Bills Digest No.
33, 2020–21
PDF version [860KB]
Don Arthur
Social Policy Section
Joseph Ayoub
Law and Bills Digest Section
2
December 2020
Contents
Purpose and
structure of the Bill
Commencement
History of
the Bill
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
Entrenching
the cashless debit card as an ongoing measure
Northern
Territory—transitioning from income management to the cashless debit card
Cape
York—transitioning from income management to the CDC
Percentage of
payments restricted to the CDC
Date introduced: 8
October 2020
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 2020.
Purpose and structure of the Bill
The purpose of the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020 (the Bill) is to establish the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) as an ongoing
program rather than a time-limited trial, to transition Income Management in
the Northern Territory and the Cape York region to the Cashless Debit Card and
make a number of other amendments.
The Bill has one Schedule which is divided into three
Parts.
Part 1 amends the Social Security (Administration)
Act 1991 (SSA Act) to remove the trial parameters
to make the CDC a permanent measure in the Ceduna, East Kimberley, Goldfields,
Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas (items 7-10). Part 1 also:
- removes
the current cap of 15,000 CDC participants (item 16)
- enables
a voluntary participant to continue to utilise the CDC even if they no longer
reside in a program area (item 29)
- allows
the Minister to determine decision-making principles for the purposes of
determining whether a person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible
management of the person’s affairs (item 37) and
- extends
the sunset date for income management in Cape York from 31 December 2020 to 31 December 2022
(item 5).
Part 2 amends the SSA Act to establish the
CDC program in the Northern Territory and Cape York area and transition income
management participants in those areas onto the CDC. Part 2 also:
- enables
people in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas to volunteer to participate in CDC
arrangements (item 75)
- enables
the Secretary of the Department of Social Services (the Secretary) to advise a
community body when a person has exited the CDC trial (item 93)
Part 3 of the Bill:
- enables
the Secretary to issue a notice informing the person that they are a CDC
program participant. The Secretary may also issue a notice revoking that notice
(items 101 to 113) and
- amends
the CDC program review and evaluation process (items 47 and 48 in
Part 1; item 114 in Part 3).
Commencement
- Sections
1 to 3 commence on Royal Assent
- Part
1 of Schedule 1 commences the day after Royal Assent
- Part
2 of Schedule 1 commences the day after three months from Royal
Assent
- Items
101 to 113 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 commence on 8 March
2021
- Item
14 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 commences the day after Royal
Assent.[1]
History of the Bill
This Bill includes amendments that are contained in the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 (2019 Bill). In particular, proposed amendments in
the 2019 Bill include:
- extending
the CDC trial to the Northern Territory Cape York area and transition income
management participants in these areas onto the CDC trial
- extending
the CDC trial end date to 30 June 2021 for all trial areas including the proposed
NT CDC trial site and
- establishing
an end of 31 December 2021 in the Cape York area CDC trial site.[2]
The 2019 Bill passed the House of Representatives with
Government amendments on 27 November 2019. It was introduced in the
Senate on 2 December 2019. While the 2019 Bill received a third reading in the
House of Representatives it has not been debated in the Senate.[3]
If the current Bill is passed by Parliament, the 2019 Bill will be redundant.
The Bill replicates many of the proposed amendments in the
2019 Bill; a Bills
Digest was prepared for the 2019 Bill.[4]
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, illegal drugs and
gambling. According to Anne Ruston, the Minister for Families and Social
Services, the cashless debit card is ‘a personal development, capacity and
financial literacy tool aimed at reducing the social harm caused by welfare
fuelled drug and alcohol misuse and problem gambling.’[5]
Both income management and the cashless debit card were
first implemented in Indigenous communities. Concerns that access to cash in
Indigenous communities fuels alcohol abuse and other problems are not new. In
1976 House of Representatives committee reported:
Significant increases in income, due mainly to award wages
and improved social security payments such as unemployment benefits and child
endowment, have given Aboriginals large amounts of money. Much of this may be
spent on alcohol as the Aboriginal is unaccustomed to having so much ready
money and is unable to understand concepts of budgeting and saving.[6]
Restricting access to cash has also been suggested in the
past. For example, commenting on drinking problems in Ceduna in 1974, South
Australian state MP Graham Gunn suggested that unemployment payments to
Indigenous people should be replaced by ‘rations and clothing.’[7]
Both the cashless debit card and the income management
BasicsCard attempt to restrict access to cash by blocking cash withdrawals and
transactions involving excluded goods or at merchants that sell excluded goods.[8]
While the cashless debit card and the BasicsCard are provided by payment
company Indue,[9]
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.[10]
The Government operates income management and the cashless
debit card in a number of locations around Australia.
The majority of income management participants are in the
Northern Territory. As at 4 September 2020 there were 24,718 income
management participants with an active BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. At
the same time, around 130 individuals were subject to income management under
the Cape York measure.[11]
Of the 24,974 people on income management as at August 2019, 79 per cent
were Indigenous.[12]
The total number of participants currently on the cashless
debit card is smaller. The largest site is the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region
with 6,084 card users followed by the Goldfields region with around 3,473.[13]
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:
- 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).[14]
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.[15]
How income management and the cashless debit card work
For Government, one of the major advantages of the
cashless debit card over Income Management is that it places less of an
administrative burden on Centrelink and the Department of Human Services.
The cashless debit card can be used at a far larger number
of merchants than the BasicsCard and, unlike the BasicsCard, can be used for
online purchases at approved merchants.[16]
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).[17]
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.[18]
Amounts standing to the credit of the income management record may be kept in a
single bank account.[19]
Individuals can transfer funds between their income management account and
their BasicsCard.[20]
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.[21]
A merchant can only accept the BasicsCard if they have signed an agreement and Services
Australia has approved them.[22]
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.[23]
Each person on the cashless debit card has a bank account
known as a ‘welfare restricted bank account’.[24]
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.[25]
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.[26]
The system automatically blocks a number of MCCs including those covering
drinking places, packaged liquor stores, gambling venues and a category known
as ‘quasi cash’ (a category that includes things such as traveller’s cheques).[27]
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 dealing with ‘mixed merchants’. A mixed merchant may sell alcohol
or other excluded goods in addition to other goods and services that
policymakers want cardholders to be able to access. 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.[28]
The Department of Social Services is currently trialling a
more automated solution to this problem that relies on changes to merchants’
point of sale systems.[29]
What the 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[30]
- 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.[31]
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.[32]
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.[33]
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.[34]
One of the chief advantages of the cashless debit card for
government is the cost of administration. 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.
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 a cashless debit card would be cheaper to maintain and
easier for Government to administer.[35]
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.[36]
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
|
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 under 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], 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], June 2019; DSS, Income
Management for Cape York Welfare Reform and Doomadgee, fact sheet, DSS,
[Canberra], June 2019; DSS, Supporting
People at Risk measure of Income Management, fact sheet, DSS,
[Canberra], June 2019; DSS, Voluntary
Income Management, fact sheet, DSS, [Canberra], June 2019; DSS, ‘11.1.1.50 Trigger
payments for income management’, Social security guide, DSS website,
last reviewed 21 September 2020; 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 21 September 2020; 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 21 September 2020.
a. A rate of 100% is set by legislative instrument (Social Security
(Administration) (Deductible portion — section 123XI) Specification 2019 for
certain ABSTUDY payments.
b. This amount is determined by the Secretary (subsections
123XM(3) and 123XO(3)). The Act does not specify a default amount. See: DSS, ‘Income
Management for Cape York Welfare Reform and Doomadgee’, June 2019, p. [1].
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
2020). 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 2020.
100 per cent is specified as the deductible portion of an instalment of certain
ABSTUDY payments.
Table 2: locations where
income management measures apply[37]
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’,[38]
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.[39]
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.[40]
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.[41]
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.[42]
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.[43]
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.[44]
While the Government’s response to the report’s revelations was swift, many of
the problems it identified were already known. 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.’[45]
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’.[46]
The Government received the Memmott Report in August 1999
and publicly released it in January 2001.[47]
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’.[48]
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.[49]
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.[50]
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.[51]
Mr Quartermaine’s proposal was rejected by the then Minister for Indigenous
Affairs, Amanda Vanstone.[52]
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).[53]
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.[54]
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.[55]
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.[56]
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.’[57]
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.[58]
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.[59]
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.[60]
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.[61]
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.[62]
The Government indicated that it would develop a new approach to income management
that did not involve the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act.[63]
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.[64]
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.[65]
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.[66]
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.[67]
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.[68]
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.[69]
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.[70]
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.[71]
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.’[72]
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’.[73]
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’.[74]
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.[75]
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’.[76]
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.[77]
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.[78]
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’.[79]
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.[80]
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.[81]
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.[82]
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.[83]
2014—trial extended to include Doomadgee
Doomadgee joined the Cape York Welfare Reform trial in
August 2014.[84]
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.[85]
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
reportThe 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.[86]
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.[87]
According to the Forrest Review, the cost of income management made it
‘unsustainable and unsuitable for broader application’.[88]
The Review implied that the cashless debit card would be cheaper because it
relied on the mainstream banking system.[89]
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).[90]
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’.[91]
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.[92]
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.’[93]
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). Currently these trials can operate until 31
December 2020.[94]
Committee consideration
Community
Affairs Legislation Committee
The Bill was referred to the Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November
2020. Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry
homepage. The Committee received 145 submissions and conducted a public
hearing on 5 November 2020 and delivered its report to the Senate on 17
November 2020.[95]
The Committee tabled a majority report, a Dissenting
Report by Labor Senators and a Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens.
