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

I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed:

(a) the Social Security (Administration) (Declared Child Protection State—New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria) Determination 2023 [F2023L01274];

(b) the Social Security (Administration) (Recognised State or Territory—Northern Territory) Determination 2023 [F2023L01273]; and

(c) the Social Security (Administration) (Specified Income Management Territory—Northern Territory) Instrument 2023 [F2023L01269].

Before the last federal election, Labor made a clear commitment to end compulsory income management. They campaigned hard to abolish the cashless debit card and made clear their belief that the BasicsCard should be voluntary. Only one month before the federal election in 2022, Linda Burney, who was then Labor's social services spokesperson, said, 'If people want to be on those sorts of income management, then that's their decision.' The Greens and everyone who had been tirelessly campaigning against compulsory income management since its introduction in 2007 welcomed those words. We were hopeful that the Labor Party would finally take a stand against this harmful and racist system. We never imagined exactly how cynical the approach would prove to be.

Instead of abolishing compulsory income management as promised, Labor rebranded and expanded it. They took all the punitive and discriminatory elements of the cashless debit card and relaunched it as the SmartCard regime, which is a sneaky and insidious framework that significantly expands the minister's powers to roll out compulsory income management in new areas. Labor also broke their promise to make the BasicsCard voluntary. Instead, they told people on the card that they had two options: they could stay put or they could move to the SmartCard, effectively trapping over 20,000 people under compulsory income management.

Since the introduction of the SmartCard regime, Labor has tabled a series of legislative instruments that seek to perpetuate the punitive system of compulsory income management. To date, the Greens have moved to disallow the majority of these instruments. Unsurprisingly, Labor and Liberal have joined together to vote our disallowance motions down. Today we are moving to disallow three more legislative instruments that Labor introduced last year. These instruments are the 'declared child protection state' determination, the 'recognised state or territory—Northern Territory' determination and the 'specified income management territory—Northern Territory' instrument. These instruments enable the income management, or BasicsCard, regime to continue to operate until 1 July 2026.

Under this regime, certain groups of people on social security payments can be forcibly placed on the BasicsCard and have 50 to 70 per cent of their income quarantined. This can happen to you if you live in a certain area and you've been on a social security payment for over a year, you're a young person on income support for an extended period or you're assessed as 'vulnerable' due to experiencing things like financial hardship, domestic violence or being at risk of homelessness. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who's on income support. Every single person on income support who is renting is at risk of homelessness. This means that this BasicsCard, this compulsory income management, can be rolled out on a whim to actively suppress these people, through no fault of their own, just because they are at risk of homelessness. You can also be placed on the BasicsCard and have your income support payments forcibly quarantined if a child protection worker says that that should be the case—or, if you live in the Northern Territory, the Department of Health refers you to the program. The system is horrifying. It's paternalistic. It's something from a dystopian novel, and it is also the reality of tens of thousands of people—the overwhelming majority of whom are First Nations people who live in the Northern Territory.

The BasicsCard was one of the many racist and discriminatory policies the Howard government introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory intervention. This regime was expanded by Labor in 2010 to a wider cohort of income support recipients. As of December, the Department of Social Services estimates there are over 21,000 people with an active BasicsCard and over 8,000 people on the SmartCard regime. Around 90 per cent of the people in each regime live in the Northern Territory, and around 80 per cent of those in the Northern Territory on the SmartCard are First Nations peoples. Of the people in the Northern Territory, approximately only two per cent have volunteered to be on the SmartCard and about eight per cent of people have volunteered to be on the BasicsCard. I note that in other states where income management is in effect the rates of voluntary income management are proportionally higher. But the fact remains: for the vast majority of people with a SmartCard or a BasicsCard, their autonomy is completely removed. Compulsory income management doesn't work. That's why this is so serious. If it worked, you'd think there might be an argument for it. But it doesn't work. It is paternalism on steroids.

For nearly two decades, since the introduction of the BasicsCard, we've heard evidence from First Nations people, parliamentary inquiries, the Australian Human Rights Commission, researchers and community organisations about the failures of compulsory income management as a tool for alleviating poverty, addiction and other social issues. We've heard time and time again how these disproportionally impact First Nations peoples and violate human rights. This long history of evidence was reinforced by the recent Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report on the review of these legislative instruments on income management. This review examined six legislative instruments made by the Labor government—the three we are seeking to disallow today, the two we attempted to disallow last year and, finally, the volunteers determination. Overwhelmingly, the committee heard evidence that compulsory income management should be abolished and that these regimes are ineffective and incompatible with human rights.

The Central Land Council wrote in their submission:

… while Indigenous poverty rates are decreasing (albeit to a small degree) across most parts of the country, in remote NT and the West Kimberly, they are escalating—significantly. In these regions, poverty rates are more than 50 per cent, and in some cases, much higher. This level of poverty is unparalleled elsewhere in Australia and evidence of serious policy failure—and income management is a wholly inadequate policy to address it.

