debit card.'

From September 2022, a joint media release by Amanda Rishworth, Linda Burney, Bill Shorten and Justine Elliot reads:

The Government will abolish the cashless debit card program.

A joint media release by Amanda Rishworth, Linda Burney and Justine Elliott reads:

The Albanese Labor Government has today delivered on a key election commitment and secured the passage of legislation to abolish the failed cashless debit card program.

Amanda Rishworth, in a press conference at Parliament House, said, 'We have always said when it comes to income management it is up to communities to choose how they use income management, how they enable people to get onto income management.' On 28 September, Linda Burney, in a press conference at Parliament House, said, 'Labor's fundamental position is that we do not believe in mandatory income management.' Justine Elliot, in a press conference at Parliament House, said: 'I am so proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government and to be abolishing the cashless debit card. This card has destroyed lives.' In October 2022, Anthony Albanese, in an address to the New South Wales Labor Conference, said, 'Australians voted to abolish the discrimination of the cashless debit card, and it is gone.' This system is not gone.

I call on the government today to make good on their promise and call for (1) all forms of compulsory income management to be abolished immediately; (2) the income management reform bill to be amended to make income management through enhanced income management voluntary, allow participants to exit the scheme at any time, include a sunset clause and remove the extended powers of the minister; and (3) substantive investment in social services and wraparound supports for communities, developed through a self-determined approach. Until you do this, let's tell the truth: it's putting black people back on rations.

Labor, why are you so gammin? Why are you doing this to our people? Why are you destroying our people's lives through a racist regime that involves controlling people's lives and not allowing any self-determination? You know the harms of this card. You all walk around freely with your credit cards. Can you imagine, for one moment, having to choose which shop you can go to and the racism that you have to deal with when you pull out your income BasicsCard—the racist card?

How about every politician in this place also being mandatorily put on this racist card that will control your lives? How about we do that for the next week and see how you like it? No more fancy dinners, no more fancy events, no more fancy clothes, no more fancy food and your whole life controlled by a card that says that you need help and that you can't have control over your own life anymore—you have to have this card that will control your life, which is controlled by the government because we need to maintain control of First Nations people in this country. That's what the King wants us to do after all: keep us on the bottom rung, keep us desperate, keep us homeless, keep us imprisoned, keep us poor and keep us experiencing the systemic racism every single day of our lives, no matter where we are or who we are.

Labor, you should be ashamed of yourself. I don't how some people sleep at night when they do this to their own people. Let's not support this. Let's get our people off the rations that this colonial system has to offer. We're giving back the beads, the trinkets and the blankets, and we simply want our land back.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. The hypocrisy and the mistruths of the Labor government in this space have been very clearly articulated by previous speakers, so I won't go through the long list again—the broken promises in terms of supposedly eliminating the cashless debit card but then actually keeping it, calling it the enhanced card and replacing the BasicsCard with it.

I want to speak very briefly to an amendment that's been circulated in my name and will be moved by Senator Ruston. It would require the minister to regularly table information on those previous cashless debit card sites. Why do we want to do this? We want to do this because we want to understand what's happening in those sites, and we also want to hold this government to account. I particularly call on the crossbenchers to think about this. This government has promised those local communities services. They have promised them wraparound services. They have promised them on-the-ground support. They have promised them money to fund those services.

Let's find out if this government is actually delivering those things. Let's find out if this government is actually helping those communities on the ground to actually improve their circumstances. As my good friend Senator O'Sullivan has quite clearly demonstrated in this place: anecdotally, we all know that those communities have gone backwards. We have seen it on the ground and heard it from the people living on the ground. Just putting in this small reporting obligation on the minister will keep this government honest. I know that's a long bow to draw, but, at the very least, we should try and do that.

(Quorum formed)

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. As my colleague Senator Rice has already outlined, the Greens have some serious concerns about this bill, which essentially is bringing back the cashless debit card by another name: the SmartCard. I'd like to turn our minds back—as many others have mentioned here today and many times before—to before the election, when Labor made campaign promises to abolish the cashless debit card. I would strongly argue that this doesn't actually count as fulfilling an election promise when you introduce it by giving it a different name and a different colour.

So Labor is okay with breaking those promises but is too scared to touch things like stage 3 tax cuts—that was also an election promise. Guess what other promise the government has also broken? It was a promise that the new Prime Minister made on their election night—that no-one would be left behind. This is in fact a very sneaky and dangerous move by the government, who want you to believe that improving the technology is what they're up to. This bill will in fact expand the powers being given to the minister to roll out compulsory income management right across the country.

Income management has its place. However, it must be voluntary, and that's been said time and time again in numerous reports and media releases. But forcing people into such schemes doesn't actually help them build any financial independence. Senator Rice mentioned the Minister for Indigenous Australians when she spoke about how the fundamental principles of the BasicsCard and the cashless debit card should mean that they're issued on a voluntary basis. This government has said repeatedly that it would abolish the cashless debit card, so what's changed? Now we have more than 20,000 people trapped in compulsory income management, and we know that those schemes disproportionately impact First Nations people, which was also mentioned here today in this chamber. And the government knows this. Various levels of government have looked at this over the years, in organisations, on think tanks, in advocacy groups, in numerous inquiries before I came to this place and people like former senator Rachel Siewert were involved in some of those inquiries looking into the consequences and the harm of imposing compulsory income management.

