Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to go back to an issue that we started talking about earlier in the day before going on to other evaluation issues: the issue of when you are looking at the evaluation process. For a start, you outlined how the collection of data sets is going to make up the baseline information. If I understood what you were saying correctly, the state government and the Commonwealth government are going to be looking at various data sets. Is that a correct understanding of the baseline evaluation process?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the time frame for the collection of that data? Will that be collected prior to the commencement of the trial? I will leave it at that, firstly.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that things will be measured pre, during and after. There will be data sets before, data sets during and data sets after. I cannot give you detail as to exactly what data sets will be received and when particular data sets feed into which particular components of the evaluation. I just do not have that information, sorry.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a specific reason for asking this, and that is why I was talking about baseline data. During the committee inquiry process there seemed to be some doubt as to whether there would be adequate baseline information collected. That is why I am asking specifically about the data sets—so that we have a baseline from which to evaluate.

One of the problems with evaluating the Northern Territory intervention has always been that there was not that key data set—a baseline data set—available. I am particularly pursuing this line of questioning to find out whether we will in fact have an adequate baseline data set from which to evaluate and whether it will be available before the start of the trial and whether it will be publicly available so that we all can see what that baseline data is.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be working with the South Australian government to establish the appropriate baseline data sets. Whether it can be released publicly or not, I do not know. I guess one of the considerations would be whether, in a small community, data sets could potentially identify people. I do not know—I am not familiar enough with it—but I know that there are some reasons why particular data sets in particular formats might not be able to be released. I am just surmising on that point. I think that it would be the intention to make available the baseline data sets in the interests of transparency, because I think everyone wants to see what the results of the trial are.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that. Our experience with the NT intervention is that anything less than 20 just has 'less than 20', and that has been generally acceptable. That is a way that we can get around that particular issue. If that is in fact the intention, that would be a good start. Is the government intending to provide extra funding to the state for this data collection and for the ongoing evaluation? How much funding has been set aside for this process?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The South Australian government have just agreed to share, I understand. It is not on a fee-for-service basis.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, where extra data is needed beyond what they generally collect, have you considered that? Secondly, for the evaluation per se, have you set aside a particular level of funding to ensure we have money available for a thorough process?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The independent evaluation group will be collecting the data and South Australia will be providing the data at no charge. If there are other datasets to obtain from different sources which require a fee then I am sure that will be done.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the independent evaluation that will be carried out only be done on the qualitative data? Interviews with trial participants and a wide cross-section of the community to explore the impact of the trial would be qualitative data. Will quantitative analysis be done?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be qualitative as well as quantitative. The nature of the qualitative work will be interviews, feedback, focus groups—not in the sense of focus groups that we might be more familiar with, but there will be a range of different mechanisms to seek that qualitative input.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go back to the original question. In relation to the independent organisation that will carry out the qualitative analysis, will the government go through the normal process of tendering it out, and what funding is allocated to that? Is that the process that will be used?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will go to tender, and the funding is in the contingency reserve.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are on the qualitative process, I wanted to confirm whether you intend to try to cover all of the participants in the trial or whether there will be a selection and, if so, how will that selection be carried out?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is still to be determined. I don't know whether it will be sampling, whether there will be an endeavour to connect with each individual participant. I think that is still to be determined on the basis of expert advice as to how best to conduct these evaluations.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason I am asking is that it is quite clear from the evidence we have heard, both in this chamber and in the inquiry, that not all income support recipients in the Ceduna area have been consulted. If that same process happens again, you will get a skewed evaluation. That is why I am asking whether there is a commitment that all participants will be involved. What is the commitment to having an independent process where there is not a selective analysis or consultation with people?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever is done will be representative and comprehensive. There is no desire or intention to have an evaluation that is anything but that. It is not ministers who are designing the evaluation; there is expert advice as to how that is best done.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The quantitative analysis is not referred to in the evaluation process. I want to confirm that there will be funding for a quantitative analysis as well.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to the questions I was asking earlier about commitment of funding to like-size communities who have similar sorts of issues so that we have an adequate comparison between a community that is getting the sorts of wraparound services that you are providing—$1 million worth of services is quite a significant injection of services—and a community that does not get that. Many communities do not get that. How will you compare apples with apples if you are looking at the impact of the card versus the impact of the services? I go back to where I was heading before we went off on another issue. Will you be looking at a like community that does not have the card but that is receiving the services so that we can then look at the impact of card and the impact of the services? Many of us would argue that those services are key. I will say again that it is really good that services are going in. This is so we can look at what the impact of those services is and what the impact of the card is.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Part of the evaluation design will be to ensure that any comparative communities are also comparative in terms of the sorts of wraparound services that they have.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that I am not verballing you: does that mean you will be having a comparison community where you are putting in that level of services but they do not have the card? I want to be really clear about this.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention is to compare like with like, to make comparisons with communities that have those sorts of services.