The short time frames for this inquiry
The Australian Greens thank all those who have provided submissions and testimony to the committee’s inquiry, in particular people who have difficult personal accounts of the challenges and barriers they faced under the cashless debit card (CDC).
We recognise the short time frames for the inquiry have imposed significant barriers to many witnesses, and that many individuals who have suffered under the CDC were not able to share their stories.
As the Australian Income Management Network (AIMN) set out in their submission:
We note with concern that the very short submission turnaround for this inquiry will negatively impact upon the Committee’s ability to hear from individuals subject to CIM under the Cashless Debit Card and BasicsCard, as well as advocacy groups and organisations engaging in front-line work with CIM participants. This issue will likely disproportionately affect Aboriginal community-controlled organisations and community legal services which, while engaging in the majority of client-facing work with CIM participants, are significantly under-resourced to carry out this work and engage in vital advocacy on behalf of their respective client bases.
Greens opposition to compulsory income management
The Australian Greens believe that a socially just, democratic and sustainable society rests on the provision of an unconditional livable income, complemented by the provision of universal social services.
That principled approach is reflected in consistent opposition to the cashless debit card (CDC), and more broadly in consistent opposition to all compulsory income management.
As Australian Greens Senator Rachel Siewert wrote in a dissenting report to the Community Affairs inquiry into the first CDC bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015:
Despite claims by the Government the proposed debit card is an extension of Income Management. Compulsory Income Management is a failed measure, which impacts negatively on the community and imposes significant costs on Government. Evidence provided through submissions and oral evidence to this inquiry show the fundamental problems in this approach.
Compulsory income management has consistently failed to benefit those it is imposed on
Even when the CDC was introduced, it was clear that compulsory income management was a failed and harmful approach. As the Australian Greens’ 2015 dissenting report summarised:
… there is no clear evidence that compulsory income management works, or improves the lives of those it affects.
1.8A recent note by the Parliamentary Library found that 'The evaluation reports published to date have not provided strong evidence of benefit for those referred under the "membership of a class" measures', which would apply under this regime.
1.9A submission to the inquiry by academic Eva Cox concluded that:
Despite denials by the government, the evidence is that a universally applied limited access to cash does not restrict access to alcohol and drugs. The percentage differences are not likely to make much difference, nor the Bank versus Centrelink delivery...there is no valid evidence that the income management program, in its various forms, has improved the alcohol and related problems in the range of communities in the NT where it has been applied.
1.10One of the most extensive evaluations of income management is the evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory, commissioned by the then FaHCSIA. The report was completed by experts from the Social Policy Research Centre at UNSW, the Australian National University and the Australian Institute of Family Studies, over several years.
1.11 The final report, building on extensive research, concluded:
The evaluation could not find any substantive evidence of the program having significant changes relative to its key policy objectives, including changing people's behaviours ... The evaluation data does not provide evidence of income management having improved the outcomes that it was intending to have an impact upon ....
1.12 In oral evidence to the committee, one of the authors of that report confirmed the findings and relevance of that report:
...the evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory is very relevant to this particular trial. The measures are very, very similar in how they operate. There are some differences, but I think on balance the substance of the measures is very similar. It is basically putting some limitations on how some people can use some of their funds. Turning to what we found in the evaluation of new income management, the first was effectively that the program did not achieve its goals. It did not change behaviours and it did not improve outcomes.
Since that time, the evidence has mounted that despite minor differences in delivery, CDC is the same failed and harmful policy approach as other forms of compulsory income management, driven by ideology rather than informed by the evidence.
As the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) noted in its most recent report on the CDC, the Department of Social Services’s ‘approach to monitoring and evaluation was inadequate’.
Bundaberg Mayor Jack Dempsey commented on its application in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay:
It is a federal policy initiative and, at the beginning, on a personal level I was prepared to see it work because it was given with a great deal of promises. We know it didn't work. The University of Adelaide and the Australian National Audit Office have told us that. Four years ago I publicly opposed the card for the first time and I remain opposed. If the card worked, the former government would have introduced it across the whole of Australia. They had plenty of time to do that.
