Bills Digest no. 27 2015–16
PDF version [774KB]
WARNING: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.
Don Arthur, Social Policy Section
Paula Pyburne, Law and Bills Digest Section
9 October 2015
Contents
The
Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Rationale for the Bill
How restricted debit cards work
Experience with income management
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government parties
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Compatibility with Human Rights
Key provisions—Part 1
Key issues—Part 1
Key issues and provisions—Part 2
Annexure 1
Date introduced: 19
August 2015
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Social
Services
Commencement: Sections
1–3 on Royal Assent; Schedule 1 on the day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw
website.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to
enable a trial of cashless welfare arrangements. Under the trial, recipients of
certain income support payments will have a proportion of their payments
credited to an account they can only access using a restricted debit card. The
card will not allow cash withdrawals or purchases from certain merchant
categories such as those selling alcoholic beverages or gambling services.
The Forrest Review of indigenous jobs
and training programs proposed a new restricted debit card as an alternative to
income management. The Forrest Review argued that the current income management
system comes with a cost that renders it unsustainable and unsuitable for
broader application. The proposed restricted debit card will be cheaper than
the existing income management scheme because it relies more heavily on
existing payment infrastructure.
The debit card trial is time limited. It will begin on 1
February 2016 and end on 30 June 2018. According to the Explanatory Memorandum,
‘the trial will only take place for 12 months in each location’.[1]
The Government will run the trial in up to three locations. The first will be
Ceduna in South Australia. It is likely that the second will be in the East
Kimberley in Western Australia.
Many of the details of the trial will be determined by
legislative instrument and can vary between trial areas. The trial can
potentially apply to all recipients of working age payments who reside in one
of the trial areas and people on the Age Pension are able to volunteer to
participate. However, the Minister is able to determine that only recipients of
certain payments will be included in the trial or that only a ‘class of person’
receiving one of these payments is included.
The Bill provides that 80 per cent of a participant’s income
support payments will be restricted. However, there are two ways this
percentage can be changed:
- By legislative instrument. The Minister can vary
the percentages for a particular trial area, or for a particular class of
person in a trial area and
- Direction by a community body. With the agreement
of a compulsory participant or trial participant, a community body can vary the
percentage of a person’s payment that is restricted between 50 and 80 per cent.
The community body can do this by giving the Secretary of the Department of
Social Services a written direction.
While the proposed trial has support from groups such as
the District Council of Ceduna, local Indigenous organisations and the East
Kimberley Chamber of Commerce and Industry, there are a number of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations and groups in the community
welfare sector who have opposed the trial.
While the Government asserts that the Bill is compatible
with human rights, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights notes that
the measures proposed in the Bill involve limitations on a number of human
rights and that the Government has not shown how these limitations are
rationally connected to the Bill’s objective.
Other concerns about the Bill include the potential for indirect
racial discrimination, the lack of an evaluation requirement in the Bill,
inconvenience and loss of spending power for participants, and an increase in
risky behaviours as some participants seek other ways to obtain cash, alcohol
or drugs. The trial is only likely to be effective if the restricted debit card
is combined with other measures such as access to alcohol and substance abuse
treatment.
The Bill also contains provisions that seek to formalise
the Centrepay bill payment scheme.
The purpose of the Social Security Legislation Amendment
(Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015 (the Bill) is to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to
enable a trial of cashless welfare arrangements.[2]
Under the trial, recipients of certain income support payments will have a
proportion of their payments credited to an account they can only access using
a restricted debit card. The card will not allow cash withdrawals or purchases
from certain merchant categories such as those selling alcoholic beverages or
gambling services.
The Bill also makes consequential amendments to A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act
1999,[3]
Social Security Act 1991,[4]
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
and Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act
2012.[5]
The Bill contains one Schedule, which is divided into two
parts. Part 1 contains the main amendments to the Social
Security (Administration) Act. Part 2 contains consequential amendments
to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration)
Act, the Social Security Act, the Social
Security (Administration) Act and the Stronger
Futures in the Northern Territory Act.
