|
representatives vote 2020-12-07#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-12-18 09:17:01
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Luke Gosling</p><p>I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. We know that this bill will permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory. I represent the people of Darwin and Palmerston in this place, and this issue is very important to my constituents and to the rest of the NT. We know that, with what is proposed around making the trial card permanent in several sites around the country, the government is trying to roll it out permanently without much interest in how the trials or the research have been going. We heard, in Senate estimates, the minister admit that she hadn't read the long-awaited $2.5 million review by Adelaide uni before deciding to make the cashless debit card trials permanent. It's not very good—a minister doesn't bother to read a review that's been commissioned by one of our top universities.</p><p>The Auditor-General found that there's no evidence that the card works to reduce social harm, as the government—those opposite—claim. Instead, it's made it harder for participants to purchase basic and essential items at more affordable prices, and we know that this bill is racially discriminatory. It will disproportionately impact Indigenous people—two-thirds of those to be forced onto this cashless debit card. This includes over 23,000 people in the Northern Territory, many of whom live in remote areas. And they don't want it.</p>- The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual second reading motion unchanged. The usual second reading motion is *that the bill be [read a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*, which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This division took place after the MP for Barton [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) proposed an amendment.
- ### Amendment text
- > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
- >
- > *"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:*
- >
- > *(1) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(a) thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works;*
- >>
- >> *(b) the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by Adelaide University; and*
- >>
- >> *(c) this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and*
- >
- > *(2) calls on the Government to:*
- >
- >> *(a) not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally; and*
- >>
- >> *(b) invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card"*
- ### What does the bill do?
- The [bill was introduced](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033) "*to establish the [Cashless Debit Card](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_Welfare_Card) (CDC) as an ongoing program rather than a time-limited trial*". The CDC program is controversial for many reasons, not least the [limited evidence](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-16/little-data-cashless-debit-card-effective-unisa-researcher-says/12887258) that it is benefiting the communities where it is currently in operation.
- Read more about the program and what the bill does in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd033).
<p>Senator Rex Patrick was in the Top End last month with my NT colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. They were meeting local people who, as I mentioned earlier, as an overwhelming majority have been strongly resistant to the permanent rollout of this card in the Territory. I commend Senator Patrick on his visit, on his interest in understanding how this card affects people's daily lives and for the conversations that I've had with him about the issue. It was great to see him up in the Territory having a look for himself.</p><p>I understand—in fact, I know because I've spoken with him about it—that he had a card issued to him. He intended to use it to make all of his purchases for the duration of the trip in the north, so he could get a sense of what an everyday person would experience using the card. I commend him for doing that, as well. They met with Larrakia Nation elders in Darwin and with the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, or ALPA. I note that ALPA have their own card, which has been working quite well so far. They are frustrated and asking why they need to go under a new regime, the cashless debit card system, when they've got their own that is working well. But the government—those opposite—won't listen to them on that.</p><p>Senator Patrick went with Senator McCarthy to Nhulunbuy, in eastern Arnhem Land, and met with the local NT MLA, with the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation and with Laynhapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation. As I'm told, from that visit, the strong message from Arnhem Land was that the communities do not want this cashless debit card. They think it's being rushed through. They say that, every time a new government comes in, they make changes to programs like this, and they're quite frankly sick of it. In their minds, it's linked to the Intervention and more top-down punitive actions. There are also some concerns around the fact that cigarettes can be purchased using the new card.</p><p>From his trip, I think Senator Patrick learned a lot about the 2007 Intervention and about how badly it disempowered communities and how lasting the effects are. I've shared some of my views with him. I was serving in NORFORCE in the Northern Territory during the Intervention, so I saw firsthand this disempowerment in action. I'm sure that, as a former serviceman himself, he appreciates the role that institutions like NORFORCE play up there and the importance of trying to reduce harm in these communities wherever possible.</p><p>I should point out at this stage that Labor isn't opposed to income management in all circumstances, but we are opposed to broad based compulsory programs that capture and disempower the wrong people. You can justify income management when it's targeted but not when it's indiscriminate. The evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory found that, when it was compulsory, there were no improvements but that voluntary income management could be different. For example, we've heard that in Cape York, where the local community is applying income management based on individual circumstances, supporting families and monitoring outcomes, they support the card. As long as that community support continues, it's appropriate to have the card in use there. But, in an NT context, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation said this about the government's cashless debit card plans:</p><p class="italic">… there is no evidence demonstrating that it creates positive change for the people who will be subjected to it. This erosion of people's choice and control over their own lives destroys any sense of self-determination, it is an attack on their basic rights, the burden of proof should lie with the Government to prove without doubt that this policy works before enforcing it upon our communities …</p><p>They also said, 'There has been little to no consultation undertaken in the Northern Territory,' to date. Why not? Why wouldn't the government be consulting with people before it forces them into a program such as this? Why doesn't it give the people of the Northern Territory the dignity of having a proper conversation and actually listening to their concerns? It's beyond frustrating and offensive for our people.