Bundaberg is not the only community in Australia which suffers significant social disadvantage but we are the only majority non-Indigenous community which has the cashless debit card. The card not only stigmatises individuals, it is divisive and it denigrates our region. Instead of discriminating against people on welfare, we need programs that provide skills and boost economic development.
As the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) summarised in its submission:
There is no credible or conclusive evidence that these policies have delivered better outcomes for individuals or their communities. Instead, cashless debit and income management are paternalistic policies that restrict basic human rights.
Similarly, the St Vincent de Paul Society noted that:
The Society reiterates its long-held policy position that the card should be scrapped because it is discriminatory, punitive, costly and ineffective. It has not produced significant, long-term reductions in the use of habitual alcohol, gambling or illicit drugs or improvements in participants’ budgeting strategies or socially responsible behaviour.
Beyond the lack of clear benefits from the CDC, much of the research indicates that compulsory income management can have a negative impact. As academic Dr Elise Klein summarised:
… research published by the ARC Centre of Excellence; the Life Course Centre, examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, and showed a correlation with negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. The research implications are significant and draws attention to several possible explanations for the reduction of birth weight, including how income management increased stress on mothers, disrupted existing financial arrangements within the household, and created confusion as to how to access funds.
Human rights impact
As outlined by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the CDC inappropriately limits human rights:
As stated in our previous submissions, in terms of the limitations it placed on human rights, the application of the CDC has not been shown to have been reasonable, necessary and proportionate, nor has the evidence demonstrated that the trials of the CDC were warranted.
Similarly, the Antipoverty Centre noted:
It seems Australian governments have gone out of their way to use the welfare system to perpetrate human rights violations, and compulsory income control is one of the most violent examples. These programs violate economic, social and cultural rights and undermine the right to self-determination, no matter what form they take; no matter who they are or aren’t applied to. They are a form of collective punishment. Continuing such programs is a continuation of the Australian government’s failure to uphold its international obligations. Welfare recipients must have their agency respected. The need for income support must not come at the expense of giving up control over their own lives and finances. You cannot collectively forfeit rights. Even one person having compulsory income control imposed on them is a violation of their rights, no matter what the majority says … Imposing any income control program at the community level, regardless of whether the community has chosen to adopt the program, inherently means there are individuals who will be forced on to it. That is a violation of the rights of any person subjected to it.
The Intervention Rollback Action Group similarly noted in their submission:
The Parliamentary Joint Committee in 2016 reviewed some aspects of the Stronger Futures legislation including income management. It found:
income management to be an intrusive measure that robs individuals of their autonomy and dignity and involves a significant interference into a person's private and family life.
the provisions operate inflexibly raising the risk that people who do not need assistance managing their budget will be caught up in the regime. This concern is heightened by the exemptions process which appears to discriminate in effect against Indigenous Australians.
given the disparate impact on Indigenous people, the measures may be viewed as racially based differential treatment within the meaning of article 1 of the ICERD.
Lived experience
The inquiry heard powerful evidence of the devastating impacts that the CDC, and compulsory income management more broadly, have had on people on whom it was imposed. As Kerryn Griffis stated in her submission to the inquiry:
The issues I have had with the Indue Cashless Debit card have had a massively negative impact on mine and my daughters lives. Over the 3 years or so that I’ve been a forced trial participant I have had numerous issues, so many that it is difficult for me to remember all of them so I will cover the main ones in this letter. Overall I found the experience to be degrading, dehumanising, stigmatising and traumatic with devastating affects on my mental health and that of my eldest 2 daughters as well.
Similarly, Bianca Chatfield shared her experience:
When I lived in Brisbane, I actually rang up and put myself forward for the exit program. Wanting to do it over the phone, they told me it'd take three to four months. I waited about four to five months before I contacted them back and said, 'What's going on with my exit application?' when I was rudely informed that the whole process had changed. They'd have to do all of this paperwork and get school record histories for my children, which was impossible for me because I was in Sydney and not Queensland, and I couldn't travel because of my injuries. So that really was not a feasible option for me.
