|
senate vote 2018-02-12#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-28 07:37:59
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Extend trial
Description
<p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Labor has a number of amendments that we want to propose to the bill. They are contained in sheet 8354. In relation to the amendments, we believe that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show that the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley are working.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [government amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-02-12.148.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Concetta Fierravanti-Wells](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/concetta_fierravanti-wells) (Liberal), which means it will now be included as part of the bill.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Senator Fierravanti-Wells [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-02-12.148.1):
- > *The government amendment extends the trial of the cashless debit card to 30 June 2019. The amendments also specify that the trial will be limited to three sites—namely, the East Kimberley and the included communities, Ceduna and the surrounding regions, and the Goldfields. The bill retains the existing legislated limitations on trial parameters in relation to the number of sites, participant numbers and the duration of the cashless debit card trial.*
- >
- > *Under the current legislation, trial sites are determined via legislative instrument. The bill removes this ability and specifically names the trial areas. Instead, the minister will be able to declare that specific parts of the trial areas are exempt from the cashless debit card. This provides the government with the flexibility to remove localities. This reflects that discussions with communities in the Goldfields region are ongoing and that requirements for communities already on the cashless debit card may change over time.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 4 to 8), omit the items, substitute:*
- >
- > *1 Subsection 124PD(1)*
- >
- >> *Insert:*
- >>
- >> *Ceduna area means Ceduna within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination2015 as in force on 15 March 2016 and includes the Surrounding Region (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).*
- >>
- >> *East Kimberley area means East Kimberley within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination2016 as in force on 26 April 2016 and includes the areas of each of the Included Communities (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).*
- >>
- >> *Goldfields area means the following Local Government Areas as at 7 February 2018:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the Shire of Leonora;*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) the Shire of Laverton;*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder;*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) the Shire of Coolgardie;*
- >>>
- >>> *(e) the Shire of Menzies.*
- >>
- >> *Local Government Areas means areas designated by the Governor of Western Australia to be a city, town or shire, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).*
- >
- > *2 Subsection 124PD(1) (definition of trial area )*
- >
- >> *Repeal the definition, substitute:*
- >>
- >> *trial area means the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the Ceduna area;*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) the East Kimberley area;*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the Goldfields area;*
- >>
- >> *other than any part of such an area determined in an instrument under subsection (2).*
- >
- > *3 Subsection 124PD(2)*
- >
- >> *Repeal the subsection, substitute:*
- >>
- >>> *(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a part of an area for the purposes of the definition of trial area in subsection (1).*
- >
- > *4 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b)*
- >
- >> *Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019".*
- >
- > *5 Subsection 124PF(2)*
- >
- >> *Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "the".*
<p>The Senate inquiry heard that the ORIMA evaluations of the trial are unreliable and no empirical judgements can be made on the basis of the information collected. In its own consultations, Labor heard mixed results with some participants in Ceduna and the East Kimberley trials finding the cashless debit card to be useful while others thought it had not made any improvement to their lives.</p><p>In addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, Labor believes that the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials have not been running long enough to form solid conclusions about the success of the trials. Labor supported the initiation of trials in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley, and supports them continuing for a further year to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful.</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I move government amendment (1) on sheet AS301:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 4 to 8), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">1 Subsection 124PD(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Ceduna area</i> means Ceduna within the meaning of the <i>Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination</i><i>2015</i> as in force on 15 March 2016 and includes the Surrounding Region (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).</p><p class="italic"> <i>East Kimberley area</i> means East Kimberley within the meaning of the <i>Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination</i><i>2016</i> as in force on 26 April 2016 and includes the areas of each of the Included Communities (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).</p><p class="italic"><i>Goldfields</i> <i>area</i> means the following Local Government Areas as at 7 February 2018:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Shire of Leonora;</p><p class="italic">(b) the Shire of Laverton;</p><p class="italic">(c) the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder;</p><p class="italic">(d) the Shire of Coolgardie;</p><p class="italic">(e) the Shire of Menzies.