Division Description Changes — Bills — Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023; Second Reading — 28th Mar 2023

Change	Division
representatives vote 2023-03-28#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2023-04-07 06:52:03	Title Bills — Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023; Second Reading Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Against compulsory income management Description ~~<p class="speaker">Stephen Bates</p>~~ <p>The member for Richmond supported a bill, introduced by the member for Bruce, that would have abolished the cashless debit card. Now an assistant minister, the member for Richmond is part of an administration that is giving more money to Indue and giving the minister powers to put people on compulsory income management. Across the country, Labor MPs met with their community members and represented themselves as progressives and people who would vote for progressive policies. Now we're seeing Labor's true colours. If the people of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg can exit the card, we think the people of Darwin and McArthur should be able to as well. If not, Labor should look these people in the eye and tell them why they're entrenching and perpetuating a failed policy that disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples.</p> The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-28.16.1) introduced by Brisbane MP [Stephen Bates](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/brisbane/stephen_bates) (Greens) to the [original amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-27.43.2) introduced by Deakin MP [Michael Sukkar](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/deakin/michael_sukkar) (Liberal), which means that amendment will remain as it is. ### Amendment text > That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "the Government committed to abolish compulsory income management in opposition, the House is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed and calls on** the Government to:* > *> (1) provide a clear plan for an end to all** compulsory income management, which disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples; and* > *> (2) urgently and significantly increase the funding for community and support services through a job*s and services plan, including redirecting any savings from the abolition of compulsory income management to these services". ### Original amendment *> That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting th*e following words: > *> "whilst not declining to g*ive the bill a [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), the House: > > (1) notes: > *>> (a) 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;* >> *>> (b) since the Cashless Debit Card program commenced mor*e 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; >> >> (c) the harm and hardship the Government's abolition of the Cashless Debit Card has caused some of Australia's most vulnerable communities; >> *>> (d) 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;* >> *>> (e) the Government has committed over $217 million of taxpayers' funds to this expensive rebrand*ing exercise; >> *>> (f) the Government has** failed to provide details of the total cost to taxpayers of the new SmartCard; and* >> *>> (g) the Government's rushed and total mismanaged transi*tion to the SmartCard; and > > (2) 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". <p>The Greens will not support this bill. I call on the government to remember that Australians voted for change, not more of the same cruel, punitive policies that prop up the profits of companies like Indue at the expense of people's quality of life. Compulsory income management does not work. It is demeaning and the government should be ashamed to be breaking their election promises by reintroducing it.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p>~~ ~~<p>Is the amendment seconded?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Elizabeth Watson-Brown</p>~~ ~~<p>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p>~~ ~~<p>The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be disagreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bridget Archer</p>~~ <p>Around nine months ago, as debate was underway on the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card, I expressed my concern over a lack of detail as to how exactly they intended to address the issues that the cashless debit card was designed to fix. As I said at the time, the issues won't magically go away with the elimination of the card. Today, as we debate the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, I still hold those concerns about moving anyone under income management to the SmartCard. The only things I do find myself agreeing with, on my own side, are the remarks from the member for Deakin, essentially calling the SmartCard an expensive rebrand of the coalition's program.</p> <p>While I appreciate that this transition is an attempt to remove some of the stigma that comes with the government partially controlling the income of participants, this is still a long way off from the government's promise to address the issues of compulsory income management. If your intention is to dismantle this system, for all the reasons that you say you are, I do have concerns that so much money is being spent to go sideways with this policy. At this stage they've taken an extremely punitive measure and lightened some of the restrictions and are presenting it to the public and participants as something that we should be thankful for.</p> <p>I find income management abhorrent. As I said in 2020, the system of income management strips away autonomy and a sense of pride, no matter how well intentioned. Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help. The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays into the very worst of human nature. We're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something other or less than, and that's not the Australia I want to live in.