Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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.

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.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government amendment (1) on sheet AS301:

(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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, are you moving the five different areas or are you moving them one at a time? Can I just get clarification on that?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a single amendment that has five parts.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the overall cost is $1,000 per person.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the accrued cost of $25.5 million?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the up-front consultation with communities and the set-up fees are how we get up to the $25 million.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, Minister, you're basically subtracting the $25.5 million up-front cost to achieve a $1,000-per-participant outcome. Is that correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am advised that it does.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You indicated that the cost of $1,000 was over the long term. Over how many years is the long term?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the end of June 2019.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Long term? That's less than 18 months.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

While we are at it, Senator Siewert, do you have more?

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

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About 3,600 for the Goldfields.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While you are clarifying whether or not 18 months is long term, is there a cost for just the Goldfields?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the costs for operating the additional sites are not for publication, due to potential commercial sensitivities.

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

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?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, are you claiming public interest immunity on the cost for the Goldfields?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you've been here a fair time and you know that you just can't claim commercial-in-confidence without laying out the details of why this would be a public interest immunity claim. I know it is Larry Anthony, former National Party leader, who's got a finger in the pie here, but that doesn't mean public interest immunity. It doesn't mean that you can claim commercial-in-confidence. You understand that you have to provide these details to the Senate.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, are you reflecting on Larry Anthony? If you are making some sort of accusation, can you just be clear about that? You are reflecting on him in some way, shape or form, so perhaps you might like to reflect on that.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony is a former member of parliament. I am entitled to raise these issues without having to explain any reflection. Are you denying that Mr Anthony has got a finger in the pie?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that he does not.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks. So do we have a cost for the Goldfields? You won't provide a cost for the Goldfields? If you are saying that this is commercial-in-confidence, you would know that Odgers doesn't accept the proposition of commercial-in-confidence. You have to lay out a public interest immunity claim.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked me a question about costs. I'm telling you that costs for operating additional sites are not for publication due to potential commercial sensitivities, because there are contracts and contractual obligations involved. I've explained to you that the cost of the four sites to 2020 is $1,000 per person. Those are my instructions. I can seek further instructions, but that's what I am instructed to put to the Senate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I'm just not sure I want to accept that as this stage. I might come back to that. So where we are up to, I think, is our opposition to the inclusion of the Goldfields. We take the view that any move to expand the trial without sufficient evidence will be opposed. We want a more rigorous evaluation. The trials are a significant cost, and you have confirmed what our estimate was: about $25.5 million or about $12,000 per participant. Has the government looked at spending that $12,000 per participant on providing more wraparound support, some advice on how to handle the government payments they receive and providing those who need it alcohol and drug support? Wouldn't that be a better spend than how you're looking to do this without proper evaluation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that we are providing a $10 million wraparound services package for drug and alcohol support.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that included in the $25.5 million?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's not.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So its $25.5 million plus $10 million, so it's $35.5 million, which is more than $12,000 per participant in relation to the whole cost of this program.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that that $10 million for drug and alcohol is for not just people on the trial but people around Australia.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that's not what I asked. Can you give me a figure for the cost for drug and alcohol support for those who are participating in the project?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that, to complement the rollout of the debit card, we are committed to an additional $1 million in Ceduna and $1.6 million in the East Kimberley in new funding for support services in the first 12 months to ensure vulnerable people are supported. In relation to the Goldfields communities, there will also be an additional $1 million in funding for wraparound services. So it's $1 million in Ceduna, $1.6 million in East Kimberley and $1 million in the Goldfields.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks. The $1.6 million to ORIMA was the cost of what was a substandard evaluation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I don't accept your premise, Senator Cameron, that it was a substandard evaluation. I do confirm that the cost was $1.6 million. The evaluation stated that the card had shown considerable positive impact in communities, including 48 per cent of drug takers using fewer drugs, 41 per cent of drinkers drinking less and 48 per cent of gamblers gambling less.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, when are you proposing that the Goldfields trial will start?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometime in the next six months.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have contracts for the expansion been signed?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If no contracts have been signed, Minister, why would this be confidential?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because, I am advised, there is a tender process.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing orders say there's no general basis to refuse the disclosure of commercial information to the parliament, even if it has been marked 'commercial in confidence'. Do you agree with that, Minister?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that there's no way that we can release it, because it's not even published in budget papers.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senate standing orders indicate:

The Senate and Senate committees shall not entertain any claim to withhold information from the Senate or a committee on the grounds that it is commercial-in-confidence, unless the claim is made by a minister and is accompanied by a statement setting out the basis for the claim, including a statement of any commercial harm that may result from the disclosure of the information.

