Michael Sukkar MP

Second Reading: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023

Before the 90-second statements, I moved the amendment circulated in my name. In those amendments, I made clear that while not declining to give this bill a second reading, it sadly needs to be seen in the context of the absolute disaster that has fallen on vulnerable communities throughout this country as a result of the ideological position that this government has taken with respect to abolishing the compulsory cashless debit card.

We have seen clear, irrefutable evidence, just as recently as on the weekend. South Australian police statistics show that since the compulsory nature of the cashless debit card was abolished by the Labor government in Ceduna, crime has doubled. Crime has doubled in that time. In a debate not too dissimilar to this last year, when the government applauded themselves when they abolished the cashless debit card, we on this side were very clear with the government that the human misery that would follow the abolition of the cashless debit card was not theoretical; it wasn’t asked making a political point. I pleaded with the government: ‘Do not 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.’ You don’t have to be Einstein or have a PhD and you don’t need to sit at the dinner parties that those members of the government sit at with their high-minded discussions to know that if you allow vulnerable communities to be flooded with more drugs and alcohol, the dysfunction in those communities will go through the roof. You don’t need to be a genius to work that out, and yet the government went ahead with it anyway. Now we see the statistics don’t lie. The South Australia Police statistics show crime out of Ceduna has doubled.

I was in a meeting this morning, in fact, with community members and community leaders from the Goldfields and Kimberley regions of Western Australia, which had compulsory cashless debit cards previously. We had the member for Grey there as well and all of the members that represent cashless debit card sites. It was story after story that just confirmed the statistics—that towns, such as with Ceduna, that had seen a resurgence in tourism and had been seeing great harmony since the cashless debit card was put in place are now seeing that absolutely degenerate.

I always make this point in this debate. This is the heartbreaking thing. It really is. I’m not known in this House for my sentimentality. I’m not known for my sentimentality generally. But I must say that the things that do tug on my heartstrings as a father and as a husband are when I see the outcomes of this decision of the government leading to women and children suffering. I always make this point. I think I am a bit more generous to the government than they are to the opposition. I always make the point that no-one in this chamber wants to see people suffer. So it beggars belief that the government would put in place a policy that they know with certainty will lead to women and children suffering. More drugs and alcohol flooding into these communities hurts women and children the most.

Today, in our meeting with community leaders, including Indigenous leaders, from the Goldfields region of Western Australia, one remarked on how now they are seeing children coming to school again having not eaten, with there being no food at home. They’re relying more and more on the school system to try and help them through, whereas when the cashless debit card was in place a huge improvement had been seen because welfare recipients who were subject to the cashless debit card in a compulsory fashion were forced to use 80 per cent of their welfare for staple, everyday goods you would find at a supermarket. They could not go and spend it at the bottle shop. They couldn’t go and spend it at the pub. Now we see that money being spent at the bottle shop and the pub. How could anyone in good conscience go ahead with that policy? If you’ve got a brain, you would know that more drugs and alcohol are going to have that consequence. We now see the human misery and the suffering that has resulted from it.

This is a very narrow bill in that it helps transition people from old BasicsCard technology, effectively—those who were on the compulsory BasicsCard in the Northern Territory—to the updated technology that was the CDC technology. Those opposite criticised the former government for the cashless debit card and yet now are utilising the cashless debit card technology that we had in place on a compulsory basis. They have now turned it voluntary. They are now transitioning everybody in the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard to that cashless debit card, the technology of which we developed.

On the one hand, we are so utterly appalled by what the government has done here on the CDC that at first inclination we would say: ‘Don’t support anything the government does in this space. They have so tarnished themselves, they have so tarnished these communities, that we shouldn’t support anything they do in the cashless debit card space.’ But, if we were to take that position, we would deny people on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory the better functionality of the cashless debit card, which was the card that we had in place and was the card that the opposition at the time criticised and said was terrible. Now they’re using our technology in the transition for those who are on compulsory income management in the Northern Territory. Above my deep disgust, to be frank, of what the government has done here, we will place their interests above that deep disgust that we feel and, subject to my amendments, which I’ve circulated, we will not deny those recipients of the updated card.