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you tell us which communities have the same allocation of the sorts of services that are going to be on top of the services that Ceduna now receives?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, before you answer that question, I have a supplementary question to that one. It is in terms of the fact that one of the core aspects of the trial was an audit of the current services and then community consultation to augment those current services. I am interested to see whether a similar process has occurred anywhere else with quite a specialised preparation. In the paperwork we received on the trial, it was very clear that there had been a specific audit of the current services in the region and discussions with the state government about the services they are providing and then, on top of that, with community consultation, Minister Tudge provided the augmentation of the million dollars. In terms of having a direct comparison, will there be any place that would have had that same degree of service focus to make that kind of comparison, or are you preparing to have a more general process about similar services rather than the same?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Minister is committed to making the full evaluation framework public. As I say, the intention is to compare like with like. So I cannot really add any more to that at this stage.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the information that you provided about making the framework available. What is the time line for making that framework available? Will it be before the trial?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it will.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to work out the process for finding another community that is along the lines that Senator Moore just articulated.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be a process to do that. As I say, the evaluation framework will be made public, but I cannot really give you any more detail as to how exactly that will be done.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am finished with the evaluation framework for the time being. I want to go to issues around the package of early childhood services. The letter to the shadow minister says that Ceduna was prioritised as one of the 10 communities in the early childhood services $20 million commitment. I am trying to find out whether this decision was taken before the MOU was signed with Ceduna and, if so, when?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will endeavour to find that out. I do not know that, but we will see if the advisers can advise me. If you have another question, that might give some time for them to seek to get the information.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. My next question is related to that, and that is: if it was after, does that mean that there will now be 11 communities, or did one community then miss out? I am trying to work out whether they were getting the funding anyway, or if it means that there is another community that is now missing out or in fact whether we have an extra community. I am not complaining if no-one was kicked out.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a level of detail that I do not have.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was the money committed to early childhood services part of the extra package of $1 million or is it on top of that?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the early childhood is on top of that amount.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean that centres that were not part of the early childhood commitment will also get additional funding for early childhood services as well?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that those 10 sites are not dependent on the trial.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I missed that. They are dependent?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those 10 sites are not dependent on the trial.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise; I may have miscommunicated what I wanted to know. If the East Kimberley goes ahead, will there be a similar commitment to those early childhood type services as well?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If those community leaders think that that is appropriate, that is something that will be discussed with them.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to find out—and you may not be able to answer this because you are trying to find out yourself—what the process was for Ceduna to get these early childhood services. Was it part of the concepts of working out the trial process—whether it was before or after? I am trying to find out whether you are going to go through the same process for the other trials as well.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ceduna had asked for it in the consultations, so it is a product of that. With other trial sites, we will see what the discussions and the requests are.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is helpful, thank you, but my question is still whether it was before or after the MOU; and whether we have now got 11 or one has been bumped.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot add anything at this stage but I will see if I can shortly.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. If you cannot, could you take it on notice.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice has just come through: it was after the MOU.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it was originally one of the 10 therefore.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 10 were announced after the MOU, and Ceduna was one of them.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted to clarify that my understanding was in fact correct, thank you.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is on a different issue, Senator Siewert. Going back to the community panels that we talked about earlier, during the community affairs hearing there was a range of discussions about how they would operate. In your previous answers this afternoon, you were really clear that this was going to be determined by the community. We understood that was the process. I asked on the day at the community affairs inquiry: is it possible to have a range of options within the same community around this assessment process? We talked at the time and I raised the issue on the Hansardabout the fact that members of the community would feel more comfortable with different people. We talked in the discussion with the department that afternoon about whether it would be someone from Centrelink or a community determined panel, and whether the same people from an Indigenous community would be assessed by the same people as by the non-Indigenous community. This range of discussions occurred, and my understanding when I went away from that meeting was that it was still under consideration; however, there could be the possibility that there would be a range of options all determined by the community and all agreed by the minister to suit a number of the people in the community. I am just wondering whether that variation is still under consideration.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not something that has been asked for at this stage, I understand, but it is something that would be possible.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just following up on that issue, because I want to double-check a couple of things too: who is the final decision maker in terms of what that process will look like? I understand what you are saying, which is that the community will be determining how to run it. I still hold concerns about what the minimum standards I was asking about earlier are, and who therefore makes the decision that there may be several bodies?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimately, the minister would sign the legislative instrument that would recognise the body or bodies; however, obviously, it would be hoped that that would simply be reflecting the agreement that had been reached in the community.