Existing income management scheme
The Government already has a scheme designed to reduce the
amount of discretionary income available for alcohol, drugs, gambling and other
harmful goods. This is the income management scheme. Income management sets
aside (or ‘quarantines’) a proportion of a recipient’s Australian Government
income support payment to pay for necessities such as food, clothing, housing
and utilities. Recipients can spend their income-managed funds using a PIN
protected debit card, known as the BasicsCard, or by arranging for Centrelink
to make payments on their behalf (for example, regular rent and utilities
payments).[6]
First introduced in 2007 as part of the Howard Government’s
Northern Territory Emergency Response, income management was designed to reduce
the amount of cash available for alcohol, drugs and gambling and redirect
spending towards priority goods such as food, clothing, utilities and housing.[7]
The scheme was particularly aimed at improving outcomes for children in
dysfunctional families. As Mal Brough, then Minister for Indigenous Affairs,
said in 2006:
It is cash in the form of welfare payments that provide
choices for parents in these situations to choose to gamble before buying food,
or purchase drugs rather than clothe their children. It is, in fact, the
payments that are provided by society to uplift these families and, in
particular the children, that provide the substances to fuel the violence and
destruction. Society then picks up the pieces at the hospitals, prisons and
morgues.[8]
Income management was first introduced into a number of
Indigenous communities the Northern Territory by the Howard Government and
extended to selected communities in Western Australia in 2008. In 2010 the Rudd
Government expanded income management across the entire Northern Territory as
well as making changes to the scheme so that it was compatible with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.[9]
Income management was later extended to a number of other locations.[10]
In July 2014 it was introduced to the Ceduna region in South Australia after
consultations with community members and stakeholders.[11]
Income management is underpinned by Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act. Part 3B was
inserted by the Social Security and Other
Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007.[12]
BasicsCard
The BasicsCard allows people to spend income managed funds
at shops and other businesses. It works in a similar way to bank issued debit
cards but can only be used at approved merchants and does not allow the card
holder to access cash.[13]
To accept payment by BasicsCard a merchant needs to apply to
the Department of Human Services (DHS).[14]
To get approval their main business must be the sale of priority goods and
services (for example, food, clothing, education, health). If a person wants to
make a purchase from a business that does not accept BasicsCard they can
arrange for Centrelink to pay the business directly.
A card holder can use their BasicsCard to buy any good or
service available from an approved merchant except:
- alcoholic
beverages (or home-brew kits or home-brew concentrate)
- tobacco
products
- pornographic
material
- gambling
products or services or
- gift
cards or vouchers.
It is the merchant’s responsibility to block purchases of
excluded goods such as alcohol. The system does not do this automatically.
Forrest Review
In November 2013, the Government appointed Andrew Forrest
to head a review of indigenous jobs and training programs (the Forrest Review).[15]
The Government undertook two rounds of submissions in relation to the Forrest
Review. The first was in November–December 2013 when over three hundred
submissions were received.[16]
Following the release of the Forrest Review report, submissions were invited to
provide feedback on the process of the Review itself.[17]
The final report of the Forrest Review was provided to the
Prime Minister for consideration.[18]
It recommended, amongst other things, ‘that the Commonwealth Government
implement immediately a Healthy Welfare Card scheme in conjunction with major
financial institutions and retailers to support welfare recipients [to] manage
their income and expenses’.[19]
Mr Forrest suggested:
... the scheme be implemented so that an individual’s welfare
payments, other than age or veterans’ pensions, would be paid into a savings
account drawn on with a Healthy Welfare Card. This card directs spending to
purchases that sustain and support a healthy lifestyle for the recipients and
any children of those recipients (for example essential goods such as food,
clothing, utilities, rent) and to savings for larger expenses.[20]
The Forrest Review envisaged a completely cashless system
that would be rolled out across Australia without a trial.[21]
The Bill responds to that recommendation.
It should be noted, however, that the Bill does not create
the cashless system that the Forrest Review recommended—rather, it proposes the
introduction of a restricted debit card which will be subject to a trial in up
to three areas. At the time of writing this Bills Digest one of those areas was
identified as the district of Ceduna in South Australia. In addition, ‘advanced
discussions with leaders in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia are
progressing’.[22]
A cheaper alternative to income
management
The restricted debit card which is proposed by the Bill will
be cheaper than the existing income management scheme because it relies more
heavily on existing payment infrastructure. According to a 2012 report by
Deloitte Access Economics:
A significant contributor to the cost of the Income
Management Scheme is likely to be costs associated with administering the
BasicsCard. It is currently not affiliated with any payments provider, which
necessitates investment in purpose-built technology like kiosks and software to
allow people to access their information online.[23]
The Forrest Review argued that the current income management
system ‘comes with a cost that renders it unsustainable and unsuitable for
broader application’.[24]
The annual per person cost of administering income
management in the Northern Territory has been estimated at between $2,400 and
$2,800 for recipients in urban areas, $3,900 and $4,900 in rural areas, and $6,600
and $7,900 for recipients in remote areas.[25]
However, because a large share of this cost is in the centralised
infrastructure needed to operate the scheme (for example, operating a 24 hour
hotline for clients), the cost of adding additional income support recipients
to the scheme is likely to fall as the scheme grows.[26]
Tackling the problem of drug and
alcohol abuse
The Forrest Review argued that paying income support in cash
left many recipients vulnerable to drug and alcohol abuse. The Healthy Welfare
Card which it recommended would block purchases at retailers that sell alcohol
and block access to cash to tackle this problem.
While the Forrest Review did not cite statistics on the
prevalence of the problem among income support recipients, it noted that the
problem ‘is occurring in many Australian communities’ and is not restricted to
Indigenous income support recipients.[27]
Problems with the existing
BasicsCard
While the Forrest Review accepted that the BasicsCard was
effective, it argued that ‘expansion of this system is financially
unsustainable’.[28]
In addition, it argued that the BasicsCard exposed recipients to stigma because
the card clearly identified them as income support recipients on income
management. The debit card proposed by the Bill will avoid this problem because
merchants will not be able to distinguish it from any other commercially issued
debit card.
