Bills Digest No.
62, 2019–20
PDF version [1MB]
Don Arthur
Social Policy Section
Joseph Ayoub
Law and Bills Digest Section
2
December 2019
Contents
Purpose of
the Bill
Commencement
Background
Committee
consideration
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Position of
major interest groups
Financial
implications
Statement of
Compatibility with Human Rights
Key issues
and provisions
Key
provision: expanding the CDC trial to the Cape York area
Key
provision: expanding the CDC trial to the NT
Date introduced: 11
September 2019
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Social
Services
Commencement: various
dates as set out in this Digest.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the Federal
Register of Legislation website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at
December 2019.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 (the Bill) is to amend the Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 (SSA Act) to:
- establish
the Northern Territory (NT) and Cape York area as cashless debit card (CDC)
trial areas and transition income management participants in these areas onto
the cashless debit card trial in 2020
- extend
the end date for existing CDC trial sites from 30 June 2020 to 30 June 2021 and
establish an end date of 30 June 2021 the proposed NT CDC trial site
- establish
an end date for the CDC trial in the Cape York area of 31 December 2021
- remove
the current cap of 15,000 CDC trial participants
- enable
people in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay trial site to volunteer to participate
in the trial
- enable
the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to advise a community body
when a person has exited the CDC trial and
- make
changes to the CDC trial review and evaluation process.
Commencement
The Bill has one Schedule which is divided into three
Parts:
- Sections
1 to 3 commence on Royal Assent.
- Part
1 of Schedule 1 commences on 1 January 2020 if it receives Royal
Assent before then— otherwise it commences the day after Royal Assent.
- Part
2 of Schedule 1 commences on the later of:
- 8
April 2020 and
- the
day after three months from Royal Assent.
- Part
3 of Schedule 1 commences the day after Royal Assent.[1]
Background
Income management and the cashless debit card are both
designed to prevent income support recipients from spending a significant
portion of their payments on potentially harmful goods such as alcohol or
illegal drugs. They do this by blocking access to cash withdrawals and by
blocking transactions involving excluded goods or at merchants that sell
excluded goods.[2]
While both schemes rely on cards provided by payment
company Indue,[3]
they were developed separately and operate in different ways. Some of the
differences in how the systems work are the result of policy decisions while
others are the result of differences in technology.[4]
The Government operates income management and the cashless
debit card in a number of locations around Australia. Of the 24,974 people on
income management as at August 2019, 79 per cent were Indigenous.[5]
The total number of participants currently on the cashless
debit card is smaller. The largest site is the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region
with 5,756 card users followed by the Goldfields region with around 3,352.[6]
One of the changes proposed in this Bill replaces income
management with the cashless debit card in two locations—the Northern Territory
and Cape York. This would leave income management operating at a handful of
small-scale sites around Australia. These are the:
- place-based
income management (PBIM) sites of Logan (Qld), Rockhampton (Qld), Bankstown
(NSW), Greater Shepparton (Vic) and Playford (SA)
- child
protection sites in Western Australia and South Australia, and
- the
APY Lands (SA), Ngaanyatjarra (Ng) Lands (WA) and Kiwirrkurra Community (WA).[7]
It is not clear whether the Government plans to eventually
move these sites to the cashless debit card. However, the Government has
announced plans to use income management in a number of the PBIM sites for its
proposed drug testing trial.[8]
How income management and the
cashless debit card work
While the cashless debit card is a newer scheme, it is not
necessarily more advanced. Its major advantage is that it places less of an
administrative burden on Centrelink and the Department of Human Services.
Income management and the BasicsCard
Income management sets aside a proportion of a recipient’s
income support payment to pay for necessities such as food, clothing, housing
and utilities. Recipients can spend their income-managed funds using a PIN
protected debit card, known as the BasicsCard, or by arranging for Centrelink
to make payments on their behalf (for example, regular rent and utilities
payments).[9]
Payment amounts subject to income management are to be
paid into a person’s income management account. Each person’s income managed
funds are held in an income management account within the Income Management
Record.[10]
Amounts standing to the credit of the income management record may be kept in a
single bank account.[11]
Individuals can transfer funds between their income management account and
their BasicsCard.[12]
The BasicsCard was developed specifically for income
management. It is a PIN protected card that operates on the EFTPOS system. It
replaced an earlier system that relied on vouchers and store cards.[13]
A merchant can only accept BasicsCard if they have signed an agreement and the
Department of Human Services has approved them.[14]
Cashless debit card
The cashless debit card is a Visa debit card issued by
payments company Indue. Cardholders can use their card at any physical store
that accepts Visa debit unless the store has been blocked. Cardholders can also
use the card to make online purchases at approved online merchants.[15]
Each person on the cashless debit card has a bank account
known as a ‘welfare restricted bank account’.[16]
The restricted portion of the person’s income support payments is placed in
this account and the person accesses this amount using the cashless debit card,
direct debit, BPAY or other transfers.[17]
The cashless debit card system works by using merchant
category codes (MCCs) to block certain merchant categories. An MCC is a four
digit code that identifies merchants by the kind of goods or services they
sell.[18]
The system automatically blocks a number of MCCs including those covering
drinking places, packaged liquor stores, gambling venues and ‘quasi cash’.[19]
On its own MCC blocking is too blunt. MCCs are a
longstanding feature of the financial services system and were not designed
around the needs of income management.
One example of the difficulties of relying on MCC blocking
is ‘mixed merchants’. Some MCCs that are not blocked may sell alcohol as well
as other goods and services. These mixed merchants include restaurants,
takeaway food shops, grocery stores and supermarkets. To deal with this problem,
either Indue or the department has to make decisions about whether particular
merchants should be blocked or approved. Merchants that sell excluded goods can
be approved if they agree to have their staff identify customers who are using
the cashless debit card and refuse to put through transactions that include
excluded goods.[20]
The Department of Social Services is currently trialling a
more automated solution to this problem that involves changes at the merchant
side of the transaction.[21]
What differences mean in practice
Some important practical differences between the income
management and cashless debit card schemes are:
- Who
can accept the card. The BasicsCard can only be used at merchants that the
Department of Human Services has approved. The cashless debit card can be used
at any merchant the Department has not blocked (provided it is able to accept
Visa Debit)
- Merchant
responsibilities. All merchants who accept BasicsCard must sign an
agreement not to process transactions for excluded goods such as alcohol or
tobacco. In contrast, most merchants who accept the cashless debit card have no
agreement with either the Department or the card provider[22]
- Face-to-face
assistance with budgeting. When a person is placed on income management
they attend an interview where the person and a Centrelink officer decide how
to allocate the person’s income managed funds. Centrelink can make payments on
the person’s behalf for expenses such as rent with the balance of the person’s
income managed funds being allocated to the BasicsCard.[23]
People placed on the cashless debit card do not receive an interview and are
responsible for setting up their own direct debits, transfers and BPAYs for
rent and other bills.[24]
Both cards prevent income support recipients from
withdrawing cash. Income support recipients receive part of their payment on
their card with the remainder transferred to their bank account in the normal
way.[25]
Because all BasicsCard merchants have to sign an
agreement, it is relatively straightforward for policymakers to add or remove
goods and services from the list of goods and services that are excluded and
instruct merchants to manage BasicsCard transactions accordingly. This is not
the case with the cashless debit card. With the cashless debit card, the major
way of blocking transactions is by blocking entire merchant categories (for
example, ‘package stores—beer, wine and liquor’). For merchants that sell a
mixture of restricted and non-restricted goods (such as a supermarket that
sells food and alcohol) policymakers must identify each merchant and have them
sign an agreement. This means it is not feasible to block goods such as cigarettes
that are sold across a wide range of merchant categories.
While the cashless debit card system is newer than the
income management system, it is not necessarily a superior or more advanced
system. When Andrew Forrest first proposed the cashless debit card in his 2014
review, he argued that income management was ‘unaffordable on a large scale’
and that the cashless debit card would be cheaper to maintain and easier for
Government to administer.[26]
Income management imposes a significant administrative burden
on Centrelink, the Department of Human Services and on merchants. Centrelink
must conduct interviews with clients, the Department of Human Services must
approve merchants, and merchants must police transactions to ensure that the
BasicsCard is not used to purchase excluded goods.
How the schemes are structured and
legislated
Both income management and the cashless debit card are
restricted to particular locations around Australia. Within these locations the
schemes target particular groups of income support recipients. To administer
each of the schemes, policymakers need to identify:
- the
locations where the scheme will operate
- the
income support recipients to which the scheme will apply
- the
payments that will be income managed or placed on the cashless debit card
- the
proportion of the payments that will be income managed or placed on the
cashless debit card.
Policymakers have taken different approaches for
legislating each scheme.
Income management
Income management is structured around ‘measures.’ Each
measure applies to a particular group of income support recipients (for
example, disengaged youth or long-term welfare payment recipients), operates in
particular income management locations, and income manages a particular
percentage of a person’s income support payments.
The measures identify recipients in two steps. First, a
person must be receiving a ‘trigger payment’. Second, people receiving this
trigger payment must also meet a set of criteria that are specific to the
measure (for example, the length of time they have been on payment).
Different income management measures can have different
trigger payments.[27]
The SSA Act groups payments into categories (E, H, I, O, Q, R and S).
These categories are also used to identify the payments that are subject to
income management. The categories are defined at section 123TC of the SSA
Act.
Details for each measure are listed in Table 1 and Table
2 below.
Table 1: existing income management
measures
Income
management measure
(and relevant section of SSA Act) |
Trigger
payment |
Additional
eligibility criteria
(and relevant section of SSA Act) |
Payments
subject to income management (instalments) |
Income
managed % (instalments)
(and relevant section of SSA Act) |
Child protection measure
(section 123UC) |
Category
H
Person or their partner |
Notice
from state/territory child protection officer |
Category
I |
100% (70%)a
(s123XI(3)) |
Vulnerable
(s123UCA) |
Category
H
Person |
Determination
by Secretary
(s123UGA) |
Category
I |
50%
(s123XJA(4)) |
Disengaged youth measure
(s123UCB) |
Category
E
Person |
-
Aged at least 15 and under 25 (s123UCB(1)(b))
- Has received a category E payment for at least 13 of the
previous 26 weeks (s123UCB(1)(g))
- Is not an ‘exempt welfare payment recipient’
(s123UCB(1)(d)c)
|
Category
I |
50%
(s123XJC(4)) |
Long term welfare recipient measure
(s123UCC) |
Category
E
Person |
- Aged at least 25 and pension age (123UCB(b))
- Has received a category E payment for at least 52 of the
previous 104 weeks (s123UCB(g))
- Is not an ‘exempt welfare payment recipient’ (s123UCB(d)c)
|
Category
I |
50%
(s123XJC(4)) |
Queensland Commission
(Cape York)
(s123UF) |
Category
P or R
Person or their partner |
Notice
from the Queensland Commission (Family Responsibilities Commission) (s123UF(1)(b)) (s123UF(2)(c)) |
Category
Q or Category
S |
60, 75, or 90%b
(s123XM(3)) (s123XO(3)) |
Other State/Territory referrals (Supporting People at Risk)
(s123UFAA) |
Category
H
Person or their partner |
Notice
from a recognised state/territory authority (s123UFAA(1)(b)) |
Category
I |
70%
(s123XPAA) |
Voluntary income management
(s123UFA) |
Category
H
Person |
Person
enters into a voluntary income management agreement (s123UM) |
Category
I |
50%d
(s123XPA(3)) |
Source: DSS, Child
Protection Income Management, fact sheet, DSS, [Canberra], 1 June 2019;
DSS, Vulnerable
Welfare Payment Recipient measure of Income Management, fact sheet,
DSS, [Canberra], 4 June 2019; DSS, Long
Term Welfare Payment Recipient and Disengaged Youth measures of Income
Management, fact sheet, DSS, [Canberra], 4 June 2019; DSS, Income
Management for Cape York Welfare Reform and Doomadgee, fact sheet, DSS,
[Canberra], 4 June 2019; DSS, Supporting
People at Risk measure of Income Management, fact sheet, DSS,
[Canberra], 4 June 2019; DSS, Voluntary
Income Management, fact sheet, DSS, [Canberra], 1 June 2019; DSS, ‘11.1.1.50
Trigger payments for income management’, Social Security Guide, DSS
website, last reviewed 11 November 2019; DSS, ‘11.1.1.60
Payments Subject to Income Management’, Social Security Guide, DSS
website, last reviewed 20 September 2018; DSS, ‘11.2.5.10
Category P welfare payment’, Social Security Guide, DSS website,
last reviewed 11 November 2019; DSS, ‘11.2.5.20
Category R welfare payment’, Social Security Guide, DSS website,
last reviewed 11 November 2019; DSS, ‘11.2.5.30
Category Q welfare payment’, Social Security Guide, DSS website,
last reviewed 3 January 2017.