</p> <p>When I gave this frank assessment as to why I wouldn't be supporting the efforts of the coalition to expand the card, Labor came out in full force and were very loud about wanting to dismantle the policy with the abolishment of the CDC, which quickly became a key campaign platform, particularly in my electorate of Bass. I'm sure it's clear that I'm willing to take on any side when it comes to dismantling this disgraceful policy. While I do note the minister has outlined that the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field, I would hope that there would be more clear information available as to when this consultation will wrap up and a time line for the next steps.</p> <p>I withheld my vote last August due to my concerns that removing the card without the appropriate supports will not fix the very problems that it's trying to address. This is particularly true in the instance where this will apply—for participants who currently use the BasicsCard, which was first introduced under the Howard government in 2007 and further expanded under Labor in 2010. It is these participants that I've held the greatest concern for. For some who may have been on the card for more than a decade, a phased transition is necessary to fully support these communities, but I don't buy into the rhetoric that income management is the answer to the complex challenges that need to be addressed.</p> <p>The fact that my colleagues are saying that, anecdotally, they believe that antisocial behaviour has returned is evidence that income management is not a sustainable long-term solution. It is simply sticking a bandaid over a gaping wound and hoping for the best. The systemic dismantling of the income management system is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done carefully and by building long-term supports going forward. Where is the solid plan to invest in long-term solutions that will provide individuals with the tools and skills to improve their life, address long-term trauma and empower them to make the right financial decisions? I know that the minister cares deeply about these issues, but there is still too much ambiguity about how this dismantling will happen and when.</p> <p>Of course, while I raise my concerns about the card overall, it's no surprise that my thoughts on this policy differ to those of my colleagues. However, as I have publicly stated previously, I do want to acknowledge my colleagues who represent the communities where current sites exist. I'm neither disputing nor seeking to be in any way dismissive of the significant challenges that persist in these communities, and I understand what the card is seeking to do, but it is clearly failing as a long-term solution. We do agree on some of the problems, but our approaches to the solutions clearly differ.</p> <p>I gave it a lot of thought before deciding to speak on this bill, as I can see what the government is seeking to do through the legislation and my opinions on that are clearly on the record. However, there's no doubt, from the speeches that I've heard throughout this debate from my own side, that the continuation of income management in some form is a policy that the coalition will continue to pursue and one that, I must state again, I will never support. As a Liberal, I have a fundamental issue with how the program aligns with the belief in personal and individual responsibility, which is the very foundation of our party's principles. One of the reasons I am a Liberal is because of my belief in one of our guiding principles—that we should seek to minimise the interference of the government in the lives of Australians.</p> <p>For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can continue to doggedly pursue a policy that is so antithetical to Liberal values and that also puts a massive strain on the public purse. In 2020-21 alone, the cost of this program was over $36 million. By any measure, this is the very definition of big government. As a Liberal, I'm against the idea of spending a lot of money to dictate how others can spend their money. As Liberals, are we again saying that we believe in individual aspiration and autonomy but not if you're poor or intergenerationally disadvantaged?</p> <p>Imagine if that funding was instead invested in ensuring long-term, sustainable outcomes for communities in need, by addressing high numbers of alcohol or illicit drug consumption and gambling. We know there is growing understanding of the need for trauma informed practice, and I think more research and funding into implementing evidence based, trauma informed, wraparound services would be a key starting point to supporting individuals in need, including more tailored individual case management. I also think that more work needs to be undertaken to determine whether the federal government is best placed to deliver these types of services. Instead, perhaps we should look at funding place based solutions that are driven by those who know their communities best.</p> <p>We know the evidence is mixed. The most recent report into the scheme was undertaken by the University of Adelaide and commissioned by the coalition. In relation to the reduction of three social harms, the second evaluation found the following: alcohol consumption was reduced after the introduction of the CDC, but the evaluators stated that it was not possible to attribute these changes to the CDC alone. With gambling, there was a 3.5 per cent short-term reduction in the prevalence of gambling in each of the CDC trial site areas. The evaluation could not provide a clear conclusion about whether the cashless debit card influenced the personal or social harm caused by the illicit drugs. Additionally, it was reported that the majority of cashless debit card program participants reported not participating in the target behaviours prior to the CDC implementation. Why would you use such a blunt instrument that affects so many who are just trying to get by? Income management in any form should be voluntary or, were absolutely necessary, implemented on a case-by-case basis, not as a one-size-fits-all approach across entire communities.