Majority report
The Committee recommend that the Bill be passed.[96]
The Committee was of the view that:
- technological
issues which have been raised in relation to the functionality of the CDC are
being ‘actively addressed by DSS’ and ‘the CDC Technology Working Group
established by DSS will continue to consider technology options to improve the
operations of the CDC’
- IM
participants transitioning to the CDC will benefit from the increased
functionality of the CDC
- reports
of ‘significant improvements in the welfare of children in various communities
indicate that the [CDC] program is achieving its objective of reducing hardship
and deprivation’ and
- ‘making
the CDC an ongoing measure will provide stability and sees significant benefit
in the continuation of the program’.[97]
Dissenting report by Labor Senators
Labor Senators recommended that the Bill not be passed and
made the following observation:
Around 68 per cent of the people impacted by the restrictions
and controls in this bill are First Nations Australians. Labor Senators believe
this makes the bill racially discriminatory.[98]
Labor Senators called on the Government to:
- listen
to local communities, including First Nations communities
- invest
in job creation, evidence-based services and partnerships with communities,
rather than continuing to pursue CDC and broad-based compulsory income
management policies and
- abandon
its Technology Working Group—and preparations for a national rollout of the
CDC.[99]
Dissenting report by the Australian
Greens
The Greens also recommended that that Bill not be passed and
made the following additional recommendations:
- that
all forms of compulsory income management currently operating in Australia
should be abandoned
- that
the Government carries out extensive consultation around Australia for any move
to make income management voluntary and ensure that any new program is co-designed
and
- that
the Government consult immediately with communities in Cape York and the Family
Responsibilities Commission on any further operation of the Cape York Scheme.[100]
2019 Bill
Senate Committee Inquiry
The 2019 Bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee for inquiry
and report. The Committee delivered its majority report into the inquiry to
the Senate on 7 November 2019; both Labor Senators and the Australian
Greens issued separate dissenting reports.[101]
The Committee recommended the Department of Social
Services clarify proposed changes to the Minister’s discretionary powers to
determine the rates of quarantined income and recommended that the 2019 Bill be
passed.[102]
Labor Senators recommended that the Senate not pass the
2019 Bill in its current form.[103]
Labor Senators considered that the CDC trials should not be extended or
expanded unless:
- the
regime is made voluntary
- it
is only applied in specific instances, with intensive case management and is
time limited, for example, child protection or
- a
community genuinely gives their informed consent to trial the card, consistent
with self-determination.[104]
The Australian Greens’ recommended that the 2019 Bill not
be passed. The Australian Greens Senators expressed broad opposition to both
income management and the cashless debit card and questioned its effectiveness
in reducing social harm and disadvantage.[105]
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
(Scrutiny Committee) raised concerns about:
- the
Secretary’s ability to revoke a person’s exemption from the CDC program in
circumstances where the Secretary has received a request from the officer or
employee of a State or Territory who considers that is necessary for medical or
safety reasons relating to the person or their dependents to be part of the
program
- the
Minister’s proposed power to determine ‘decision-making principles’ which the
Secretary must follow for the purposes of determining whether a person can
manage their affairs and should therefore be exempt from the CDC program
- the
ability for the Cape York program area to be determined and parts of the
Northern Territory to be excluded from the program area by notifiable
instruments which are non-disallowable
- the
proposed use of notifiable instruments to vary the restricted and unrestricted
portion of a CDC participant’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 by the Secretary and shared with specified state and territory
government officials, as well as the lack of guidance in place to protect
individuals’ privacy.[106]
These concerns are discussed at various points throughout
the Digest save for the Scrutiny Committee’s privacy concerns, dealt with below.
Privacy
concerns
Proposed sections 124POB, 124POC and 124POD
of the SSA Act will allow the Secretary and specified State and
Territory officials to share information relating to current or prospective
program participants.[107]
The proposed amendment to paragraph 192(db) would permit the Secretary to
require a person to give information or produce a document to the Department
where the Secretary considers it relevant to the operation of the CDC program.[108]
These provisions remain the same as those in the 2019 Bill and are discussed at
pages 38–40 of the Bills
Digest to that Bill.
The Scrutiny Committee considers that the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill does not adequately address privacy concerns and
requests the Minister’s advice on:
- 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.[109]
The Scrutiny Committee raised the same concerns in
relation to the 2019 Bill—these concerns are discussed at pages 22–23 of the Bills
Digest to the 2019 Bill.
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Australian
Labor Party
Australian Labor Party Senators and Members have indicated
that they support income management and the cashless debit card when the
measures are targeted and where individuals and communities have been consulted
and have consented. In a second reading speech for the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019, the Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services,
Linda Burney, said:
We are not opposed to income management in all circumstances,
but we are opposed to this broad based, compulsory program that catches and
disempowers the wrong people. Income management can be justified when it is
targeted, such as for child protection, but it should not be indiscriminate or
broad sweeping, such as this across the Territory. For example, in Cape York,
where the local community is applying income management based on individual
circumstances, supporting families and monitoring outcomes, that is
appropriate. Why it cannot happen in the Northern Territory is absolutely
beyond me.[110]
Commenting on the current Bill’s extension of the cashless
debit card to the Northern Territory Senator Malarndirri McCarthy said ‘Labor
is fighting this vehemently.’[111]
As noted above under the heading ‘dissenting report by
Labor Senators’, Labor Senators issued a dissenting report on the Bill,
recommending that it not be passed.[112]
Australian Greens
The Australian Greens have consistently opposed both
Income Management and the cashless debit card. As noted above under the
heading, ‘dissenting report by the Australian Greens’, the Greens issued
dissenting reports in the case of both the 2019 Bill and the current Bill in
which they recommended that the Bill not be passed.[113]
Commenting on the Government’s plan to entrench the
cashless debit card as a permanent measure, Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said:
‘This is yet another attempt to stealthily entrench this racist and punitive
card that it is not accepted by the community or has any evidence that it is
achieving its purported outcomes.’[114]
Other minor
parties and independents
At the time of writing, the position of other minor
parties and independents was not clear. According to a report by Adam Holmes in
The Examiner, Senator Jacqui Lambie wants to see changes to the cashless
debit card scheme:
I've made it crystal clear to the government where I stand on
the cashless debit card, and I've told them they've got to iron out the
problems with it before pushing ahead ...
If they insist on pushing this through the Senate without
doing that basic legwork, it'll only be because they don't need my vote.[115]
Position of major interest groups
The majority of groups making submissions to the Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s inquiry opposed the Bill.
Groups that
support the Bill
Submissions in support of the Bill include those from
Generation One, the Wunan Foundation, the Cape York Institute, the Families Responsibilities
Commission and the Shire of Coolgardie—Generation One and the Wunan Foundation are
involved in promoting the cashless debit card.
Generation
One
Generation One is an initiative of the Minderoo
Foundation, a foundation established by Andrew and Nicola Forrest. The card was
originally developed in response to a recommendation from Andrew Forrest in his
2014 report: The Forrest Review: Creating Parity.[116]
Generation One’s submission welcomes the establishment of
the CDC as an ongoing program, arguing it provides certainty to current trial
sites and participants, allows ‘positive outcomes supported by the CDC to
continue and compound’, and enables the ‘realisation of improvements currently
underway, including technology upgrades’.[117]
The submission also makes a number of recommendations that go beyond the
measures proposed in the Bill. These include:
- amending
‘the transition from the BasicsCard to the CDC with emphasis on 80 per cent
quarantine of income, as opposed to 50 per cent of income’
- using
the cashless debit card to restrict the sale of tobacco in all cashless debit
card sites as well as the NT and Cape York
- considering
a broader rollout of the cashless debit card to ‘to targeted cohorts, such as
all Youth Allowance recipients’ and
- ‘Further
legislative amendment be considered to streamline the capacity of communities
to opt-in voluntarily to the CDC trial without further legislative amendments
each time.’[118]
The submission also emphasises the role of the cashless
debit card as part of a broader approach that includes ‘wrap-around services
such as training and employment pathways, alcohol and other drug support and
financial counselling.’[119]
Shire of
Coolgardie (Goldfields region)
According the Shire of Coolgardie’s submission:
Qualitative information received by the Shire from its
communities has been neutral or positive in relation to the introduction of the
[cashless debit card] in the region. Positive trends include improvements in
the welfare of children, purchasing choices (food), community
involvement/engagement and employment.[120]
The submission highlights the work done by the Department
of Social Services to establish the trial ‘and the outstanding support their
Officers have provided in each community during the roll-out of this program.’[121]
Wunan
Foundation (East Kimberley)
In the Wunan Foundation’s submission, executive chair Ian
Trust argues that the cashless debit card is a ‘first step in a more
comprehensive strategy of change.’[122]
According to the submission:
It is Wunan Foundation’s view that, more than four years on
from the beginning of the CDC trial, circumstances in the East Kimberley today
represent an improvement on the lived experience of people before the trial
began in April 2016.[123]
The submission also discusses measures introduced
alongside the cashless debit card that Wunan believes have also contributed to
positive outcomes. These include halving the maximum daily takeaway alcohol
limit in Kununurra and Wyndham.[124]
Trust is critical of academics and commentators who, he
claims, ‘endlessly examine the data in the East Kimberley and elsewhere and
look for reasons to support their ideological opposition to the Cashless Debit
Card’.[125]
Cape York
Institute and Family Responsibilities Commission
The Cape York Institute and Family Responsibilities
Commission support the continuation of the distinctive Cape York welfare reform
model. In their submission the Cape York Institute states:
We support these changes affecting First Nations families of
Cape York to the extent that the critical work of the Families Responsibilities
Commission (FRC) and its Local Commissioners continues. We understand that the
intent of the amendments is for Cape York and the Northern Territory to be
subject to different approaches to ensure current income management settings
and the role of the FRC in managing their clients will be maintained under the
transition to CDC.[126]
According to their separate submission, the Family
Responsibilities Commission ‘considers that the Australian Government’s
commitment to maintain the existing policy settings for [Cape York Income
Management] have been effectively met by this Bill.’[127]
The Family Responsibilities Commission stresses that:
‘Income management is just one tool in a suite of options available to Local
Commissioners under the [Family
Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 (Qld)] and is
generally used as a last resort.’[128]
Groups that
oppose the Bill
The majority of submissions oppose the Bill. These include
submissions from Indigenous organisations, community sector organisations,
academic researchers and the Northern Territory Government.