a. Rate in brackets is the rate set by legislative instrument—Social Security
(Administration) (Deductible portion — section 123XI) Specification 2019.
b. This amount is determined by the Secretary (subsections
123XM(3) and 123XO(3)). The Act does not specify a default amount.
c. ‘Exempt welfare payment recipient’ is defined in sections
123UGB, 123UGC, and 123UGD. Section 123UGB allows
the Minister to specify a class of welfare payment recipients as exempt
from income management (see: Social Security
(Administration) (Classes of Exempt Welfare Payment Recipients) Specification
2010). Sections 123UGC and 123UGD allow recipients to seek exemptions from
income management under certain circumstances (see DSS, ’11.1.14.10
Overview of exemptions from income management’, Social Security Guide,
DSS website, last reviewed 11 November 2019).
d. This amount is set by a determination by the Minister: Social Security (Administration)
(Deductible portion — section 123XPA) Specification 2010.
Table 2: locations where income
management measures apply[28]
Source: DSS, Income
management locations, DSS, [Canberra], 19 April 2018.
a. Logan (Qld), Rockhampton (Qld), Bankstown (NSW), Greater
Shepparton (Vic) and Playford (SA).
b. Perth metropolitan (WA), Peel and Kimberley regions (WA),
Greater Adelaide (SA).
Cashless debit card
The administration of the cashless debit card is simpler
than the administration of income management.
The individual cashless debit card trial areas are defined
in section 124PD of the SSA Act. For all of the trial areas except the
Bundaberg and Hervey Bay site, a person is a ‘trial participant’ if:
- they
receive a ‘trigger
payment’,[29]
that is a particular welfare payment that will automatically trigger
participation in the CDC trial and
- their
usual place of residence is, becomes or was within a particular trial area.[30]
In the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area there is an
additional condition—to be a trial participant a person must also be aged under
36 years at the date the area was declared a trial area.[31]
Under the current cashless debit card scheme the default
amount of a person’s payment that is placed on the card is the same for all
participants—80 per cent.[32]
This amount is known as the ‘restricted portion’ of a person’s payment.
History of income management in the
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory Emergency
Response
Income management was first introduced by the Howard
Government as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER). The
NTER was announced in June 2007 as a response to what the Government described
as a crisis of child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. In addition to
income management, the NTER included alcohol restrictions, measures to enforce
school attendance, bans on pornography and a number of other initiatives.[33]
At the time, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal
Brough, likened the NTER to the Australian Government’s response to the
Indonesian tsunami. He spoke about returning communities to normality over a
five year period through a three phase approach of stabilisation, normalisation
and exit.[34]
The Government’s response was triggered by the Little Children
are Sacred report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the
Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.[35]
While the Government’s response to the report’s revelations was swift, the
problems it identified had already been brought to the Government’s attention.
For example, in 2001 the report Violence in Indigenous Communities
(Memmott Report), reported that some communities were struggling with problems
such as ‘male-on-male and female-on-female fighting, child abuse, alcohol
violence, male suicide, pack rape, infant rape, rape of grandmothers,
self-mutilation, spouse assault and homicide.’ The report warned that these
communities should ‘be viewed as in states of dire emergency.’[36]
One of the report’s authors, Paul Memmott, argued that the problem was getting
worse with each generation. ‘It’s very despairing’ he said, ‘because it is like
sitting on a time bomb’.[37]
The Government received the Memmott Report in August 1999
and publicly released it in January 2001.[38]
In August 2003 then Prime Minister John Howard announced a number of measures
aimed at reducing violence in Indigenous communities including Communities in
Crisis, a small program aimed at ‘stabilising communities that are suffering
from an intolerable incidence of alcohol abuse and violence.’[39]
When the NTER was introduced in 2007 it applied to 73
prescribed communities, their associated outstations and the ten town camp regions
of the Northern Territory. In 2008 over 70 per cent of the Northern Territory’s
Indigenous people lived within the prescribed areas.[40]
Income management
The idea of using a card to set aside money for essentials
had been proposed well before planning for the NTER began. For example, in 2003
Acting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) Chairman Lionel
Quartermaine suggested paying income support using a smart card that prevented
recipients from buying alcohol and drugs.[41]
Indigenous leader Noel Pearson supported the proposal, arguing that it could
help ensure that parents used income support money to feed, clothe and care for
their children.[42]
Mr Quartermaine’s proposal was rejected by the then Minister for Indigenous
Affairs, Amanda Vanstone.[43]
At a local level, the Arnhem Land Progress Association
(ALPA) developed a card system as part of a Shared Responsibility Agreement
with the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs (FaHCSIA).[44]
The community was concerned that families were running out of money for food at
the end of each pay cycle. The ALPA FOODcard card was designed as a budgeting
tool that would help families set money aside for food and resist pressures for
non-essential expenditure.[45]
The card was voluntary and could only be used in community
stores. It was able to block purchases at a product level. Because the FOODcard
was part of health and nutrition initiative it was designed to block purchases
of products such as tobacco, soft drinks and unhealthy takeaway food.[46]
When planning to roll out income management as part of the
NTER measures, policymakers improvised a solution using a combination of
existing products and services. These included direct debit, store cards and
the ALPA FOODcard.[47]
In June 2007 then Prime Minister, John Howard, announced
that the Government would be ‘quarantining ... 50 per cent of welfare payments to
stem the flow of cash going towards alcohol and other substance abuse and to
ensure that funds meant to be used for children's welfare are actually used for
that purpose’. He also said that the Cabinet would consider extending income
management ‘in certain circumstances to the wider community where individuals
are abusing their children or failing to fulfil their parental responsibilities.’[48]
The roll-out of income management took place during the
lead up to a Federal election. The Australian Labor Party (Labor) Opposition
promised bipartisan support for the Northern Territory intervention while
seeking some changes. One of these was the Government’s decision to legislate
for an exemption to the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975.[49]
From income management to new
income management
After winning office, Jenny Macklin, the new Minister for
Indigenous Affairs, announced that the Government would immediately begin work
on a compulsory income management scheme that did not require the suspension of
the Racial Discrimination Act.[50]
This meant changes to income management.
The Government commissioned an independent review of the
NTER. The review offered qualified support for income management while
recommending that it only be applied on a case by case basis and to people who
volunteered:
The benefits of income management are being increasingly
experienced. Its compulsory, blanket imposition continues to be resisted, but
the measure is capable of being reformed and improved. People who do not wish
to participate should be free to leave the scheme. It should be available on a
voluntary basis and imposed only as a precise part of child protection measures
or where specified by statute, subject to independent review. In both cases it
should be supported by services to improve financial literacy.[51]
The review recommended that compulsory income management
should only apply on the basis of child protection, school enrolment and
attendance and other relevant behavioural triggers; however, the Government
decided not to take up this recommendation.[52]
The new Government also moved away from its predecessor’s
three phase, stabilise-normalise-exit model, arguing that moving beyond
stabilisation was complicated and would take time.[53]
The Government indicated that it would develop a new approach to income
management that did not involve the suspension of the Racial Discrimination
Act.[54]
The new approach was announced in November 2009. In a
policy statement titled Landmark Reform to the Welfare System, Reinstatement
of the Racial Discrimination Act and Strengthening of the Northern Territory
Emergency Response, the Government announced plans for a national roll-out
of income management to disadvantaged regions across Australia.[55]
The new scheme extended income management across the
Northern Territory to targeted groups of people the Government believed would
particularly benefit from it. The categories were:
- disengaged
youth: people aged 15 to 24 who have been in receipt of Youth Allowance, Newstart
Allowance, Special Benefit or Parenting Payment for more than 13 weeks in the
last 26 weeks
- long
term welfare recipients: people aged 25 and above (and younger than age
pension age) who have been in long-term receipt of specified payments,
including Newstart Allowance and Parenting Payment
- vulnerable:
people assessed by a delegate of the Secretary (in practice, a Centrelink
social worker) as requiring income management for reasons including
vulnerability to financial crisis, domestic violence or economic abuse and
- child
protection: people referred for income management by child protection
authorities.[56]
These measures are currently in place in the Northern
Territory. The major change is the expansion of the vulnerable measure to
include young people who are automatically deemed to be vulnerable because they
meet certain ‘youth triggers’. These are where the recipient is:
- granted
the unreasonable to live at home rate of payment for Youth Allowance,
Disability Support Pension, or ABSTUDY
- under
the age of 16 and granted a Special Benefit or
- under
the age of 25 and receives a Crisis Payment due to prison release.[57]
Income management in Cape York
Income management was introduced in the Cape York Welfare
Reform trial communities in July 2008, shortly after income management was
introduced in the Northern Territory.[58]
However, it was developed independently and the two income management models
differ significantly.
Bottom-up
versus top-down
The Cape York model was developed by the Cairns-based Cape
York Institute for Policy and Leadership (Cape York Institute) with some
assistance from outside experts including staff on secondment from the
Treasury.[59]
Then Cape York Institute Director and Indigenous leader Noel Pearson drove the
process. The Northern Territory model was developed by the Australian
Government with limited consultation in the affected communities.[60]
According to Noel Pearson:
... in Cape York the reform agenda was the initiative of
Aboriginal leaders, and the policy proposals came from the Cape York
Institute–not from government. The Northern Territory policy was unilaterally
decided by government.[61]
Targeting
In Cape York, conditional income management is used as a
sanction for individuals who have breached their obligations. In the Northern
Territory it is applied in a blanket way to entire categories of income support
recipients. According to researchers from the Social Policy Research Centre:
The [Cape York Welfare Reform] model of income management is
far more targeted than that in the Northern Territory ... Clients on income
management in the [Cape York Welfare Reform] trial communities are case managed
to a much higher degree, and their progress is closely monitored by the [Family
Responsibilities Commission] as well as the other case management arrangements.