The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children shared stories collected from a number of people forced to live under the CDC:
I survive on cash, everything I own is from garage sales or op shops. Most of my food comes from the farmers market or roadside stalls. I cannot afford to buy new things from shops, nor can I afford a lot of store-bought items. I’m not alone it’s the only way single mothers can afford to live and feed their children on what is the lowest paid yet most important job …
I am coming from a background of domestic violence where my finances were controlled within an inch of my life and my children's life, I know very well how to budget and don't need this card to reminded me of my most horrific situations that I was put through. It very demeaning and corrosive card …
In the 3 years I've been subjected to this lunacy, the CDC has 1) attempted to prevent me from accessing a private speech therapist in my community. 2) prevented me from using my tax return to buy my son a bedroom suite. 3) put a bunch of people with no mental health, disability, or domestic violence skills in charge of my financial situation in an arbitrary manner. When my ex-husband treated me this way, the family court called it financial control …
As a newly single mother this card only added to my stress and accelerated my mental health issues. Previously never having relied upon welfare payments. The experience was degrading, frustrating, humiliating, and stressful. A single parent for a period of time trying to overcome a domestic violence situation where my finances were controlled within an inch of mine and my children's life. This card brings back terrible horrific memories. This Cashless Welfare card is demeaning, corrosive and controlling mechanism and is a huge failure on this governments understanding of human beings on social welfare …
Barbara Shaw testified to the committee that she had lived under compulsory income management for over a decade:
I've lived under income management for the last 15 years. I think voluntary income management should have been made a choice for our people living under the Intervention. There's not a whole lot of evidence that compulsory income management has helped our people in the Northern Territory, especially with the high cost of living in remote areas, let alone the movement of Aboriginal people in and out of communities to major town centres to access services that are not out there for our people. I support the cashless debit card being abolished, but the government also needs to go further and abolish all forms of compulsory income management. It should be made voluntary or case by case.
I've got a fair few stories to say. A few senators up here already know my situation and know how I feel about income management, the Intervention and the cashless debit card. We welcome the abolition of the cashless debit card because we believe that it's a waste of time and it's a waste of taxpayers' money, because it actually hasn't stopped domestic violence and it hasn't stopped antisocial behaviour. People claim that the Intervention was good for us. It was supposed to stop all of that, but it hasn't. We know that, when it comes to domestic violence, there's a circle of violence, plus there are forms of violence. One of the main factors of domestic violence is, in fact, financial abuse, and that's the biggest cause of domestic violence.
A disproportionate impact on First Nations peoples
The CDC, in its design and implementation, disproportionately impacts First Nations individuals and communities.
As Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT) wrote in their submission:
APO NT asserts that compulsory income management is a vehicle for disempowerment, and perpetuates stigmatisation of Aboriginal people, ‘rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare’.
Moreover, compulsory income management contradicts the Australian and NT governments’ commitments through the National Agreement on Closing the Gap which undertakes that:
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must play an integral part in the making of the decisions that affect their lives – this is critical to closing the gap.” Specifically, continued income management, in its current form, breaches the Australian Government’s existing commitment to Priority Reform 3: to systemically and structurally transform mainstream government organisations to improve accountability, and to respond to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed concern about the discrimination faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and has recommended that Australia “maintain only opt-in” forms of social security quarantining. Additionally, the Australian Human Rights Commission has also raised concerns about the compulsory CDC trials being inconsistent with the Commonwealth, Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
APO NT supports the ALPA FoodCard as an example of alternative, voluntary income management. Importantly this was co-designed with local people, accessible for anyone (employed or on income support) to opt-in and chose how much money to allocate to the card.
As ACOSS noted in their submission:
Both policies [cashless debit and income management] discriminate against First Nations people as well as people who are unemployed, single parents and people with disability.
In their evidence to the Committee, Change the Record outlined how:
Colonisation and the dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Country has taken many forms - including theft of land and resources, exploitation of labour, and theft and quarantining of wages and welfare payments. These injustices have caused First Nations peoples to experience persistent economic inequality to this day, and their legacy continues to shape Australia’s welfare and social security system.