You're a minister. You can make the claim, but you've got to set out the basis for the claim, including a statement of any commercial harm that may result.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that this is a commercial-in-confidence figure which will not be released, because it affects government contracts. That's what I'm advised, Senator Cameron. Now, we've got estimates coming up. I'm sure that you'll pursue it with vigour at estimates, as you normally do, but at this point in time I can't take the matter further than that.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I don't cover this area in estimates, but I might make a quick—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure, Senator—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Minister; Senator Cameron hasn't finished his question. It's not easy to work out who's got the call.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might make a quick visit on this specific issue. So, if there's been no contract signed and it's up for a tender, how can you provide us a figure of $1,000, when it's still the subject of a tender process?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I'm advised that that figure is actually a departmental estimate.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it could be more? How did the department estimate this?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Based on existing contracts—similar existing contracts.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The third aspect of your amendment flows from the previous two and allows the minister by legislative instrument to define the areas that are the Ceduna area, the Goldfields area and the East Kimberley area. Is that correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Cameron, before I deal with that, I'm advised there has been an FOI request put in by Ms Macklin, and I can quote the response to it: 'Financial impacts of the measure to expand the cashless debit card as announced in the 2017-18 budget are not for publication, marked as NFP, to protect the Commonwealth commercial interests.' I am advised that that's the response that was forwarded to Ms Macklin. Sorry, Senator Cameron, you asked me a question. Could you kindly just repeat it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the amendment, as I read it, flows from the previous two areas and allows the minister by legislative instrument to define the areas that are the Ceduna area, the Goldfields area and the East Kimberley area. Is that correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's actually defined in the act, Senator Cameron. I am advised that if there are to be further sites, then that would require another bill to come before the parliament. It is protecting the parliamentary oversight, but it's a higher protection, if I can put it that way. Rather than being done by delegated legislation, where it would be a disallowable instrument, this is a situation where we would have to come back to the parliament, because it's actually legislated. We would have to come back to parliament if we wanted to go to further sites. Of course, that affords parliament the opportunity of scrutiny.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm trying to understand this. This amendment would allow the minister, by legislative instrument, to determine an area for the purposes of a trial area. I understand that's the situation that this bill will allow. Are you saying it's not?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the section defines the trial area, but it may by legislative instrument—and this is 124PD(2)—determine a part of that area to not be a trial site. It really does give, if I can say this, a much firmer outline in relation to those areas. If it's done by legislative instrument, we're talking about a legislative instrument in relation to a part of that area, and, again, that legislative instrument is disallowable by parliament. Has that answered your question, Senator Cameron?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it has. Labor's position is that we will oppose the amendment. We can't give a blank cheque to expand a trial where there is insufficient evidence to warrant doing so. We support the continuation of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials to give them further time to work and demonstrate their success.

The fourth part of your amendment goes to extending the period of the current trial and an additional proposed trial in the Goldfields. We would support the continuation of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials for a further year to give them time to work and for a proper evaluation to be held. We don't support an additional trial location and, as such, we oppose this amendment. We have our own amendments to extend the current trial sites for a further year. We oppose the amendment:

Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "the".

We don't support the expansion of the trial at this point in any way.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the minister's getting advice, the committee is considering government amendment (1).

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, thank you for that indication. My instructions are to move the amendments on AS301.

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

While I did participate a little bit in the question and answer, I have some questions myself around this. I also want to articulate the Greens' position. There are a number of points I brought up during the debate which are, clearly, major points of difference between us and the government. However, I have had some feedback on specific issues—we've just had a look at the one around costing. What I specifically wanted to know about the Indue card, which is an operational detail, is: why has the government or Indue not re-issued the cards that aren't usable on EFTPOS machines? Let's do that one to begin with.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that all of our cards are usable on EFTPOS.

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

I've got news for you!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert!