This approach appears to be successful, and has a number of advantages for the
individuals concerned and for the communities more generally, as is evidenced
by the results of the social change survey.[62]
According to Pearson, ‘the difference from the Territory
is that the Cape York scheme encourages community members to take up their
responsibilities. If people are being responsible, they are not affected by
income management.’[63]
Cape York
model uses income management as a tool to encourage responsible behaviour
In the Cape York model income management is designed as ‘a
catalyst for behavioural change’.[64]
In the long term, it attempts to reduce problems such as alcohol abuse by
encouraging responsible behaviour. In contrast, the Northern Territory model
applies income management in a much less targeted way in order to ‘reduce the
amount of cash available in communities in which substance abuse, gambling and
other anti-social behaviours are problems that can lead to child abuse and
community dysfunction’.[65]
One of the most disturbing findings from the evaluation of
income management in the Northern Territory was that it seemed to encourage
dependence on the welfare system. According to the researchers:
... rather than the program building people’s capacity and
motivating them to take responsibility and become independent and self-reliant,
for these people it has acted to make their lives more comfortable by relieving
them of having to take responsibility for some aspects of their financial
management. This in turn has made them more dependent and reliant upon welfare.[66]
The Cape York model does not appear to have the same
effect.
2005–2007—development
of the Cape York welfare reform trials
In 2005, as Director of the Cape York Institute, Noel
Pearson called for a welfare reform trial in Cape York Indigenous communities.
Under the proposal, communities would opt-in to the trial and would set up a
new welfare reform model that moved beyond the Government’s mainstream
approach. A key part of the model would be to create mechanisms that ensured
‘monies received for family go to the wellbeing of the family’.[67]
With support from both the Australian and Queensland
governments, and assistance from staff seconded from The Treasury, the Cape
York Institute produced a plan for welfare reform trials in the Cape York
communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge.[68]
The 2007 report From Hand Out to Hand Up, set out an analysis of the
problems in Cape York Indigenous communities along with detailed policy
recommendations. According to the report, Cape York communities had experienced
a collapse of social norms with widespread social dysfunction as a result. The
report set out a strategy designed to rebuild norms and restore Indigenous
authority. The aim was to reinforce norms and values that community members
already endorsed rather than to impose norms from outside.[69]
To reinforce social norms, the welfare reform trial would
make income support payments conditional on a broader range of obligations.
These would include the proper care of children, abiding by tenancy conditions
in public housing and not committing drug, alcohol, gambling or family violence
offences. To enforce these obligations a new statutory authority—the Family
Responsibilities Commission (FRC)—would be established. Where an individual
breaches their obligations, the FRC could issue a warning, direct the person to
attend support services or place them on ‘conditional income management’.
According to the 2007 report, conditional income
management ‘would be the ultimate tool available to the FRC to counter breaches
of obligations and encourage individuals to take responsibility for themselves
and others in their family and community’.[70]
Conditional income management was designed to serve two
purposes. It would act as a deterrent to encourage community members to abide
by their obligations and:
... will effectively prevent the flow of welfare income to
substance abuse and other behaviours that impact upon the welfare of children
and dependents in the Welfare Reform communities. The conditional income
management sanction will help to provide a family with a break from
dysfunctional behaviour, supporting the success of other support services such
as drug and alcohol counselling.[71]
Conditional income management was designed to be targeted
and temporary. As From Hand Out to Hand Up explained:
The conditional income management sanction is meant to be a
catalyst for behavioural change. In the longer term an individual must take
personal responsibility for meeting their obligations. The prospect of
sanctions being in place for an indeterminate period would undermine this
outcome. Individuals should also be provided with the opportunity to have a
sanction lifted once they demonstrate that they can meet their obligations.[72]
2007—legislation
In July 2007 then Minister for Families, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, announced that the Government had
accepted the Cape York Institute’s proposal.[73]
The Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007
enabled conditional income management in the Cape York Welfare Reform trials
and a separate model of income management that formed part of the NTER.[74]
2014—trial
extended to include Doomadgee
Doomadgee joined the Cape York Welfare Reform trial in
August 2014.[75]
Development of the cashless debit
card
In 2013 the Abbott Coalition Government commissioned
Andrew Forrest to chair a review of Indigenous training and employment
programs.[76]
One of the review’s recommendations was to introduce a new cashless debit card
for working age income support recipients. According to the review’s 2014
report—The Forrest Review: Creating Parity:
The current income management system, which operates via the
government BasicsCard, is providing very valuable support to women, in
particular making sure welfare stretches over the fortnight and that bills are
paid and children are fed. However, it is not part of the mainstream banking
system, it is very expensive for the government to administer and it has some
stigma associated with it for the recipient.
Despite the benefit of the financial stability for
individuals, expansion of this system is financially unsustainable, with the
existing 23,000 income management recipients making over 46,000 calls a week to
Centrelink to change their arrangements.[77]
Mr Forrest referred to the proposed card as the ‘healthy
welfare card’ and argued that it would overcome problems with the existing
income management system.
One problem was the high cost of income management. In a
2013 report on income management in the Northern Territory, the Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO) reported that the estimated cost per person per
year could be as high as $7,900 for income support recipients in remote areas.[78]
According to the Forrest Review, the cost of income management made it
‘unsustainable and unsuitable for broader application’.[79]
The Review implied that the cashless debit card would be cheaper because it
relied on the mainstream banking system.[80]
Another problem is that income support recipients can only
use the BasicsCard at approved retailers. In contrast, the cashless debit card
could be used anywhere that accepted mainstream debit cards (except retailers
that are blocked because they sell alcohol or gambling products).[81]
Stigma was also a problem according to Mr Forrest. He
wrote that ‘the BasicsCard readily identifies its user as a welfare recipient,
unnecessarily degrading someone who has fallen on hard times’ and argued that
the healthy welfare card would be different because it would ‘look and work
like any other debit card’.[82]
Mr Forrest also argued that income management allowed
income support recipients too much cash. This left recipients with enough cash
to ‘fuel alcohol or drug dependency.’ He proposed that the healthy welfare card
would allow little or no access to cash.[83]
According to the Forrest Review, the ultimate aim of the
cashless debit card is to help people move off income support and into work.
The card is designed to provide ‘stability for families and individuals so they
can concentrate on finding employment, providing adequately for their families,
and sending their children to school.’[84]
The cashless debit card scheme operates in a number of
sites around Australia. These are the Ceduna region (South Australia), the East
Kimberley and the Goldfields regions (Western Australia), and the Bundaberg and
Hervey Bay region (Queensland). Under current legislation these trials can
operate until 30 June 2020.[85]
Committee
consideration
Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee
The Bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Details of the inquiry are at the
inquiry
homepage. Submissions closed on 18 October 2019. The Committee received
110 submissions; public hearings were held in Darwin, Canberra and Alice
Springs. The Committee delivered its report into the inquiry to the Senate on 7 November
2019.[86]
The Committee tabled a majority report, a Dissenting Report
by Labor Senators and a Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens.
Majority report
The Committee made two recommendations:
- recommendation
1—prior to the passage of the Bill the Department of Social Services clarify
the changes to the Minister's discretionary powers to determine the rates of
quarantined income, and the process by which communities can request an
increase in the rate of quarantined income and
- recommendation
2—that the Bill be passed.[87]
Recommendation 1 relates to an issue raised by a number of
submitters to the inquiry. Currently the Minister can vary the proportion of a
person’s payments that are subject to income management using a legislative
instrument (for existing trial sites).[88]
For NT trial participants proposed subsections 124PJ(2A) and (2B)
(at item 39 of Schedule 1) would enable the Minister to vary the
proportion of a person’s payments that are restricted using a notifiable
instrument. Since notifiable instruments are not subject to Parliamentary disallowance,
this increases the Minister’s discretionary powers.
The Committee stated:
The committee agrees with submitters that there is a lack of
clarity about the proposed increase in the minister’s discretionary powers in
relation to the determination of rates of income quarantining for individuals
and communities. Furthermore, the committee is of the view that clarifying the
process by which communities can request an increase in the rate of quarantined
income will alleviate the concerns raised by submitters.[89]
Dissenting Report by Labor Senators
Labor Senators recommended that the Senate does not pass the
Bill in its current form.[90]
Their Dissenting Report is largely focused on transitioning Northern Territory income
management participants to the cashless debit card.
Labor Senators do not believe the CDC trials should be
extended or expanded unless:
- the
card is made voluntary
- it
is only applied in specific instances, with intensive case management and is
time limited, e.g. child protection or
- a
community genuinely gives their informed consent to trial the card, consistent
with self-determination.[91]
Dissenting Report by the Australian
Greens
The Australian Greens’ recommended that the Bill not be passed.
The Australian Greens Senators expressed broad opposition to both income
management and the cashless debit card, concluding:
Compulsory income management has been trialled in the
Northern Territory for 12 long years, it has not reduced social harm, it has
not reduced disadvantage, the evaluation of the approach showed it met none of
its objectives. It has in fact caused harm and distress to many. The
continuation of compulsory income management through the introduction of the
Cashless Debit Card is not supported by the evidence, is not supported by the
community and will cause further distress and potential harm. It is time that compulsory
income management was abandoned.[92]
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
(Scrutiny Committee) raised concerns about:
- the
proposed use of notifiable instruments to vary the restricted and unrestricted portion
of a class of people’s social security payments in the Northern Territory and
- the
lack of guidance in the Explanatory Memorandum on the types of information that
will be collected and any safeguards in place.[93]
Use of notifiable instruments—lack
of Parliamentary oversight
Restricted payment percentage
determination
The Government is seeking the power to vary the proportion
of income support recipients’ payments that are restricted by notifiable
instrument. As stated by the Scrutiny Committee, ‘notifiable instruments are
not subject to the tabling, disallowance, and sunsetting requirements that
apply to legislative instruments under the Legislation Act 2003’.[94]
Proposed subsection 124PJ(2A) (at item 39 of
Schedule 1) applies to participants who are currently under the disengaged
youth and long-term welfare payment recipient measures and would allow the
Minister to increase the proportion of payments that are placed on the card
from 50 per cent to any amount up to 100 per cent. The Minister would be able
to do this for particular participants in areas specified in the instrument.
Proposed subsection 124PJ(2B) applies to
participants who are currently under the child protection and vulnerable
measures of income management. It would allow the Minister to vary the
proportion of payments that are placed on the card anywhere from zero to 100
per cent.
The Committee requested the Minister provide advice on:
- why
it is considered necessary and appropriate to allow the Minister to use a
notifiable instrument to determine the percentage of income that is restricted
for a class of trial participants
- how
the departmental Secretary’s powers in subsection 124PJ(3) of the SSA Act
would be effective to ensure the Minister’s powers are exercised appropriately[95]
and
- whether
(at least high-level) rules or guidance in relation to the exercise of powers
under proposed subsections 124PJ(2A) and (2B) could be included in the Bill.[96]
The Minister’s response argued that ‘[t]he Minister's
power to determine restricted portions is better exercised by notifiable
instrument to ensure that trial participants have responsiveness, transparency
and certainty about their financial arrangements’ and that ‘it is intended that
the Minister would only respond to requests made by a community or an employee
or officer of a relevant authority in appropriate circumstances’.[97]
The Minister also argued that the Secretary’s power to
vary a participant’s restricted portion acted as a safeguard to the Minister’s
otherwise broad discretionary power because, it ‘allows the Secretary to revise
a trial participant’s restricted portion as appropriate to the individual’s
circumstances notwithstanding the Minister’s general determination under
subsection 124PJ(2A) or 124PJ(2B)’.[98]
While noting the Minister’s advice, the Scrutiny Committee
remained concerned that the Bill ‘would confer on the Minister a broad power to
determine the portion of a trial participant’s payments that are subject to
income management’ and considered that it may be appropriate to amend the Bill
to require such determinations to be made by disallowable legislative
instrument.[99]
This would ensure a higher level of parliamentary oversight.