Compulsory income management is a stark example of the type of discriminatory, coercive and top-down decision-making that has caused very real harm to First Nations individuals and communities. We welcome the decision to abolish it.
AIMN similarly noted that:
CIM [compulsory income management] in Australia was initially introduced in 2007 to specifically target remote Aboriginal communities as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (the Intervention). This decision garnered significant concern regarding its impacts on human rights and due to its initial implementation via the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. While the reach of CIM has since expanded to capture non-Indigenous people and has spread outside the Northern Territory, Aboriginal people continue to be disproportionately targeted by these punitive and paternalistic measures. The introduction of CIM under the Intervention and its extension via New Income Management and later Place Based Income Management has enjoyed bipartisan support, and crucially has laid the foundation for a political consensus on punitive welfare quarantining as representing a legitimate policy initiative in Australia.
…
The failures of the CDC are consistent with the aforementioned longer standing concerns about CIM under the BasicsCard, which disproportionately targets Indigenous communities and has had demonstrated detrimental impacts on child and family wellbeing.
The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit testified that:
Compulsory income management undermines self-determination for our people. It is a mechanism by which Aboriginal people and communities are further disempowered, particularly given the ongoing impacts of the Northern Territory Intervention. Repeal the cashless debit card. Make sure individuals who transition from income management are assisted through culturally appropriate, community led wraparound services—particularly given the many barriers, including language and education.
Similarly, the Antipoverty Centre outlined in their submission:
Compulsory income control is a failed experiment. Tens of thousands of First Nations people have been subjected to it over more than a decade now. It is a brutal continuation of the colonial violence that dates back to invasion and every politician who has voted for it should feel shame.
Similarly, Per Capita outlined:
The current Cashless Debit Card is the most recent iteration of compulsory income management, which was first rolled out in First Nations communities in 2007 as part of the racist Northern Territory Intervention.
As Dr John Paterson outlined in his evidence to the inquiry, many of the public justifications for compulsory income management have relied on inaccurate and harmful public portrayals of First Nations people:
This is what happened as a result of the intervention in the Northern Territory all those years ago. I was right there at the forefront, being labelled as a child abuser, as bashing my wife. Us Aboriginal men here in the Northern Territory still walk around with that stigma. It causes trauma and stress on us. When you're trying to lead organisations and you're leading your mob, and you've got people out there just casting all these aspersions on you, and labelling you, and you have politicians making all these crazy comments that they can't support with evidence, and you've got to try and live and work with that—I struggle with that.
In addition to the unjust imposition of compulsory income management, witnesses noted the racism inherent in the additional barriers First Nations people face in exiting compulsory income management. Barbara Shaw testified:
In the past, one of my close friends was a student attending CDU here in town, and, because she was on Austudy, she was on Centrelink, and she's not Aboriginal but she lived in this town, she was in compulsory income management. With her being a person of a different race and colour and a student looking for work and not living in a town camp or a remote community, it was easy for her to go to the Centrelink tribunal and get off income management. That's how easy it was for her, whereas, with me—working as a youth worker, living in a prescribed area, living under the income management for 15 years, being on boards or Aboriginal organisations in this town—I was seen as somebody who couldn't manage their own affairs, couldn't put food on the table or keep a roof over my children's heads or clothes on their backs. I was knocked back by the Centrelink tribunal a number of times, because it was the law back then. John Howard and Mal Brough tied the Intervention so tight that you couldn't pass any barriers, and that's why we took the fight against discrimination to the UN.
The lived experience of First Nations people living under the cashless debit card is one part of a broader experience of systemic racism and the continuation of the colonisation of this country. The Australian Greens urge the Government to begin the process of negotiating a Treaty or treaties with First Nations people.
A Treaty, or treaties, between the Traditional Owners of the land – people of the oldest living cultures on earth – and the state that imposed its authority violently upon First Nations people without their consent, has never been negotiated. A Treaty or treaties with First Nations people will, among other things, address the underlying factors that cause under-employment and unemployment for First Nations people living on Country or on homelands rather than being focused on its symptoms.