Assumptions
behind the Government’s policy
A number of submissions argued that the Government’s
cashless debit card policy is based on flawed assumptions. For example, a
submission by think tank Per Capita, criticised the Government’s stated
objective for the cashless debit card—to ‘reduce the overall social harm caused
by welfare-fuelled drug and alcohol misuse and problem gambling’. The
submission argued that this:
... presumes that the fact of being in receipt of income
support (combined with certain discriminatory assumptions based on class, race
and gender), means that a person is both more likely to experience addiction
and unable to manage their financial resources. We reject these assumptions. By
referring to addictive behaviours as being “welfare-fuelled”, the objective
panders to the ideological position that welfare is itself the problem,
ignoring issues of income adequacy, access to social supports, and the
provision of social and economic infrastructure as a means of preventing
poverty and, where appropriate, enabling a pathway towards employment.[129]
Similarly a submission by the Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute (AHURI) claimed that the Regulation Impact Statement for the
Bill: ‘problematically links the issues of substance use, gambling, alcohol and
welfare receipt without adequate justification.’[130]
Evidence of
effectiveness
Many submissions argued against the Government’s claim
that the cashless debit card and income management in the Northern Territory
have been effective.
For the cashless debit card the Government has relied
heavily on the ORIMA evaluation of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trial sites.
Critics argue that this evaluation does not provide strong evidence of positive
impact. For example, a submission by the Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute (AHURI) argues:
The explanatory memorandum for the Bill largely relies on the
evaluation evidence from the first evaluation study by ORIMA (for Ceduna and
East Kimberley), notwithstanding the fact that the Australian National Audit
Office (ANAO 2018) found significant issues with the contracting and conduct of
the research which undermined the credibility of its findings.[131]
The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA)
argue that neither the cashless debit card nor income management are effective
policies. Their submission claims: ‘decision makers continue to reject evidence
which provides adverse findings and instead rely upon positive anecdotal and
non-objective data to justify continuing and expanding this failed policy.’[132]
A submission from a group of university academics drew on
the findings of their own research on the Ceduna trial. The study used
administrative data on crime rates, emergency department presentations,
electronic gaming (pokies), and apprehensions for public intoxication. The
researchers concluded:
Across all measures we found NO IMPACT of the CDC. Meaning,
neither a decrease nor an increase in measured crime rates, emergency
department presentations, electronic gaming (pokies) nor apprehensions for
public intoxication.[133]
Several submissions argue that the cashless debit card and
income management are not only ineffective at achieving their stated aims but
are actively harmful. For example, a submission by the Aboriginal Peak
Organisations of the Northern Territory (APO NT) maintains that:
... benefits attributed to compulsory income management by the
Australian Government are not supported by evidence. Evaluations of compulsory
income management in the NT and of the CDC trial sites are not conclusive and
in fact point to concerning levels of psychological harm and a range of serious
practical challenges for income recipients.[134]
Similarly, UnitingCare Australia argue that:
... there is evidence that compulsory income quarantining has
led to a range of adverse consequences, including an increase in social exclusion,
stigma, difficulty providing for family needs, and the erosion of individual
autonomy.[135]
UnitingCare’s submission claims that the cashless debit
card is: ‘a paternalistic and punitive measure, driven by ideology rather than
evidence.’[136]
The Bill adds a new object for the cashless debit card
into the SSA Act—supporting ‘program participants and voluntary
participants with their budgeting strategies’ (proposed paragraph 124PC(b)).[137]
Jesuit Social Services responded to the objective by commenting: ‘After more
than four years of trials, the addition of a new objective appears to point to
a policy still searching for its justification.’[138]
Disempowerment
and stigma
A number of submissions argued that income management and
the cashless debit card disempowered and stigmatised individuals and
communities. This is a particular issue for Indigenous communities.
The Northern Land Council (NLC) argued that the Bill was
inconsistent with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap which calls for
formal partnerships and shared decision making. According to the NLC:
There is a substantial lack of shared decision making
evidenced by the lack of consultation with Aboriginal communities affected by
compulsory income management and disregard for opposition to the card from
individual participants, communities and organisations.[139]
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern
Territory (APO NT) argued that ‘compulsory and conditional income management is
a vehicle for disempowerment and continuing the stigmatisation and trauma of
Aboriginal people.’[140]
The Salvation Army’s submission argued that the cashless
debit card would stigmatise disadvantaged Australians and that this stigma
would have an adverse impact on mental health:
We consider that the imposed nature of the [cashless debit
card], which perpetuates the view that welfare recipients have problematic
relationships with gambling, alcohol or other drugs and cannot be trusted to
manage their own finances, is detrimental to the mental health and community
connection of welfare recipients.[141]
The Salvation Army acknowledged that the Department of
Social Services was taking steps to make the cashless debit card less
identifiable and stated: ‘It is our hope that this will go some way towards
reducing the stigma associated with the physical card.’[142]
Power of the
Minister to increase the restricted amount to 80%
The Bill includes proposed subsection 124PJ(2A)
that would enable the Minister to make a notifiable instrument to increase the
restricted portion of Northern Territory participants’ income support payments
to 80 per cent. A notifiable instrument made under proposed subsection
124PJ(2A) would not be subject to disallowance. This is discussed further
below under the ‘Key issues and provisions’ section.
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) is
concerned that, if the Bill passes, the Minister may increase the quarantined
portion of income support payments to 80 per cent across the entire Northern
Territory.[143]
This issue was also raised by other groups including National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS).[144]
However, in their submission Generation One advocated ‘for
an 80 per cent quarantined rate [in the Northern Territory], consistent with
other trial sites, in order to realise more positive impacts of the card.’[145]
Alternative
policies
A number of submissions, including from ALPA and
UnitingCare, argued that income management and the cashless debit card should
be replaced by a voluntary scheme.
ALPA’s submission drew on the organisation’s experience
with a voluntary card scheme in the past:
The ALPA Board of Directors ask the committee to recommend
that this legislation is not passed and that instead a transition is made to
voluntary income management. ALPA knows this works because it operates a
voluntary income management system and has done so for some time.[146]
UnitingCare’s submission stated:
We support the use of a voluntary, opt-in approach developed
in partnership with communities and supported by wrap-around services.[147]
Financial implications
The 2020–21 Budget included a measure to transform the
Cashless Debit Card into an ongoing program rather than a time limited trial as
well as to transition Income Management in the Northern Territory and the Cape
York region to the Cashless Debit Card. The cost of these measures was listed
as not for publication ‘as negotiations with potential commercial providers are
yet to be finalised.’[148]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, $17.5 million for
support services has been allocated to assist the transition in the NT and Cape
York area.[149]
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.[150]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Human Rights has not yet formed a concluded view on the Bill.[151]
The Committee is of the view that the introduction of a
permanent cashless welfare measure ‘may potentially promote a number of human
rights, but also engage and limit a number of other rights, including the right
to social security, privacy, and equality and non-discrimination’.[152]
However, the Committee considers that the Bill’s Statement of Compatibility
with Human Rights largely mirrors the Statement which was contained in the 2019
Bill and therefore does not provide sufficient information to make an
assessment on the permanency of cashless welfare:
The proposal to establish cashless welfare as an ongoing
measure, and a permanent fixture in particular geographical locations, is a
substantially different proposal to establishing a time-bound trial of such a
measure. The trial evaluations and reviews raise a range of concerns as to
whether the cashless welfare scheme is effective to achieve its stated goals,
and whether it has caused or contributed to other harms. This raises questions
in assessing the compatibility of the current measure, which would make the
scheme permanent in certain geographical locations, with human rights.[153]
The Committee states that ‘the Bill seeks to achieve a
number of legitimate objectives, including reducing immediate hardship and
deprivation, and encouraging socially responsible behaviour’. However, it notes
that ‘some questions remain’ about the extent to which the measures are rationally
connected and proportionate to those legitimate objectives.[154]
Accordingly, the Committee has requested the Minister’s
advice on:
- why
these measures propose to establish the cashless debit card scheme as an
ongoing measure, before the completion of the trial reviews
- what
evidence demonstrates that the cashless debit card scheme is effective in
achieving the stated objectives, considering the evaluation reports in their
totality
- what
consultation was undertaken with affected communities, seeking their views as
to whether they wanted the trials to be made into an ongoing measure, or if no
consultation was undertaken, why it was not undertaken
- whether
the evaluation of the cashless debit card scheme, which is designed to assess
its ongoing effectiveness, can operate as a safeguard to protect human rights
when this Bill seeks to establish the scheme on an ongoing basis, regardless of
the results of those evaluations
- what
percentage of persons who would be required to participate in the cashless
welfare scheme (including those transitioning from income management) as a
result of this Bill identify as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
- why
the onus is on the person who is already subject to the cashless debit card
scheme to demonstrate that they can manage their own affairs in order to be
exempt from the scheme, rather than applying the scheme on the basis of individual
circumstances or on a voluntary basis
- why
is the wellbeing exemption restricted to circumstances when there is 'a serious
risk', rather than 'a risk', to a person's mental, physical or emotional
wellbeing, and is it appropriate, when all participants are automatically
included in the program, that the Secretary is not required to inquire into
whether a person being in the program would pose a risk to the person's mental,
physical or emotional well-being and
- what
other safeguards, if any, would operate to assist the proportionality of this
proposed measure.[155]
Key issues
and provisions
The major issues for the Parliament to decide are whether
the cashless debit card should be entrenched as an ongoing measure in the
existing sites and whether the cashless debit card should replace current
Income Management arrangements in the Northern Territory and Cape York.
An additional issue not dealt with by this Bill is the
future of the eleven Income Management sites outside of the Northern Territory
and Cape York.
If this Bill does not pass and there are no changes to
existing legislation:
- the
cashless debit card trials in all four sites (Ceduna, the East Kimberley, the
Goldfields region, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay) will end after 31 December
2020 with a small number of cashless debit card participants moving to Income
Management in Ceduna, the East Kimberley, and the Goldfields[156]
- existing
Income Management arrangements in the Northern Territory will continue
- Income
Management in the Cape York region will end after 31 December 2020.