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

I'm sorry, but they're simply not. In fact, I was talking to someone last week—who I'm not going to publicly name—who said if your Indue card has EFTPOS written on it, you can use EFTPOS; if not, you can't. And what I have been informed—and if this is wrong, I think you need to tell some of the participants—is that, when they were originally issued, the cards could not be used with EFTPOS; subsequently, there was a fix made and they now can, but the original cards weren't re-issued. So those that do not know to apply for a new card still cannot use EFTPOS. Sorry, I've misled the Senate a little bit—it was not last week, it was the week before last.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that all the cards can be used with EFTPOS. That is what I'm advised. Perhaps if we can—

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

I'll take that question offline—and we have estimates coming up. I'll double-check, but I can tell you that I was with someone who couldn’t use it.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps, Senator Siewert, if you wouldn't mind giving us details of those particular circumstances, I'm sure that the department can follow up those particular instances and, if there is some procedure that hasn't been taken in relation to applying or something, we can perhaps look at that in the interim period.

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

My next question then relates to this issue of how people can use the card electronically. Again, I'm given to understand by participants who have been trying to do this that you can't use BPAY, and you have to use the card as a credit card and hand over the number of your card to the merchant, rather than being able to transfer funds electronically. Is that still the case? And, if it is still the case, could you please articulate why that is the case?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm told that you use it as a credit card, and you give the number of the card. But we are looking at other technological assistance and other technological options.

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

Does that mean that somebody with the card doesn't have to hand over their number and can actually operate it like a normal bank account? The claim that's constantly made about this is that anybody on the card just operates it like a normal bank account—when, in fact, that's just not true.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, we will get you further advice in relation to that. I can't provide you with an answer on that one just at the moment, except to say that we are looking at other technological improvements and options in relation to it so that the credit card and giving the number of the credit card are not the only options.

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

Thank you, I appreciate that update. Could you outline the time line for the technological changes?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm told it is a trial, and the review is ongoing. At this point in time, I can't give you a precise time. I'm also advised it is commercial-in-confidence, but we will certainly take your comments on board, Senator Siewert. I'm sure you too will pursue this matter at estimates, and you can rest assured that I will be there with an answer in a couple of weeks time.

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

Does that mean the technology is commercial-in-confidence, or that the cost of the updated process is commercial-in-confidence?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the procurement of new technology is commercial-in-confidence.

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

Does this go to this issue of whether it's Indue providing it or whether there is an expansion of the providers of the card, as per the reports in the media a couple of weeks ago about a number of financial institutions and major merchants providing advice to government? Does it relate to that, or is it something entirely separate?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that that's speculative. At this point in time, I can't provide you with a definite answer. Suffice it to say that we are looking at procurement of new technology.

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

So we don't know how much it's costing because that's commercial-in-confidence, but we're told, 'Trust us; it's a thousand bucks per head'. We're told there's going to be new technology, but we don't have a time line, and we are told that's commercial-in-confidence. That's the case that we're facing here.

The Greens won't be supporting any of these amendments. We don't support the cashless welfare card. We don't support the extension of the East Kimberley trial or the Ceduna trial. Contrary to the oft stated facts around reduction in drinking et cetera, that's not borne out by a proper read of the ORIMA wave 2 report. If you read the full report, even in there they can't gloss over the lack of information, the anecdotal approach and the flawed approach to the methodology. It's simply not borne out, so we won't support an extension to the two trial areas, and we certainly won't be supporting the expansion to a third trial site.

I'm speculating here, but, given that NXT signalled that they were open to considering another trial site, although this is a government amendment, it's clearly been done in response to the NXT's support for a third trial site in my state of Western Australia, in the Goldfields, when we already have one trial site. I think it's a bit rich, quite frankly, for them to say, 'Yes, we'll support another trial site; make it in Western Australia.' I've got deep concerns around that. I've got deep concerns that, although they've said there's not enough information to make a decision on the two existing trial sites, the minister just articulated that they've condemned over 3,000 income support recipients in the Goldfields to living on this flawed card with a method that's flawed. And guess what? It's happening on the day that the government's tabled the Closing the gap report, which articulated that we're not going to meet targets on life expectancy, on school attendance, on reading and numeracy, and on employment. We already know in that Goldfields area that we have significant impacts of the flawed CDP program —again, another flawed program. We've spoken at length about that particular issue in this place as well.