Assistant Minister for Social Services Alan Tudge has stated
that ‘participants in the trial will receive an everyday mainstream debit card,
which will be connected to the Visa, MasterCard or EFTPOS platform’.[29]
Four party schemes
Visa, Mastercard and EFTPOS are what is known as ‘four party
schemes’. These four parties are:
- Issuers,
such as banks or credit unions that contract with a card scheme (for example
Visa, Mastercard, EFTPOS) and issue cards to individuals and institutions
- Cardholders,
who have a credit or savings account with a financial institution or have
purchased a pre-paid card
- Acquirers,
financial institutions that contract with merchants to allow them to accept
payments through the card scheme and
- Merchants,
who accept payment through the card scheme.[30]
When a cardholder makes a purchase using their card, the
merchant’s terminal sends information to the card processor. This information
includes card information, the transaction amount, a code that identifies the
merchant (card acceptor identification code), a code that identifies the
merchant type (merchant category code), and the time and date of the
transaction. The card processor then sends an authorisation request with this
information to the issuing institution. The issuer then conducts a series of
checks before granting or denying the transaction.[31]
What a restricted debit card can do
Because the card issuer receives the merchant’s Merchant
Category Codes (MCC) with each authorising request, the issuer is able to block
transactions from certain categories of merchant such as bottle shops.
The process for blocking purchases using MCCs on the proposed
restricted debit card will be similar to that used for many commercial
purchasing cards. These cards allow businesses to issue credit cards to
employees that allow them to make purchases on behalf of the business. A business
may want to restrict the goods and services employees can purchase with a card
so financial institutions allow business customers to restrict use of purchasing
cards by blocking certain merchant categories (for example gambling services,
dating and escort services, package stores – beer, wine and liquor).[32]
It may also be possible to block individual merchants using their merchant card
acceptor identification codes (CAID).
The restricted debit card proposed in the Bill will work in
much the same way as these commercial purchasing cards. The major difference
will be that the account will belong to the income support recipient. The
recipient will be the primary cardholder.
What a restricted debit card cannot
do
If a cardholder makes a purchase from a merchant whose MCC
is not blocked, a restricted debit card cannot block them from buying particular
goods and services. This is because the system does not send product level
information from the merchant to the issuer.
This is why it is not possible to use a restricted debit
card to block tobacco purchases. Preventing recipients from buying cigarettes
with their cards would mean blocking the MCC of every merchant category where
tobacco products are sold (categories such as news dealers and newsstands, grocery
stores, and supermarkets).
Blocking purchases of particular
products
A serious limitation of the proposed restricted debit card
is the inability to block purchases at the product level. In a submission to
the Forrest Review the Australian Bankers’ Association stated:
... currently there is no technology that would enable a card
to block transactions or payments at individual purchases or allow some
purchases and not others from a particular MCC. This change would require a
substantial overhaul of the existing EFTPOS system in use by all Australian
retailers to identify goods individually and if necessary preclude their
purchase prior to check-out. It would require new EFTPOS devices and new
transaction instructions (electronic messages and codes) to be introduced,
which would potentially disrupt the efficiency of the payments system and
increase the cost of point of sale transactions for all users.[33]
The inability to block purchases of particular goods would
make it difficult to use restricted debit cards in locations where supermarkets
and grocery stores sell alcohol. The Forrest Review’s response to this problem
was to suggest: ‘We will need to explore if the retailers themselves who sell a
mixed range of goods (like vegetables and alcohol) can also classify and
prohibit certain purchases at point of sale.’[34]
Manual product level blocking is possible with the
BasicsCard because the card is clearly marked. Merchants must sign an agreement
and be approved before they can accept the card. Merchants agree to abide by a
set of terms and conditions that include training staff on the correct use of
the card and keeping itemised receipts of each BasicsCard transaction for at
least two years.[35]
It is difficult to see how product level blocking would be feasible using an
unmarked card sourced through a mainstream payments provider as is proposed by
the Bill.
Preventing fraud and abuse
There is a risk that some merchants or their staff may be
prepared to provide income support recipients with access to cash. For example,
a retailer might ring up a purchase for $100, give the customer $60 in cash and
keep $40 for themselves.
The Forrest Review acknowledged the possibility that retailers
might engage in fraud and suggested that Centrelink should have the power to
apply on-the-spot penalties to both retailers and individuals.[36]
Debit cards compared to the
BasicsCard
The restricted debit card proposed by the Bill is not a new
version of the current income management scheme. Because the card can
automatically be used at any merchant whose MCC is not blocked, it does not
require participating merchants to agree to a specific set of terms and
conditions. Unlike merchants who accept the BasicsCard, merchants who take the
restricted debit card are not required to block the purchase of particular
goods. As a result, the restricted debit card is likely to be less effective
than the BasicsCard at blocking purchases of alcohol and preventing access to
cash.
The table below outlines some of the major differences
between the restricted debit card and the BasicsCard.
Table 1: Major differences between the restricted debit
card and the BasicsCard
|
|
Restricted debit card
|
BasicsCard
|
|
How merchants are approved for the card
|
All merchants automatically approved unless blocked.
|
All merchants automatically blocked unless approved.
