|
senate vote 2018-02-12#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-28 07:30:26
|
Title
Bills — Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017; in Committee- Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Clarity and transparency
Description
<p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>I will move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8354 together:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-02-12.258.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Doug Cameron](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/doug_cameron) (Labor), which means it failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Senator Cameron [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-02-12.256.1):
- > *Our amendments seek to improve the way the trial work in Ceduna and East Kimberley by ensuring that the rules by which a community body makes recommendations to the secretary are transparent and made public. Labor, in its own consultations, heard the way in which the decisions made by the community body were not always clear and transparent.*
- >
- > *The government must specify funding for wraparound services in trial sites formally in the legislation. The wraparound services are important. There is no point in putting these cards in without appropriate wraparound services. The minister could give me a figure on what wraparound services cost across the country, but, for the bill that's been brought here, we didn't get any specified idea of what the wraparound services were costing. We are seeking that the government specify the social support services to ensure trial participants get the alcohol rehabilitation, mental health and other support services they need. The funding allocated in the new services being delivered is not clear to trial participants. This amendment requires the information be made public.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute:*
- >
- > *2 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b)*
- >
- >> *Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019".*
- >
- > *3 Subsection 124PF(2)*
- >
- >> *Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "2 discrete".*
- >
- > *4 Paragraph 124PK(2 ) ( a)*
- >
- >> *After "voluntary participant", insert "reached in accordance with the requirements set out in a determination made under subsection (6)".*
- >
- > *5 At the end of section 124PK*
- >
- >> *Add:*
- >>
- >> *(6) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (including procedural requirements) for how an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) must be reached.*
- >
- > *6 At the end of Division 3 of Part 3D*
- >
- >> *Add:*
- >>
- >> *Subdivision C—Social support services*
- >>
- >> *124PMA Social support services to be provided in trial areas*
- >>
- >> *(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify social support services that are to be provided or supported by the Secretary in each trial area.*
- >>
- >> *(2) The specified social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare or safety of adults, children or families in the trial area. (trial of cashless welfare arrangements]*
<p class="italic">(1)Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[heading]</i></p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">2 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b)</p><p class="italic">Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019".</p><p class="italic">3 Subsection 124PF(2)</p><p class="italic">Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "2 discrete".</p><p class="italic">4 Paragraph 124PK(2 ) ( a)</p><p class="italic">After "voluntary participant", insert "reached in accordance with the requirements set out in a determination made under subsection (6)".</p><p class="italic">5 At the end of section 124PK</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">(6) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (including procedural requirements) for how an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) must be reached.</p><p class="italic">6 At the end of Division 3 of Part 3D</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">Subdivision C—Social support services</p><p class="italic">124PMA Social support services to be provided in trial areas</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify social support services that are to be provided or supported by the Secretary in each trial area.</p><p class="italic"> (2) The specified social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare or safety of adults, children or families in the trial area. <i>(trial of cashless welfare arrangements]</i></p><p>The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak to the amendments?</p><p>I would like to repeat that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show that the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley are working. The Senate inquiry heard that ORIMA evaluations of the trial are unreliable and that no empirical judgement can be made on the basis of the information collected. In its own consultations, Labor heard mixed results, with some participants in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley trials finding the cashless debit card to be useful, while others thought it had not made any improvements to their lives. In addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, Labor believe that the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials have not been running long enough to form solid conclusions about the success or otherwise of the trials. Labor supported the initiation of the trials in East Kimberley and supports them continuing for a further year to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful. We require a 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. We've heard tonight that it's around $25.5 million, or $12,000 per participant, and the response we got from the minister was that it would be even more expensive than that. We know that the government has spent $1.6 million for ORIMA Research to provide what we believe is substandard evaluation.</p><p>We just don't think enough has been done by the government to justify the expansion. We do support the establishment of trials in East Kimberley and Ceduna on the basis that the communities wanted, and had consented to, the trial card. We consulted with communities in the proposed trial regions of Bundaberg and Goldfields, and, as well as the evidence presented in the Senate inquiry, it's clear there's been insufficient government consultation with these communities. The minister could provide us with the names of councils who supported the expansion but couldn't tell us the name of one group, among the 86 participants in the consultation, who had opposed the trial. It's not that no-one opposed the trial; it's that the minister didn't have that information and the advisers couldn't provide that information. The minister has taken that on notice, and I'll be pleased to get the result of that agreement to take those issues on notice and provide those details.