Whether or not this Bill passes, Income Management
provisions will continue to apply in the following sites:
- Child
Protection Income Management sites (Perth metropolitan, Peel and Kimberley
regions, Greater Adelaide)
- Place-based
Income Management sites (Logan, Rockhampton, Bankstown, Greater Shepparton, and
Playford)
- Indigenous
communities (APY Lands, Ng Lands, and Kiwirrkurra Community).[157]
Entrenching the cashless debit card as an ongoing measure
How the Bill
removes the trial’s end date
Under existing legislation, the trial of cashless welfare
arrangements will end in all sites after 31 December 2020. While this
end date was set by legislative instrument any further extension will require
amendments to subsection 124PF of the SSA Act.
Currently, subsection 124PF(1) of the SSA Act sets
an end date of the trial—it was last amended by the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare)
Act 2019 which extended the end date from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.[158]
However, as part of the Government’s interim measures put in place as a result
of COVID-19, the trial was extended to 31 December 2020 via
legislative instrument.[159]
Numerous items in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill make technical amendments to Part 3D of the SSA Act to
reflect the proposed establishment of the CDC as an ongoing program rather than
a trial measure. In particular, the Bill removes the end date for the cashless
welfare arrangements in all sites by repealing section 124PF of the SSA Act.[160]
At commencement (the day after Royal Assent) existing CDC
trial participants (including voluntary participants) will become part of the
CDC program.[161]
There will also no longer be a cap of 15,000 CDC participants, reflecting
that the program is no longer a trial.[162]
Three months after Royal Assent, the Northern Territory
and the Cape York area will fall within the scope of the CDC program—all income
management participants in Cape York will be transitioned to the CDC program on
the day after three months after Royal Assent; those on income management in
the NT will be transitioned over a period of nine months beginning three months
after Royal Assent (discussed below).[163]
The
Government’s rationale
The Government has made two arguments for entrenching the
cashless debit card as an ongoing measure rather than allowing it continue as a
trial.
The first is that community leaders in the existing trial
sites are asking the Government to ‘deliver certainty to participants,
stakeholders and the communities by making the trial an ongoing measure.’[164]
The second is that making the cashless debit card ongoing
will ‘encourage continued investment by the financial sector to co-design
technical solutions to improve user experience for participants and merchants.’[165]
The Minderoo Foundation made this argument in a 2017 report:
It is imperative that the Government, as well as the
Opposition, act quickly to provide clarity over the likelihood of further
[Cashless Debit Card] program expansion. This certainty will allow industry
participants to prioritise the required technology investments as part of their
planning roadmap, which in some cases includes pre-committed resources and dependencies
up to two years in advance.[166]
The Minderoo Foundation’s vision is for an open Cashless
Debit Card platform that allows new card issuers to enter the market and foster
innovation and improvements in service.
Lack of interest from potential providers has been a
problem for Government. DSS told the ANAO that during the 2015 procurement
process the major banks ‘... were not interested in delivering a small scale
trial of the nature of the CDC’.[167]
Contested
effectiveness
Section 124PC sets out the objects of the cashless debit
card trials. One of these is to determine whether reducing the amount of income
support available to be spent on alcoholic beverages, gambling and illegal
drugs ‘decreases violence or harm in trial areas’.[168]
It is not clear that the trials have achieved this objective.
By focusing on community-wide harm, the Government has set
a high bar for judging the effectiveness of the cashless debit card. According
to the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill:
The primary purpose of the CDC program is to reduce harm at a
community level from the use of harmful products such as alcohol, illicit drugs
and gambling. A flow-on impact of providing this tool to help address these
issues is that participants are able to stabilise their lives, leading to an
increased ability to participate in the workforce.[169]
According to a 2017 evaluation document prepared by ORIMA
for the Department of Social Services, a ‘reduction in alcohol consumption and
drug use is expected to lead to less alcohol- and drug-fuelled violence, fewer
accidents and fewer injuries.’[170]
To date, only the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials have
been evaluated. A final evaluation of these two sites was released in 2017.[171]
In a 2018 report on the implementation and performance of the CDC trial, the
Australian National Audit Office stated that DSS’ ‘approach to monitoring and
evaluation was inadequate’ and that ‘it is difficult to conclude whether there
had been a reduction in social harm.’[172]
In a short review of the 2017 evaluation, Dr Janet Hunt of
the Australian National University remarked that the evaluation’s largely
positive conclusions ‘are rather surprising’ given the very mixed findings set
out in the report. After highlighting some of the problems facing the trial
communities Hunt notes:
It seems extremely naïve to think that controlling people’s
income to the degree now happening in these trials will be the solution to
these complex problems. It is ‘silver bullet’ thinking to believe that these
simple policy changes, which bring government increasingly into the everyday
lives of welfare recipients and reduce their own capacities to control their
lives, will solve the challenges they face.[173]
Key supporters of the cashless debit card in the
Parliament acknowledge that the card will not solve problems of social harm on
its own. For example, Senator Slade Brockman told the Parliament:
I've heard ministers on this side repeatedly say that the
cashless debit card is not a silver bullet, and we on this side all understand
that. It is not of itself the solution; however, it can be a part of a broader
solution. It can be the circuit-breaker that helps people take back control of
their lives.[174]
Similarly Keith Pitt, the Member for Hinkler, said: ‘I
accept that this is not the panacea. This is not the only way to deal with
this, but this is the only policy that is on the table.’[175]
A recent academic study published in Australian Social
Work examined the impact of the cashless debit card in Ceduna and reported
that there was ‘little evidence that showed that the Cashless Debit Card
affected targeted behaviours’. The researchers relied on administrative data on
crime rates, emergency department presentations, electronic gaming, and
apprehensions for public intoxication. The study did report evidence of
increased spending on food but the researchers noted that the greatest increase
in spending on food appeared to be on less healthy discretionary items.[176]
Ministers responsible for the cashless debit card have
generally been more confident about the evidence of positive impact reported in
the ORIMA reports than either the ANAO or academic researchers have been. For
example, Senator Anne Ruston, the current Minister for Families and Social
Services, told the Parliament in July 2019: ‘The evidence on the ground shows
that the cashless debit card is making a real difference, improving people's lives
and improving communities.’[177]
Differences
between the CDC trial and permanent program
In addition to making the CDC trial a permanent measure,
the Bill proposes a number of amendments to the CDC program—the following is a
summary of the differences between the CDC trial and proposed CDC program.
Exemption: Secretary’s
power to revoke
The Secretary is currently required to issue a
determination that a person is not a CDC 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—the Secretary must not revoke
that determination.[178]
The proposed amendments will require the Secretary
to revoke the determination where the Secretary is no longer satisfied that
being a programme participant would pose a serious risk to the person’s mental,
physical or emotional wellbeing and the Secretary has received a request
from an officer or employee of a State or Territory body who considers the
person should be a program participant for medical or safety reasons relating
to the person or the person’s dependents.[179]
The Scrutiny Committee expressed concern with the ‘relatively
large class of persons, with little or no specificity as to their
qualifications or attributes’ that can request the Secretary to revoke a CDC
program exemption. It is the Committee’s preference ‘that those authorised to
exercise significant administrative powers be confined to the holders of
nominated offices or to members of the Senior Executive Service’.[180]
The Committee has requested the Minister’s advice as to whether the Bill can be
amended to limit the categories of state or territory officers or employees who
may make such a request. It has also requested the Minister’s advice on why it
is considered necessary and appropriate to allow such a broad class of persons
to make a request of the Secretary, noting the Explanatory Memorandum does not
contain such information.[181]
Minister’s
power to make decision-making principles
The Secretary can currently issue an exemption from the
CDC program on the basis that the person applying for the exemption can
demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person’s affairs
(including financial affairs) and the person satisfies any requirements
determined by the Minister by way of legislative instrument.[182]
The proposed amendments will enable the Minister to, by
legislative instrument, determine ‘decision-making principles’ for the purposes
of the Secretary deciding whether, on application by a person, the Secretary is
satisfied that the person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management
of the person’s affairs and is therefore exempt from the CDC program. The
Secretary will be required to comply with these decision-making principles if
the Minster decides to make them.[183]
While the Scrutiny Committee acknowledged that a
disallowable legislative instrument is preferable to these matters being left
to internal policy guidance, ‘it is unclear to the committee why at least high
level guidance or principles cannot be included in the primary legislation’.[184]
The Committee notes that the justification provided in the Explanatory
Memorandum indicates that the Department is broadly aware of the
decision-making principles it will rely on and therefore fails to explain why
it is considered necessary and appropriate to leave the matter to delegated
legislation—the Committee has requested that the Minister provide such reasons.[185]
The Committee has also requested the Minister consider whether the
decision-making principles (or high-level guidance in relation to the
principles) can be included in the primary legislation. Alternatively and at a
minimum, the primary legislation should ‘provide that the minister ‘must’,
rather than ‘may’, determine decision-making principles’.[186]
The proposed amendments would also require the Secretary
to revoke a determination that a person is exempt from the CDC program, if the
Secretary is no longer satisfied that a person can demonstrate reasonable and
responsible management of the person’s affairs.[187]
This differs from the current requirements, which require a referral by a
health or community worker before the Secretary can make such a decision.[188]
Review and evaluation
of the CDC program
If the Minister or the Secretary causes a review of the CDC
trial, the SSA Act requires the Minister to have the review evaluated.[189]
Subsection 124PS(2) requires the review report to be evaluated by an independent
evaluation expert within six months from the time the Minister receives the
report. 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.[190]
In evaluating the report, the independent expert must
consult trial participants and make recommendations about whether the CDC trial
is effective and whether it should be implemented outside of the trial areas.[191]
The evaluation requirements were inserted into Part 3D of
the SSA Act by the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Act 2018 as a result of former Senator Tim Storer’s
successful amendment to the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018.[192]
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.[193]
The Government supported Senator Storer’s amendment.