We don't support this legislation. We don't support the amendments, because they don't improve it. We disagree with the ALP about extending the two existing trial sites for another 12 months. A little bit of advice to the ALP: drop the addiction to income management. Really, it doesn't work and it's time to move on.

To the government I say: we won't be supporting these amendments. We don't support the cashless welfare card. It's flawed policy. It ignores the words from the Prime Minister's own mouth that you do things with the community, not to the community. You can dress it up all you like and say that you've consulted. You haven't consulted with the people who are affected by this card. That is very, very clear, and it has been admitted in the evidence, so you can't deny it. Even a number of the leaders in the East Kimberley have withdrawn their support, as did a number of people who originally signed up in Ceduna once they realised what this was about and the impact it was having. In fact, I was talking to a participant from Ceduna again very recently and they said, 'One of the things it has managed to do is unite the Aboriginal and the non-Aboriginal communities a lot more than they used to be, because they don't support the cashless welfare card.' So it's achieved something there! But it's been at great grief, personal pain and discomfort to many people on the card. We won't be supporting these amendments.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond just briefly to some of the comments that Senator Siewert made. Senator Siewert, the cashless debit card is implemented only in communities that support it. Support for the card is measured through extensive consultation with interested communities. So far, consultation has covered all relevant stakeholder groups, including potential program participants. The initial trials were designed and implemented in close consultation with community leaders. I'm advised that approximately 300 consultations were held in the Ceduna region and 110 in the East Kimberley prior to the initial rollout in early 2016. Those consulted included community members, Indigenous leaders, service providers, police, and local and state government agencies. Consultation is conducted on an ongoing basis in both Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and extensive consultation was undertaken prior to announcing the expansion of the card to the Goldfields. Between May and December 2017 in the Goldfields region over 300 consultations were held with over 86 organisations, and there were 10 public information sessions. Consultation will be ongoing in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd make a couple of points. Firstly, in relation to the advice from Senator Rhiannon: we don't need your advice. If you've got good advice, could I advise you to keep it for Mr Bandt, who got the Greens into so much trouble this week. I don't know how anyone could have turned Senator Molan into a victim. So if you've got good advice then keep it for Mr Bandt, because he needs it more than we do.

In relation to what I indicated earlier about Mr Anthony, I have now received advice that he is not with the group Indue, who are responsible for the card, but that he is a lobbyist for that group. He is also the National Party president. He operates as a lobbyist as well as being the National Party president. My view is that that breaches the lobbyist code. Minister, do you have any views on whether the activities of the former National Party cabinet minister Mr Larry Anthony breach the lobbyist code established by the government, given that he is a lobbyist for the Indue group, who are developing the card, and the Indue group are making money out of the card, and so is Mr Anthony?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The department has undertaken two procurement processes resulting in the procurement of Indue, the card provider for the cashless debit card program. All procurement processes undertaken by the department followed all relevant procurement guidelines. The department received independent probity advice from Maddocks that procurement processes were conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, relevant legislation, policies and probity principles.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have a consultation report for the Goldfields and, if so, will you table it?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that between May and December 2017 in the Goldfields region over 300 consultations were held with over 86 organisations and 10 public information sessions, and consultation will be ongoing in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the result of the consultations, and can you provide us with the names of the 86 organisations that were consulted?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that we can provide the names of those organisations, but we can't do that at this moment and can't table it. I'm happy to take that on notice if I can. I'm just logistically not able to provide you with the names of the 86 organisations at this point in time.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. I look forward to receiving that information. How many of those 86 organisations opposed the implementation of the card in the Goldfields area?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that all five local government areas were in favour and advised the Prime Minister of that when he visited the area. The five shires in the Goldfields told the Prime Minister they want the card to see how it can improve their communities. That's what I'm advised.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, that's fine. They were, I suppose, five out of 86. I would simply ask how many of the 86 opposed the implementation of the card in the Goldfields?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those five shires represent and have been duly elected by the people of that area. They are speaking, one assumes, on behalf of their constituencies. They have advised the Prime Minister that they want the card to see how it can improve their communities. I can't add any further to that.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I've got a terrific council, a great local mayor, in the Blue Mountains, but he doesn't speak for me on every issue. He doesn't represent me on every issue. There are another 81 organisations that were consulted. How many of those organisations—it is a simple question. You can tell me those that support it, but you can't tell me those that oppose it. Can't you tell me how many opposed it? It is a simple question and, given that you are saying it's got support and you are using the consultation as the reason to roll this out, I'm simply asking how many opposed it.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best that I can do is take that on notice. I note your comments about Blue Mountains Council. Obviously, you are in agreement with Ray Hadley about some of the issues that have been happening with the Blue Mountains Council. We won't canvass that at the moment, but I'm happy to hear you are not sitting on the same side as that council, given some of the allegations that have been raised. But in any case we will take that on notice. You want a breakdown of the 86. We'll give you the names, and we'll provide you with as much information as we can in relation to that.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not just asking for the names. Just for the public record, I do not support anything that Ray Hadley has indicated, probably in his whole career as a right-wing extremist mouthpiece for, on many occasions, the Liberal Party of New South Wales, so, no, I don't agree with Ray Hadley. I didn't ask simply for a list of the names; I'm asking how many of those opposed it, and, while you're at it, can you advise me, for those who did oppose it, why they opposed it?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I'm not sure if I can advise you what their actual positions were, but I can provide you with the names of the 86 organisations now, if you'd like me to. They are the Western Australian government, the Western Australian police, the department of housing, the Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, the department of sports and recreation, the Department of Justice, the department of planning and land—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, just on indulgence: I'm happy for the minister—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cameron, you have the call on indulgence.