</p><p class="italic"><i>Local Government Areas </i>means areas designated by the Governor of Western Australia to be a city, town or shire, in accordance with the <i>Local Government Act 1995</i> (WA).</p><p class="italic">2 Subsection 124PD(1) (definition of <i>trial area</i> )</p><p class="italic">Repeal the definition, substitute:</p><p class="italic"><i>trial area</i> means the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Ceduna area;</p><p class="italic">(b) the East Kimberley area;</p><p class="italic">(c) the Goldfields area;</p><p class="italic">other than any part of such an area determined in an instrument under subsection (2).</p><p class="italic">3 Subsection 124PD(2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a part of an area for the purposes of the definition of <i>trial area </i>in subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">4 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b)</p><p class="italic">Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019".</p><p class="italic">5 Subsection 124PF(2)</p><p class="italic">Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "the".</p><p>The government amendment extends the trial of the cashless debit card to 30 June 2019. The amendments also specify that the trial will be limited to three sites—namely, the East Kimberley and the included communities, Ceduna and the surrounding regions, and the Goldfields. The bill retains the existing legislated limitations on trial parameters in relation to the number of sites, participant numbers and the duration of the cashless debit card trial.</p><p>Under the current legislation, trial sites are determined via legislative instrument. The bill removes this ability and specifically names the trial areas. Instead, the minister will be able to declare that specific parts of the trial areas are exempt from the cashless debit card. This provides the government with the flexibility to remove localities. This reflects that discussions with communities in the Goldfields region are ongoing and that requirements for communities already on the cashless debit card may change over time.</p><p>We say that the change is needed. The government amendments to the bill will provide certainty for the communities currently engaged in the trial and/or the communities of the Goldfields which have asked the government to expand the cashless debit card to their community. Currently, the debit card trial is due to cease on 30 June this year.</p><p>An independent evaluation of the existing CDC trial sites was conducted by ORIMA Research in 2016-17. The evaluation found that the card had a considerable positive impact in both trial sites. Overall the research found that the CDC trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling on both trial sites and was also suggestive of a reduction in the use of illegal drugs.</p><p>Continuing the cashless debit card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley will focus on sustaining these impacts in the longer term. If the current end date is not extended, the program must cease by 30 June 2018, which will risk undermining the positive outcomes already being experienced by these communities. Furthermore, the government has committed to expand the program to the Goldfields region. Failure to amend the legislation will prevent this. This expansion will help test the card in different settings.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Minister, are you moving the five different areas or are you moving them one at a time? Can I just get clarification on that?</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>It's a single amendment that has five parts.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>I will just go to each part of the amendment that you have before the Senate. We oppose this amendment. I said in the second reading debate and I've indicated earlier tonight that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show that the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley are working. That is an issue to start with, and that's why we would oppose any expansion of the trial. We don't support the expansion of the trial at this stage.</p><p>We supported the initiation of trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley and support them continuing for a further year to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful. The amendment I propose to move on this bill deals with that aspect.</p><p>The second part of your amendment goes to defining the trial area. The current legislation in the bill doesn't define the trial area. This is currently done through a legislative instrument. This government amendment defines the trial areas as the Ceduna area, the East Kimberley area and the Goldfields area. We oppose this part of the amendment, and any move to expand the trial without sufficient evidence to demonstrate its success will be opposed. Labor requires a much more rigorous evaluation of the cashless debit card in the existing trial areas prior to any expansion.</p><p>The trials are also of a significant cost. Labor understands that there is a current accrued cost of $25.5 million, or around $12,000 per participant. We also know that the government spent around $1.6 million on ORIMA Research to provide substandard evaluation, and the minister still won't reveal how much it will cost the taxpayers to expand the rollout of the card to the Goldfields area.</p><p>Minister, before I go any further, can you confirm that there is an accrued cost of $25.5 million, or $12,000 per participant? Did the ORIMA research cost $1.6 million? Can you reveal how much it will cost taxpayers to expand the rollout of the card to the Goldfields area?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I am advised that the overall cost is $1,000 per person.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>What about the accrued cost of $25.5 million?