This bill today was subject to an inquiry which only held one hearing, which Senator Rice was part of, and this inquiry heard from First Nations people who talked about how compulsory income management doesn't work for them. But, again, this government in this place, in this week when we have passed a bill on a voice to parliament, is ignoring First Nations voices on critical issues such as this. This bill is a continuation of failed policy, and there is a large body of evidence showing compulsory income management doesn't work. We had members of the government in the last round of speeches get up and say, 'Everything we implement will be evidence based.' Guess what? This is evidence based, and you're ignoring the evidence on it. You continue to go down this line, and the government are hell-bent and clearly intent on breaking their promise and ignoring First Nations people's voices and pursuing a policy that they know doesn't work.

We heard about the Aboriginal peak organisations in the Northern Territory in particular who made submissions on this. They asked: how many times do we have to ask government to listen to our voices? This has been going on since income management was introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory intervention, which was when they first said no. It was the first time they said no to income management support. It's now a different card in a different colour, but it's all for the same purpose: to control their lives. That is what they told the government. 'We are not guinea pigs,' they told the government. Even the Central Land Council calls on the government to end all forms of compulsory income management, and I could go on and on and on in this debate about how many times First Nations people have told governments in this place to stop imposing these racist policies that are driven by removing our basic human rights in this country.

Income management doesn't help people. It doesn't do what you say it does. It is in fact a punishment. It is a punishment for being on welfare payments, which are the legacy of colonisation in this country. Welfare was the legacy piece of the 1967 referendum, and here we are again looking at another referendum with another government telling us that they're going to listen to our voices. I don't think so. Financial freedom is what is needed—empowerment, giving people the tools to learn about financial responsibility—not prohibiting people from being able to purchase the essential items they need, such as food, from places where they will actually save money, not places that are making money for the big corporations in this country, so going to markets and things like that. It doesn't restrict drugs and alcohol, as you've heard the Opposition suggest. It perpetuates harm and allows the black market in these communities to thrive. I'll give an example from my home state of Western Australia: $400 for a bottle of vodka, and they play cards for it for two days. You want to talk about how you manage black people's income. You're not stopping any of that. That's a farce that's in this bubble, unfortunately.

The Greens have an amendment to this bill that will introduce a sunset clause. It will restrict the ministerial power and enable those at risk of harm to exit this framework. This amendment will improve the worst elements of this bill but, let's be clear, we, over here at the Australian Greens, do not support compulsory income management. We implore this government to keep their promises to the Australian people, to First Nations people in this country, to make income management voluntary.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators who have contributed to this important debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023. The government has listened closely to the contributions of all senators and I'm pleased to be able to address some of those contributions.

The bill is the next step in the Albanese government's election commitment to abolish the punitive cashless debit card regime and take on the reform of income management. It builds on changes made by the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022, which established the enhanced income management program and repealed the cashless debit card program.

This bill ensures that no new participants are issued with the out-of-date BasicsCard and, instead, that they have access to a significantly updated technology platform and modern card, the SmartCard, capable of supporting a range of mainstream banking functions, including tap and go payments, online shopping and BPAY bill payments. Importantly, the SmartCard is delivered by Services Australia and has a PIN for added protection. The bill will also give people subject to the income management regime the choice to move to enhanced income management from the commencement date, thereby allowing them to access the BasicsCard bank account and superior SmartCard.

Our absolute priority is to ensure participants are supported and given access to a modern financial experience and do not experience the stigma of outdated financial technology. With the passage of this bill we will take another step towards reforming income management in Australia, and more than 25,000 Australians will have access to enhanced income management and the SmartCard, increasing choice over where and how they can spend their money. But, we know there is still a way to go.

I'd like to thank the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report into this bill, acknowledge the contributions of all those who made submissions or appeared at the hearing and note the various recommendations provided. The committee report recommended that the government consider whether a review period is practicable and facilitative to the policy intent. The Albanese government made a commitment to continue consulting with and listening to a wide range of stakeholders, including First Nations leaders, women's groups, service providers, communities and people receiving welfare payments.

This consultation is underway and is the most appropriate way to review and reform the income management program, which has been in place since 2007. For some people on income management, this program has been the norm for them during their entire adult life. The government takes this matter seriously and we worked with individuals and communities on what services and supports are needed, and what the future of income management looks like.

I also thank the Australian Greens and Senator Thorpe for their input into the report and ongoing interest in this program. Both have recommended or raised the inclusion of a sunset clause, limitation on ministerial powers, exit provisions or the abolition of all compulsory income management. The government notes these recommendations and considers that those changes are not appropriate to be made through this bill. However, I want to be clear about our position. The current consultation underway in regard to the future of income management is listening to individuals and communities about these very issues. Decisions we take about this matter will be informed by those consultations. Anything which affects those consultations runs the risk of undermining the integrity of that process and undermining the trust of communities. The government will not make decisions or support amendments that would see vulnerable people transitioned off this program without much-needed support.

Senators in this debate have raised concerns about the powers of the minister to make instruments that will operationalise the enhanced income management program. The bill does not extend the powers to the minister, it only replicates what is already in the existing income management legislation. By replicating the measures and ministerial powers already existing for income management, support remains in place for communities while consultation on the future of the program, more broadly, continues. Limiting or removing the flexibility that the ministerial powers provide would limit the government's ability to respond to the feedback gathered through consultation and to provide real and tailored outcomes.

Senator Thorpe's dissenting report also recommended a substantial investment in social services.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. The time for this matter has expired. We're at 11.15, the hard marker.