Trial area determinations
In responding to the Minister’s advice, the Scrutiny
Committee also raised concern about proposed subsection 124PD(1A) (at item
14) and subsection 124PD(2) as amended by item 15 of Schedule 1
to the Bill, which would allow the Minister by way of notifiable instrument to:
- determine
an area for the purposes of the definition of Cape York area and
- exclude
areas of the Northern Territory from the CDC trial area.[100]
The Scrutiny Committee reiterated its ‘longstanding view ...
that significant matters ... should be included in primary legislation or at
least in delegated legislation which is subject to parliamentary disallowance’—it
recommended that may be appropriate to amend the Bill to require such
determinations to be made by disallowable legislative instrument.[101]
Privacy concerns
The Scrutiny Committee was also concerned with the privacy
implications of proposed sections 124POA, 124POB, 124POC and
124POD (at item 43) and item 46 of the Bill ‘allowing the
sharing of information about trial participants, and extending the secretary's
power to require information and documents, may trespass unduly on individuals’
privacy’. In particular, the Committee noted the lack of guidance in the
explanatory materials on the type of information that may be shared and any
safeguards in place to protect participants’ privacy.[102]
The Committee requested the Minister’s advice as to:
- the
type of information that would be collected
- the
type of information that would be shared under the proposed sections and
- and
any relevant safeguards in place to protect individuals’ privacy.[103]
The Minister’s advice provided detailed information in
response to Scrutiny Committee’s request—it has been replicated in the
Committee’s Scrutiny Digest.[104]
The Scrutiny Committee requested that the information provided by the Minister
be included in the Explanatory Memorandum, but was otherwise satisfied.[105]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Labor and the Australian Greens oppose the Bill (see
discussion above under the heading ‘Senate Community Affairs Legislation
Committee’).
According to a report by Sarah Martin in The Guardian
(Australia), the Centre Alliance Senators and Senator Lambie have signalled
that they will not make a decision on the Bill until next year, after they have
consulted remote NT communities.[106]
Position of
major interest groups
The majority of submissions by interest groups oppose the
measures in the Bill.[107]
Some groups such as the Australian Council of Social Service have a principled
opposition to the cashless debit card.[108]
Some submissions expressed support for the Bill. For
example Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Councillor with the Alice Springs Town
Council, argued that income management or the cashless debit card should be
compulsory and that the cashless debit card is a better technology.[109]
The Minderoo Foundation was also broadly supportive of the Bill.[110]
Concerns raised by interest groups included:
- a
lack of consultation with Indigenous people in the Northern Territory[111]
- a
lack of evidence that the cashless debit card is effective[112]
- the
extension of the cashless debit card to a broader group of participants than
the current income management arrangements[113]
and
- for
voluntary participants, an increase in the proportion of payments that is
restricted under the cashless debit card.[114]
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government
will spend $17.8 million on support services to assist the transition in the
Northern Territory and Cape York Area.[115]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[116]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
At the time of writing, the Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Human Rights had not yet reported on the Bill.
Key issues and provisions
Key issue: reducing the
administrative load on Services Australia
Income management imposes a significant administrative
load on Services Australia (formally known as the Department of Human
Services—DHS). According to a 2013 report by the ANAO:
The service delivery approach required for New Income
Management is resource‐intensive,
differs from the day‐to‐day processes used for
the majority of services provided by DHS, and consequently is a relatively
higher cost service. For a customer living in a remote area, the departments
estimate that the cost of providing Income Management services is in the order
of $6600 to $7900 per annum. The delivery approach adopted by DHS provides for
the identification of eligible customers, the establishment of priority needs
in consultation with the customer, and the payment of income managed funds to
third party organisations.[117]
As the ANAO report notes, income management places a
number of demands on Services Australia staff. When a person is placed on
income management they attend an interview where the person and a Centrelink
officer decide how to allocate the person’s income managed funds. Centrelink is
then responsible for setting up payments for expenses such as rent and
utilities. Services Australia also manage call centre services to support the
scheme.[118]
Services Australia is also responsible for approving
merchants who apply to accept the BasicsCard (merchants cannot accept the card
unless Services Australia has approved them).[119]
A submission by the Department of Social Services and
Services Australia notes that ‘Services Australia has a limited service
delivery role in the [cashless debit card], with the majority of service
delivery functions managed by the card provider (currently Indue Limited) and
the Department of Social Services’:[120]
While upfront costs for CDC were high due to initial one-off
implementation elements, the ongoing costs, which include card provider and
other components, are a fraction of these initial costs. The ongoing costs for
the CDC across all four sites is below $2,000 per participant. This figure is
at least $1,000 less than the per participant costs under the IM regime.[121]
It is likely that an anticipated reduction in
administrative burden and cost is an important part of the rationale for the
transition from income management to the cashless debit card in the Northern
Territory and Cape York.
Key issue: replacing the disengaged
youth and long term welfare payment recipients measures with a broader measure
Under the existing arrangements, the disengaged youth and
long term welfare recipient measures in the Northern Territory exclude
short-term recipients of Youth Allowance, Newstart Allowance, Special Benefit
and Parenting Payment.[122]
The Explanatory Memorandum claims:
... subsection 124PGE(1) reproduces the long-term welfare
recipients and disengaged youth measures established under IM but combines the
criteria into one subsection for the purposes of the CDC trial.[123]
However, this new measure is broader than the two existing
income management measures. Under the existing disengaged youth measure a
person receiving a category E payment must have been receiving that payment for
at least 13 weeks during the 26-week period.[124]
Similarly, under the long term welfare recipient measure a
person must have been receiving a category E payment for at least 52 weeks
during the 104-week period ending immediately before the test time.[125]
The Bill’s proposed subsection 124PGE(1)—which
applies to NT CDC trial participants—does not include any restriction based on
the time a person has been receiving a payment. As a result the new measure
will include short-term as well as longer-term recipients of Youth Allowance,
Newstart Allowance, Special Benefit, Parenting Payment (single) and Parenting
Payment (partnered).
Key issue: Ministerial discretion
to change the amount of income quarantined
Proposed subsections 124PJ(2A) and 124PJ(2B)
(at item 39 of Schedule 1) would enable the Minister to vary the
restricted percentage for NT trial participants from 50 per cent to any amount
up to 100 per cent by notifiable instrument.
A number of submissions raised concerns about this issue.
For example, the National Social Security Rights Network submission stated:
No legislative guidance or limitations are provided as to how
this power is to be exercised, meaning the Minister will be able to quarantine
100% of a class of trial participants’ income without any proper justification.[126]
The Committee’s report recommended ‘that prior to the
passage of the bill the Department of Social Services clarify the changes to
the minister's discretionary powers to determine the rates of quarantined
income, and the process by which communities can request an increase in the
rate of quarantined income.’[127]
This issue is also canvassed above under the heading ‘Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills’.
The Government has responded to concerns on this issue by
introducing an amendment to the Bill that removes references to ‘100 per cent’
from the new subsections 124PJ(2A) and 124PJ(2B) and substitutes it with
references to ‘80 per cent.’[128]
Key issue: voluntary income
management
The Bill allows for voluntary participation in the CDC
trial areas; however, it does not reproduce the voluntary income management
measure, which has a restricted payment percentage of 70 per cent.[129]
Under the CDC the restricted portion is 80 per cent unless the Secretary has
made a determination under subsection 124PJ(3) that varies this amount.[130]
While the Bill does not compel a voluntary income managed
participant to leave this arrangement and transition to voluntary CDC, a
Government amendment that has passed the House would insert proposed
subsection 123UO(3A) into the SSA Act, enabling the Secretary
to terminate voluntary income management agreements for people whose usual
place of residence is within the Northern Territory.[131]
A decision to terminate the voluntary income management
agreement will not be reviewable by the Secretary (internal review) or the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal.[132]
Key provision:
expanding the CDC trial to the Cape York area
Cape York
area CDC trial criteria
Item 27 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill inserts proposed section 124PGD into Subdivision A of Division
2 in Part 3D of the SSA Act—Subdivision A sets out the trial
areas for the CDC and circumstances in which a person is subject to the CDC
trial.
Proposed section 124PGD establishes the criteria
under which a person will be a CDC trial participant in the Cape York area. A
person will be a CDC trial participant in the Cape York Area if:
- the
person’s usual place of residence is, becomes or was
within the Cape York area
- the
person or the person’s partner receives a ‘category P’ welfare payment—that is:
- the
FRC has notified the Secretary that the person be a trial participant and
- if
the person has nominated a person as a payment
nominee[136]
for the purposes of the Income Management (IM) rules, the nominated person is
either a CDC trial participant or subject to IM.[137]
If, after commencement, a person whose usual place of
residence is within the Cape York area leaves the area, they will still remain
subject to the CDC trial.[138]
QLD FRC
notification of trial participant
The income management rules in Part 3B of the SSA Act
enable a body or agency to be established as the ‘Queensland Commission’,
for the purposes of, among other things, requiring Cape York residents to be
subject to income management.[139]
The Queensland Commission is a body or agency established by a law of
Queensland and specified as such by the federal Minister under a legislative
instrument. The Minister has specified the Family
Responsibilities Commission[140]
established under the Family
Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 (Qld) to be the Queensland
Commission.[141]
Cape York
area
The Minister is given the power to determine the Cape York
area by way of notifiable instrument.[142]
Under the Legislation
Act 2003 (Cth), notifiable instruments are not generally disallowable.
Under proposed subsection 124PD(3), inserted by item 16 of Schedule
1, the instrument specifying the Cape York area may make provision in
relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without
modification, any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force
or existing from time to time—according to the Explanatory Memorandum:
This approach is necessary to ensure that the CDC trial
operates seamlessly for people who usually reside in the Cape York area. The
process will also assist the FRC to perform its role effectively and according
to Commonwealth and Queensland law. The department will make any incorporated
material freely available to the public either by publication of the material
on the department’s website and by allowing public inspection of any
incorporated material at its National Office.[143]
This would appear to allow the Cape York area to be varied
from time to time based on material external to the notifiable instrument, and
accordingly, expand or contract the size of the CDC trial.
The issue of whether it is appropriate for the Cape York
area to be determined by way of notifiable instrument is discussed in greater
detail above, under the heading ‘Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of
Bills’.
Percentage
of payments restricted to the CDC
Item 36 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill inserts proposed subsection 124PJ(1A) into the SSA Act. This
sets out the portion of a ‘restrictable payment’ paid by instalment that
must be quarantined for the purposes of the CDC trial in the Cape York area.
Restrictable
payment[144]
is currently defined under subsection 124PD(1); for the purposes of the CDC
trial in the Cape York area, the types of payments that are restrictable
payments are further expanded by item 9 in Part 2 of Schedule
1 of the Bill.[145]
For payments made to persons subject to the CDC trial in
the Cape York area, the gross restricted portion is:
- the
percentage specified by the FRC under the notice provided to the Secretary
(that is, the notice requiring the person be subject to the CDC trial) or
- if
there is no amount specified in the notice—50 per cent.
