1.1
The Australian Greens oppose the measures contained in Social Services
Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 (Bill).
1.2
This Bill will extend the Cashless Debit Card to the Bundaberg and
Hervey Bay area, defined as the Division of Hinkler on 31 May 2018, until 30
June 2020, and it will raise the participant cap across the trial sites from 10
000 to 15 000.
1.3
It will also introduce an exemption to the Competition and Consumer
Act 2010 for merchants who decline transactions that use the funds in a
welfare restricted bank account to purchase restricted products, specifically
alcohol, gambling and cash-like products. Cash-like products are defined in the
Bill.
1.4
The Australian Greens note that this is the third legislation inquiry
into the Cashless Debit Card and that our dissenting reports to both of the
previous bills' inquiries remain relevant to the issues before us.
1.5
We continue to hold concerns about the harmful nature of compulsory income
management and its ineffectiveness as a policy, the widely criticised ORIMA
evaluation of the first two trial sites in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, the
indirect discrimination of the card against First Nations peoples, the lack of
consultation with individuals who will be affected by the card's rollout and
the barriers the card creates for those forced onto it.
1.6
Our fresh concerns relating to the Cashless Debit Card and this Bill are
outlined below.
1.7
The Australian Greens wish to express their disappointment that there
was only a single short hearing for this inquiry held in Canberra and that
there was no hearing held in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area.
Australian National Audit Office report
1.8
Since the last inquiry into the Cashless Debit Card, the Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO) has released its report The Implementation and
Performance of the Cashless Debit Card Trial.
1.9
In its submission to the inquiry, the Accountable Income Management
Network says:
...the ANAO's report on the CDC has explicitly condemned both
ORIMA's evaluation process and final report. The ANAO undertook an audit of the
CDC trials to identify whether the Department of Social Services was
appropriately informed and positioned to justify further roll-out of the CDC.
The ANAO's report concluded that the Department of Social Services' "approach
to monitoring and evaluation was inadequate. As a consequence, it is difficult
to conclude whether there had been a reduction in social harm and whether the
card was a lower cost welfare quarantining approach." The report also
noted that the Department of Social Services failed to "actively monitor
risks identified in risk plans and there were deficiencies in elements of the
procurement process." Referring specifically to the ORIMA evaluation of
the trial, "there was a lack of robustness in data collection and the
department's evaluation did not make use of all available administrative data
to measure the impact of the trial including any change in social harm."
Crucially, the Auditor-General found that "the trial was not designed to
test the scalability of the CDC and there was no plan in place to undertake
further evaluation." This indictment of the trials specifies that there is
no clear basis for expansion of the CDC, and casts doubt on the validity of the
current trials.[1]
Scope for Bundaberg/Hervey Bay area trial site
1.10
The Bill will see those under 36 years who are receiving Newstart
Allowance, Youth Allowance (excluding new apprentices or those undertaking
full-time study out of area) or Parenting Payment and whose usual place of
residence is, becomes or was within the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area subjected
to the Cashless Debit Card.
1.11
The Accountable Income Management Network says in its submission:
While the justification given by the Department of Social
Services is that this age bracket encompasses those at most risk of harm
related to alcohol and other drugs and gambling, this will result in the
further marginalisation of a particular demographic within the group of income
support recipients in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay Region.[2]
1.12
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights says in its most
recent report:
As the cashless debit card trial applies to anyone below the
age of 35 residing in the trial location who receives the specified social
security payments, there are serious doubts as to whether the measures are the
least rights restrictive way of achieving the objective. In relation to the
bill, this concern is heightened insofar as the trial applies not only to persons
whose usual place of residence 'is or becomes' within the Bundaberg and Hervey
Bay area, but also applies to a person whose usual place of residence was within
the area.[3]
1.13
In relation to the trial applying to those whose usual place of
residence was within the area, the Australian Human Rights Commission says in
its submission:
The Commission considers that this over-inclusive application
of the cashless debit card trial is unnecessary and notes that the statement of
compatibility with human rights does not provide a compelling justification for
the proposed amendment.[4]
Consideration of Participant
Wellbeing
1.14
The Australian Greens have concerns regarding subsection 124PGA(5) of
the Bill, which says:
The Secretary is not required to inquire into whether a
person being a trial participant under this section would pose a serious risk
to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.
1.15
The Accountable Income Management Network says in its submission:
The lack of requirement for the Secretary to consider the
detrimental effects of the CDC on a participant's wellbeing prior to their
enrolment in the trial is of great concern, as it forces the burden of proof of
hardship on to income support recipients.[5]
1.16
Further on, it continues:
As noted by the ANAO, key services in trial sites that relate
directly to participant wellbeing [including the wellbeing exemptions] were not
adequately monitored and evaluated to determine their effectiveness and to
drive improvement in trial operation by the Department of Social Services[.][6]
1.17
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights says in its most
recent report:
...the secretary is not required to make inquiries on this
matter but is only required to take action once being made aware of the
relevant facts. It is not clear how the secretary would be made aware of
whether a person's participation in the trial is impacting a person's mental,
physical and emotional wellbeing.[7]
Community bodies/panels
1.18
The Australian Greens are concerned about the inclusion of the community
body/panel model for the proposed new trial site. This concern is exacerbated
by the recent ANAO report.
