|
senate vote 2018-08-23#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-02-08 13:19:02
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018; Second Reading- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>This attempt to expand the cashless debit card trial is mendacious, cruel and deeply unnecessary. So much of this legislation is objectionable, but the idea that this is a trial is, perhaps, the greatest untruth embedded in this bill. The Liberals, with little to no opposition, want to expand this card to every person on a social support payment. Make no mistake. That is what is at stake here. Of course, a genuine trial would mean that you test something in order that you can examine the evidence. Well, the evidence is in. These cards and this program do not work—unless, of course, the government's aim is to demean and further isolate and to further impoverish some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I have to say, if that's the government's aim—to demean and to further impoverish some of the most vulnerable members of the Australian community—they have been stunningly successful.</p><p>I want to pay tribute to the work done in this area, the power of work done in this area, by my colleague Senator Siewert. She has been an absolutely tireless advocate against this program. Time after time, she's pointed out the flaws in these so-called trials, the flaws in the design of the program and the counterproductive nature of these proposals. This card, this program, is born out of a political party that has nothing but loathing and contempt for people who are struggling financially. And it is born out of a party that has an arrogant need to inflict pain and so-called discipline on people who are struggling to make ends meet.</p>- The majority voted in favour of the bill's main idea, which is to expand the trials for the cashless debit card to other places.
- In parliamentary jargon, this vote was a vote to read the bill [for a second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html) and, because it was successful, means that the Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail.
- ### What is the bill's main idea?
- The [bill was introduced to](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6130):
- * *expand the cashless debit card arrangements to a further trial site, the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, to run until 30 June 2020;*
- * *specify the class of trial participants for the area and increase the total number of trial participants overall to 15 000;*
- * *provide for an exception from the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for merchants that implement product level blocking systems to identify that a cashless debit card is being used for payment and, if any restricted products are being purchased, decline the transaction; and*
- * *limit the use of the restricted portion of a payment to prevent the portion being used to obtain cash-like products which could be used to obtain alcohol or gambling.*
<p>I genuinely believe that members of the Liberal Party in this place—having rarely, if ever, experienced the kind of financial hardship experienced by the people who are recipients of unemployment benefits and other social services in Australia, the people that this program will impact on directly—simply cannot conceive of the financial pain and the resultant psychological stress and suffering that those people are going through. Through the robo-debt saga, through a chronic failure to properly resource call logs inside the Department Of Social Services, we have seen again and again the Liberal Party failing to understand how difficult it is to make ends meet.</p><p>As I said in my inaugural speech to this parliament, I spent time in my very young years on unemployment benefits. I've spent time unable to find a job. I've spent time where you actually have to make a decision about whether you're going to put a decent feed on the table or whether you're going to pay the power bills or the rent. These are terrible decisions to have to make. I genuinely think that if the Liberal Party senators in this place had any real lived experience of what that is like they would not be proceeding with this proposal, because they would understand that it further demeans people who are impacted by the cashless debit card. It further demeans people who are amongst those people in this country who are struggling under the most financial hardship.</p><p>I want to compare the Liberals' contempt for those on Newstart with their own self-regard. This was laid bare in a recent article in the Fairfax papers under the headline 'It would take a 'miracle' to save Malcolm Turnbull'. There was the following quote:</p><p class="italic">"A lot of our people are facing the fact that they are in the last six months of their political careers"—</p><p> <i>(Quorum formed)</i> As I was saying, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, before your attention was drawn to the state of the chamber, I want to compare the Liberals' contempt for those on Newstart with their own rampant self-regard. This was laid bare in a recent article in Fairfax. Under the headline, 'It would take a 'miracle' to save Malcolm Turnbull,' there was the following quote:</p><p class="italic">"A lot of our people are facing that fact that they are in the last six months of their political careers," says one worried backbencher. "They've got houses, school bills, cars that they've set up for themselves on the basis that they're earning $200,000 plus. What do they do if they're suddenly out of work?"</p><p>Well, pardon me if I don't shed a single tear for someone who is on $200,000-plus who might find themselves out of work because it turns out that their political party is so out of touch with the struggles that so many Australians are facing. Does that backbencher mean that unemployment is difficult? Well, hallelujah! Finally, a ray of light breaks through those serried ranks of entitled Liberal MPs who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to be on Struggle Street in Australia. Are they saying that being thrown out of work can upset their life plans? Well, hallelujah! Is this the dawn of a great new understanding from the Liberal Party that it's actually pretty tough out there in the real world? Is the Liberal Party backbencher saying that sometimes you can have your employment terminated before you've had the capacity to make plans for the future? Well, hallelujah! Are we finally seeing some level of acceptance from the Liberal Party that it can be bloody tough out there when you lose your job, that it can be tough on people's families, on their kids, and that choices about whether to pay the school levies or the rent or the power bills or put a decent feed on the table for your family can be difficult, agonising choices? Imagine if the Liberal Party showed one per cent of the sympathy for people on Newstart that they are showing for their own backbenchers on $200,000-plus a year. Just imagine the difference that we would see. But, instead of sympathy, what we get out of the Liberals is contempt for people on Newstart. They've consistently demonstrated that fact, time after time. Throughout the trial period for the cashless debit card that contempt was shown again and again.</p><p>As members would be aware, the Australian Greens put in a dissenting report to the inquiry into this legislation, which, in its conclusion, stated starkly that the Australian Greens recommend that the bill not be passed. That report made it very clear that the Australian Greens do not support the majority report on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 and that we reject the committee view contained in the majority report that the research indicates fewer incidents of antisocial behaviour. This so-called research is not based on reliable sources of evidence. Not only has the research been widely criticised by numerous social scientists and academics for not adhering to academic standards; it's been criticised for having major flaws in its methodology and in the way it was reported. And it's worth pointing out that the committee also heard, at the inquiry hearings and through written submissions from people on the ground, evidence that contradicted the findings of the so-called research.