</p> <p>We have heard the commentary over the past few days that violent behaviours have increased with the abolishment of the CDC. I abhor any violence, and I believe we should be doing what we can to keep our communities and our children safe, but any rise brings home my point that income management is a temporary solution to far, far deeper challenges that need to be addressed. For all the money spent so far, there is no demonstrable proof that income management works. Income management is presented as a solution to many issues. However, it casts a wide net that, in my view, punishes recipients as a collective rather than having regard for individual circumstances. It places the burden of demonstrating the ability to manage your finances on the individual, thereby making the default assumption that recipients are incapable of managing their own affairs. This only serves to stigmatise and marginalise recipients and doesn't fundamentally address the wider issues. In doing so, it also drives assumptions that addiction, gambling and domestic violence only occur in disadvantaged communities. We know that this is untrue. It is wrong to conflate these issues with cashless welfare. They absolutely need to be dealt with, but income management is only masking the symptoms, not treating the problem. As Elise Klein, Associate Professor at the Australian National University said last year, there is no evidence that compulsory income management, including the BasicsCard, has a positive effect in communities.</p> <p>I am not standing in the way of this bill; I am simply holding the government to account on their promises made. Abolishing the CDC was a positive first step, but this revamp of the BasicsCard to the SmartCard cannot be the final answer. The government had much to say about the dangers of income management in the lead up to the last election, and I want to see that turned into tangible action that will make a demonstrable difference to the communities where income management is in place. I am committed to working constructively with the government, and I commend the minister for her continuing proactive approach to communicating with me. I hope that this bill is a further step on the road towards phasing out compulsory income management for good, and I will continue to resist any efforts to reinstate it in the future.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Stephen Bates~~
The member for Richmond supported a bill, introduced by the member for Bruce, that would have abolished the cashless debit card. Now an assistant minister, the member for Richmond is part of an administration that is giving more money to Indue and giving the minister powers to put people on compulsory income management. Across the country, Labor MPs met with their community members and represented themselves as progressives and people who would vote for progressive policies. Now we're seeing Labor's true colours. If the people of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg can exit the card, we think the people of Darwin and McArthur should be able to as well. If not, Labor should look these people in the eye and tell them why they're entrenching and perpetuating a failed policy that disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples.
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-28.16.1) introduced by Brisbane MP [Stephen Bates](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/brisbane/stephen_bates) (Greens) to the [original amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-27.43.2) introduced by Deakin MP [Michael Sukkar](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/deakin/michael_sukkar) (Liberal), which means that amendment will remain as it is.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"the Government committed to abolish compulsory income management in opposition, the House is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed and calls on the Government to:*
>
> *(1) provide a clear plan for an end to all compulsory income management, which disproportionately impacts First Nations peoples; and*
>
> *(2) urgently and significantly increase the funding for community and support services through a jobs and services plan, including redirecting any savings from the abolition of compulsory income management to these services".*
### Original amendment
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), the House:*
>
> *(1) notes:*
>
>> *(a) 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;*
>>
>> *(b) 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;*
>>
>> *(c) the harm and hardship the Government's abolition of the Cashless Debit Card has caused some of Australia's most vulnerable communities;*
>>
>> *(d) 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;*
>>
>> *(e) the Government has committed over $217 million of taxpayers' funds to this expensive rebranding exercise;*
>>
>> *(f) the Government has failed to provide details of the total cost to taxpayers of the new SmartCard; and*
>>
>> *(g) the Government's rushed and total mismanaged transition to the SmartCard; and*
>
> *(2) 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".*
The Greens will not support this bill. I call on the government to remember that Australians voted for change, not more of the same cruel, punitive policies that prop up the profits of companies like Indue at the expense of people's quality of life. Compulsory income management does not work. It is demeaning and the government should be ashamed to be breaking their election promises by reintroducing it.