1.19
The Accountable Income Management Network says in its submission:
This directly contradicts the Department of Social Services'
statement [to the ANAO] that the Community Panels were not...suitable for
carry-over to further trial sites.[8]
1.20
Further on, it continues:
...the ANAO report reveals that the community panels were not
effectively or sufficiently evaluated as a component of the trials in current
trial sites, noting that "the indicator developed to assess the
operational performance of the Community Panels did not take into account feedback
from trial applicants."
Finally, the ANAO notes that the Department of Social
Services did not appropriately report on Community Panels in their report to
the Minister in October of 2017: "Social Services did not refer to the
evaluation of the trial, which noted other factors that impacted on the effectiveness
of Community Panels, including the '...delay in establishing and commencing the
Community Panels from the start of the trial' and that '...the panel process was
not adequately known and communicated' to the trial participants and
communities. The evaluation report indicated that community leaders and
stakeholders indicated they believed the Community Panel was '...a good and
necessary safeguard process in the trial to ensure that personal/family
circumstances and needs were taken into consideration'."[9]
1.21
Say No To Cashless Welfare Card/No Cashless Debit Card Hinkler Region
says in its submission:
This is concern[ing] as to who would be empowered to run such
programs without being professionals, who would be involved, what experience
would they have? Who would be able to gain power to take control of other
peoples' lives? PRIVACY![10]
1.22
The National Social Security Rights Network (NSSRN) says in its
submission:
We have previously highlighted concerns with the CDC
community panels. In the small trial communities, there is a strong likelihood
that an applicant will know members of the Community Panels. This raises issues
of bias, conflicts of interest, and discrimination. We have also raised
specific concerns about the application process and the evaluation criteria.
The application process requires applicants to consent to the release or
cross-matching of data from a range of government agencies. This process
inevitably involves the disclosure of substantial personal information to
people personally known to them. Furthermore, there is no independent review of
a percentage decision, either through internal review or review by the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal.[11]
1.23
The Australian Greens are also concerned that the Bill amends how the
authorisation of community bodies will occur for the new site. Instead of
authorisation being by legislative instrument, it will be by way of notifiable
instrument, which removes the ability for parliamentary scrutiny.
Additional amendments in the Bill
Point of sale exemption and cash-like
products ban
1.24
The Australian Greens have concerns regarding subsection 124PQ(2A) of
the Bill, which seeks to exempt the declining of a transaction from the Competition
and Consumer Act 2010 if it involves money from a welfare restricted bank
account and the purchasing of alcohol, gambling or a cash-like product that
could be used to purchase alcohol or gambling. This will affect all trial
sites.
1.25
Subsection 124PQA will insert the definition of cash-like products. It
says:
Without limiting sections 124PM and 124PQ, cash‑like
product includes any of the following:
- a gift card, store card, voucher or similar article
(whether in a physical or electronic form);
- a money order, postal order or similar order (whether in
a physical or electronic form);
- digital currency.
1.26
The NSSRN says in its submission:
This amendment will unnecessarily expand the ambit of control
exercised over the restricted portion of a CDC. Under this measure, a person
will be restricted from buy[ing] a gift or store card from a merchant that does
not even sell any of the targeted prohibited items. This provision will further
act to disempower CDC holders and limit their economic and social participation
in their communities.[12]
1.27
The Australian Council of Social Service says in its submission:
We also note that people will be denied purchasing gift
cards, money orders and postal orders. This could lead to some people being
unable to pay things like a bond (which often requires a money order) or send
money by post.[13]
1.28
The Accountable Income Management Network says in its submission:
This means that merchants will be authorised to discriminate
against trial participants at the point of sale based on their being subject to
the trial. We note that the recommendation for further technologisation of the
CDC through point-of-sale blocking of restricted products was included and
developed in the Minderoo Foundation's report on the CDC from late 2017...
While the Bill does not make declining such transitions
mandatory, it does open the possibility for merchants to undertake such actions
without violating the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.[14]
1.29
Say No To Cashless Welfare Card/No Cashless Debit Card Hinkler Region
says in its submission:
We assert:
- That the inclusion of digital currencies on prohibited
lists bears no relation to the stated cash control objectives of the CDCT.
- That exclusion from the digital currency marketplace is a
breach of economic, social and cultural rights and is radically discriminating
against Social Security recipients as a cohort.