The forced transition to other forms of compulsory income management
The Australians Greens welcome and strongly support the repeal of the Cashless Debit Card, however we strongly oppose the provisions in the legislation that will enable the Minister to move people from the cashless debit card to other forms of compulsory income management, such as the BasicsCard. In substantive terms, rather than a genuine abolition of compulsory income management, it represents simply shifting people to another form of compulsory income management, with the same punitive impacts and failings.
Given the provisions in the bill that relate to a transition to the BasicsCard, the Australian Greens do not support the proposition put forward in paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9 of the main committee report that the bill only relates to the repeal of the CDC, and that the Committee should refrain from making recommendations on the broader issue of compulsory income management.
As ACOSS outlined in their submission:
While we welcome the abolition of cashless debit, we highlight our strong concern that compulsory income management continues under this bill. Indeed, this bill would increase the number of people subjected to compulsory income management by transferring those on cashless debit in income management sites back to income management …
Prior to the election, the Australian Labor Party made it clear that it opposed mandatory cashless debit and income management … We congratulate the government on this first step of abolishing the cashless debit card and urge them to take the next step to ensure that income management be voluntary only.
APO NT stated in their submission:
APO NT supports repealing the CDC and strongly encourage the Australian Government to abolish all forms of compulsory income management, including the Basics Card. We support options for alternative voluntary income management programs that are consistent with the rights and needs of Aboriginal people in the context of the Northern Territory and have been shown to work.
The Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation advocated for an end to all compulsory income management:
Compulsory Income Management was enforced on Aboriginal people as a key component of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response (NTNER). The targeting of Aboriginal people from remote communities, family outstations and Town Camps was clearly discriminatory. Subsequent steps under later legislation including Stronger Futures NT provided some extension of Compulsory Income Management but it still disproportionately impacts Aboriginal people in the NT.
The implementation of these policies and measures destroyed community led responses to the matters that they aimed to address. These policies were not designed to build capacity in individuals and subsequent withdrawal of investment in services including financial counselling services has undermined the stated intentions of Income Management.
Consultation should not delay the repeal of and abolition of Compulsory Income Management. If the Cashless Debit Card can be repealed with such efficiency, then so too can Compulsory Income Management. The Government possesses sufficient feedback from Aboriginal communities, leaders, individuals, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, Land Councils, NGOs, and Researchers to provide amble evidence about the failure of Compulsory Income Management. No further consultation is required. Unlike the lack of evidence for its implementation there is amble evidence for its repeal.
Similarly, the Traditional Credit Union stated:
As far as the bill is concerned, when we look at this what we see is that it doesn't get rid of broad based mandatory income management; it gets rid of an instrument that has a name to it that we believe is actually a better instrument than the BasicsCard. Once the bill goes through, then everybody who is on the cashless debit card has to go back to the BasicsCard. So they're on mandatory income management. They have to go back to mandatory income management and they have to go back to an instrument, being the BasicsCard, that is not as good as the cashless debit card. The bill doesn't actually achieve anything, as far as we're concerned, with moving away from broad based mandatory income management.
The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA) stated in their evidence:
Whilst ALPA supports the abolishment of the CDC, we believe there is further work to be undertaken in relation to compulsory income management. Compulsory income management was imposed on ALPA's member communities in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. When it was forced upon our communities they were subjected to the discriminatory and false assumptions that they were alcoholics, family violence offenders and problem gamblers.
ALPA believes that regardless of what design an income management program takes, it should always be voluntary and with significant community consultation and involvement. As the community of Milingimbi aptly expressed in their video to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of the Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 inquiry: 'It is time that the government starts working with community and listening to the voice of community. We don't want to be subjected to the policies of income management and want to be part of the conversation about the solution.
The Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS) also argued for abolition of compulsory income management:
… the scope of this bill will mean the continuation of compulsory income management for over 4,000 people in the Northern Territory who are currently on the CDC. These NT residents will be transitioned to income management, joining almost 23,000 Territorians who are currently subject to compulsory quarantining of income support through the BasicsCard. In total, that will mean over 27,000 Territorians, the vast majority of whom are Aboriginal people, will continue to be unfairly targeted and impacted by this failed policy approach. We support the entire repeal of Part 3B, and that's also noted by my colleague and in NAAJA's submission.
AIMN raised the same concern:
While the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill states that a second bill will be put forward in 2022 that will explicitly deal with the program of IM, there is no guarantee that CIM has been ruled out altogether as a policy measure. In practice, this means that a cohort of primarily Aboriginal people may continue to languish on CIM under the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory indefinitely, depending on the outcome of community consultations. It should also be noted that CIM under the BasicsCard operates across other States, though the largest number of participants are located in the Northern Territory.
As the Antipoverty Centre outlined in their submission:
A cynical and manipulative debate about the CDC has already played out by politicians preying on the fears of people who were never at risk of having it imposed, while erasing the depth of harm caused to welfare recipients already in income control programs. This boosted racist tropes, creating a dichotomy between “deserving” welfare recipients on the age pension and the predominantly Indigenous communities who are currently subjected to a collective punishment through these programs. This in turn has contributed to a false perception that it is acceptable to apply different treatment to the two classes of welfare recipients who have their income controlled - those on CDC and those on the BasicsCard.
The Northern Territory Women's Legal Services shared the concern:
The Bill does not rule out the continuation or expansion of Income Management schemes in the NT. Commentary around the Bill has not ruled this out either. We hold concerns around continued Income Management and the next iteration/s of Income Management. In our submission, there is danger that the current uncertainty will cause undue distress for welfare payment recipient, and notably, is not in keeping with the purported intention of the Bill to return autonomy and self-determination to welfare payment recipients.
Similarly, Change the Record stated in their submission:
We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not abolish compulsory income management in all its forms. Instead, the Bill provides that while the CDC will be abolished, ‘classes of persons who exit the CDC program’ in the Northern Territory and Cape York will be forced onto the more restrictive BasicsCard.
Such ‘classes’ will be determined by the Minister by instrument, and could include:
People impacted by child protection systems;
‘Vulnerable welfare payment recipients’;
Young people not in work or education;
People who have received a relevant income support payment for more than a year;
Primary carers of children who are either unenrolled in school or whose children have an ‘unsatisfactory school attendance situation.’
The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum (EM) is unclear on the government’s future plans for people who remain locked in compulsory income management in the Territory and Cape.
Dr Elise Klein noted in her submission:
I am concerned that the Bill will continue other forms of Compulsory Income Management such as the BasicsCard.
This is concerning because peer reviewed research has also shown that Compulsory Income Management also causes more harm than good. For example, research published by the ARC Centre of Excellence; the Life Course Centre, examined compulsory income management in the Northern Territory, and showed a correlation with negative impacts on children, including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance. The research implications are significant and draws attention to several possible explanations for the reduction of birth weight, including how income management increased stress on mothers, disrupted existing financial arrangements within the household, and created confusion as to how to access funds.
…
We have seen how government claims that communities can decide about who goes on and off income management are often used to legitimise the continuation of compulsory income management. Both the CDC and BasicsCard are ideas that were developed and lobbied for by the Australian political and business elite. They never came from the ‘community’. The Northern Territory Emergency Reponses was a heavy handed government intervention which included the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act and the use of the Australian Defence Force to implement. The Cashless Debit Card came about as a key recommendation in mining billionaire Andrew Forrest’s 2014 National Indigenous Jobs and Training Review –he and his Minderoo Foundation have advocated for the continuation and extension of the CDC since. In the case of the Cashless Debit Card, the government also used sweeteners of much needed funding for government starved community services to get ‘community’ agreement. This is despite communities long presenting proposals to support their flourishing including providing appropriate community and Aboriginal-controlled services – both of which have been overlooked.