~~Sharon Claydon~~
~~Is the amendment seconded?~~
~~Elizabeth Watson-Brown~~
~~I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.~~
~~Sharon Claydon~~
~~The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin be disagreed to.~~
~~Bridget Archer~~
Around nine months ago, as debate was underway on the government's bill to repeal the cashless debit card, I expressed my concern over a lack of detail as to how exactly they intended to address the issues that the cashless debit card was designed to fix. As I said at the time, the issues won't magically go away with the elimination of the card. Today, as we debate the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023, I still hold those concerns about moving anyone under income management to the SmartCard. The only things I do find myself agreeing with, on my own side, are the remarks from the member for Deakin, essentially calling the SmartCard an expensive rebrand of the coalition's program.
While I appreciate that this transition is an attempt to remove some of the stigma that comes with the government partially controlling the income of participants, this is still a long way off from the government's promise to address the issues of compulsory income management. If your intention is to dismantle this system, for all the reasons that you say you are, I do have concerns that so much money is being spent to go sideways with this policy. At this stage they've taken an extremely punitive measure and lightened some of the restrictions and are presenting it to the public and participants as something that we should be thankful for.
I find income management abhorrent. As I said in 2020, the system of income management strips away autonomy and a sense of pride, no matter how well intentioned. Whenever you approach a human problem by inciting shame and guilt, you have already lost those that you are seeking to help. The rhetoric that surrounds social security and systems like income management plays into the very worst of human nature. We're essentially inviting people to look at their fellow Australians as something other or less than, and that's not the Australia I want to live in.
When I gave this frank assessment as to why I wouldn't be supporting the efforts of the coalition to expand the card, Labor came out in full force and were very loud about wanting to dismantle the policy with the abolishment of the CDC, which quickly became a key campaign platform, particularly in my electorate of Bass. I'm sure it's clear that I'm willing to take on any side when it comes to dismantling this disgraceful policy. While I do note the minister has outlined that the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field, I would hope that there would be more clear information available as to when this consultation will wrap up and a time line for the next steps.
I withheld my vote last August due to my concerns that removing the card without the appropriate supports will not fix the very problems that it's trying to address. This is particularly true in the instance where this will apply—for participants who currently use the BasicsCard, which was first introduced under the Howard government in 2007 and further expanded under Labor in 2010. It is these participants that I've held the greatest concern for. For some who may have been on the card for more than a decade, a phased transition is necessary to fully support these communities, but I don't buy into the rhetoric that income management is the answer to the complex challenges that need to be addressed.
The fact that my colleagues are saying that, anecdotally, they believe that antisocial behaviour has returned is evidence that income management is not a sustainable long-term solution. It is simply sticking a bandaid over a gaping wound and hoping for the best. The systemic dismantling of the income management system is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done carefully and by building long-term supports going forward. Where is the solid plan to invest in long-term solutions that will provide individuals with the tools and skills to improve their life, address long-term trauma and empower them to make the right financial decisions? I know that the minister cares deeply about these issues, but there is still too much ambiguity about how this dismantling will happen and when.
Of course, while I raise my concerns about the card overall, it's no surprise that my thoughts on this policy differ to those of my colleagues. However, as I have publicly stated previously, I do want to acknowledge my colleagues who represent the communities where current sites exist. I'm neither disputing nor seeking to be in any way dismissive of the significant challenges that persist in these communities, and I understand what the card is seeking to do, but it is clearly failing as a long-term solution. We do agree on some of the problems, but our approaches to the solutions clearly differ.