Individual merchants must apply to the Department of Human
Services for approval and agree to BasicsCard terms and conditions.[37]
|
|
How the card blocks purchases
|
Card uses Merchant Category Codes to block particular
categories of merchant (for example, bottle shops).
|
Merchants are responsible for blocking purchases of
excluded goods and services at the point of sale.[38]
|
|
Enforcement of merchant obligations
|
It is unclear what power the Department of Human Services
has to enforce obligations on merchants who have not agreed to a specific set
of terms and conditions.
|
Under the BasicsCard terms and conditions, the Department
of Human Services can audit a merchant’s transaction records, claim repayment
for prohibited transactions and revoke a merchant’s approval.[39]
|
Source: Parliamentary Library.
Income management and alcohol
consumption
The BasicsCard is designed to reduce consumption of alcohol
by blocking income support recipients’ purchases of alcohol and access to cash.
However evaluations in the Northern Territory and the place-based trial sites
suggest that income management has had little impact on alcohol consumption by
compulsory participants.[40]
One explanation for the lack of impact on alcohol
consumption may be the rate at which income management is applied. In the
Northern Territory most income management participants have 50 per cent of
their regular income support payments quarantined. In late 2014, Kevin Andrews
(then Minister for Social Services) argued this left recipients with too much
discretionary income and that a higher rate of quarantining might be needed to
reduce the consumption of goods such as alcohol.[41]
However an evaluation of income management in the Northern
Territory reported that ‘to the extent some people are motivated to circumvent
the limitations of obtaining alcohol and tobacco with their funds, it appears
they can do so, although the proportion doing so is relatively low’.[42]
The researchers found evidence that some people were
swapping food or groceries for cash, alcohol or tobacco, swapping their card
for cash, alcohol or tobacco or using their card to get cash from taxi drivers.[43]
Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2015.[44]
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of
Bills has no comment on this Bill.[45]
Australian Labor Party
The Australian Labor Party (Labor) has given its support
to the Bill. However, Labor members of the House of Representatives have also
argued that additional support services should be provided in the trial areas.[46]
Further, there is some concern that ‘the trial does not allow participants to
seek an exemption’. According to Warren Snowdon:
... if a person falls within a category identified as a
compulsory participant, they will have their payments restricted. This happened
under income management when it was broadly applied. This would inevitably mean
that, regardless of your status and regardless of your history of being an
employer or an employee, paying taxes, raising children and being a responsible
member of the community, you will be impacted by this. You will automatically
have your income debited through the debit system and have 80 per cent of your
income quarantined. That is effectively what is going to happen ... I think that
is a failing.[47]
Australian Greens
The Australian Greens (Greens) oppose the Bill.[48]
Greens spokesperson on Community Services, Senator Rachel Siewert, has urged:
... the Labor party to be genuine opposition when it comes to
voting on legislation that will seek to rollout the healthy welfare card
trials. It is incomprehensible that a paternalistic thought bubble by a
billionaire could materialise with the support of the Labor party, rolling out
as early as next year.
80% of someone’s income support forcibly quarantined to a
card will make life remarkably harder for this already struggling group.[49]
Arguments for the trial
District Council of Ceduna
The District Council of Ceduna (the District Council), with
whom the Commonwealth has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in
relation to the trial, strongly supports it.[50]
According to a 2014 submission to the House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Indigenous Affairs, the District Council has been grappling with
problems of alcohol misuse ‘by indigenous people who do not normally reside in
the Ceduna area and do not have permanent or long term accommodation in Ceduna’.[51]
These people travel from outlying communities including Yalata, Oak Valley and
Koonibba as well as more distant communities such as the Anangu Pitjantjarra
Lands. According to the Council’s submission, because many of these people
sleep rough they have few expenses and are able to spend much of their income
support payments on alcohol.
Ceduna already has a number of measures designed to address
the problem. These include dry zones and an
ID-tect alcohol management system. The ID-tect system is installed in all
Ceduna, Thevenard and Smokey Bay liquor outlets. It limits customers to one cask
of wine or fortified wine of not more than two litre capacity per day and
enforces licensee and police barring orders on people identified as at risk.[52]
However, in its submission on the Bill, the District Council
noted that ’over the past years we have learned that the target group of
drinkers is extremely clever at devising ways to avoid the intent of various
restrictions on the availability of alcohol’.[53]
The submission argues that reducing access to cash with a restricted debit card
will make it harder for problem drinkers to avoid restrictions on alcohol:
The best option not yet tried for restricting the
availability of drugs, gambling funds and alcohol is clearly the restriction of
cash for those who are on benefits. It is clear that many sufferers of
alcoholism are on welfare benefits partly because of their illness. Coupled
with the steps already implemented we believe that the trial together with the
appropriate support measures will help immensely.