…   …   …

Genuine efforts to address the poverty crisis in remote NT will focus on policy measures that are preventative, strengths-based and systemic—designed with Aboriginal people and their representative organisations, consistent with the commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

Mr Christopher Arnott, director of First Nations owned and operated think tank the Kulila Research and Advocacy Institute, told the committee:

If you put someone on income management because they're suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction, then taking away the ability to access cash isn't going to fix the problem, because addiction is a medical issue … You can't just remove cash and not expect people to find other means. You're not addressing the problem. You're not going to treat anyone. If you go to a doctor to deal with a medical condition—you can't just take away one component and not treat the underlying cause.

Mrs Leeann Ramsamy, the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, noted:

When we put a blanket over things and we make it mandatory, that's when we start to breach people's human rights around managing their own money. Even if it is unemployment, it's still part of their economy while they're unemployed.

  …   …   …

Income management should be a choice. Someone may opt in and may find it very beneficial, but we can't say that that's going to be the majority. Legislation cannot decide what's best for the majority of women. Not all women and not all families need their income managed.

Charmaine Crowe from the Australian Council of Social Service told the committee:

So the compulsory income management policy that is operating in the Northern Territory and in a select few other areas essentially discriminates against people on the basis of where they live and the difficulties they may have in securing a job. That's essentially what you're doing. As has been—for quite some time now—found, it doesn't do anything to increase people's chances of getting paid work. Therefore, why are we subjecting people who are long-term unemployed to this very stigmatising and paternalistic policy that, particularly now—but it has always done so—grossly discriminates against First Nations people?

Not only did evidence at this inquiry reinforce years of proof showing that compulsory income management doesn't work, but it also exposed the complete inadequacy and unsuitability of the legislative instruments underpinning Labor's Enhanced Income Management regime. Despite the fact that we heard from a range of organisations and people across various sectors—including the Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service, Economic Justice Australia, the Accountable Income Management Network and the Australian Council of Social Service—an overwhelming majority of inquiry participants told the committee that they had not been consulted on the legislative instruments under review. Additionally, many participants raised concerns about the level and type of consultation with First Nations communities.

There were other significant issues that were raised through the inquiry about these legislative instruments. These were the lack of relevant and adequate explanatory material, which restricts the parliament's and the public's ability to properly scrutinise their impact, and the failure to address years of documented human rights concerns that have been raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It's clear that, in developing these legislative instruments, the Labor government had no regard for transparency, human rights or working in partnership with First Nations communities. It's completely astounding, given this and with the evidence being so strongly against compulsory income management, that the Labor government has tabled these instruments in the first place. However, sadly, they will most likely vote down this disallowance motion today.

So, Labor, what did happen to your promise to leave no-one behind and hold no-one back? Poverty is a political choice, and since coming into government Labor has consistently made choice after choice to keep people in poverty, by maintaining this racist and discriminatory policy of compulsory income management, despite pledging otherwise before the election, and by refusing to listen to the calls of unemployed advocates, social service organisations and Labor's very own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to substantially raise the rate of income support, instead opting for piecemeal changes that keep people on income support well below the poverty line. Labor continues to publicly back the punitive system of mutual obligations and the privatised model of human services, despite media report after media report and the harrowing evidence given at the Workforce Australia inquiry, which again exposed just how harmful, largely ineffective and pointless these systems are. Finally, Labor recently left people on income support and everyone earning less than $18,000 a year completely out of their cost-of-living tax cuts measures. Instead of supporting people and providing support to low-income earners, they gave tax cuts to the wealthy—$4,500 a year to everyone earning over $200,000—rather than supporting the people who need it the most.

Labor can't be trusted with our social security system. If they actually cared about supporting people in poverty, and if they listened to people impacted by their policies, they would raise the rate of income support and abolish all forms of compulsory income management. Instead of continuing to spend massive amounts of taxpayers' money on this compulsory income management scheme, you can substantially invest in services that genuinely support people who are living in poverty and who potentially face addiction issues—things like affordable housing, making health care more accessible and properly investing in financial counselling services and First Nations controlled community organisations. The evidence is clear. Compulsory income management doesn't work. Rather, it is a punitive and harmful regime that disproportionately targets First Nations peoples.

I want to end by saying that there is a glimmer of a hope for change. Today in the report that I have just tabled into the extent and impact of poverty in Australia, Labor senators have agreed with a recommendation to the government to continue to reform income management with a view to replacing compulsory income with voluntary models that empower families and communities. So I call on Labor to urgently make that commitment a reality and to end compulsory income management as soon as possible. But, until Labor does that—and sadly I think it's probably going to take some time—and until Labor comes to parliament with a bill that introduces genuine, voluntary income management, the Greens will not stop fighting until all compulsory income management is abolished. We will continue to disallow every instrument that locks in compulsory income management that comes before us in this place. We won't allow the government to continue to force people on these punitive and damaging programs. We will continue to disrupt any attempt by Labor to push through unsuitable, harmful and inadequate instruments that continue compulsory income management. We will keep fighting until our social security actually supports the people who need it most.