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I am advised that there is an initial up-front cost and there is no ongoing cost. The bulk of the cost of the program relates to up-front implementation, and these up-front costs include industry and community consultation, the card provider creating a new debit card and information technology system as well as the independent evaluation of the trial. Any future costs associated with the program, including expanding to additional sites, will be significantly lower per head than the amount estimated for the trial. I am instructed that it works out at $1,000 per head long term.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Thanks. I'm still unclear. I'm not sure where the $1,000-per-head long-term figure you said comes from, so maybe you could explain that figure. I want to bring you back to the accrued cost to the present time. The advice I have is that that is $25.5 million. Maybe you could just deal with those two issues and advise how you achieve this figure of $1,000. How does that work out?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I am advised that the up-front consultation with communities and the set-up fees are how we get up to the $25 million.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Thanks. So my understanding that the accrued cost of $25.5 million is correct. Can you now explain how it becomes $1,000 per participant and not the $12,000 that I am advised?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I am advised, Senator Cameron, that those are up-front costs for the set-up and that, of course, the long-term cost is reduced to $1,000 per person.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>So, Minister, you're basically subtracting the $25.5 million up-front cost to achieve a $1,000-per-participant outcome. Is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I'm instructed that the figure of about $25 million is the bulk of the program and it is for up-front implementation, which is a normal practice with a new initiative. These up-front costs include the industry and community consultation, the card provider creating the new debit card and information technology system—which, of course, stays with the life of the program once it has been created—as well as the independent evaluation of the system. Clearly, any future costs associated with the program, even expanding to additional sites, will be significantly lower per head than the amount that was originally estimated for the trial. That is what I am advised.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>If we count the $25.5 million, which is what you describe as the up-front amount, would that still be $12,000 per participant?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>If this would assist you, I am advised that other similar income management programs work out to about $3,000 per head. If you could kindly repeat your question, that would be good.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>We understand that the accrued cost is $25.5 million. I think that would include what you describe as up-front costs. For the number of people being forced to participate in this, it would equal $12,000 per participant if you include the $25.5 million. It is a simple question.</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I am advised that at this point in time, with the trial as it is, it does work out to $12,000, but we have worked out that, into the future, the cost will come down considerably as a consequence of those up-front costs having already been met. I am now advised that it will be $1,000 per person over the long term.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>In other words, it is still that cost per person. Do you include in that the cost of the additional service provision, the so-called wraparound services, the additional staff needed for rolling it out in a particular area and providing the additional EFTPOS machines?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>Yes, I am advised that it does.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>You indicated that the cost of $1,000 was over the long term. Over how many years is the long term?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>To the end of June 2019.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Long term? That's less than 18 months.</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>Sorry, Senator Cameron. Let me just clarify this. Would you mind giving me a few minutes? One of the advisers is just going to get that clarified, so we'll come back to you on that.</p><p>While we are at it, Senator Siewert, do you have more?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>The situation has changed from when we first saw this legislation. How many participants are you estimating for the Goldfields trial in that calculation for the cost?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>About 3,600 for the Goldfields.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>While you are clarifying whether or not 18 months is long term, is there a cost for just the Goldfields?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I am advised that the costs for operating the additional sites are not for publication, due to potential commercial sensitivities.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>So we're expected to believe that the costs will come down from $12,000 to $1,000 when you are not telling us what the costs are for the Goldfields? How do you arrive at that if you won't tell us all the facts? How are we expected to believe you?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>Senator Siewert, I'm seeking clarification, and as part of the clarification I'd like to be able to explain to you the process, so, if you will bear with me, I will get that information for you.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Minister, are you claiming public interest immunity on the cost for the Goldfields?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>I'm advised that we wouldn't publish commercial-in-confidence information related to those contracts. I will provide you with as much information as I can, so, if you will just bear with me, I have just got some additional information. I am advised that the $1,000 is for four sites to 2020, which is still government policy.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|