The remaining percentage of the gross amount is the
‘unrestricted portion’.[146]
If a restrictable payment is payable to a CDC participant
otherwise than by instalments, 100 per cent of the gross amount of
the payment is restricted.[147]
The Secretary may vary the restricted amount to zero per cent
in cases where the person’s fund cannot be accessed because of technological
fault or malfunction, a natural disaster or where the person is in severe
financial hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.[148]
Key
provision: application of the Cape York CDC trial/transition of IM participants
to the CDC
The proposed CDC trial provisions for the Cape York area
apply to persons whose usual place of residence is in the Cape York area on the
day of commencement or any time after that day.[149]
If, before commencement, the FRC notifies the
Secretary that a person is subject to income management and the notice requires
the person to be subject to income management, the notice has effect as if the
person were subject to the CDC trial under proposed section 124PGD
rather than income management.[150]
If, on or after commencement, the FRC notifies the
Secretary that a person is subject to income management, the notice has effect
as if the person were subject to the CDC trial under proposed section 124PGD
rather than income management under Part 3B of the SSA Act—according to
the Explanatory Memorandum, this ‘allows the FRC to continue referring people
for welfare quarantining without amending the Families Responsibilities
Commission Act 2008 (Qld) which would otherwise be required’.[151]
For existing income managed persons, they will cease to be
subject to the income management regime the day before they become a CDC trial
participant in the Cape York area.[152]
So long as the person satisfies the Cape York CDC trial criteria under proposed
section 124PGD, upon commencement, they will be subject to the CDC
regime—the Explanatory Memorandum states:
Approximately 150 IM participants within the Cape York area
will transition to the CDC trial on a single day, being the later of
8 April 2020 or on the day after the end of the period of three months
beginning on the day the Act receives the Royal Assent (the start date).[153]
The Secretary may, within 60 days of the person becoming a
CDC trial participant, transfer the balance of a person’s income management
account to their welfare restricted bank account.[154]
A decision by the Secretary to make a payment to a CDC bank account is not
reviewable by the Secretary (internal review) or the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal.[155]
Key provision: expanding the CDC trial to the NT
Northern
Territory CDC trial criteria
Item 27 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill inserts proposed section 124PGE into Subdivision A of Division
2 in Part 3D of the SSA Act—as discussed above, Subdivision A sets out
the trial areas for the CDC and circumstances in which a person is subject to
the CDC trial.
Proposed section 124PGE sets out the criteria for a
person to be subject to the CDC trial within the NT trial area. There are three
different sets of criteria under which a person may be required to participate
in the trial, namely:
- the
person or their partner is receiving a category E welfare payment—proposed
subsection 124PGE(1)
- the
person or their partner is receiving a category P welfare payment and a child
protection officer of the Northern Territory, or a recognised
authority of the Northern Territory requires the person be a trial
participant—proposed subsection 124PGE(2) or
- the
person is a vulnerable welfare recipient and receiving a category P welfare
payment— proposed subsection 124PGE(3).
Category E
welfare payment recipients: ‘disengaged youth and long-term welfare payment
recipients’
Under proposed subsection 124PGE(1) a person is
subject to the CDC trial if:
- the
person’s usual place of residence is, becomes or was within the Northern
Territory
- the
person receives a ‘category E welfare payment’, that is either:
- Youth
Allowance
- Newstart
Allowance
- Special
Benefit
- pension
Parenting Payment (single)
- benefit
Parenting Payment (partnered)[156]
- the
person has not reached the pension age[157]
- if
the person has a payment nominee, the nominee is also a CDC trial participant
or subject to income management
- the
person is not undertaking full-time study
- the
Secretary has notified the person they are a trial participant and
- the
person has not been excluded by a wellbeing or exit determination.
So long as a person continues to satisfy the requirements
of proposed subsections 124PGE(1), (2) or (3), a person
will be subject to the CDC trial notwithstanding that their usual place of
residence is no longer in the NT.[158]
Notice required to be provided
Proposed subparagraph 124PGE(1)(e) requires the
Secretary to give the person a notice stating that the person is a trial
participant. The power for the Secretary to issue the notice is given under proposed
subsection 124PGE(5) and any such notice is not a legislative instrument.[159]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the notice issued by the Secretary ‘has
been included to facilitate the staggered rollout of the CDC trial across the
NT’.[160]
It appears that this requirement will be used in conjunction with the
Minister’s proposed power under subsection 124PD(2) (as amended by item 15)
to exclude any part of the NT from the CDC trial area to facilitate the
roll-out of the trial.[161]
The proposed changes made by items 44 and 45
in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill mean that the Secretary’s
decisions relating to trial participation, namely, a decision to give or revoke
a trial participation notice, will not be reviewable by the Secretary (internal
review) or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. According to the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill:
... The purpose of the notice [under proposed
subsection 124PGE(5)] is to activate the transition to the CDC trial in
the Cape York area or the NT through an administrative process.
The precondition provides an evidentiary fact to commence trial
participation and merely reflects other decisions made by other bodies such as
the FRC, child protection officers of the NT or officers or employees of
recognised State/Territory authority of the NT. Those decisions will
themselves be subject to review under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
For persons in respect of whom a notice is revoked under new
subsection 124PGE(6), they will be able to enter the CDC trial as a voluntary
participant provided they are within the scope of Part 3D of the Social
Security Administration Act. Otherwise, their participation in the CDC
trial will not be appropriate. Accordingly, any review of these decisions
would be unwarranted and at risk of frivolous review applications.[162]
By way of comparison, the CDC trial criteria for existing
trial areas do not require a notice to be provided by the Secretary.
Full-time students excluded
The proposed changes do not apply to a person who is ‘undertaking
full-time study’. In the existing CDC trial areas—that is, Ceduna, East
Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas—the CDC trial applies to
full-time students unless they live outside their respective trial area while
undertaking their study.[163]
This difference may reflect the fact that the NT is likely to eventually
comprise the ‘trial area’.
Wellbeing and exit determinations
The proposed changes do not apply to a person who is
covered by a determination under existing subsections 124PHA(1) or 124PHB(3) of
the SSA Act.[164]
Under subsection 124PHA(1) of the SSA Act, the
Secretary must determine that (but has no obligation to inquire whether) a
person is not a trial participant if the Secretary is satisfied that being a
trial participant would pose a serious risk to the person’s mental, physical or
emotional wellbeing.
Under subsection 124PHB(3), the Secretary may also determine
that a person is not a trial participant if the Secretary is satisfied that the
person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person’s
affairs (including financial affairs), taking into account a range of factors
as well as any requirements made by the Minister set out in the relevant
legislative instrument.[165]
Category P
welfare payment recipients referred by a child protection officer or the NT
Department of Health
The same CDC trial criteria that applies under proposed
subsection 124PGE(1) also applies under proposed subsection 124PGE(2),
except that:
- the
person or the person’s partner must receive a category P welfare payment
(rather than category E) and
- a
child protection officer of the Northern Territory, or a recognised
authority of the Northern Territory must require the person be a trial
participant.[166]
Under proposed paragraph 124PGE(2)(c), the
Secretary must receive a written notice from a ‘child protection officer’
of the NT, or an officer or employee of a ‘recognised State/Territory
authority’ of the NT requiring the person be a trial participant. The
notice must be given:
- under
a law (whether written or unwritten) in force in the NT (other than a law of
the Commonwealth) or
- in
the exercise of the executive power of the NT.[167]
In relation to the NT, a ‘child protection officer’ is an
officer or employee of the NT who has functions, powers or duties in relation
to the care, protection or welfare of children.[168]
The Minister is empowered under the SSA Act to
determine, by legislative instrument, that a department or part of it, or a
body or agency of a State or Territory is a ‘recognised State/Territory
authority’ if satisfied that officers or employees of that entity have
functions, powers or duties in relation to the care, protection, welfare or
safety of adults, children or families.[169]
Currently the recognised State/Territory authority for the purposes of the NT
is the Northern Territory Department of Health.[170]
Vulnerable
welfare recipients
Proposed subsection 124PGE(3) applies to vulnerable
welfare payment recipients. The same CDC trial criteria that applies under proposed
subsection 124PGE(1) also applies under proposed subsection 124PGE(3),
except that:
- the
person must receive a category P welfare payment (rather than category E) and
- the
person must be a ‘vulnerable welfare payment recipient’.
The Secretary is empowered under section 123UGA of the SSA
Act to determine that a person is a vulnerable welfare payment recipient—the
determination must comply with any decision making principles set out in a
legislative instrument made by the Minister. However, it is not clear whether
existing subsection 123UGA(1) allows the Secretary to rely on their power in
Part 3B of the SSA Act to determine whether a person is a vulnerable
welfare payment recipient for the purposes of proposed subsection 124PGE(3).[171]
The principles the Secretary must comply with are set out
in the Social
Security (Administration) (Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipient) Principles
2013 (Cth) (the Principles). It is not clear whether it is intended that
this instrument will be relied on for the purposes of proposed subsection
124PGE(3), given its focus and references to the income management provisions.
In particular, clause 10 of the Principles expressly excludes participants in
the trial of cashless welfare arrangements from being subject to a
determination by the Secretary under subsection 123UGA(1). This means the
Principles will likely need to be amended for the proposed provisions to
operate as intended.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, it is intended that
the Secretary can rely on an existing vulnerable welfare payment recipient
determination made under section 123UGA, for the purposes of transitioning
vulnerable welfare recipients from income management to the CDC trial.[172]
Percentage
of payments restricted to the CDC
Item 36 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill inserts proposed subsections 124PJ(1B), (1C) and (1D)
into the SSA Act. These provisions set out the portion of a ‘restrictable
payment’ paid by instalment that must be quarantined for the purposes of
NT CDC trial participants. Restrictable payment is defined under subsection
124PD(1); for the purposes the CDC trial in the NT, the types of payments that
are restrictable payments, is further expanded by item 9 in Part 2
of Schedule 1 of the Bill.[173]
The default restricted and unrestricted component varies depending on the
particular CDC trial criteria the participant satisfies:
- for
payments made to persons subject to the CDC trial in the NT under either proposed
subsections 124PGE(1) or (3), the restricted portion is 50 per cent
of the gross amount of the payment. The remaining 50 per cent is the
‘unrestricted portion’ and[174]
- for
payments made to persons subject to the CDC trial in the NT under proposed
subsection 124PGE(2) (welfare payment recipients referred by a child
protection officer or the NT Department of Health), the restricted portion is
70 per cent of the gross amount of the payment. The remaining 30 per cent is
the ‘unrestricted portion’.[175]
Table 3 compares the default portion of a ‘restrictable
payment’ paid by instalment that must be quarantined for the purposes of NT CDC
trial participants. It also sets out the power of the Minister to vary the
restricted and unrestricted amounts—this variation power is discussed further
below.
Table 3: default restricted and
unrestricted portions for NT CDC trial participants
| NT CDC trial criteria provision |
Restricted
portion |
Unrestricted
portion |
Variation
power by Minister for NT CDC trial[176] |
| Disengaged
youth and long-term welfare payment recipients (proposed Subsection
124PGE(1)) |
50% |
50% |
May vary
the restricted amount up to 80% and vary unrestricted amount to an amount
below 50% for particular areas of the NT |
| Recipients
referred by a child protection officer or the NT Department of Health (proposed
subsection 124PGE(2)) |
70% |
30% |
May vary
restricted amount up to 80% or unrestricted amount up to 100% |
| Vulnerable
welfare recipients (proposed subsection 124PGE(3)) |
50% |
50% |
May vary
restricted amount up to 80% or unrestricted amount up to 100% |
Source: proposed subsections 124PJ(1B), (1C), (1D),
(2A) and (2B) of the SSA Act.