The increased emphasis on benefits being available to
purchase food and other necessities of life rather than other substances will
help families greatly. It will improve the quality of family life, reduce the
incidence of family violence and help to end a situation where some children go
hungry among other things.[54]
Since July 2014 Ceduna has had income management using the
BasicsCard. The District Council’s submission noted that voluntary income
management has been successful but that many people who could benefit from the
scheme are unlikely to volunteer.[55]
According to data from the Department of Social Services (for 27 March 2015),
around a third of the 61 people on income management in Ceduna are compulsory
participants. The majority of these participants have been placed on income
management through the child protection measure.[56]
South Australian Liquor and
Gambling Commission
The South Australian Liquor and Gambling Commissioner
supports the debit card trial and recommends that:
... a coordinated review of the success of the trial in Ceduna
should take place, involving the local Council, police, health and service
providers, as well as members of the local Aboriginal Communities; and
an analysis of alcohol sales data before, during and after
the trial could be undertaken, to determine the impact of the trial on alcohol
sales within Ceduna.[57]
Cape York Institute
In a submission to the Forrest Review, the Cape York
Institute supported the Forrest Review’s restricted debit card proposal and
warned that the idea ‘is at risk of being prematurely dismissed’. The
submission also argued that the card should be part of a larger package of
reforms:
What is missing from the Forrest recommendations focused on a
Healthy Welfare Card is critical components of ‘opt-in’ and ‘opportunity’.
Reforms to the welfare system must link people to increased opportunity. In
this way we can far more effectively mobilise people to change their lives, and
those of generations to follow, for the better.
... Tightening the taps of welfare to incentivise people to
change, must be accompanied by a new Opportunity Staircase as an alternative
pathway for individuals and families to climb out of disadvantage and into the
advantages enjoyed by their fellow Australians. We must provide people with a
clear fork in the road, and motivate people so they will commit to the hard
work of overcoming passive welfare.[58]
Arguments against the trial
Community welfare sector and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations
In December 2014, 37 community welfare sector and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations issued a joint statement calling
on the Commonwealth Government not to proceed with the Forrest Review’s
proposal for a restricted debit card.[59]
These organisations are listed in the table at Annexure 1 to this Bills
Digest.
Australian Council of Social
Service
In a submission to the Committee the Australian Council of
Social Service (ACOSS) argues the proposed restricted debit card, like the
existing income management scheme, is unlikely to solve drug and alcohol
problems:
Imposing income management according to type of social
security payment misunderstands the relationship between income support and
drug and alcohol problems, and attempts a technological fix for what is a
complex social issue.[60]
ACOSS argues that a trial of the card should only proceed
where there is ‘strong and broad community support and where the policy is
targeted narrowly and accompanied by other interventions and supports.’[61]
National Welfare Rights Network
The National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) argues that the
Bill should be rejected in its entirety. If the measure does go ahead NWRN has
a number of concerns including:
- the
low proportion of payments available as cash
- the
lack of any provision for exemptions and
- the
inability of income support recipients to seek a review of decisions by community
bodies.[62]
FamilyCare
A provider of child and family services based in Shepparton,
FamilyCare has previously commissioned research on place-based income
management.[63]
FamilyCare argues that the proposed restricted debit card has some advantages
over the BasicsCard but that it should be voluntary:
The Healthy Welfare Card proposal addresses at least one
significant flaw in the current design of Income Management, by recommending a
link to the existing EFT framework. This is an issue FamilyCare has raised on a
number of occasions both before and since the Shepparton trial commenced.
Building a parallel, but less effective system, has no doubt contributed to the
extraordinary expense of Income Management. As already noted and referred to in
the Review Report, participants report problems with the stigma associated with
using a Basics Card.
FamilyCare rejects however the suggestion that a Healthy
Welfare Card, or any other cashless welfare delivery system that seeks to
reduce consumer choice and agency, should be mandatory.[64]
Other community groups
A number of other community groups have raised concerns
about the proposal to introduce a restricted debit card. These include Carers
Australia and the Consumer Action Law Centre.
Carers Australia argued that there are many legitimate
reasons income support recipients may need access to cash. These include buying
cheap goods at markets, paying a local handyman and paying for school
excursions.[65]
Consumer Action warned of the risks of inappropriate
merchant behaviour. This could include, for example, retailers selling goods to
an income support recipient and then immediately buying the goods back for cash
at a lower price.[66]
Australian Bankers’ Association
In the past the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA) has
opposed the Forrest Review’s proposal for a restricted debit card. The ABA has
also argued that changes to the income support system should be made as part of
a broader package of reforms. In its submission to the Forrest Review, the ABA
stated:
The ABA does not support using the banking and payment system
for the implementation of the Healthy Welfare Card or an extension of the
income management policy as a mandatory approach for all recipients of social
security payments and assistance. There are a number of technological and
practical considerations associated with the Healthy Welfare Card, which
undermines the implementation of a workable, efficient and effective scheme.