Thanks, Chair. Minister, I don't want to put you through the agony of going through 86 different groups. You said you would provide that; I'm happy to receive that advice. What I'm more interested in is how many opposed it. If you're not prepared to advise who opposed it and why they opposed it, can you explain why you're not prepared to do that?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. Minister, Senator Cameron did interrupt you. You're entitled to conclude your answer. But Senator Cameron, I think, was trying to be helpful to prevent you reading through the entire list. It's entirely in your hands.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I want to be helpful to Senator Cameron and tell him that I've been advised that the whole list is available as an answer to a question on notice from the inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, so it's already provided in an answer to a question. In relation to what position they had, I am unable to provide that information.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask you why you are unable to provide that information? I would have thought that, if we're here debating the introduction of this card in a new area and you are justifying the introduction on the basis that there's been consultation, surely logic demands that you tell us who opposed it and why they opposed it. I just don't think it's acceptable to say, 'We're not going to tell you.' If you're not going to tell us, why won't you tell us?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I'm advised that we'd have to go and get a statement from each of those organisations, including whether they are prepared to have their position put on the public record. That's what I'm advised.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it's a secret consultation, and we're not allowed to know the outcome of that consultation. Why would this be a secret? If people are engaging in a consultation, you can tell us who they were; you can tell us who supports it, but you can't tell us who opposed it. It just beggars belief.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, it's logical. We had a consultation. Some people agreed. There was obviously a discussion. I cannot provide you with the position—it was a public, open consultation, I'm advised, but I cannot tell you what the exact position of every one of those 86 organisations was. For me to do so would mean having to go to them and just saying, 'Okay, what is your position?' If that's what you want me to take on notice, I will take that on notice. I will see what I can do. But I cannot give you the information that you seek at this point in time without going back to each of those organisations.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fine. If you've got to take it on notice, that's fine. For anyone that might be listening, the government can quickly provide us with the names of five groups that support the expansion of the card, but the minister can't or won't tell us about another 81 who opposed it. Maybe I can ask it another way. I'd like you to take on notice who opposed it and why they opposed it. Who conducted the consultations?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The department—and I'll take the other part of it on notice.

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

I will build on Senator Cameron's question on notice and ask: were any minutes or notes taken on how many people supported it and how many didn't? Was there a rough hands up or something like that in these meetings?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice as a component of Senator Cameron's question.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet AS301 moved by the minister be agreed to.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8354 together:

(1)Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed.

[heading]

(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]

The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak to the amendments?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, for clarification: are you moving just amendment (2) on sheet 8354?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll move amendment (1) as well—(1) and (2).

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is leave granted?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Excuse me, Minister. You want to clarify something, Senator Cameron?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I would like to have them dealt with separately.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We will deal with (2) first.

I move amendment (2) on sheet 8354:

(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]

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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:

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.

Shire of Laverton President Mr Patrick Hill told the community:

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.