According to Senator Fifield (then Manager of Government Business in the
Senate), the amendment required ‘the government to conduct a review of any
evaluation to ensure that the findings are accurate.’[194]
According to the Parliamentary joint Committee on Human Rights ‘no independent
evaluations of the two reviews of the cashless welfare trial have been
undertaken’[195]
and notes:
The statement of compatibility does not explain why the bill
proposes establishing cashless welfare as an ongoing measure before these [two
2019] trial evaluations have been completed, published, and considered.[196]
The Department of Social Services commissioned an
independent impact evaluation of the cashless debit card from the University of
Adelaide. According to evidence given in Senate Estimates, the Department has
received a final draft of the summary report of this evaluation.[197]
If the Bill’s proposed amendment to section 124PS is made, there will be no
legislated requirement for the Minister to have this evaluation independently
evaluated after receiving it from the Department.
Item 114 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill repeals subsections 124PS(2) and (3); while the review will still need
to be evaluated, the SSA Act will no longer prescribe who must undertake
the review, when it must be done by, who the evaluator must consult with nor require
the reviewer to make recommendations as to the effectiveness and expansion of
the CDC arrangements.
The Explanatory Memorandum asserts that the evaluation
requirement is ‘circular’ and could lead to ‘ongoing evaluation’, and notes
that the amendments allow for a ‘desktop evaluation’ of any review, to ‘lessen
the ethical implications associated with avoidable repeat contact with
vulnerable individuals.’[198]
It is not clear how the proposed amendments reduce circularity given the
Minister must still cause an evaluation if a review is undertaken.
Requirement
for Secretary to issue participation notice
The proposed amendments would require the Secretary to
issue a notice to a person that they are a CDC program participant; currently a
person is automatically part of the trial if they satisfy the eligibility
criteria.[199]
The Secretary’s notice may be revoked at any time and will not be reviewable.[200]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, the purpose of the notice
is to ensure ‘that administrative practices are in line with the legislation
and any unforeseen circumstances can be managed’ and it will ‘enable the
triggering of participants to be staggered or temporarily paused, for example,
in response to emergency situations such as bushfires or COVID-19’.[201]
The requirement will not apply to existing CDC trial participants unless they
first exit the program.[202]
The notice requirement commences on 8 March 2021.[203]
Voluntary
participation
The proposed amendments will allow a person to voluntarily
participate in the CDC programme even if they move away from the program areas.
Voluntarily participation will also be extended to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay
area which is currently not permitted.[204]
Northern Territory—transitioning from income management to
the cashless debit card
On 25 March 2019 the Government announced plans to
transition Income Management participants to the cashless debit card.[205]
This measure was included in the 2019–20 Budget with the Government planning to
begin the transition on 1 January 2020.[206]
The 2019 Bill, which seeks to enable the transition, was introduced into the
House of Representatives on 11 September 2019. While the 2019 Bill received a
third reading in the House of Representatives it has not been debated in the
Senate.[207]
As noted above under the heading ‘History of the Bill’,
many of the provisions enabling a transition from income management to the CDC
contained in the 2019 Bill have been incorporated into the current Bill.
The Bill does not bring Income Management to an end. Income
Management would continue to operate in a number of existing sites around
Australia.
The
Government’s rationale
The Department of Social Services takes the position that
income management ‘has a limited ability to create change within communities’.
According to the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) included as part of the
Explanatory Memorandum:
... Income Management is a costly and complex program to run,
that requires the Government to provide significant support to participants and
merchants. Due to the complexity of the separate measures, including
personalised targeting, different placement criteria and payment splits, Income
Management is a largely incoherent policy that has a limited ability to create
change within communities.[208]
An additional argument in the RIS is moving from the
BasicsCard to the cashless debit card would allow cardholders to access a
larger number of merchants and would reduce the administrative burden on
merchants.[209]
Northern Territory CDC trial
criteria
Subdivision A of Division 2 in Part 3D of the SSA Act
sets out the trial areas for the CDC and circumstances in which a person is
subject to the CDC trial (if the Bill is passed by Parliament, this will be the
CDC program areas rather than a trial). Proposed section 124PGE (inserted
into Subdivision A by item 74 in Part 2) sets out the criteria
for a person to be subject to the CDC program within the NT program area. There
will be three different sets of criteria under which a person may be required
to participate in the program:
- 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).
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
program even if they no longer live in the NT.[210]
While the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill suggests that this is to enable
voluntary participation should a person move out of the program area, it would
appear to extend beyond voluntary participation.[211]
It is proposed that the Minister will have the power to
exclude parts of the Northern Territory from the CDC program area by way of
notifiable instrument.[212]
The Scrutiny Committee is concerned with this as notifiable instruments are not
generally subject to the tabling, disallowance and sunsetting requirements
which apply to legislative instruments under the Legislation Act
2003.[213]
The Committee does not consider that the existing power in subsection 124PD(2)
of the SSA Act to amend the current trial areas provides sufficient
justification as to why it is considered necessary and appropriate for the
parts of the Northern Territory area to be excluded by notifiable
instrument—the Committee has requested that the Minister provide such reasons.[214]
The Committee has also requested the Minister’s advice as to whether the Bill
can be amended so that determinations made under subsection 124PD(2) to exclude
any area (excluding Cape York) from the program, can be made by disallowable legislative
instrument.[215]
Disengaged
youth and long-term welfare payment recipients
Under proposed subsection 124PGE(1) a person will
be subject to the CDC program 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)[216]
- the
person has not reached the pension age
- if
the person has a payment
nominee, the nominee is also a CDC program participant or subject to income
management
- the
person is not undertaking full-time study
- the
Secretary has notified the person they are a CDC program participant and
- the
person has not been excluded by a wellbeing or exit determination.
Notice required to be provided
Proposed paragraph 124PGE(1)(f) requires the
Secretary to give the person a notice stating that the person is a program
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.[217]
The proposed changes made by items 94 and 95
in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill mean that the Secretary’s
decisions relating to program participation, namely, a decision to give or a
program participation notice, will not be reviewable by the Secretary (internal
review) or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.[218]
Key issue: measure is broader
than under the IM regime
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
... [proposed] 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 cashless
welfare arrangements.[219]
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 ending immediately before the test
time.[220]
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.[221]
The Bill’s proposed subsection 124PGE(1) 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).
Recipients
of social security referred by a child protection officer or the NT Department
of Health
The same CDC participation 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)—those payments include a social security benefit or
pension or a payment under the ABSTUDY scheme which includes a living allowance
component[222]
and
- a
child protection officer of the Northern Territory, or a recognised authority of
the Northern Territory must require the person be a CDC participant.[223]
Under proposed paragraph 124PGE(2)(d), 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:
- 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[224]
- the
current ‘recognised State/Territory authority’ in the NT is the Northern
Territory Department of Health.[225]
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 existing section 123UGA
of the SSA Act to determine that a person is a vulnerable welfare
payment recipient for the purposes of the income management regime under Part
3B—the determination must comply with any decision making principles set out in
a legislative instrument made by the Minister.[226]
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).[227]
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. 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.[228]
Exclusions
from CDC in the NT
Full-time
students excluded
The CDC program in the NT will not apply to a person who
is ‘undertaking full-time study’ regardless of whether they are in the NT or
not. In the existing CDC trial areas—that is, Ceduna, East Kimberley,
Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas—the CDC program applies to full-time
students unless they live outside their respective trial area while undertaking
their study.[229]
This difference may reflect the fact that the NT is likely to eventually comprise
the ‘program area’.
Wellbeing and exit determinations
The proposed changes do not apply to a person who is
covered by a determination made under existing provisions that the program
would pose a serious risk to the person’s health or the person is able to
manage their affairs.[230]
Under subsection 124PHA(1) of the SSA Act, the
Secretary must determine that a person is not a CDC participant if the
Secretary is satisfied that being a participant would pose a serious risk to
the person’s mental, physical or emotional wellbeing. However, the Secretary
has no obligation to inquire into whether this is the case.[231]
As discussed above, proposed amendments will also require the Secretary to
revoke the exemption on referral by a state or territory officer who consider
the person be a CDC participant on the basis of ‘medical or safety reasons
relating to the person or the person’s dependents’.[232]
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.[233]
As discussed above, proposed amendments would also require the Secretary to
comply with ‘decision-making principles’ set by way of legislative instrument
by the Minister.[234]
The Secretary will also be required to revoke a determination that a person is
exempt from the CDC program, if the Secretary is no longer satisfied that a
person can demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of the person’s
affairs—this differs from the current requirements, which appears to require a
referral by a health or community worker before the Secretary can make such a
decision.[235]
Transitioning
IM participants to CDC
The proposed CDC program provisions for the Northern
Territory apply to persons whose usual place of residence is in the Northern
Territory on or after commencement (three months after Royal Assent).[236]
As noted above, the Secretary is required to notify
a person that they are a program participant.[237]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that this will be used to facilitate the
staggered rollout of the CDC in the NT, under which approximately 25,000 income
managed participants will be transitioned over a period of nine months.[238]
The Secretary may transfer the balance of a person’s
income management account to their welfare restricted bank account within sixty
days of the person becoming a CDC trial participant.[239]
Items 3 and 4 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 (the day after
Royal Assent).[240]
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.[241]
Cape York—transitioning from income management to the CDC
One of the major effects of transitioning income
management participants in Cape York to the cashless debit card is that the
arrangements will become permanent. Currently paragraphs 123UF(1)(g) and
123UF(2)(h) of the SSA Act include an end date for income management in
Cape York.