Furthermore, the ABA believes that any changes to the social
welfare system should be conducted within an examination and context of the
Review of Australia’s Welfare System (known as the “McClure Review”). This
would ensure that the policy objectives, processes and outcomes would be
embedded in a comprehensive and integrated system and the interests of welfare
recipients are protected.[67]
The ABA highlighted a number of technical difficulties
involved in using the payments system to block purchases of goods such as
alcohol. Its submission explained that it was not feasible to create a debit
card that blocked particular goods and services. Instead, the best the current
system could do was block transactions at particular categories of merchant.[68]
In a submission to the inquiry into the Bill, the ABA
acknowledged that the Government had responded to its concerns, stating:
The banking industry is pleased the Federal Government has
taken on board our concerns regarding the technical and practical feasibility
of the Healthy Welfare Card as originally contemplated and has decided to
conduct a 12 month pilot in a different and less complicated form.[69]
The Government has not published information on the
funding associated with this Bill because it has yet to complete negotiations
with potential commercial providers.[70]
Government statement of
compatibility
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed
the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or
declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[71]
The Government’s Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights addressed the right to social security, the right to an adequate
standard of living, the right to self-determination, the rights of equality and
non-discrimination and the rights of children. It did not address the right to
a private life and rights to privacy.
While the Government asserts that the Bill is compatible
with human rights, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (Human
Rights Committee) noted that the measures proposed in the Bill involve
limitations on a number of human rights and that the Government has not shown
how these limitations are rationally connected to the Bill’s objective.[72]
Limitations on human rights
According to the Human Rights Committee, restrictions on
income support payments engage and limit the right to a private life and rights
to privacy. The Committee also raised questions about the measure’s effect on
the right to social security and the right to equality and non-discrimination.
Lack of evidence that the measure
will be effective
The Human Rights Committee acknowledged that the objective
of the Bill is likely to be legitimate for the purposes of human rights law but
noted that that the Government has not demonstrated that the measure is
rationally connected to that objective. The Human Rights Committee stated:
As the committee has previously noted in relation to income
management, the government has not clearly demonstrated that the measure has
had the beneficial effects that were hoped for. Indeed, the most recent
government-commissioned evaluation of income management in the Northern
Territory has concluded that income management has been of mixed success. In
particular, it found no evidence income management has achieved its intended
outcomes. Rather than promoting independence and building skills and
capabilities, it appears to have “encouraged increasing dependence upon the
welfare system”, and there is no evidence to indicate its effectiveness at the
community level or that it facilitates long-term behaviour change.[73]
An evaluation of place-based income management may provide
more evidence on the effectiveness of income management. The Department of
Social Services has commissioned an evaluation of Place-Based Income Management
from Deloitte Access Economics. According to the Department’s website a third
report from the evaluation was due to the Department in January 2015 and a
final report due in May 2015.[74]
Neither report has been publicly released.
Given that one of the
objectives of the Bill is to enable a trial to determine the
effectiveness of reducing access to income support in the form of cash, it is
unlikely that the Government would be able to provide convincing evidence that
a restricted debit card will reduce harms related to alcohol, gambling and
illegal drugs. There would be no need for the Government to conduct a trial if
it was already able to show that the measure was effective.
Part 1 of the Bill amends the Social
Security (Administration) Act to insert proposed part 3D—Trial of
cashless welfare payments.
Purpose of the trial
The Forrest Review recommended that the Australian Government
roll out a restricted debit card across Australia.[75]
The Bill, however, provides only for a trial of restricted
debit cards at this stage. Proposed section 124PC of the Social
Security (Administration) Act specifies that the object of the trial is to
determine whether reducing the amount of income support that is available for
spending on alcohol, gambling and illegal drugs will reduce violence and harm
in trial areas and whether these measures are more effective when community
bodies are involved. In addition, it aims to encourage socially responsible
behaviour.[76]
It is important to note that the Bill’s object is to determine
whether cashless welfare arrangements reduce violence and harm in trial areas
rather than actually reducing violence and harm. One way the trial could
achieve this object is by determining that the arrangements are not effective.
Use of legislative instruments
While the Bill sets out a basic framework for the trials, it
provides that the Minister and Secretary will determine much of the detail by legislative
instrument. These details are:
- trial
area—the Bill limits the number of trial areas to three.[77]
The Minister may specify an area is a trial area by legislative
instrument[78]
- who
is subject to cashless welfare arrangements—the Minister may, by legislative
instrument, determine whether a trigger payment[79]
applies to a class of person in relation to a trial area. In the alternative
the Minister may determine, by legislative instrument, whether a trigger
payment applies in a particular trial area[80]
- limits
on voluntary participation—the Minister may, by legislative instrument,
determine that a particular ‘class of person’ may not be a voluntary
participant in the cashless welfare arrangements[81]
- amount
of payments restricted—the Minister may, by legislative instrument, vary the
percentage of participants’ payments that are restricted. The legislative instrument
may operate to apply different percentages to trial areas and to particular
classes of people within a trial area.[82]
Eighty percent is the default percentage that will be restricted.[83]
- community
bodies—by legislative instrument, the Minister may authorise a body, whether
incorporated or unincorporated as a community body.[84]
The major role of a community body is to make case by case
decisions about the percentage of person’s payment that is restricted and,
having done so, give the Secretary a written direction to vary the percentage
amounts accordingly[85]
- welfare
restricted bank accounts—the Secretary may, by legislative instrument,
determine the kind of bank account a trial participant or voluntary participant
must have in order to receive the restricted part of their income support
payments[86]
and
- kinds
of businesses blocked by the restricted debit card—the Secretary may, by
legislative instrument, declare the types of businesses whose transactions using
a restricted debit card may be blocked. The legislative instrument may do this
by referring to merchant category codes or codes that identify particular
businesses or point of sale terminals.[87]
How the trial will work
The trial is time limited
The trial will begin on 1 February 2016 and end on 30 June
2018.[88]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, ‘the trial will only take place for 12
months in each location.’[89]
Trial locations
The Government will run the trial in up to three locations.[90]
As already stated, the Government has announced that first site will be Ceduna
in South Australia.[91]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government will
select locations where there is a high level of welfare dependence and where
gambling, alcohol abuse and/or drug abuse are causing an unacceptable amount of
harm within the community.[92]
Compulsory participation
The Bill refers to compulsory participants as trial
participants. For each trial area the Minister determines the
category of trial participant by legislative instrument. The Bill allows
the Minister a great deal of flexibility about who the measure applies to in
each trial site.