If a restrictable payment is payable to a trial
participant otherwise than by instalments, 100 per cent of the gross amount of
the payment is restricted.[177]
Minister’s power to vary restricted
and unrestricted percentage
The proposed amendments would also enable the Minister to,
by notifiable instrument, vary the restricted and unrestricted percentage for
NT trial participants. The issue of whether it is appropriate to allow the
Minister to change the percentages via a notifiable instrument is discussed
under the heading ‘Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills’.
For trial participants under proposed
subsection 124PGE(1) and whose usual place of residence is, becomes or
was within an area specified in the instrument, the Minister may vary the
restricted payment to a percentage up to 80 per cent and vary the unrestricted
payment to a percentage that is below 50 per cent.[178]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill ‘[t]his subsection will
enable the Minister to increase the restricted portion for trial participants
under 124PGE(1) for specific communities in the NT to reflect community
requests’.[179]
For trial participants under proposed subsections 124PGE(2)
or (3), the Minister may vary the restricted amount to a percentage not
exceeding 80 per cent and the unrestricted amount up to 100 per cent.[180]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum:
This subsection will enable the Minister to either increase
or decrease the restricted and unrestricted portions for the entire cohort of
trial participants under subsection 124PGE(2) or (3), to reflect requests made
by a recognised State/Territory authority in the NT or a child protection
officer.[181]
The Minister’s variation does not apply to a person who is
subject to a variation made by the Secretary.[182]
Secretary’s power to vary
restricted and unrestricted percentage
The Secretary may, in the case of an NT trial participant
(including a voluntary participant), vary the restricted amount to zero per
cent where the person’s funds cannot be accessed because of technological fault
or malfunction, a natural disaster or where the person is in severe financial
hardship as a result of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.[183]
Key provision: application of the NT CDC trial/transition
of IM participants to the NT CDC
The proposed NT CDC trial provisions apply to a person whose
usual place of residence is in the NT on the day of commencement or any time
after that day.[184]
If a child protection officer of the NT or a recognised
State/Territory authority (the NT Department of Health) provides the Secretary
with a notice requiring a person to be subject to income management under
sections 123UC or 123UFAA of the SSA Act before commencement, the
notice also has the effect of satisfying the CDC trial notice requirements
under proposed section 124PGE(2).[185]
If a notice is provided by the respective body on or after commencement,
the notice also has the effect of satisfying the CDC trial notice requirements
under proposed section 124PGE(2).[186]
Once a person becomes a CDC trial participant under proposed
subsection 124PGE, they cease to be subject to the income management regime
under Part 3B of the SSA Act.[187]
Items 1 and 2 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill
prevent a person from being subject to the income management regime under the
disengaged youth or long-term welfare payment recipient measures, unless they
were subject to it before commencement. This means that there will be a gap in
which new entrants will not be subject to income management and will instead be
placed on the CDC trial as it is rolled-out.[188]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill:
In the NT, there will be a staggered rollout of the CDC trial
commencing from the start date under which approximately 23,000 IM participants
in the NT will transition to the CDC trial over a period of nine months.[189]
The Secretary may transfer the balance of a person’s
income management account to their welfare restricted bank account within sixty
days of becoming a CDC trial participant.[190]
A decision by the Secretary to make a payment to a CDC bank account is not
reviewable by the Secretary (internal review) or the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal.[191]
Key
provision: extending the CDC trial period and removing the cap on the number of
CDC trial participants
Under subsections 124PF(1) and (3) of the SSA Act,
the CDC trial operates between 1 February 2016 and 30 June 2020; the
CDC trial is also limited to 15,000 trial participants.
Subsection 124PF(1) is amended by item 17 in Part
2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill to extend the length of the trial for
all trial areas except for the Cape York area to 30 June 2021. The proposed end
date for the Cape York trial area is 31 December 2021.
Item 18 repeals subsection 124PF(3) which caps
trial participants at no more than 15,000 participants. According to the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the ‘amendment will ensure that all IM
participants in the Cape York area and the NT are able to transition to the CDC
trial.’[192]
Key provision: enabling voluntary
participation in the CDC trial
Item 28 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill amends paragraph 124PH(1)(b) of the SSA Act—this will allow a
person whose usual place of residence is within the Bundaberg or Hervey Bay
areas to voluntarily participate in the CDC trial. This is consistent with
voluntarily participation in the other existing trial areas.
Subject to the existing condition in section 124PH of the SSA
Act, voluntary participation in the CDC trial is also extended to persons
whose usual place of residence is within the Cape York area or the NT.[193]
Key issue: payment restrictions for
Cape York and NT voluntary participants
For persons who are voluntarily participating in the CDC
trial, 80 per cent of the gross amount of a restrictable payment paid by
instalment is the restricted amount—the remaining 20 per cent is unrestricted.[194]
The restricted percentage is higher than that which
applies to those persons mandatorily subject to the CDC trial in the
Cape York area and the NT.[195]
In such a case, a community body will need to issue the Secretary
with a direction to vary the percentage under section 124PK of the SSA Act,
for a particular voluntary trial participant. The percentage amounts specified
in the written direction may:
- for
the restricted portion—be in the range of 50 per cent to 80 per cent and
- for
the unrestricted portion—be in the range of 20 per cent to 50 per cent.[196]
It will be necessary for the Minister to declare a community
body (by way of legislative instrument) should voluntary participants
in the Cape York area and NT trial areas seek to vary the default 80/20 payment
split.[197]
Key
provision: removing CDC trial evaluation
If the Minister or the Secretary causes a review of the CDC
trial, the SSA Act requires the Minister to have the review evaluated.[198]
Subsection 124PS(2) currently provides that the evaluation must:
- be
completed within six months from the time the Minister receives the review
report and
- be
conducted by an independent evaluation expert with significant expertise in the
social and economic aspects of welfare policy.
Subsection 124PS(3) currently provides that the
independent expert must consult trial participants and make recommendations about:
- whether
cashless welfare arrangements are effective and
- whether
such arrangements should be implemented outside of a trial area.
The Minister must cause a written report about the
evaluation to be prepared and laid before each House of Parliament within 15 days
after the completion of the report.[199]
Section 124PS was inserted into Part 3D of the SSA Act
by the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Act 2018.
The requirement for the evaluation was a result of former Senator Tim Storer’s
successful amendment to the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018.[200]
In his second reading speech on the Bill, Senator Storer stated:
I will not support further trials or extensions of the
cashless welfare card if these trials are shown to be detrimental to its
objectives; however, I genuinely believe in giving initiatives a chance if they
have the potential to help the vulnerable in society. I will always seek to
conduct my politics based on reliable data and evaluation. Therefore I will be
asking the Senate to support an independent evaluation of the government's
review of the card. If we can get reliable data out of this trial and have the
review of that data independently evaluated and reported, we will significantly
better understand what we should do in the future with regard to the cashless
debit card.[201]
Item 51 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill repeals subsections 124PS(2) and (3). While the Minister will still be
required to cause an evaluation of a review (if a review is in fact
undertaken), the proposed amendments mean that the Minister will not have to
cause an evaluation within six months of the review conducted by a an
independent evaluation expert. Nor will the Minister be required to consult
with trial participants and make recommendations as to the effectiveness and
potential expansion of the CDC trial. The Explanatory Memorandum provides the
following justification:
The Social Security Administration Act presently requires
that, where the Minister causes a review of CDC trial to be conducted, the
Minister must cause the review to be evaluated. This requirement is
potentially circular and, unless resolved, might generate ongoing evaluation
under section 124PS. The proposed amendments address this issue and supports a
desktop evaluation to lessen the ethical implications associated with avoidable
repeat contact with vulnerable individuals.[202]
Key Provision: enabling disclosures
of personal information
Division 4 in Part 3D of the SSA Act currently
allows for reciprocal disclosure of information between a financial institution
and the Secretary, and a community body and the Secretary.[203]
The purpose of proposed sections 124POA, 124POB,
124POC and 124POD (at item 43) is to enable certain bodies
to disclose personal information about trial participants or potential trial
participants to the Secretary for the purposes of the CDC trial; in turn the
Secretary is enabled to disclose personal information to those entities.
Exiting CDC participants
Proposed section 124POA applies to all trial participants
(including voluntary participants) who exit the CDC trial. If a person ceases
to be a CDC trial participant, the Secretary will be permitted to disclose to a
community body:
- the
fact that a person has ceased to be a trial participant and the date of
cessation and
- whether
they ceased to be a trial participant on wellbeing grounds or because they can
responsibly manage their affairs.[204]
The Explanatory Memorandum provides the following
justification for such a disclosure:
This provision will support the functioning of community
bodies in monitoring the effectiveness of the CDC trial. It will also advance
the interests of those people whose participation in the trial would pose a
serious risk to their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing. Under this provision,
community bodies will know whether a person’s re-entry to the trial is
unauthorised. This will help ensure that these bodies do not take inappropriate
action that may undermine the person’s wellbeing.[205]
Cape York area participants
Proposed section 124POB enables disclosures between
the Queensland Commission (currently the FRC) and the Secretary for the
purposes of participation in the CDC trial. Proposed subsection 124POB(1)
enables the Queensland Commission to disclose to the Secretary,
information about a person which is relevant to the operation of the CDC
provisions if:
- the
person is a trial participant under the proposed CDC Cape York area provisions
or
- the
Commission is considering whether to require the person to become a CDC Cape
York area trial participant.
Once the above information about a person is disclosed to
the Secretary, the Secretary is empowered to ‘disclose information about the
person to the Queensland Commission for the purposes of the performance of the
functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Queensland Commission’.[206]
Under proposed subsection 124POB(3) the Secretary
is required to notify the Queensland Commission in cases where that a person
has ceased to be a trial participant because their or their partner’s category
P welfare payment has been cancelled and the relevant notice requiring them to
participate has not yet been withdrawn by the Queensland Commission.
Certain Northern Territory
participants
Proposed sections 124POC and 12POD enable
the disclosure of personal information for the purposes of proposed
subsections 124PGE(2)—category P welfare payment recipients referred by a
child protection officer or the NT Department of Health.
Proposed sections 124POC and 12POD authorise
much the same the conduct, except that proposed section 124POC deals
with disclosures between a child protection officer and the Secretary, and proposed
section 124POD with disclosures between a recognised State/Territory
authority (currently the NT Department of Health) and the Secretary.
Proposed subsections 124POC(1) and 12POD(1)
enable a child protection officer of the NT and a recognised State/Territory
authority of the NT to disclose to the Secretary, information about a person which
is relevant to the operation of the CDC provisions if:
- the
person is a trial participant under the proposed subsections 124PGE(2) or
- the
child protection officer or NT authority is considering whether to require a
person to become a CDC participant.
Once the above information about a person is disclosed to
the Secretary under proposed subsection 124POC(1) (by a child protection
officer), ‘the Secretary may disclose information about the person to a child
protection officer of the Northern Territory for the purposes of the
performance of the functions and duties, or the exercise of the powers, of the
child protection officer in relation to the care, protection or welfare of
children’.[207]
Similarly, once the above information is disclosed to the
Secretary under proposed subsection 124POD(1), ‘the Secretary may
disclose information about the person to an officer or employee of the
recognised State/Territory authority for the purposes of the performance of the
functions and duties, or the exercise of the powers, of the officer or employee’.[208]
In either case, the Secretary is required to notify the child protection
officer or relevant NT authority in cases where the relevant person has ceased
to be a trial participant because their or their partner’s category P welfare
payment has been cancelled and the relevant notice requiring them to
participate has not yet been withdrawn by child protection officer or relevant
NT authority.[209]
Key Provision: expanding the
Secretary’s power to obtain information
Under section 192 of the SSA Act, the Secretary may
require a person to give information, or produce a document, if the Secretary
considers that the information or document may be relevant to one or more
specified matters. Item 46 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the
Bill expands the information that a person may be required to give or produce
to include information that may be relevant to the operation of Part 3D (the
CDC trial provisions). According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the
... amendment is essential to allow the Secretary to determine
whether a person should not participate in the CDC trial on the basis of their
mental, physical or emotion wellbeing or where they can demonstrate reasonable
or responsible management of their affairs (including their financial affairs).[210]
[1]. Table
items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in subclause 2(1) of the
Bill.