</p><p>The government must provide a formal process of consultation and a clear framework for establishing whether communities consent to the trial. The minister had an opportunity to take us through how the consultation worked, who opposed the trial and the issues that were raised by those groups, among the 86 that participated, who opposed the trial, but we didn't get that. That's pretty typical of this government: they determine what they want to do and they just impose it on local communities. Then they offer a bauble or a small gift of something that the NXT party thinks is a good thing, so the NXT votes with them. It's pretty typical of NXT these days. They are another Liberal Party supporting the government in its endeavours to implement what we think is flawed legislation and to bringing flawed bills to this parliament. We believe there's insufficient evidence. We would require a more rigorous evaluation.</p><p>Our amendments seek to improve the way the trial work in Ceduna and East Kimberley by ensuring that the rules by which a community body makes recommendations to the secretary are transparent and made public. Labor, in its own consultations, heard the way in which the decisions made by the community body were not always clear and transparent.</p><p>The government must specify funding for wraparound services in trial sites formally in the legislation. The wraparound services are important. There is no point in putting these cards in without appropriate wraparound services. The minister could give me a figure on what wraparound services cost across the country, but, for the bill that's been brought here, we didn't get any specified idea of what the wraparound services were costing. We are seeking that the government specify the social support services to ensure trial participants get the alcohol rehabilitation, mental health and other support services they need. The funding allocated in the new services being delivered is not clear to trial participants. This amendment requires the information be made public.</p><p>Our amendments would improve this bill, and on that basis I move the amendments on sheet 8354 and seek that they be moved as one.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>Senator Cameron, for clarification: are you moving just amendment (2) on sheet 8354?</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>I'll move amendment (1) as well—(1) and (2).</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is leave granted?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>We—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Excuse me, Minister. You want to clarify something, Senator Cameron?</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Yes. I would like to have them dealt with separately.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We will deal with (2) first.</p><p>I move amendment (2) on sheet 8354:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">2 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b)</p><p class="italic">Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019".</p><p class="italic">3 Subsection 124PF(2)</p><p class="italic">Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "2 discrete".</p><p class="italic">4 Paragraph 124PK(2 ) ( a)</p><p class="italic">After "voluntary participant", insert "reached in accordance with the requirements set out in a determination made under subsection (6)".</p><p class="italic">5 At the end of section 124PK</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">(6) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (including procedural requirements) for how an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) must be reached.</p><p class="italic">6 At the end of Division 3 of Part 3D</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">Subdivision C—Social support services</p><p class="italic">124PMA Social support services to be provided in trial areas</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify social support services that are to be provided or supported by the Secretary in each trial area.</p><p class="italic"> (2) The specified social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare or safety of adults, children or families in the trial area. <i>(trial of cashless welfare arrangements]</i></p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>The government will not be agreeing to the opposition's amendments to the bill. The amendments put forward would prohibit the proposed expansion of the card and effectively restrict the proper implementation of a trial. While the government welcomes the opposition's support of the current sites and the extension of the trial time frame, we don't believe the opposition has considered what its amendments would mean for existing trial sites. The proposed opposition amendments with regard to provided services and community consultation will place an unnecessary and potentially harmful administrative burden on the department when it needs to respond to community requests.</p><p>The government rejects the proposed amendment regarding the trial site limit because it would prohibit the expansion of the debit card to the Goldfields region in Western Australia. There is a strong need for additional tools to address social harm in the Goldfields. WA Police Force data indicated the domestic and non-domestic assault rate in the Goldfields is more than twice the state average. Alcohol is a factor in two-thirds of the domestic assaults from 2009 to 2013 and half of all non-domestic assaults. Alcohol-related hospitalisations and deaths were 25 per cent higher than the WA state average from 2007 to 2011. In a statement to the Senate inquiry into the bill in late 2017, Shire of Leonora CEO Mr James Epis said:</p><p class="italic">In the last three years, it has been devastating to see the escalation of antisocial behaviour between individuals caused by alcohol and drugs. This has often reached crisis levels.</p><p>Shire of Laverton President Mr Patrick Hill told the community:</p><p class="italic">We are at wit's end. We want to see a safe community … We don't want to see this abuse. We don't want to see kids running around with dirty nappies on for a couple of days and no clothes.</p><p>In September 2017, the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to expand the cashless debit card to the Goldfields following extensive consultation across the community. Between May and December 2017, over 300 consultations were held, with over 86 organisations and 10 public information sessions. Consultation is ongoing in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation. Momentum in the community for the trial has been considerable, with a number of working groups established in late 2017 to assist with implementation, planning and oversight. The expansion of the program demonstrates our commitment to provide a strong social welfare safety net reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and supporting vulnerable people, families and communities.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|