</p><p>We also made it clear in our dissenting report that we reject the view enshrined in the majority report that extensive consultation was undertaken with the Kimberley and Ceduna trial sites as well as the proposed new sites of the Goldfields and Hinkler. The evidence presented to the committee showed that the consultation process was fundamentally flawed, and it's the view of the Greens, as informed by the tireless and outstanding work of Senator Siewert, that the government's lack of consultation with the community members who would be subject to the card shows starkly that the proposal ought not be supported and demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for people receiving income support. As I said previously in this contribution, it's no surprise that a process run under the auspices of a Liberal government and a Liberal minister demonstrated a fundamental lack of respect for people receiving income support.</p><p>I want to be very clear about the Greens position here. We retain concerns about the operation of the cashless debit card and we have very significant and meaningful concerns about the impact of the cashless debit card on people who are being forced to participate in the program. We're not satisfied with the view of the government and the majority of the committee that the department's continued consultation will ensure that the proposed new sites are prepared to implement the card and able to provide the appropriate services, because the previous consultation processes, which were sporadic at best, were so poor, and the implementation of support services was equally sporadic. We also have significant concerns that this bill limits human rights, and we've seen those concerns raised through the committee process and also through the process of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.</p><p>We've made it very clear in our dissenting report that we reject the majority view of the committee that the cashless debit card has had a positive impact on the trial sites. That is simply not true, and the so-called independent evaluations that the majority committee report is relying on as justification for recommending a further implementation of the cashless debit card have been widely rejected by researchers and social policy experts. In fact, it is the view of the Australian Greens that those claims and those justifications simply do not stand up to scrutiny.</p><p>As I said, this proposal has been evaluated by the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to be a member of. The report, which is report No. 8 of 2018, makes clear that concerns had been raised as to whether the measures contained in this legislation are rationally connected—that is, effective to achieve—and proportionate to the objective of the legislation. It is right that those concerns be raised. To be clear: the Greens do not believe that the measures contained in this proposal have a rational connection to the objective of the proposal, and we certainly do not believe that the measures contained in this proposal are proportionate to the objective.</p><p>I mentioned the ORIMA Research report. That report states:</p><p class="italic">… with the exception of drug driving offense and apprehensions under the Public Intoxication Act (PIA) in Ceduna, crime statistics showed no improvement since the commencement of the trial.</p><p>The ORIMA report also notes:</p><p class="italic">… 32 per cent of participants on average reported that the trial had made their lives worse …</p><p>So a third of the people who were directly impacted by this proposal said it had made their lives worse. I thought governments were about making people's lives better—well, not in this case. The report goes on to say:</p><p class="italic">... 33 per cent of participants had experienced adverse complications and limitations from the trial, including difficulties transferring money to children that are away at boarding school and being unable to make small transactions at fundamentally cash-based settings (such as canteens) …</p><p>Report No. 8 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also found at 2.23:</p><p class="italic">Of particular concern, as has been discussed in previous reports, is that the cashless debit card trial would be imposed without an assessment of individuals' suitability for the scheme.</p><p>It also raised at 2.24:</p><p class="italic">As the cashless debit card trial applies to anyone below the age of 35 residing in the trial location who receives the specified social security payments, there are serious doubts as to whether the measures are the least rights restrictive way of achieving the objective. … this concern is heightened insofar as the trial applies not only to persons whose usual place of residence 'is or becomes' within the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, but also applies to a person whose usual place of residence <i>was</i> within the area.</p><p>There were other critiques in that report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights that I won't have time to go through during this contribution, but I do want to go to some of the committee's responses to this proposal.</p><p>The committee raised its opinion that the measures contained in this legislation ' may not be compatible with the right to social security, the rights to privacy and family, and the right to equality and non-discrimination '. The committee also found:</p><p class="italic">The preceding analysis in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 applies in relation to the determinations. That is, broadly, that concerns remain as to whether the cashless debit card trial is effective to achieve its stated objectives and is a proportionate limitation on human rights.</p><p>This is the key here. For members who may not be familiar with the way that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights operates, it assesses legislation and legislative instruments against a whole range of human rights conventions and protocols that Australia is a signatory to. Part of that assessment is forming a judgement as to whether a particular piece of legislation or a particular instrument is rationally connected to those covenants, protocols and conventions that the Australian government has signed up to in the international human rights framework; whether the legislation or instruments are effective to achieve their stated objectives; and, importantly, whether or not they are a proportionate limitation on human rights—that is, is it the least rights-restrictive way of achieving the objective of the legislation or the instrument?</p><p>Finally in relation to that report, it finds:</p><p class="italic">… the determinations may not be compatible with the right to social security, the rights to privacy and family, and the right to equality and nondiscrimination.</p><p>That is a very strong finding from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it's one that ought to resonate in the minds of all senators as they consider their position on this legislation. <i>(Quorum formed)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I just wanted to, as a Queensland senator, make a very brief contribution. I have a meeting of the Privileges Committee starting shortly, so my contribution will be very short.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Tell us where you're really going!</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|