For each trial area the Minister can determine the
category of trial participant in two ways:
- By
listing the trigger payments that apply in that trial area.[93]
In this case everyone whose usual place of residence was, is, or becomes within
the trial area will be included as a trial participant if they
receive one of the trigger payments.
- By
identifying a ‘class of person’ in addition to listing the trigger payments.[94]
In this case the cashless welfare arrangements will not necessarily apply
to everyone in a trial area who receives one of the listed trigger
payments. The arrangements will only apply to a subset of people on each of
the trigger payments.
It is not clear how the Government intends to limit the
category of trial participant by using the flexibility to identify a
‘class of person’ in a legislative instrument.
In the existing income management scheme, some individuals
are able to apply for an exemption. The Bill does not contain any provision for
exemptions from participation. However, a community body may vary
the percentage of a trial participant’s payment that is restricted.
If a trial participant leaves the trial area after
the commencement of the trial, they will remain a trial participant—unless
they cease to be a member of the relevant class of persons or cease to receive
the trigger payment.[95]
Voluntary participation
Individuals who are not compulsory participants can
volunteer to participate in the trial.[96]
They must be receiving a restrictable payment and their usual place of
residence must be within a trial area.[97]
As stated above, the Minister may exclude a class of people
from voluntary participation by legislative instrument. In addition, the
Secretary may determine that a particular voluntary participant is not to be subject
to the cashless welfare arrangements which are set out in the Bill.[98]
Which payments will be restricted?
The Bill introduces the term restrictable payment.[99]
Proposed section 124PD contains an exhaustive list of payments to which
the definition applies.
The list includes most Centrelink payments. The age pension
is only restrictable for voluntary participants.[100]
Crisis payment and remote area allowance are not listed as restrictable
payments.
Proportion that will be restricted
Under the Bill 80 per cent of instalments of restrictable
payments will be restricted. The remaining 20 per cent of the payment is
referred to as the unrestricted portion.[101]
In addition, 100 per cent of payments that are not paid in instalments (for
example, lump sums and advance payments) are restricted.[102]
However, there are two ways these percentages can be
changed:
- firstly,
the Minister may, by legislative instrument, vary the percentages for a
particular trial area, or for a particular class of person in a trial area or[103]
- secondly,
with the agreement of a compulsory participant or trial participant, a
community body may give the Secretary of the Department of Social Services a
written direction to vary the percentage of a person’s payment that is
restricted to between 50 and 80 per cent and the payment that is unrestricted
to between 20 and 50 per cent.[104]
In that case, the Secretary must comply with the direction.
Manner of restricting payments
Under the trial (with some exceptions as above) 80 percent
of income support payments to a trial participant will be made into a welfare
restricted bank account.[105]
Recipients will be able to make purchases with these funds using a restricted
debit card.
Under the income management scheme which is established by
Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act, merchants have to
be approved to accept payments. Merchants who accept BasicsCard agree not to allow
purchases of excluded goods such as tobacco and alcoholic drinks. The process
usually requires retail staff to manually identify excluded goods at the point
of sale.
Restricted debit cards such as commercial purchasing cards
work in a different way. Merchants do not need to seek approval to accept the
card and the restrictions are applied automatically by the system rather than
manually by the merchant. The system declines all transactions at merchants
with a blocked MCC and does not allow cash out at any ATM or point of sale
terminal.
However, in response to concerns by merchants who want to
accept the card but would be blocked because they sell alcohol or gambling
products, the Department of Social Services is considering a more complex
arrangement. In advice to merchants about the Ceduna trial the Department says:
If your business sells alcohol and/or gambling products as
well as other goods, you may still be able to enter into a contract to accept
the card. This will involve agreeing to ensure your customers can’t use the
card to buy alcohol or gambling products.[106]
This arrangement would mean merchants would need to
identify customers using a restricted debit card and, possibly, process their
transactions at a separate terminal.
It is not possible for the payments system to
automatically reject transactions for the purchase of particular categories of
good or service. The system is only able to block particular categories of
merchant or particular terminals.