- That digital currencies are part of the digital /online
world schema and therefore represent an essential generational and cultural
artefact in their own right.
- That this amendment will impact significantly upon the
under 36 year old cohort and others, that may require digital currency access
for self advancement and self maintenance ie: the unemployed and under-employed
and persons with mental illness.
- This amendment is changing the entire nature of the
Cashless debit Card legislation from being one of cash restriction for purpose,
to one of wholesale economic segregation.
- This amendment seeks to remove the right of individuals to
transact external to the banking sector in a manner of their own choosing.[15]
Secretary's discretionary powers
1.30
The Australian Greens have concerns regarding subsection 124PJ(4A) and
(4B) of the Bill. Subsection 124PJ(4A) and 124PJ(4B) have the effect of
transferring the power for varying percentages of restricted and unrestricted
portions for particular individuals from the Minister via legislative
instrument to the Secretary via written determination.
1.31
The Accountable Income Management Network says in its submission:
Importantly, this means that these decisions, while subject
to Parliamentary disallowance in the Ceduna, East Kimberley and Goldfields
regions, will not be subject to the same mechanism in the Hinkler
electorate.[16]
Contingent amendments
1.32
The Australian Greens have concerns regarding the contingent amendment
in the Bill (item 20) that will come into effect if the applicable amendments
in Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 have
commenced at the time these amendments commence.
1.33
As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights says in its most
recent report:
The effect of this amendment would be to...retain the proposed
deletion of current section 124PM(b) which allows persons to use the
unrestricted portion of the payment, as paid to the person, at the person's
discretion.[17]
1.34
The Australian Human Rights Commission says in its submission:
...by removing the safeguard for persons to use the 'unrestricted'
portion 'at their discretion' and by further restricting the uses to which the 'restricted'
portion can be directed, both Bills are therefore detrimental to the economic
freedom of trial participants.[18]
1.35
The Australian Greens do not support the Social Services Legislation
Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017.
Concerns of those who will be subjected to the card in the Bundaberg and
Hervey Bay area
1.36
A number of submissions were received from individuals who will be
subjected to the card if this Bill passes. A number of these individuals also
provided evidence at the hearing for this inquiry. The Australian Greens are
concerned that their views have not been heard through consultations.
Accordingly, we have highlighted some of their concerns below.
1.37
Say No To Cashless Welfare Card/No Cashless Debit Card Hinkler Region,
among other things, was concerned about the lack of public consultation from
the local member and the costs associated with the card, both monetary and for
those to be subjected to the trial.[19]
They say in their submission:
The stigma attached to the card through the constant
demonising of the people on social security, the media "welfare bashing"
has already changed our local community language and the way people on social
security are being treated[.][20]
1.38
They continue:
This card will further divide our community, excluding so
many people in so many ways, from community events, school events, charity
events, cash economy, secondhand economy, but also the banking economy...
Just like the people on the card in other regions, our
residents do not deserve to be treated as a sub class citizen with their human
rights removed, their freedom removed, their ability to travel, decided for
them...[21]
1.39
Instead, they wanted to see the money that would be spent on the trial
go into funding services such as homeless and domestic violence shelters and to
funding education pathways and creating jobs for the local young people.[22]
1.40
Submission 1 says:
We live in Childers QLD and it would make our household worse
off than it is now as many of our household bills are handled by direct
debiting especially our mortgages, which the card does not allow, with
alternative payment options taking up to nine months to arrange.[23]
1.41
It continues:
Housing with the card wi[ll] be virtually unattainable as
most of the real estate agencies use direct debiting options and again not an
option on the cashless card. Households that rely on cash income streams like
garage sales, markets, Ebay, Etsy and so forth, will lose that income and be
worse off and kiss goodbye to school tuckshops as most of these (at least in
the Childers area) are cash facilities only.[24]
1.42
Submission 12 says:
I feel that the removal of cash from a place like the seat of
[H]inkler would place a very large strain on the local economy.
1/ The local farmers who sell on the side of the road will
feel it.
2/ People trying to sell second hand items will feel the loss
of buyers.
3/The local markets will also lose buyers.
4/School fetes will lose out as some of the people targeted
here will probably have school age children and won[']t have the cash to buy or
participate[.]
5/ Children will miss out on school activities or buying
second hand items from schools as the parents won[']t have cash.
6/ Local small businesses who deal in cash will lose
customers.
7/ People won[']t be able to buy online thus pushing their
cost of living up.[25]
Conclusion
1.43
It is difficult to comprehend why the Government is pushing forward with
the expansion of the Cashless Debit Card to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area,
particularly when the evidence does not exist to support this further roll out.
Instead, the Government should be investing the money to be spent administering
this trial on services for the area.
Recommendation 1
1.44
The Australian Greens recommend that the bill not be passed.
Senator Rachel Siewert Senator
Andrew Bartlett
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page