The Government’s
rationale
According to the Regulation Impact Statement, moving
income support participants to the cashless debit card will give them ‘a range
of flexible payment options, fewer restrictions on participants and merchants,
and significant, sustained improvements in communities’.[242]
Key provision: Cape York area
CDC criteria
Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 3D of the SSA Act sets
out the trial areas for the CDC and circumstances in which a person is subject
to the CDC trial (if the Bill is passed by Parliament, this will be the CDC
program areas rather than a trial). Proposed section 124PGD (inserted
into Subdivision A by item 74 in Part 2) establishes the criteria
under which a person will be a CDC program participant in the Cape York area—the
following criteria must be satisfied:
- 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
Family Responsibilities Commission[246] has notified the Secretary that the person
be a participant and
- if
the person has nominated a person as a payment
nominee[247]
for the purposes of the Income Management (IM) rules, the nominated person is
either a CDC trial participant or subject to IM.[248]
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.[249]
Cape York area
The Minister is given the power to determine the Cape York
area subject to CDC arrangements by way of notifiable instrument.[250]
Under proposed subsection 124PD(3), the instrument specifying the Cape
York area may rely on another instrument or ‘other writing’ in force from time
to time.[251]
This means that the Cape York area can be varied from time to time based on
material external to the notifiable instrument, expanding or contracting the
size of the CDC program accordingly. The Explanatory Memorandum provides the
following justification:
This approach is necessary to ensure that the cashless
welfare arrangements operate 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.[252]
The Scrutiny Committee is concerned that the program area
in Cape York can be amended by a notifiable instrument as such instruments are
not generally subject to the tabling, disallowance and sunsetting requirements
under the Legislation
Act 2003.[253]
The Committee does not consider that the existing power in subsection 124PD(2)
of the SSA Act to amend the current trial areas provides sufficient
justification as to why it is necessary and appropriate for the Cape York area
to be determined by notifiable instrument—the Committee has requested that the
Minister provide such reasons.[254]
The Committee has also requested the Minister’s advice as to whether the Cape
York area can be set out in the primary legislation or, at a minimum, determinations
of the area be made by disallowable legislative instruments.[255]
Transitioning
IM participants to CDC
The proposed CDC program provisions for the Cape York area
apply to persons whose usual place of residence is in Cape York on or after
commencement (three months after Royal Assent).[256]
Existing income managed persons will be transferred to the CDC regime on
commencement so long as they satisfy the CDC program criteria.[257]
This will result in approximately 150 participants within the Cape York area
transitioning onto the CDC on commencement.[258]
As the income management regime is due to sunset 31 December 2020, the Bill
proposes to extend the regime to 31 December 2021 to enable the FRC to continue
to rely on its enabling legislation to manage income managed persons and
support the transition to CDC.[259]
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.[260]
Percentage of payments restricted to the CDC
Item 84 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Bill inserts proposed subsections 124PJ(1A) to (1D) into the SSA
Act. These provisions set out the portion of benefits (‘restrictable
payments’) paid by instalments which will be ‘restricted’ and therefore subject
to the restrictions of the CDC in the Northern Territory and Cape York.
If a restrictable payment is payable to a CDC participant in
a lump sum, 100 per cent of the gross amount of the payment is restricted.[261]
Percentage
which can be restricted to CDC
Northern
Territory
Proposed subsections 124PJ(1B), (1C) and (1D)
set out the portion of a ‘restrictable payment’[262]
paid by instalment that must be quarantined for the purposes of NT CDC
participants. The default restricted and unrestricted component varies
depending on the particular CDC program criteria the participant satisfies:
- for
payments made to persons subject to CDC 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[263]
- 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’[264]
In the case of voluntary participants from the NT, 50 per
cent of their income will be restricted—all other non-NT voluntary participants
have 80 per cent of their income restricted.[265]
Minister’s power to vary in the NT
The proposed amendments would also
enable the Minister to, by notifiable instrument, vary the restricted and
unrestricted percentage for NT trial participants—notifiable instruments are
not generally subject to the tabling, disallowance and sunsetting requirements
under the Legislation
Act 2003.[266]
The percentages which can be varied by the Minister depend on the category the
program participant is subject to in the Northern Territory. Table 3
compares the default portion of payments which are quarantined for the purposes
of NT CDC program. It also sets out the power of the Minister to vary the restricted
and unrestricted amounts for each CDC program category in the NT.
While noting the justification provided in the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill, the Scrutiny Committee is concerned that the proposed
amendments gives the Minister ‘broad powers to determine, in relation to
classes of program participants, the portion of payments that are restricted,
with little or no guidance on the face of the bill as to how these powers are
to be exercised’.[267]
As discussed below under the heading ‘Secretary’s power to
vary’, the Secretary also has the power to vary the restricted amount to zero
per cent. However the Secretary may only do so where, broadly, 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.[268]
The Minister’s variation does not apply to a person who is subject to a
variation made by the Secretary.[269]
The Scrutiny Committee has requested the advice of the
Minister about:
- how
the Secretary's powers would be effective to ensure the Minister’s powers are
exercised appropriately (noting that the Minister’s powers apply to classes of
persons while the Secretary’s apply to individuals)
- whether
(at least high-level) rules or guidance on the Minister’s powers could be
included in the Bill, including a requirement that the Minister only exercise
these powers after community consultation and a subsequent community request
and
- whether
the Bill can be amended to provide that the Minister’s determinations be made
by disallowable legislative instrument rather than notifiable instrument.[270]
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 program |
| Disengaged youth and long-term
welfare payment recipients (proposed subsection 124PGE(1)) |
50% |
50% |
May vary the restricted
amount up to 80% and vary the 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.
Cape York
Proposed subsection 124PJ(1A) sets out the portion
of a ‘restrictable payment’ paid by instalment that must be quarantined
for the purposes of the CDC program in the Cape York area.
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.[271]
The remaining percentage is the ‘unrestricted portion’.[272]
Secretary’s power to vary
The Secretary may, in the case of a program 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.[273]
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Table
items 1 to 5 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill.
[2]. D
Arthur and J Ayoub, Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019, Bills digest, 62, 2019–20, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 2019, p. 4.
[3]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. A
Ruston, Pilot
project to improve cashless debit card technology, media release, 29
November 2019.
[6]. House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Alcohol
problems of Aboriginals: interim report on Northern Territory aspects,
House of Representatives, Parl. Paper 247, Canberra, 7 October 1976.
[7]. ‘Drunken orgies by Aborigines
alleged: the white backlash’, The Canberra Times, 20 March 1974, p.
15.
[8]. Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 (SSA Act), sections 124PL and 124PM.
Department of Human Services (DHS), ‘What
you can use it for’, DHS website, last update d 28 May 2020.
[9]. Indue
Ltd, ‘All
cardholder FAQs’, Cashless Debit Card website.
[10]. D
Arthur, ‘BasicsCard
and Cashless Debit Card: what's the difference?’, FlagPost, Parliamentary
Library blog, 23 June 2017.
[11]. Department
of Social Services (DSS), Income
Management Data Summary September 2020, 17 September 2020.
[12]. 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. Data on Indigenous status is not available in the most recent data
summaries.
[13]. DSS,
Cashless
Debit Card Data Summary September 2020, 17 September 2020.
[14]. DSS,
Income
management locations, DSS, [Canberra], 19 April 2018.
[15]. DSS,
‘Drug
testing trial’, DSS website, last updated 25 February 2020; DSS, Drug
testing trial, fact sheet, DSS, 1 September 2020, p. 1.
[16]. DSS,
Cashless
Debit Card replacing Income Management Northern Territory, factsheet,
DSS, 24 January 2020.
[17]. D
Arthur, Income
management: a quick guide, Research paper series, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015, p. 1.
[18]. DSS,
‘11.1.3.20
Income Management Record’, Social security guide, DSS website, last
reviewed 11 November 2019.
[19]. SSA
Act, section 123VC.
[20]. Services
Australia (SA), ‘Centrelink
online account help - Manage your Income Management account and BasicsCard
money online’, SA website, last updated 8 April 2019.
[21]. 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.
[22]. SA,
‘BasicsCard
for business: applying’, SA website, last updated 16 March 2020.
[23]. 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.
[24]. DSS,
‘8.7.6.40
Welfare restricted bank accounts’, Social security guide, DSS
website, last reviewed 4 February 2019.
[25]. 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.
[26]. Visa,
Visa
merchant data standards manual: Visa supplemental requirements, Visa,
n.p., October 2019, p. 16.
[27]. 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 solution. Card acceptance by business. Terms and conditions,
version 14.0, Westpac, Sydney, September 2020, p. 11.
[28]. D
Arthur, ‘"The
computer says no": automatic product blocking for the Cashless Debit Card’,
FlagPost, Parliamentary Library blog, 22 June 2017.
[29]. Ibid.;
A Ruston (Minister for Families and Social Services), Pilot
project to improve Cashless Debit Card technology, media release, 29
November 2019.
[30]. Arthur,
‘BasicsCard
and Cashless Debit Card: what's the difference?’, op. cit.
[31]. DSS,
‘What
happens when a person starts income management?’, DSS website, last updated
14 November 2014.
[32]. Indue
Ltd, ‘View our “how-to”
tutorials’, Cashless Debit Card website.
[33]. Arthur,
‘BasicsCard
and Cashless Debit Card: what's the difference?’, op. cit.
[34]. Ibid.
[35]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest review: creating parity, report prepared for the Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2014, pp. 102–103.
[36]. DSS,
‘11.1.1.50
Trigger payments for income management’, Social scurity guide, DSS
website, last reviewed 21 September 2020.
[37]. DSS,
Income
management locations, op. cit.
[38]. DSS,
‘8.7.2.30
Trigger payment (Cashless Debit Card Trial)’, Social security guide,
DSS website, last reviewed 20 March 2020.
[39]. DSS,
‘8.7.4.10
People automatically made participants in the Cashless Debit Card Trial’, Social
security guide, DSS website, last reviewed 20 March 2020. ‘Trigger
payment’ is defined in section 124PD of the SSA Act—this
definition only applies to the administration of the cashless debit card.
[40]. Ibid.;
SSA Act, section 124PGC.
[41]. 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.
[42]. 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.