</p><p>I agree with the NT Council of Social Service, NTCOSS, who said: 'The cashless debit card is a solution that does not work for a problem that does not exist. It is essential that any programs for Aboriginal people recognise their sovereignty, and it's essential that communities have control and agency over matters that affect them. That is at the heart of closing the gap. That is the opposite of the cashless debit card. Quite aside from the lack of evidence supporting the card or forced income management in general, technical issues in remote communities mean participants can have no money for food when electronic payment methods are not functioning. It can make it almost impossible to access support services in replacing lost or stolen cards as well as applying to exit income management. Internet and mobile phone coverage are not guaranteed in communities, and English can be a third or fourth language for many. With limited support from Centrelink and access to a single phone for queries and complaints, these are real and significant challenges for people living remotely.' I will stress it again: advocates for the cashless debit card say that there is not a problem, but there are problems in communities around Australia, and we know that. In the Northern Territory we have the BasicsCard. That is why people in the Northern Territory, in particular, don't want this. That feedback from NTCOSS is right on the money, I think.</p><p>There's a lot of confusion in the community around this. Pensioners and other Centrelink recipients contact my electorate office to share their concerns that they too will be forced onto the cashless debit card. And it's increasingly looking like any Australian who is receiving some sort of Centrelink payment will eventually be forced onto this card, whether they want it or need it or not. I send that warning to people. This will not be just for people in remote communities. Those opposite will seek to roll this out in a much broader way.</p><p>We also learnt through Senate estimates that the government is discussing with the major banks how to use the card through their systems, and that means the banks will have some kind of access to information about what money some customers are receiving as well as some say over what they can spend their money on. That is a big privacy issue we're still seeking some clarity on. It's not just about the NT; this will affect the whole country.</p><p>I urge any members of the crossbench with any concerns about the patchy process of this card to vote this bill down and send the federal government back out to do its homework: to read the commissioned reports on the card and to consult properly and respectfully with communities. It's clear that that hasn't been done in this case.</p><p>I want to again commend Senator Rex Patrick and others who have taken the time to get out onto country to talk to people who will be affected by this bill. These are important issues for people in my electorate, the Northern Territory and the other communities that are affected across the country, and I welcome a rethink by the federal government on it.</p> <p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p><p>by leave—I'm very pleased to continue my contribution to the Social Security (Administrations) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill of 2020. While much of the conversation around this card has focused on First Nations people, this makes sense, given that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up more than two-thirds of those most impacted, and I addressed many of those matters in my earlier contribution. However, we know that the government's ultimate plan is to roll this out nationally and, indeed, we learnt in Senate estimates that the government's already set up a formal working group with the big banks and Australia Post to work on making the cashless debit card part of mainstream accounts and point of sale. This is despite the fact that the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, admitted at Senate estimates that she hasn't read the review of the rollout. So let's not sugar-coat this: it is going to impact a lot of disadvantaged and marginalised people in Australia, and yet we've got a government who hasn't actually looked at the review.</p><p>The cashless debit card will capture all those marginalised and disadvantaged people and tie them up into an income management regime where there is no apparent pathway for escape, no means of breaking the cycle of poverty and no way to regain agency. It will take away their capacity to make decisions about very fundamental aspects of our lives such as how you choose to spend your money. And, in doing so, it will remove autonomy, it will disempower people and instil in them fear, shame and stigma—the very things that so many people are already experiencing in these situations and shocking levers for any government to be taking advantage of. In return, the cashless debit card offers nothing—no education, no training, no support to help stabilise people's lives to enable them to move away from income management. We know that's not how you go about changing behaviours or dealing with deep systemic and structural disadvantage in this nation. This is not how you remedy poverty. Indeed, it's how you entrench disadvantage even further.</p><p>People are being punished for their disadvantage in a cruel and ongoing way, and this is the laziest form of public policymaking. It won't provide any of the necessary wraparound services that are required in order to meet the very real challenges people face and to break that cycle of poverty. It's no remedy at all. If the government were serious about helping people on income support, they would be making sure that they properly fund Aboriginal controlled organisations and services that are working in communities to address those challenges, to provide mental health support and to give assistance to find stable housing. A government would be seeking to fund training and support that might lead to employment. You might even consider creating meaningful jobs on country and in communities. But we are not actually dealing with any of those matters in this bill. We're not even able to meet the very basic fundamentals of people's lives to ensure that they have nourishment, shelter and safety in their lives. Instead, the government prefers to control the way in which people spend their money, as if this was any type of panacea or, indeed, any type of reform that is genuinely required. Indeed, the only thing that people are likely to learn from this is what an inhumane and unthinking government we have. This is just plain cruel, punitive and ideological, not to mention ridiculously short sighted.</p><p>The government needs to abandon this plan and, instead, invest in evidence based policies, job creation and much-needed community services. So I'm very pleased to stand today with my Labor colleagues in opposing this bill. We plead with the government to rethink its support of this shocking plan.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|