I gave it a lot of thought before deciding to speak on this bill, as I can see what the government is seeking to do through the legislation and my opinions on that are clearly on the record. However, there's no doubt, from the speeches that I've heard throughout this debate from my own side, that the continuation of income management in some form is a policy that the coalition will continue to pursue and one that, I must state again, I will never support. As a Liberal, I have a fundamental issue with how the program aligns with the belief in personal and individual responsibility, which is the very foundation of our party's principles. One of the reasons I am a Liberal is because of my belief in one of our guiding principles—that we should seek to minimise the interference of the government in the lives of Australians.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can continue to doggedly pursue a policy that is so antithetical to Liberal values and that also puts a massive strain on the public purse. In 2020-21 alone, the cost of this program was over $36 million. By any measure, this is the very definition of big government. As a Liberal, I'm against the idea of spending a lot of money to dictate how others can spend their money. As Liberals, are we again saying that we believe in individual aspiration and autonomy but not if you're poor or intergenerationally disadvantaged?
Imagine if that funding was instead invested in ensuring long-term, sustainable outcomes for communities in need, by addressing high numbers of alcohol or illicit drug consumption and gambling. We know there is growing understanding of the need for trauma informed practice, and I think more research and funding into implementing evidence based, trauma informed, wraparound services would be a key starting point to supporting individuals in need, including more tailored individual case management. I also think that more work needs to be undertaken to determine whether the federal government is best placed to deliver these types of services. Instead, perhaps we should look at funding place based solutions that are driven by those who know their communities best.
We know the evidence is mixed. The most recent report into the scheme was undertaken by the University of Adelaide and commissioned by the coalition. In relation to the reduction of three social harms, the second evaluation found the following: alcohol consumption was reduced after the introduction of the CDC, but the evaluators stated that it was not possible to attribute these changes to the CDC alone. With gambling, there was a 3.5 per cent short-term reduction in the prevalence of gambling in each of the CDC trial site areas. The evaluation could not provide a clear conclusion about whether the cashless debit card influenced the personal or social harm caused by the illicit drugs. Additionally, it was reported that the majority of cashless debit card program participants reported not participating in the target behaviours prior to the CDC implementation. Why would you use such a blunt instrument that affects so many who are just trying to get by? Income management in any form should be voluntary or, were absolutely necessary, implemented on a case-by-case basis, not as a one-size-fits-all approach across entire communities.
We have heard the commentary over the past few days that violent behaviours have increased with the abolishment of the CDC. I abhor any violence, and I believe we should be doing what we can to keep our communities and our children safe, but any rise brings home my point that income management is a temporary solution to far, far deeper challenges that need to be addressed. For all the money spent so far, there is no demonstrable proof that income management works. Income management is presented as a solution to many issues. However, it casts a wide net that, in my view, punishes recipients as a collective rather than having regard for individual circumstances. It places the burden of demonstrating the ability to manage your finances on the individual, thereby making the default assumption that recipients are incapable of managing their own affairs. This only serves to stigmatise and marginalise recipients and doesn't fundamentally address the wider issues. In doing so, it also drives assumptions that addiction, gambling and domestic violence only occur in disadvantaged communities. We know that this is untrue. It is wrong to conflate these issues with cashless welfare. They absolutely need to be dealt with, but income management is only masking the symptoms, not treating the problem. As Elise Klein, Associate Professor at the Australian National University said last year, there is no evidence that compulsory income management, including the BasicsCard, has a positive effect in communities.
I am not standing in the way of this bill; I am simply holding the government to account on their promises made. Abolishing the CDC was a positive first step, but this revamp of the BasicsCard to the SmartCard cannot be the final answer. The government had much to say about the dangers of income management in the lead up to the last election, and I want to see that turned into tangible action that will make a demonstrable difference to the communities where income management is in place. I am committed to working constructively with the government, and I commend the minister for her continuing proactive approach to communicating with me. I hope that this bill is a further step on the road towards phasing out compulsory income management for good, and I will continue to resist any efforts to reinstate it in the future.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~