[43]. M
Brough, ‘Answer
to Question without notice: child abuse’, [Questioner: D Fawcett], House of
Representatives, Debates, 21 June 2007, p. 76.
[44]. Northern
Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from
Sexual Abuse, Ampe
akelyernemane meke mekarle: little children are sacred, report prepared
for the Northern Territory Government, [Government Printer], Darwin, 2007.
[45]. 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.
[46]. Quoted
in D Jopson, ‘Black
Australia: a picture of despair, rage and violence’, The Sydney Morning
Herald, 16 February 2001.
[47]. A
Ramsey, ‘A
cynical scratch, a pustular response’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 30
June 2007, p. 35.
[48]. 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.
[49]. 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.
[50]. J
Mazzocchi, ‘Proposal
for “smart card” payment for welfare recipients’, The World Today,
transcript, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 27 October 2003.
[51]. H
Fitzsimmons, ‘Aboriginal
lawyer supports welfare “smart card” for all’,
AM, transcript, ABC, 30 October 2003.
[52]. P
Donald, ‘ATSIC
smart card unlikely solution: Vanstone’, AM, transcript, ABC, 1
November 2003
[53]. Indigenous
Studies Program, University of Melbourne, ‘Galiwin'ku
'Foodcard' Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA)’, Agreements, Treaties and
Negotiated Settlements website, last modified 7 September 2016.
[54]. 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.
[55]. 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.
[56]. P
Yu, ME Duncan and B Gray, Report of the
NTER Review Board, Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board,
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.
[57]. J
Howard (Prime Minister), Address
to the Sydney Institute, Sydney, speech, 25 June 2007.
[58]. 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.
[59]. 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.
[60]. Yu,
et al, Report
of the NTER Review Board, op. cit., p. 10.
[61]. Ibid.,
p. 12; Macklin, Compulsory
income management to continue as key NTER measure, op. cit.
[62]. J
Macklin, Compulsory
income management to continue as key NTER measure, op. cit., p. 4.
[63]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[64]. 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.
[65]. Ibid.,
pp. 8–9.
[66]. DSS,
Vulnerable
Welfare Payment Recipient measure of Income Management, op. cit.
[67]. J
Macklin (Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs), Cape
York welfare reform trial, media release, 22 April 2008.
[68]. 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.
[69]. Bray,
et al, Evaluating
New Income Management in the Northern Territory, op. cit., p. 8.
[70]. 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.
[71]. FaHCSIA,
Cape York
welfare reform: evaluation, FaHCSIA, Canberra, 2012, p. 212.
[72]. N
Pearson, ‘Ineffectual
bipartisanship ruins social policy’, The Australian, 26 March 2011,
p. 12.
[73]. Cape
York Institute, From
hand out to hand up, op. cit., p. 68.
[74]. Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, Evaluation of
income management in the Northern Territory, Occasional paper, 34, FaHCSIA,
Canberra, 2010, p. 2.
[75]. Bray,
et al, Evaluating
New Income Management in the Northern Territory, op. cit., p. 319.
[76]. N
Pearson, The
Cape York agenda: address to the National Press Club, Canberra, speech,
30 November 2005, pp. 8–9.
[77]. 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.
[78]. Cape
York Institute, From
hand out to hand up, op. cit.
[79]. Ibid.,
p. 67.
[80]. Ibid.,
pp. 67–68.
[81]. Ibid.,
p. 68.
[82]. M
Brough (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Cape
York welfare reform trials to begin in 2008, media release, 18
July 2007.
[83]. 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.
[84]. 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.
[85]. T
Abbott (Prime Minister), Review
of Indigenous training and employment, media release, 8 October 2013.
[86]. Forrest,
The Forrest review,
op. cit., p. 102.
[87]. 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.
[88]. Forrest,
The Forrest review,
op. cit., p. 27.
[89]. Ibid.,
pp. 104 and 106.
[90]. A
Forrest, ‘Healthy
welfare card will protect the vulnerable’, The Daily Telegraph, 24
March 2015, p. 13.
[91]. Ibid.
[92]. Ibid.
[93]. Forrest,
The Forrest
review, op. cit., p. 103.
[94]. The
trial end date was extended from 30 June 2020 to 31 December 2020 by the Coronavirus Economic
Response Package (Deferral of Sunsetting—Income Management and Cashless Welfare
Arrangements) Determination 2020.
[95]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November 2020, p. 9.
[96]. Ibid.,
p. ix.
[97]. Ibid.,
p. 30.
[98]. Australian
Labor Party (Labor) Senators, Dissenting report,
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November 2020, p. 35.
[99]. Ibid.,
pp. 34–35.
[100]. Australian
Greens, Dissenting
report [2020], Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November 2020, p. 43–44.
[101]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, November
2019.
[102]. Ibid.,
p. ix.
[103]. 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.
[104]. Ibid.
[105]. Australian Greens, Dissenting report
[2019], 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.
[106]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2020, The Senate, 11 November 2020, pp. 31–39.
[107]. Item
93 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[108]. Item
96 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[109]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, op. cit., p. 39.
[110]. L
Burney, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management
to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019’, House of Representatives,
Debates, 26 November 2019, p. 5842.
[111]. M
McCarthy, Interview
with Paul Serratore: ABC Alice Springs Breakfast Program, Cashless debit card, transcript, 30 October 2020.
[112]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social Security
(Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 2020, pp. 31–35.
[113]. Australian
Greens, Dissenting
report [2019], op. cit, p. 41; Australian Greens, Dissenting report
[2020], op. cit., p. 44.
[114]. R
Siewert, All
in this together? Budget entrenches poverty, media release, 7 October
2020.
[115]. A
Holmes, ‘Senator
Jacqui Lambie unlikely to support cashless debit card trial extension’, The
Examiner, 2 October 2020.
[116]. Forrest,
The Forrest review:
creating parity, op. cit., pp. 27–29.
[117]. Generation
One, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, [Submission no. 38], 23 October 2020, p. 3.
[118]. Ibid.,
pp. 8–10.
[119]. Ibid.,
p. 8.
[120]. Shire
of Coolgardie, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, [Submission no. 92], 26 October 2020, p. 2.
[121]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[122]. Wunan
Foundation, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, October 2020, [Submission no. 25], p. 4.
[123]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[124]. Ibid.,
p. 9.
[125]. Ibid.,
p. 12.
[126]. Cape
York Institute, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, [Submission no. 7], 21 October 2020, p. 1.
[127]. Family
Responsibilities Commission, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020,
[Submission no. 41], p. 4.
[128]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[129]. Per
Capita, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, October 2020, [Submission no. 14], p. 3.
[130]. Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, [Submission no. 13], 23 October 2020, p. 3.
[131]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[132]. Arnhem
Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, [Submission no. 35], 23 October 2020, p. 3.
[133]. Monash
University, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, 21 October, 2020 [Submission no. 5], p. 2.
[134]. Aboriginal
Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory (APO NT), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, Submission no. 39], 23 October, 2020, p. 5.
[135]. UnitingCare
Australia, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, October, 2020 [Submission no. 32], p. 5.
[136]. Ibid,
p. 5.
[137]. Inserted
by item 9 of Schedule 1, Part 1.
[138]. Jesuit
Social Services, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, 22 October 2020 [Submission no. 11], p. 3.
[139]. Northern
Land Council (NLC), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, November 2020 [Submission no. 145], p. 4.
[140]. APO
NT, Submission,
op. cit., p. 2.
[141]. The
Salvation Army Australia, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, October 2020 [Submission no. 9], p. 6.
[142]. Ibid,
p. 6.
[143]. Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, October 2020, [Submission no. 130], p. 3.
[144]. National
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill
2020, [Submission no. 138], 2 November 2020, p. 10.
[145]. Generation
One, op. cit., pp. 8–9.
[146]. Arnhem
Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA), op. cit., p. 5.
[147]. UnitingCare
Australia, op. cit., p. 23.
[148]. Australian
Government, ‘Part
2: Payment Measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2020–21,
pp. 150–151.
[149]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 1.
[150]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page pp. 28–37 of
the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[151]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 14, 2020, 26 November 2020, p. 54.
[152]. Ibid.
pp. 52 and 53.
[153]. Ibid.,
‘The committee considers that the cashless debit card scheme engages and may
promote a number of human rights, including the right to an adequate standard
of living and the rights of the child. Restricting a substantial portion of a
person's welfare payments may promote the right to an adequate standard of
living as these funds may only be spent on essential goods such as groceries
and bills, and in particular, may advance the right to housing if the measures
help to ensure that a portion of a person's income support payments is spent on
rent. Further, by ensuring that a portion of welfare payments is available to
cover essential goods and services, this measure may improve the living
conditions of children of welfare recipients, which may have the effect of
promoting the rights of the child. In particular, the right of a child to benefit
from social security, the right of the child to the highest attainable standard
of health and to an adequate standard of living may be advanced by these
measures as they could help to ensure income support payments are used to cover
minimum basic essential goods and services necessary for the full development
of these rights’.
[154]. Ibid.,
pp. 53–54.
[155]. Ibid.,
pp. 52–54.
[156]. Regulation
impact statement in: Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 26.
[157]. Ibid.,
p. 27.
[158]. Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare)
Act 2019, clause 2 of Schedule 1.
[159]. Coronavirus Economic
Response Package (Deferral of Sunsetting—Income Management and Cashless Welfare
Arrangements) Determination 2020, subsection 4(2). The power to extend the
date for an additional six months was given to the Minister under subclause
1(2) of Schedule 16 to the Coronavirus
Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020.
[160]. Item
16 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[161]. Table
item 2 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill; subitems 49(1) and (2)
in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill.
[162]. Item
16 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 (repealing section 124PF of the SSA
Act—existing subsection 124PF(3) provides for the 15,000 cap).
[163]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PD(1) (proposed definition of program area,
inserted by item 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 1, and amended by items 56
and 57 in Part 2 of Schedule 1); Table item 3 in subclause 2(1)
of the Bill.
[164]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 4.