[2]. Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 (SSA Act), sections 124PL and 124PM.
Department of Human Services (DHS), ‘What
you can use it for’, DHS website, 5 November 2019.
[3]. Indue
Ltd, ‘All
cardholder FAQs’, Cashless Debit Card website.
[4]. D
Arthur, ‘BasicsCard
and Cashless Debit Card: what's the difference?’, FlagPost, Parliamentary
Library blog, 23 June 2017.
[5]. Senate
Community Affairs Committee, Additional information, Social Services Portfolio,
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2019–20, Cashless
debit card and income management summary as at 30 August 2019, Table 2.1,
pp. 4–5.
[6]. Ibid,
Table 1.1, p. 2.
[7]. DSS,
Income
management locations, DSS, [Canberra], 19 April 2018.
[8]. DSS,
‘Drug
testing trial’, DSS website, last updated 12 September 2018; DSS, Drug
Testing Trial, fact sheet, DSS, [Canberra], 9 October 2019,
p. 1.
[9]. D
Arthur, Income
management: a quick guide, Research paper series, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015, p. 1.
[10]. DSS,
‘11.1.3.20
Income Management Record’, Social security guide, DSS website, last
reviewed 11 November 2019.
[11]. SSA
Act, section 123VC.
[12]. DHS,
‘Centrelink
online account help - Manage your Income Management account and BasicsCard
money online’, DHS website, last updated 8 April 2019.
[13]. J
Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs) and J Ludwig (Minister for Human Services), Government
unveils the Income Management BasicsCard, joint media release, 22 July
2008.
[14]. DHS,
‘BasicsCard
for business: applying’, DHS website, last updated 23 October 2019.
[15]. For
a more detailed description of how the cashless debit card works, see D Arthur
and P Pyburne, Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, Bills
digest, 27, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 9 October 2015.
[16]. DSS,
‘8.7.6.40
Welfare restricted bank accounts’, Social Security Guide, DSS
website, last reviewed 11 November 2019.
[17]. Transactions
such as online purchases and transfers that do not involve the physical use of
the card are more restricted than those where the card is used. Merchants are
excluded unless they are approved. See DSS, ‘8.7.6.40
Welfare restricted bank accounts’, op. cit.
[18]. Visa,
Visa
merchant data standards manual, Visa, n.p., October 2019, p. 16.
[19]. Indue
Ltd, ‘Where can I shop?
Blocked and excluded merchants’, Cashless Debit Card website; Social Security
(Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) (Declinable
Transactions and Welfare Restricted Bank Account) Determination 2019. Quasi
cash refers to articles such as traveller’s cheques and money orders that can
be converted into cash as well as transactions related to gambling. Westpac, Merchant
business solutions, Westpac, Sydney, July 2019, p. 11.
[20]. D
Arthur, ‘"The
computer says no": automatic product blocking for the Cashless Debit Card’,
FlagPost, Parliamentary Library blog, 22 June 2017.
[21]. Ibid.
[22]. Arthur,
‘BasicsCard
and Cashless Debit Card: what's the difference?’, op. cit.
[23]. DSS,
‘What
happens when a person starts income management?’, DSS website, last updated
14 November 2014.
[24]. Indue
Ltd, ‘View our “how-to”
tutorials’, Cashless Debit Card website.
[25]. Arthur,
‘BasicsCard
and Cashless Debit Card: what's the difference?’, op. cit.
[26]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest review: creating parity, report prepared for the Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2014, pp. 102–103.
[27]. DSS,
‘11.1.1.50
Trigger payments for income management’, Social Security Guide, DSS
website, last reviewed 11 November 2019.
[28]. DSS,
Income
management locations, op. cit.
[29]. DSS,
‘8.7.2.30
Trigger payment (Cashless Debit Card Trial)’, Social Security Guide,
DSS website, last reviewed 11 November 2019.
[30]. DSS,
‘8.7.4.10
People automatically made participants in the Cashless Debit Card Trial’, Social
Security Guide, DSS website, last reviewed 11 November 2019. ‘Trigger
payment’ is defined in section 124PD of the SSA Act—this
definition only applies to the administration of the cashless debit card.
[31]. Ibid.;
SSA Act, section 124PGC.
[32]. This
is the amount for instalments under subsection 124PJ(1) of the SSA Act.
100 per cent of lump sum payments are placed on the cashless debit card under
subsection 124PJ(2) of the SSA Act.
[33]. M
Brough (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), National
emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the NT, media
release, 21 June 2007.
[34]. M
Brough, ‘Answer
to Question without notice: child abuse’, [Questioner: D Fawcett], House of
Representatives, Debates, 21 June 2007, p. 76.
[35]. Northern
Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from
Sexual Abuse, Ampe
akelyernemane meke mekarle ‘little children are sacred’: report of the Northern
Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from
Sexual Abuse, report prepared for the Northern Territory Government,
Darwin, 2007.
[36]. P
Memmott, R Stacy, C Chambers and C Keys, Violence in
indigenous communities: full report, report prepared for the Crime
Prevention Branch, Attorney-General's Department, Barton, ACT, 2001, p. 51.
[37]. Quoted
in D Jopson, ‘Black
Australia: a picture of despair, rage and violence’, The Sydney Morning
Herald, 16 February 2001.
[38]. A
Ramsey, ‘A
cynical scratch, a pustular response’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 30
June 2007, p. 35.
[39]. J
Howard (Prime Minister), Government
tackles violence in Indigenous communities, media release, 28 August
2003; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS), Annual
report 2003–2004, ATSIS, Canberra, 2004, p. 193.
[40]. R
Bray, M Gay, K Hand and I Katz, Evaluating New
Income Management in the Northern Territory: final evaluation report,
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2014, p.
14.
[41]. J
Mazzocchi, ‘Proposal
for “smart card” payment for welfare recipients’, The World Today,
transcript, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 27 October 2003.
[42]. H
Fitzsimmons, ‘Pearson
supports welfare “smart card”’, AM, transcript, ABC, 30 October
2003.
[43]. P
Donald, ‘ATSIC
smart card unlikely solution: Vanstone’, AM, transcript, ABC, 1
November 2003
[44]. Indigenous
Studies Program, University of Melbourne, ‘Galiwin'ku
'Foodcard' Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA)’, Agreements, Treaties and
Negotiated Settlements website, last modified 7 September 2016.
[45]. Arnhem
Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA), Submission
to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs, Inquiry into community stores in remote Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities, [Submission no. 61], 2009.
[46]. A
King, Evidence
to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs, Inquiry into community stores in remote Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities, 22 July 2009, p. 68.
[47]. P
Yu, ME Duncan and B Gray, Report of the
NTER Review Board, Australian Government, Canberra, October 2008, pp.
21–22; A Barnes, J Brimblecombe, J McDonnell, ‘Impact
of income management on store sales in the Northern Territory’, Medical
Journal of Australia, 192(10), 17 May 2010, pp. 549–554.
[48]. J
Howard (Prime Minister), Address
to the Sydney Institute, Sydney, speech, 25 June 2007.
[49]. J
Macklin, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare
Payment Reform) Bill 2007 [and] Northern Territory National Emergency Response
Bill 2007 [and] Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other
Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other
Measures) Bill 2007 [and] Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency
Response) Bill (No. 1) 2007–2008 [and] Appropriation (Northern Territory
National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 2) 2007–2008’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 7 August 2007, p. 71.
[50]. J
Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs), Compulsory
income management to continue as key NTER measure, media release, 23
October 2008.
[51]. Yu,
et al, Report
of the NTER Review Board, op. cit., p. 10.
[52]. Ibid.,
p. 12; Macklin, Compulsory
income management to continue as key NTER measure, op. cit.
[53]. J
Macklin, Compulsory
income management to continue as key NTER measure, op. cit., p. 4.
[54]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[55]. Department
of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), Policy
statement: landmark reform to the welfare system, reinstatement of the Racial
Discrimination Act and strengthening of the Northern Territory Emergency
Response, Australian Government, [Canberra], 2009, pp. 1–2.
[56]. Ibid.,
pp. 8–9.
[57]. DSS,
Vulnerable
Welfare Payment Recipient measure of Income Management, fact sheet,
DSS, [Canberra], June 2019.
[58]. J
Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs), Cape
York welfare reform trial, media release, 22 April 2008.
[59]. Cape
York Institute for Policy and Leadership (Cape York Institute), From hand out
to hand up: Cape York welfare reform project: Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman
Gorge: design recommendations, Cape York Institute, Cairns, May 2007,
p. 1.
[60]. Bray,
et al, Evaluating
New Income Management in the Northern Territory, op. cit., p. 8.
[61]. N
Pearson, There
is nothing the government can do for you that you are unwilling to do for
yourself, Sir Robert Menzies lecture, Melbourne, 27 February 2011.
[62]. FaHCSIA,
Cape York
welfare reform: evaluation, FaHCSIA, Canberra, 2012, p. 212.
[63]. N
Pearson, ‘Ineffectual
bipartisanship ruins social policy’, The Australian, 26 March 2011,
p. 12.
[64]. Cape
York Institute, From
hand out to hand up, op. cit., p. 68.
[65]. Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, Evaluation of
income management in the Northern Territory, Occasional paper, 34, FaHCSIA,
Canberra, 2010, p. 2.
[66]. Bray,
et al, Evaluating
New Income Management in the Northern Territory, op. cit., p. 319.
[67]. N
Pearson, The
Cape York agenda: address to the National Press Club, Canberra, speech,
30 November 2005, pp. 8–9.
[68]. K
Henry, ‘Wellbeing
and public policy: the Australian Treasury’, paper presented to the
Population Wellbeing Data Gaps Workshop, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Canberra, 8 June 2006.
[69]. Cape
York Institute, From
hand out to hand up, op. cit.
[70]. Ibid.,
p. 67.
[71]. Ibid.,
pp. 67–68.
[72]. Ibid.,
p. 68.
[73]. M
Brough (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Cape
York welfare reform trials to begin in 2008, media release, 18
July 2007.
[74]. M
Brough, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare
Payment Reform) Bill 2007’, House of Representatives, Debates,
7 August 2007, pp. 1–9.
[75]. G
Elmes (Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and
Multicultural Affairs), Letter
to Mr Trevor Ruthenberg, Queensland Government Department of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs, Brisbane, 17 September
2014.
[76]. T
Abbott (Prime Minister), Review
of Indigenous training and employment, media release, 8 October 2013.
[77]. Forrest,
The Forrest review,
op. cit., p. 102.
[78]. Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO), Administration
of New Income Management in the Northern Territory: Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Department of Human
Services, Audit report, 19, 2012–13, ANAO, Barton, ACT, 2013, p. 94.
According to the Department of Social Services, it is difficult to calculate
estimates of the cost per person of administering income management in
different locations because some costs are centralised and apply across all
locations (for example, establishing a hotline) and others vary between
locations. See L Hefren-Webb, Evidence
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee
Hansard, 18 October 2012, p. 72.