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Presumably, you would have the same manner of operating for whatever number of bodies you came up with. You do not envisage having a different set of criteria for different bodies—would that be a correct understanding?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is probably not likely that there would be different criteria, but there would be discussions with the local communities in different trial sites. It would be theoretically possible that there could be some variation but that has not particularly been envisaged, if that makes sense.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Potentially, what is envisaged is that, instead of having one body, you could have them based on communities. When you were answering Senator Moore's question, is that what you were thinking about?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could have different authorised bodies—that is right—but in Ceduna that has not been sought at this stage, but it is something that is a possibility.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who would be the secretariat for this body or bodies? Is it the department?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, that is something that will be determined in consultation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So funding therefore for the operation of these bodies?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess that will be a function of how they are structured, but there will be the appropriate funding to facilitate what it is they need to do.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same point, in terms of the decision—again, it is a clarifying point, and I know a lot of this is under consultation at the moment; I am trying to get an idea about the process. It is important that there is consistency and integrity in the decision making so people understand that. I am just trying to clarify: is it an appellable decision so that, if you go to the body and ask to change from 80-20 to, say, fifty-fifty and the group or the authorisation says no, is this an appellable decision as I would understand an appellable decision under the act?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If someone does not agree with a decision, then they do not have to be bound to it, and the status quo is what prevail Your question is: will there be a formal mechanism by which someone can seek to have that revisited? I will seek some advice on that. The initial advice, and I guess this is the ultimate advice as well, is that the minister could override a panel decision. Someone could raise it with the minister as to whether there is an avenue below the minister. The minister will review the operations of the panel in addition to that at least every six months. In terms of how the processes operate, how the particular body operates, to some extent that will still be the subject of consultation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an area we started pursuing earlier and we did not quite conclude it. If you recall, we were talking about small communities with a small number of people who are going to have to front up to people who, in a lot of instances, they know quite well to air their personal views or opinions. Given that, I would have thought that there was even more reason for the fact that you would need an appeal process. There is a big gap between going to the local community body and to the minister.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be discussions, in the process of establishing the local body, as to what arrangements there are for another look to be taken at someone's situation after a decision has been made—that is, short of going to the minister.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I interpret that to mean that there will in fact be a process that does not require the minister—so in effect an appeal process? I am conscious that you have got formal appeal processes that are available through the various legislative mechanisms, so you are not talking about a formal process. You are talking about putting in place another process where people can have a review outside the minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right—something that is not terribly formal. For instance, it could be asking the local body itself to take another look. Whether there are variations on that, that is something that there will be further discussions on.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go back to the issue that we were talking about with funding. There will be funding available? I suspect I could almost answer my question because I will get told 'the contingency fund', but what are the processes that you have agreed with the community will be funded in terms of sitting fees, operational fees, secretariat—this is obviously going to be a very sensitive issue, so there is going to have to be due process around this community body. What are the processes that you have been discussing and that you have established to ensure those due processes when dealing with very personal information and the direct impacts on people's lives? What funding has been made available, and what other things would be funded through this community body?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The funding that will be required and who the funding might be paid to on the basis of sitting fees—I think you mentioned those—will be a function of the actual structure that is chosen for that body in the particular locality.

I should also mention that in terms of those who will be participating in the local body, the privacy requirements would be outlined in the formal agreement between the local community body and the Commonwealth and would comply with the Australian Privacy Principles. Each individual member of the local community body would be required to sign a declaration of confidentiality confirming that they will not disclose any protected information of trial participants. As I was saying before, there will be further consultations to ensure that it is an appropriate review process that will be set up to allow an independent review of decisions separate from the board.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was aware that those privacy issues are outlined in the letter. I was not in any way trying to impugn anybody who may be on a community body by suggesting they may breach privacy. The point I was making is that this is a very important body. As you have just pointed out, there will be statutory obligations, which means that it needs to have an adequate level of funding to support it. That is why I was asking that, why I was putting it in that context. What funding has been made available?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is appropriate funding in the contingency fund to ensure that will be the case.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How did I accurately predict that, or did I not accurately predict that answer? I thank you for that answer. I wanted to go to one final issue, for me anyway, and ask: where is the regulatory impact statement?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised it has been through the Office of Best Practice Regulation, but I assume you are asking: 'Physically where is it that I can get my hands on it?' I assume that is the question, and I will inquire as to what the status is. It may take a moment for that advice to come through. I think it has completed the process and it has been agreed, but its publication status is something that I will have to take on notice at this stage.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How close do we think it is? We are being asked to vote on legislation, and we have not seen that statement. I actually thought there was something wrong with the processes we were using to try to find this, because I just did not think that we would be asked to vote on this without seeing that particular statement. So when will it be published? When will it be made available?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will need to seek advice from the Office of Best Practice Regulation as to the publication status or otherwise of the document.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.