The need to fund support services
A consistent theme in evidence to the committee was that rather than a failed, punitive approach, communities facing disadvantage need greater support and better access to services. Fundamentally, the CDC and other forms of compulsory income management do not address the underlying structural factors that contribute to disadvantage. As the submission from the Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit noted:
The CDC does not address the root causes of gambling or substance abuse which both have deep-seated structural and historical causes including the impact of inter-generational disadvantage, colonisation and trauma.
As the Australian Human Rights Commission outlined:
The Commission is of the view that the causes of social disadvantage are complex and require policies that take a multidimensional approach in collaboration with the people and communities affected. Investment in community-led solutions aimed at targeting root causes and enhancing cultural protective factors and social and emotional wellbeing have more efficacy and evidenced success in reducing alcohol harms, as well as addressing a range of social and economic issues.
ACOSS provided a clear recommendation that:
… government adequately fund services to support communities, with a focus on community-led services. Funding must also be provided to Aboriginal and social security legal centres to ensure social security rights are upheld.
UnitingCare Australia also outlined the need for greater services and support:
The experience of the extensive UnitingCare Network of service providers is that the most effective way to gain long term sustainable change is to provide individualised, culturally safe, wrap-around supports for as long as is required. These supports should include financial counselling, family counselling, community services and programs that focus on drug and alcohol and domestic and family violence responses.
Similarly, Anglicare Australia argued that:
The estimated $286 million that will be saved as a result of abolishing the card should now be allocated to evidence-based support, including financial and legal assistance, and community services that address the underlying causes of community disadvantage.
While some witnesses argued that the cashless debit card could prevent ‘humbugging’, or stop income support recipients having their income taken by others, others noted that this simply highlighted the need for support services to address the underlying issues.
Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) Deputy Chief Executive Officer Rachel Siewert testified:
If as a society we are funding the appropriate services—particularly you're talking about coercion there, and coercion is an issue that is being considered under the ambit of family and domestic violence—we need to be addressing therefore those fundamental issues around someone being coerced in the way they're managing their money. That again goes back to making sure that we have appropriate services to support user circumstances of a woman to support her to be able to make decisions and to be able to address the coercion and the environment in which she finds herself. I don't believe that should be an excuse to take away her agency in a compulsory way.
Multiple submissions and witnesses specifically highlighted the need for greater funding for legal services.
Economic Justice Australia stated that:
As stressed in the ACOSS and AIMN submissions to this Inquiry, there is a longstanding unmet need for specialist social security legal services in regional, rural, remote and very remote Australia - with the need most pronounced in regions subject to compulsory income management. There are currently no specific funds provided for social security legal help under the National Legal Assistance Partnership, and no specific funds for social security legal help for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, despite the disproportionately high number of First Nations people subject to compulsory income management - a cohort also disproportionately affected by adverse Centrelink decisions, including raising and recovery of social security and family assistance debts.
Similarly, AIMN recommended greater social security legal support:
Immediate arrangements must be put in place for people impacted by the Bill to access social security legal help, both in on the ground in affected areas and provided remotely as required for out-of-area individuals. This is essential to protect the rights and wellbeing of persons affected by income management under the CDC and/or BasicsCard during the transition and going forward.
Government must establish a holistic, permanent approach to the provision of social security legal help. This legal assistance must be ongoing not only in relation to the present Bill but to all social security entitlements, ensuring the rights and wellbeing of people entitled to social security. Social security legal help must be available to people in remote, very remote, rural and regional areas, and services must be trauma informed, culturally safe and co-designed.
The Darwin Community Legal Service advocated for:
… an immediate and substantial injection of funds for non-profit legal services accessible to and appropriate for the intended beneficiaries in the NT– to step up access to justice in relation to social security through social security legal help.
Recommendations
Recommendation
The Australian Greens recommend that the Bill be amended to ensure that it does not enable the continuation of the BasicsCard or any other form of compulsory income management.
Recommendation
The Australian Greens recommend that the Australian Government urgently provide significant additional funding to community and support services, including drug and alcohol services, domestic violence services, legal aid services, financial counselling, and other services.
Recommendation
The Australian Greens recommend that the Australian Government begin the process of negotiating a Treaty or treaties with First Nations people.
Senator Janet Rice
Deputy Chair