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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say the minister's position as outlined just doesn't make any sense. It would only make sense if there were a proper evaluation, but there has not been a proper evaluation even though the government spent $1.6 million. The evidence that we had was that the evaluation was flawed. That was the clear evidence in the Senate inquiry. So, what we are trying to do here is create a new trial end date of 30 June 2019 for both Ceduna and East Kimberley so that a proper evaluation can be made. We accept that some people are saying they want this to continue, but in our consultations in both Ceduna and East Kimberley there were many saying that this should not continue and they are opposed to it. So, our amendment creates a new trial end date; it limits the trials to only two discrete trial areas in the current locations; it opposes the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants; it specifies how people in the trial areas who are on the cashless debit card can have the proportion of their income payments on the card reduced; and it specifies the social support services that are to be delivered as part of the trial.

Every time the minister has been on her feet she has been able to tell us all of those who support the continuation of the card, but she's not been able to identify, even through the government's own consultations, those that oppose it. So, this is a sensible range of amendments that continues the existing trial for a period of 12 months; it limits the trials to the two areas; it opposes the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants; it specifies the proportion of income support payments on the cards that can be reduced; and it specifies the social support services that are to be delivered as part of the trial. We think these are sensible amendments and we would certainly hope that the crossbench and NXT would support this as a balanced approach to what we are dealing with. Don't just back the government in.

The crossbench would have more validity in backing the government in if the government could have given us any details of how the consultation in the Goldfields has taken place. They can't give us that. They can give us the names of the consultation, but can't tell us who opposed the card being introduced. So, there hasn't been an open, fair and reasonable approach on this from the government. The government, in my view, is determined to push this cashless welfare card out even wider than what is proposed in this bill. Labor will never support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. We will support it only where local communities support it. Because the minister is unable or unwilling to tell us who opposed the card and the reasons for the opposition, our estimate through our consultations is that the amendments that are before the Senate tonight are the appropriate amendments to give a balanced approach to this and to make sure that proper consultation takes place in the future.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cameron, could I just clarify with you that your amendment (2) has already been agreed to with the government amendments prior. Your amendment (2) reads:

2 Paragraph 124PF(1)(b)

Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019".

That was already voted on in the last government amendments and agreed to. I will just bring that to your attention.

That is correct, but it is a widening. We are not supporting the widening to the Goldfields.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, fine. Just the date: that one point has been agreed to. I am saying that one of your amendments has been agreed to.

Yes, but not in the context that we want it agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay. Minister?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to counter some of the assertions that Senator Cameron has been making this evening in relation to the ORIMA Research. The evaluation was conducted by ORIMA Research, an independent research company chosen after a public tender process to ensure independence and objectivity. The conduct of the evaluation has been under the auspices of the CDCT evaluation steering committee, comprising members from federal government departments and representatives from relevant state governments. The evaluator provided coverage of the general methodological limitations in the final report. ORIMA Research provided a technical report as an appendix in the final report, noted the sources from which findings were drawn, put caveats on findings where necessary and noted where sample sizes were not additionally significant. The evaluation also found that there are areas that we can improve on, and as we roll out the CDC in the Goldfields and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions we will take these learnings into account. The government is satisfied that the evaluator undertook the evaluation in a professional manner and, where results needed to be interpreted with caution, the evaluator highlighted this.

Key results from the final evaluation include that, of those who drank alcohol before the trial started, 41 per cent say they are drinking alcohol less often, up from 25 per cent at wave 1. Of those who said they were using illegal drugs before the trial started, 48 per cent reported using illegal drugs less since the card's introduction, up from 28 per cent at wave 1. Of those participants who said they gambled before the trial started, 48 per cent reported gambling less, from 32 per cent at wave 1. Of those parents surveyed, 40 per cent reported being able to better care for their children since being on the CDC, and 39 per cent reported being more involved in their children's homework and school. In addition, the evaluation found widespread positive spillover benefits from the card, including 45 per cent of participants reporting being able to save more money than before being a trial participant, up from 31 per cent at wave 1, and 23 per cent of participants indicating they spent 11 hours or more per week trying to get a job or paid work.