It’s worth mentioning a couple of things in relation to the so-called SmartCard. The SmartCard is a rebranded cashless debit card—that’s 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 card, a card which has cost $217 million. As the Traditional Credit Union explains to its cardholders, ‘The differences between the CDC and the new SmartCard are’—hold your breath—’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 do that? Why would you spend $217 million to take the technology that was already there and that was developed by the coalition, rename it something else—the SmartCard—but then only change the colour and the name?

The CDC, which was in place and criticised by the government when in opposition, is now the technology which underpins the so-called SmartCard, which has cost $217 million in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Someone has done pretty well out of it. Some consultant has made a whole lot of money out of renaming it from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard and updating the colour. Let’s see what that contract looks like.

But, notwithstanding that absolutely appalling disregard for taxpayers’ money, at least those who are on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory will now get access to the updated technology that the coalition developed with the cashless debit card. In that respect, we will not stand in the way. What we also won’t do is speak down to these communities. The Prime Minister was flailing around for an answer in question time. Detail is not his strong suit, as we all know—he’s the person who couldn’t name the cash rate or the unemployment rate on the first day of the election, which I think says it all about his ability to master detail.

What we won’t do is speak down to those communities. You’ve got a delegation of people from cashless debit card sites—community leaders and Indigenous leaders—saying: ‘Reinstate the cashless debit card. We are suffering the consequences of this decision from the government. Please reinstate the card and, at the very least, help us deal with the dysfunction, the violence and the alcoholism that we’re now seeing.’ Sadly, what we’ve seen from those opposite—from the minister, from the assistant minister, from the Prime Minister—is this talking down to communities rather than listening to them. At a time when we’re talking a lot about the Voice and people’s voices, you’ve got to listen to people’s voices in these communities who are suffering.

So I was very disappointed when I saw speaking to the ABC Goldfields on 15 February the assistant social services minister basically say communities were being disingenuous in their criticism of the government repealing the CDC. I sincerely hope the government has walked those statements back. I wouldn’t want to be out there as a minister criticising those who are on the front line, mopping up the mess that’s been created by this government—and I mean literally mopping up. I mean carrying drunken people who are in the street and helping them find safety. I mean the emergency services and the police who are there to mop up the increased violence, including violence against women and children—things that we are seeing borne out in official South Australian police statistics.

These aren’t my statistics. Sure, when the government abolished the cashless debit card, I said in this chamber that human misery would follow. But the government had at least the argument to say, ‘Well, that’s just your assertion, Shadow Minister. You don’t know that for sure.’ Even though, again, you don’t need to be a particular genius to work out that more drugs and alcohol in vulnerable communities will lead to that, they at least had that very flimsy ground to stand on. Now they have none of that, because it is not my assertion anymore; these are the official police statistics. Crime has doubled in Ceduna—what does the government not understand about that—since you abolished the cashless debit card. It’s not up by 10 per cent, not up by 20 per cent; it has doubled.

Again I appeal to the good people in the Labor Party. There’s an off-ramp you here, and I think the Australian people give you more credit, even as a government, when you admit mistakes. Walk back from this catastrophic error. As I said to the social services minister across the chamber, and I’ll say it on Hansard, if the government reverses its decision to abolish the compulsory cashless debit card in each of the sites, I will be the first person to march into this chamber, seek the call from the Speaker and unreservedly congratulate the social services minister, the assistant minister and the Prime Minister on at least admitting they made a catastrophic error. Every government makes mistakes; the test of a good government is when you recognise the cost of that mistake is too great. I wouldn’t want to be going home at night and putting my head on the pillow knowing a decision taken by this government is leading to more crime, including violent crime, in vulnerable communities.

I can’t say it strongly enough: this pig-headedness, letting politics get in the way, is quite frankly the worst thing about politics in this country—this pig-headed decision to just ride it out, ‘Don’t worry about people that suffer along the way, because we don’t want to suffer the embarrassment or indignity of admitting we made the wrong call.’ Well, I can commit today that I will not come to this dispatch box to crow, and say: ‘You should have listened to us from day one; we had it right. You didn’t need to be a genius to know that more drugs and alcohol into these communities were going to increase crime and make women and children suffer more.’ I won’t say any of that. I will, unreservedly, congratulate the government for admitting its error. I think we would all walk away from here feeling: ‘Do you know what? There are a few women and children who are a bit safer tonight because there are fewer drugs and less alcohol in these vulnerable communities.’ Let’s be frank: that’s what we’re talking about today.