[79]. Forrest,
The Forrest review,
op. cit., p. 27.
[80]. Ibid.,
pp. 104 and 106.
[81]. A
Forrest, ‘Healthy
welfare card will protect the vulnerable’, The Daily Telegraph, 24
March 2015, p. 13.
[82]. Ibid.
[83]. Ibid.
[84]. Forrest,
The Forrest
review, op. cit., p. 103.
[85]. Section
124PF of the SSA Act; DSS, ‘Cashless
Debit Card – frequently asked questions’, DSS website, last updated 4 September 2019.
[86]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November
2019.
[87]. Ibid.,
p. ix.
[88]. This
is specified separately for each income management measure: subsections
123XI(3) (Child Protection), 123XJA(4) (Vulnerable), 123XJC(4) (Disengaged
youth and long-term welfare payment recipients), 123XK(3), (School enrolment
and attendance), 123XPAA(3) (Other State/Territory referrals), 123XPA(3)
(Voluntary).
[89]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], op. cit., pp. 20–21.
[90]. Australian
Labor Party (Labor) Senators, Dissenting report,
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November 2019, p. 30.
[91]. Ibid.
[92]. Australian
Greens, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November 2019,
p. 44.
[93]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest,
6, 2019, The Senate, 18 September 2019, pp. 19–20.
[94]. Ibid.,
p. 19.
[95]. Subsection
124PJ(3) of the SSA Act enables the Secretary to vary the restricted
amount to zero per cent in limited cases—namely, where the person’s fund cannot
be accessed because of technological fault or malfunction, a natural disaster
or where the person is in severe financial hardship as a result of exceptional
and unforeseen circumstances.
[96]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest,
6, 2019, op. cit., p. 19.
[97]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest,
7, 2019, The Senate, 17 October 2019, pp. 83–84.
[98]. Ibid.
[99]. Ibid.,
p. 86.
[100]. Ibid.,
p. 85.
[101]. Ibid.,
p. 86.
[102]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest,
6, 2019, op. cit., p. 20.
[103]. Ibid.,
p. 21.
[104]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest,
7, 2019, op. cit., p. 87–9.
[105]. Ibid.,
p. 90.
[106]. S
Martin, ‘Coalition
push to expand cashless welfare card faces Senate roadblock’, The
Guardian (Australia), 27 November 2019.
[107]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], op. cit., p. 23.
[108]. Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 41], October
2019; ACOSS, Unnecessary,
demeaning cashless debit card unfairly targets people just because they can’t
find paid work, media release, n.d.
[109]. J
Nampijinpa Price, Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 108], 2
November 2019.
[110]. Generation
One, Minderoo Foundation, Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 27], n.d., p.
1.
[111]. For
example, J Hunt, Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 2], October
2019, p 2.
[112]. For
example, Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 9], 2 October
2019, pp. 3–4.
[113]. ACOSS,
Submission,
op. cit., pp. [3]–[4].
[114]. Ibid.,
p. [4].
[115]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, p. 1.
[116]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 18 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[117]. ANAO,
Administration
of New Income Management in the Northern Territory, op. cit., pp.
16–17.
[118]. DSS,
‘What
happens when a person starts income management?’, DSS website, last updated
14 November 2014.
[119]. DHS,
‘BasicsCard
for businesses: applying’, op. cit.
[120]. DSS
and Services Australia, Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 3], 11
October 2019, p. 5.
[121]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[122]. Paragraphs
123UCB(1)(g)
[123]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 1.
[124]. SSA
Act, paragraph 123UCB(1)(g).
[125]. SSA
Act, paragraph 123UCC(1)(g).
[126]. National
Social Security Rights Network, Submission
to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, [Submission no. 44], 18
October 2019, p. 4.
[127]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], op. cit., pp. ix and 21.
[128]. Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, clauses 5 to 8, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019.
[129]. SSA
Act, subsection 123XPA(3).
[130]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PJ(1).
[131]. Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, clause 1, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019.
[132]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 127(4)(aaa) and proposed paragraphs 144(laa);
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit
Card Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, clause 10, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019.
[133]. DSS,
‘1.1.S.190
Social security benefit’, Social Security Guide, DSS website, last
reviewed 1 July 2013.
[134]. DSS,
‘1.1.S.220
Social security pension’, Social Security Guide, DSS website, last
reviewed 1 July 2013.
[135]. SSA
Act, section 123TC (definition of category P welfare payment);
item 7 provides that this definition applies in relation to the proposed
provisions under the Bill. The definitions of social security
benefit and social security pension are set out in subsection
23(1) of the Social
Security Act 1991 (SS Act 1991)—social security benefit means
a widow allowance, youth allowance, Austudy payment, Newstart allowance,
sickness allowance, special benefit, partner allowance, a mature age allowance
under Part 2.12B, or benefit PP (partnered), and parenting allowance
(other than non‑benefit allowance); social security pension means
an age pension, disability support pension, wife pension, carer payment,
pension PP (single), a sole parent pension, bereavement allowance, a widow B
pension, mature age partner allowance, special needs pension. Definitions in
the SS Act 1991 apply to the SSA Act—subsection 3(2) of the SSA
Act.
[136]. SSA
Act, section 123B; DSS, ’11.1.4.10
Payment nominees under income management’, Social Security Guide,
DSS website, last reviewed 3 July 2017.
[137]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PGD(1).
[138]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 124PGD(1)(a).
[139]. SSA
Act, section 123TC (definition of Queensland Commission) and
section 123UF; item 7 of Schedule 1 amends subsection 124PD(1) of the SSA
Act to specify that for the purposes of the rules relating to Cape York trial
participants, the term Queensland Commission will have the same
meaning as the current definition under Part 3B.
[140]. Family
Responsibilities Commission (FRC), FRC
website.
[141]. Social Security
(Administration) - Queensland Commission (Family Responsibilities
Commission) Specification 2015 (Cth).
[142]. Proposed
subsection 124PD(1A), inserted by item 14 in Part 2 of
Schedule 1 to the Bill; item 7 inserts a definition of Cape
York area into subsection 124PD(1).
[143]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 8.
[144]. DSS,
‘8.7.2.10
Restrictable payment (Cashless Debit Card Trial)’, Social Security Guide,
DSS website, last reviewed 11 November 2019.
[145]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph (aa) of the definition of ‘restrictable
payment’ in subsection 124PD(1).
[146]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 124PJ(1A)(b).
[147]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PJ(2).
[148]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PJ(3) and (4) as amended by items 41 and 42
in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.
[149]. Subitem
47(1) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[150]. Subitem
47(2) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[151]. Subitem
47(4) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill; Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 16.
[152]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 123UF(4)(c) (at item 3 of Schedule
1).
[153]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
[154]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 123UF(4)(a) (at item 3 of Schedule 1).
[155]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 127(4)(aa) (item 44) and proposed
paragraphs 144(l) (item 45).
[156]. The
proposed definition of ‘category E welfare payment’ (as inserted
by item 7 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) has the
same meaning as in Part 3B of the SSA Act—‘category E welfare
payment’ is defined under section 123TC of that Act.
[157]. Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, clauses 2, 3 and 4, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019. This
Government amendment to the Bill was successful in the House and proposes to
introduce proposed paragraphs 124PGE(1)(ba), 124PGE(2)(ba) and 124PGE(3)(ba).
[158]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PGE(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(a).
[159]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PGE(5) and (7).
[160]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 10.
[161]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 7.
[162]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 15.
[163]. SSA
Act, subparagraph 124PG(1)(h) and subsection 124PG(3); subparagraph
124PGA(1)(h) and subsection 124PGA(3); subparagraph 124PGB(1)(h) and subsection
124PGB(3); subparagraph 124PGC(1)(g) and subsection 124PGC(3).
[164]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PGE(1)(f) and (g).
[165]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PHB(3) and (6).
[166]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PGE(2)(b), (c) and (d).
[167]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 124PGE(2)(d).
[168]. The
proposed definition of ‘child protection officer’ (as
inserted by item 7 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill)
provides that the term has the same meaning as in Part 3B of the SSA
Act—‘child protection officer’ is defined under section 123TC
of that Act.
[169]. The
proposed definition of ‘recognised State/Territory authority’ (as
inserted by item 7 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) provides that the term has the same meaning as
in Part 3B of the SSA Act—‘recognised State/Territory
authority’ is defined under section 123TGAA of that Act.
[170]. Social Security
(Administration) (Recognised State/Territory Authority - Northern Territory
Department of Health) Determination 2017 (Cth), section 6.
[171]. The
proposed definition of ‘vulnerable welfare payment recipient’
(as inserted by item 13 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill) provides that the term has the same meaning as in Part 3B of the
SSA Act—the income management provisions. Under Part 3B, vulnerable
welfare payment recipient is given meaning by section 123UGA. Subsection
123UGA(1) of the SSA Act states that the Secretary can make such
a determination for the purposes of ‘this Part’—that is Part 3B not Part
3D (the CDC trial provisions). Accordingly, it is not clear whether the
Secretary’s power under section 123UGA of the SSA Act can be relied on
for the purposes of allowing the Secretary to determine a vulnerable welfare
recipient under Part 3D.
[172]. Subitem
48(6) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[173]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph (aa) of the definition of ‘restrictable
payment’ in subsection 124PD(1).
[174]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PJ(1B) and (1D).
[175]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PJ(1C).
[176]. Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, clauses 5, 6 7 and 8, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019.
This Government amendment to the Bill was successful in the House and proposes
to amend the unrestricted and restricted limits in proposed subsections
124PJ(2A) and (2B) of the SSA Act.
[177]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PJ(2).
[178]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(2A); item 39 in Part 2
of Schedule 1 to the Bill as amended in the House of Representatives by
clauses 5 and 6: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019.
[179]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 13.
[180]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(2B); item 39 in Part 2
of Schedule 1 to the Bill as amended in the House of Representatives by
clauses 7 and 8: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019, amendment, sheet
TK160, House of Representatives, 19 November 2019.
[181]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 13.
[182]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(2C).
[183]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PJ(3) and (4) as amended by items 41 and 42
in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.
[184]. Subitem
48(1) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[185]. Subitem
48(2) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[186]. Subitem
48(4) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[187]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 123UP(1) and (4) (at item 3 of Schedule 1).
[188]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
[189]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
[190]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 123UP(2).
[191]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 127(4)(aa) and proposed paragraphs 144(l),
inserted by items 44 and 45, respectively.
[192]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 9.
[193]. SSA
Act, paragraph 124PH(b) and definition of ‘trial area’ in
subsection 124PD(1) as amended by item 10 in Part 2 of Schedule 1
to the Bill.
[194]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PJ(1).
[195]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PJ(1A) to (1D).
[196]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PK(3).
[197]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PK(1); subsection 124PD(1) (definition of community
body); subsection 124PE.
[198]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PS(1).
[199]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PS(4), (5).
[200]. Australia,
Senate, Journals,
115, 2016–18, 11 September 2018, pp. 3678–3679; Social Services Legislation
Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, amendment, sheet
8495, clause 1, Senate, 22 August 2018.
[201]. S
Storer, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card
Trial Expansion) Bill 2018’, Senate, Debates, 22 August 2018, p.
5620.
[202]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 5.
[203]. SSA
Act, sections 124PN and 124PO.
[204]. Wellbeing
and exit determinations are discussed in greater detail above under the heading
‘Wellbeing and exit determinations’.
[205]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 14.
[206]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124POB(2).
[207]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124POC(2).
[208]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124POD(2).
[209]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124POC(3) and 124POD(3).
[210]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 15.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.