The evaluation has shown that strategies implemented in the first two sites have been effective in combating avoidance behaviours. Overall, the evaluation has shown a decrease in these behaviours between the wave 1 report and the wave 2 report. It also found that 'most stakeholders, community leaders and merchants did not perceive these practices to be pervasive or widespread'. Can I also clarify for the Senate that the cashless debit card is only applied to working-age welfare payment recipients, and the card does not apply to age pensioners, veterans payment recipients or wage earners in the trial areas.

In conclusion, the cashless debit card program has been designed to ensure that persons' lives are not disrupted as the program works to reduce the consumption of alcohol and drugs and reduce gambling. These restrictions ensure that those receiving welfare payments and their children will have money available for life's essentials. For people who already spend their money responsibly, the cashless debit card has very little impact.

However, where participation would not be appropriate, the cashless debit card is not applied. For example, people do not participate in the program if they have a payment nominee, if they are students living outside the trial area for study or if CDC participation would seriously risk their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing. Risks are assessed on a case-by-case basis. It is important that the department is provided with the flexibility and discretion to apply exemptions where necessary. Accordingly, the government will be voting against the amendments proposed by the opposition.

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

I just want to indicate to the chamber, before I start with any further comments, that the Greens still do not support this legislation. Under no circumstances will we be voting to support it.

Having said that, there are amendments in this particular batch of amendments that, if they were supported, would make things a modicum better in terms of ensuring that social support services were provided in the trial areas. The change from three to two discrete so-called trial sites and the legislative instrument about 'an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2)(a)', at part 5, are something that we would support just to see that this legislation was improved slightly.

But I've got to be really clear: we do not support the cashless welfare card. So we will very strongly be voting no on the third reading, regardless of these amendments, because we don't support the card.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to reinforce Labor's position. Labor believes that, given that the government seems to have crossbench support—for what reason, I don't know—these amendments will make it, as Senator Siewert says, a modicum better. And we appreciate your support for that, to make it better.

We do not support the national rollout of this card. I think what is clear is that this government would roll this out nationally if it could. This is the type of overbearing position that this government adopts when it comes to some of our most disadvantaged people in the community. Many people in the community live on an income that many of us could not ever contemplate living on, and they do it better than most of us ever could. They look after their families, they look after the health of the family, they look after the education of the family, and they do that on an income that is tiny. To say to them, 'You must have this cashless debit card,' is the height of arrogance from this government.

We are of the clear view that you should only ever implement a cashless debit card when there has been a proper process of consultation, a clear and unequivocal process of consultation, and a process of consultation that is far more transparent that what we've heard tonight—where the government can't tell this place of one group who don't support the card out of the 86 that were consulted. You know, it is just bizarre that, while we're in the chamber debating this bill, no-one of the advisers and the minister can tell us who opposed the card and why they opposed the card—these are important issues. So we oppose the national rollout. We oppose a rollout in any individual community without a proper evidence based approach, and that has not been done, even where it's being rolled out now. We take the view that the ORIMA evaluation was flawed; that was the evidence that came to the Senate inquiry. And, on that basis, the amendments that we put—given that it looks like NXT are behaving like a sub-branch of the Liberal Party—are where we are at. We think the amendments will take some of the sharp edges off. The process that we would have in government would be proper consultation that is understood by the community and the public generally, not the secret approach that's been adopted by the government, and not setting out to force this onto people who, quite clearly, can handle their finances no matter how difficult it is on social security payments in this country.

I appreciate the Greens' support and the amendments that they've outlined. I think that's appropriate. I understand their opposition to the bill. We would, hopefully, have some of the crossbench listen to the debate, take into account the incapacity of the government to answer some basic questions on the rollout of this card, and adopt a process in the future that is transparent and fair.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 8354 be agreed to.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition opposes item 1 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed.

That is, basically, the short title of the act.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will oppose this amendment. I've outlined the government's position previously, and we will be opposing this amendment as well.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I take the opportunity, with the crossbench here, to say that it's been clear tonight that the position adopted by the government is based on flawed analysis of what's been happening in the Kimberley and Ceduna areas. We take the view that the crossbench should support this because it's a good middle position between what the government's proposing and complete opposition to this bill. It provides a number of amendments that would have softened the bill, but you've voted against that. Now's the opportunity for you to actually reconsider and support a proposition that means a good middle ground on this bill.

The CHAIR: The question is that item 1 of schedule 1 stand as printed.