There is a range of other problems here. The government doesn’t know, or just won’t say—we’re not really sure—when the transition will commence. So we won’t stand in the way of this bill; our support will be the thing that allows it to pass the parliament. But, to be frank, I don’t think it’s likely that the crossbench, and certainly the Greens political party, will support this. So our support is crucial to ensure that this happens, and I think that the least the government could do is commit to when it will commence. Last year, the government’s regulation impact statement said that current income management participants will continue to use the BasicsCard and move to a new card with enhanced functionality from 1 July 2023. Has the minister repeated this time line since, I might ask the House? No, the minister has not repeated that declaration, that this will take place from 1 July 2023. In fact, the EM to the bill omits any firm time lines altogether.

Instead, without the aid of a new regulatory impact statement, members are being to asked to vote on a vague commencement date outlined in the bill’s EM. The minister has not bothered to tell the parliament—much less some of the most vulnerable Australians who will be affected by this decision—when the transition will commence. The minister will need to explain—or the assistant minister, as the case may be—why 1 July 2023 is no longer the government’s stated transition date. When did the government know that this would no longer be the transition date? Why are they treating Australians with contempt by not even outlining what the transition date will be? They took this abominable policy to an election and they’ve now been in government for 10 months. They committed to a 1 July 2023 transition date and yet we don’t know anything about that.

I will restate our position. I have moved the amendment circulated in my name. It won’t stop the progress of this bill, as far as the opposition is concerned. I want to hear from the minister who speaks on this bill about when the transition date will be. Whilst we aren’t going to stand in the way of the bill, the least the government could do is outline to us, if not to the Australian people, when the transition date is—not a fluffy time line and not a range, but a date. When will this transition occur, particularly for those who are on the BasicsCard, who will be able to get the increased functionality of the coalition’s cashless debit card, which is now being rebranded at a cost of $217 million? It’s getting a new colour and a new name, rebranded by the government.

Finally, I will say again: I appeal to the government: it’s not too late to reinstate the compulsory nature of the CDC in each of the sites where it was working exceptionally well. If they don’t believe me, believe the community representatives from the Goldfields, or the Kimberley, or Ceduna or other parts of Australia who have seen a tsunami of drugs and alcohol causing huge crime problems in their communities. And it’s not some sort of fluffy time frame. Since the card was abolished, we’ve seen crime statistics double; we’ve seen the number of crimes double. We talk about crime—I use the word ‘crime; I’m as guilty as anyone of just using the anodyne word ‘crime’. Well, what is crime? What are the crimes we’re talking about? We’re talking about public disorder, crimes against property, whether that be a broken window or a fight in the street. But we’re also talking about horrific, violent crime. We’re also talking about domestic violence, quite frankly. We’re talking about neglect of children. And, if these things don’t tug the heartstrings of the hardest person in this House, I don’t know what can.

So I appeal to the government one last time. We will facilitate in any way, shape or form the government reinstating the compulsory cashless debit card to help the communities who are now seeing a tsunami of crime and of drugs and alcohol into their towns, who are grappling with that. We will facilitate in any way you admitting that you’ve made a catastrophic error, and I will commend you for walking it back. I will commend you for admitting that error. I think, in the end, politically, Australians will give credit to a government who admits they have made a catastrophic decision that has led to a disaster for these communities, and particularly a disaster for women and children.

So I will restate it: we won’t be opposing this bill. We won’t be opposing particularly people in the Northern Territory who are on compulsory income management, the BasicsCard, from getting access to the better functionality that the government has adopted and rebranded for these purposes. But it in no way means that we walk away from our vehement opposition of this ideological and destructive decision by the government to abolish the compulsory cashless debit card.

Please click here for a PDF copy of the Hansard extract for this speech.