[165]. Regulation
impact statement in: Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 32.
[166]. Minderoo
Foundation, Cashless
Debit Card: technology report, [Perth], 20 November 2017, p. 28.
[167]. ANAO,
The
implementation and performance of the Cashless Debit Card trial: Department of
Social Services, Report, 1, 2018–19, ANAO, Barton, ACT, 2018, p. 26.
[168]. SSA
Act, paragraph 124PC(b).
[169]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 29.
[170]. ORIMA
Research, Evaluation
of the Cashless Debit Card trial: initial conditions report, DSS,
[Canberra], [2017], p. A7. This objective is restated in more recent documents.
For example: M Moskos, L Isherwood, K Mavromaras and S Mahuteau, Cashless
Debit Card baseline data collection in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region: qualitative
findings, Future of Employment and Skills Research Centre, University
of Adelaide, Adelaide, December 2019, p. 5.
[171]. ORIMA
Research, Cashless
Debit Card trial evaluation: final evaluation report, [Canberra], DSS, August
2017.
[172]. ANAO,
The
implementation and performance of the Cashless Debit Card trial, op.
cit., p. 8.
[173]. J
Hunt, The
Cashless Debit Card trial evaluation: a short review, Centre for
Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra, 2017,
p. 6.
[174]. S
Brockman, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare)
Bill 2019’, Senate, Debates, 31 July 2019, p. 1231.
[175]. K
Pitt, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card
Trial Expansion) Bill 2018’, House of Representatives, Debates, 21
June 2018, p. 5970.
[176]. L
Greenacre, S Akbar, J Brimblecombe and E McMahon, ‘Income
management of government payments on welfare: the Australian Cashless Debit
Card’, Australian Social Work, published online 8 October 2020.
[177]. A Ruston,
‘Second
reading speech: Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill
2019’, Senate, Debates, 31 July 2019, p. 1238.
[178]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PHA(1) and (3).
[179]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PHA(3), (3A) and (3B)
(inserted by item 32 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[180]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2020, op. cit., p. 31.
[181]. Ibid.,
p. 32.
[182]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PHB(1), (3) and (6).
[183]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PHB(7A), (7B) (inserted by item 37 in
Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[184]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2020, op. cit., p. 33.
[185]. Ibid.
[186]. Ibid.
[187]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PHB(9A) (inserted by item 39 in Part
1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[188]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PHB(8) and (9).
[189]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PS(1).
[190]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PS(4), (5).
[191]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PS(3).
[192]. 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.
[193]. S
Storer, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card
Trial Expansion) Bill 2018’, Senate, Debates, 22 August 2018, p.
5620.
[194]. M
Fifield, In
committee: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial
Expansion) Bill 2018, Senate, Debates, 11 September 2018, p. 6003.
[195]. In
the case of the 2017 review, the PJCHR notes that this is because the review
pre-dated the evaluation requirement.
[196]. PJCHR,
Human
rights scrutiny report, 14, 2020, op. cit., p. 47.
[197]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, proof, 28 October 2020, p. 78.
[198]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 7.
[199]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PG(1)(ha), 124PGA(1)(ha), 124PGB(1)(ha)
and 124PGC(1)(ga) (inserted by items 101, 103, 105
and 107, respectively, in Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[200]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PG(4)–(6), 124PGA(4)–(6), 124PGB(4)–(6)
and 124PGC(4)–(6) (inserted by items 102, 104, 106 and
108, respectively in Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill); SSA
Act, paragraphs 127(4)(ab), 127(4)(ac), 144(la) and 144(lb) (as amended by items
109, 110, 111 and 112 in Part 3 of Schedule 1
to the Bill).
[201]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., pp. 7 and 27.
[202]. Item
113 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[203]. Table
item 4 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill.
[204]. SSA
Act, paragraph 124PH(1)(b) (amended by item 29 in Part 1 and item
75 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[205]. P
Fletcher, Morrison
Government extends successful Cashless Debit Card, media release, 25
March 2019.
[206]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2019–20, p. 157.
[207]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card
Transition) Bill 2019 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[208]. Regulation
impact statement in: Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless
Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 34.
[209]. Ibid.,
p. 35.
[210]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PGE(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(a).
[211]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 6.
[212]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PD(2) (as amended by item 14 of Part 1 of Schedule
1 and item 64 of Part 2 of Schedule 1).
[213]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2020, op. cit., p. 34.
[214].
Ibid., pp. 34–35.
[215]. Ibid.,
p. 35.
[216]. The
proposed definition of ‘category E welfare payment’ (as inserted
by item 55 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 the Act.
[217]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PGE(5) and (7).
[218]. See
pp. 23–24 of the Explanatory
Memorandum for an explanation of why this is the case.
[219]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 17.
[220]. SSA
Act, paragraph 123UCB(1)(g).
[221]. SSA
Act, paragraph 123UCC(1)(g).
[222]. The
proposed definition of ‘category P welfare payment’ (as inserted
by item 55 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) has the
same meaning as in Part 3B of the SSA Act—‘category P welfare
payment’ is defined under section 123TC of that Act.
[223]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PGE(2)(b), (d) and (e).
[224]. The
proposed definition of ‘child protection officer’ (as
inserted by item 55 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.
[225]. Social Security
(Administration) (Recognised State/Territory Authority - Northern Territory
Department of Health) Determination 2017 (Cth), section 6. The proposed
definition of ‘recognised State/Territory authority’ (as inserted
by item 59 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. Section
123TGAA empowers the Minister 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.
[226]. SSA
Act, subsections 123UGA(1), (2).
[227]. The
proposed definition of ‘vulnerable welfare payment recipient’
(as inserted by item 62 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.
[228]. Subitem
98(6) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[229]. 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).
[230]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraphs 124PGE(1)(g) and (h).
[231]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PHA(2).
[232]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PHA(3) and (3A) (inserted by item
32 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[233]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PHB(3) and (6).
[234]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PHB(7A) and (7B) (inserted by item
37 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill).
[235]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PHB(9A) (inserted by item 39 in Part
1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill); SSA Act, subsections 124PHB(8)
and (9).
[236]. Subitem
98(1) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[237]. SSA
Act, proposed subparagraphs 124PGE(1)(f), (2)(h) and
(3)(g).
[238]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
[239]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 123UP(2) (at item 52 in Part 2
of Schedule 1).
[240]. Table
item 2 in subclause 2(1) of the Bill.
[241]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
[242]. Regulation
impact statement in: Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of
Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, p. 12.
[243]. DSS,
‘1.1.S.190
Social security benefit’, Social security guide, DSS website, last
reviewed 21 September 2020.
[244]. DSS,
‘1.1.S.220
Social security pension’, Social security guide, DSS website, last
reviewed 20 March 2020.
[245]. SSA
Act, section 123TC (definition of category P welfare payment);
item 55 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, Jobseeker payment, 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, carer payment, pension PP (single), a sole parent
pension, mature age partner allowance, or special needs pension. Definitions in
the SS Act 1991 apply to the SSA Act—subsection 3(2) of the SSA
Act.
[246]. 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. The Minister has specified the Family Responsibilities Commission
established under the Family
Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 (Qld) to be the Queensland
Commission (Social
Security (Administration) - Queensland Commission (Family Responsibilities
Commission) Specification 2015 (Cth)).
[247]. SSA
Act, section 123B; DSS, ‘11.1.4.10
Payment nominees under income management’, Social security guide,
DSS website, last reviewed 9 November 2020.
[248]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PGD(1).
[249]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 124PGD(1)(a).
[250]. Proposed
subsection 124PD(1A), inserted by item 63 in Part 2 of
Schedule 1 to the Bill; item 55 inserts a definition of Cape
York area into subsection 124PD(1). Under the Legislation Act
2003 (Cth), notifiable instruments are not generally disallowable.
[251]. Item
65 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[252]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 16.
[253]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2020, op. cit., p. 34.
[254].
Ibid., pp. 34–35.
[255]. Ibid.,
p. 35.
[256]. Subitem
97(1) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[257]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 123UF(4)(c) (at item 50 of in Part
2 of Schedule 1).
[258]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
[259]. Coronavirus Economic
Response Package (Deferral of Sunsetting—Income Management and Cashless Welfare
Arrangements) Determination 2020, subsection 4(1). SSA Act, paragraphs
123UF(1)(g) and 123UF(2)(h) (as amended by item 5 in Part 1 of Schedule
1). Note also, subitem 97(2) in Part 2 of Schedule 1
to the Bill enables the FRC to continue to rely on income management notices
which will be deemed to be CDC notices irrespective of whether they are
provided by the FRC to the Secretary before or after commencement.
[260]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 123UF(4)(a) (at item 50 in Part 2 of
Schedule 1).
[261]. SSA
Act, subsection 124PJ(2) (as amended by item 41 in Part 1 of Schedule
1 of the Bill).
[262]. For
the purposes of CDC in the NT, the types of payments that are restrictable
payments are further expanded under proposed paragraph (aa) of the
definition of ‘restrictable payment’ in subsection 124PD(1) of
the SSA Act (inserted by item 61 in Part 2 of Schedule
1 of the Bill).
[263]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PJ(1B) and (1D).
[264]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PJ(1C).
[265]. Item
82 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill (substituting paragraphs
124PJ(a) and (b) of the SSA Act).
[266]. SSA
Act, proposed subsections 124PJ(2A) and (2B), inserted by item
87.
[267]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, op. cit., p. 37.
[268]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PJ(3) and (4) (as amended by item 41 in Part
1 and items 88 to 92 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Bill).
[269]. SSA
Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(2C).
[270]. Scrutiny
Committee, Scrutiny
digest, op. cit., p. 37.
[271]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 124PJ(1A)(a) (inserted by item 84 in Part
2 of Schedule 1).
[272]. SSA
Act, proposed paragraph 124PJ(1A)(b).
[273]. SSA
Act, subsections 124PJ(3) and (4) (as amended by item 41 in Part
1 and items 88 to 92 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of
the Bill).
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.