Example
Under the trial, if you are on
Newstart, single with three children and live in your own home, you will have
over $145 cash per week, with the remainder of your payment on the card. On a
parenting payment, single with four children and living in a private rental,
you will receive over $220 cash per week, with the remainder of the payment
on your card. On the DSP, the disability support pension, partnered with no
children, you will receive over $85 per week, with the remainder of your
payment on the card. If someone is single and on Newstart, the payment in
cash is $60 per week, with the remainder of the payment on the card. What
happens is that the card will work at every store except those store
categories which have been switched off.
|
Source: S Henderson, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 15 September
2015, p. 56, accessed 17 September 2015.
Including transient populations
Some communities have transient populations from surrounding
communities that will need to be included in the legislative instrument’s
definition of the trial area. For example the District Council of Ceduna
has stated that some of the income support recipients most likely to benefit
from the restricted debit card travel to Ceduna from communities such as Yalata
and Oak Valley. Yalata is around 200 kilometres from Ceduna and Oak Valley over
500 kilometres.
The role of community bodies
With the agreement of a trial participant (or voluntary
participant) a community body can vary the percentage of that person’s payment
that is restricted by giving a direction to the Secretary. The body can vary
the percentage between 50 to 80 per cent (proposed section 124PK).
The Minister is able to authorise a community body by
legislative instrument. The Bill does not place any restrictions on how the
Minister does this. According to the Explanatory Memorandum a community body ‘must
provide, or intend to provide, services relating to the care, protection,
welfare or safety of adults, children or families.’[107]
Racial discrimination
The Bill allows the Minister to identify a particular class
of persons as trial participants, if they reside in the trial area and
receive a trigger payment. In Ceduna most of the community’s concern about
alcohol abuse is focused on a small number of Indigenous people who come to
town from outlying communities. It is possible that the class of person set out
in the legislative instrument could be defined in a way that, in practice,
targets Indigenous people.
The Human Rights Committee raised the issue of
discrimination on the basis of race stating that it:
... appears likely that the measures may disproportionately
impact on Indigenous persons, and as such may be indirectly discriminatory
unless this disproportionate effect is demonstrated to be justifiable. This has
not been explored in the statement of compatibility.[108]
The Bill does not mandate an
evaluation
Because the Bill’s major purpose is to determine the
effectiveness of a new approach to paying income support, its success depends
on evaluation. However the Bill does not require the Minister to conduct an
evaluation or to make the results of an evaluation available to the Parliament.
Speaking in relation to the Bill in the House of
Representatives, Labor member, Clare O’Neil, noting that the Bill sets up a
trial expressed concern that:
... [the] critical missing piece of the puzzle here is how this
trial will be evaluated. Deputy Speaker, you and I both know that there are
different techniques you can use to evaluate trials and, depending on what
outcome you want to see, you can design a process around that. That is not what
we want to see. This is a serious policy proposal and we want to understand
exactly how it will be evaluated and how the process will fall out as the trial
continues.[109]
Loss of spending power and
inconvenience
Paying recipients using a restricted debit card is likely to
reduce their spending power. People on income support may maximise their
spending power by taking advantage of informal arrangements that do not involve
businesses. These arrangements may include buying second hand goods through the
local classifieds or splitting housing expenses in a share house. These
arrangements typically rely on cash. Cash allows people to easily borrow and
pay back small amounts of money, give money to a friend or family member who
can pick up groceries when they are out shopping and so on. While some
financial institutions allow customers to set up person-to-person cashless
payments, this facility is unlikely to be available on accounts linked to the
restricted debit card.
Another problem is that some merchants impose minimum
purchase amounts on card transactions. This will make it difficult for people
to make regular small purchases of items such as a newspaper, loaf of bread or
carton of milk once they have exhausted the cash portion of their income
support payment.
Risks associated with limiting
access to cash
For people with addictions, there are risks associated with
limiting access to cash. In a discussion of money management interventions for
people with substance abuse disorders US researcher Elizabeth Carpenter-Song
writes:
It is ... possible that the absence of cash may, somewhat
paradoxically, increase other risky behaviors as individuals seek out
substances through informal networks of exchange. Individuals may render
themselves vulnerable to assaults when drug dealers extend “credit” that goes
unpaid. Some people may steal to gain access to resources. Women, in
particular, may be at risk for negotiating sexual favors for drugs.[110]
Cutting off access to cash may increase the incentive for
some income support recipients to become involved with networks of people who
engage in criminal activities such as shoplifting and drug dealing.
Need for an integrated approach
Limiting access to cash and blocking transactions at
businesses that sell alcohol, may not be enough to prevent people with alcohol
and substance abuse problems from obtaining alcohol or drugs.
In Ceduna the Government has signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the District of Ceduna and representatives of
Indigenous Communities in the region. This MOU refers to a community support
package and outlines some of the areas such a package may cover.[111]
As well as additional services such as alcohol and substance
abuse treatment, there may also be a need for enforcement measures to ensure
that merchants do not help participants circumvent the restrictions on the
card. The Forrest Review recommended:
introducing penalties for retailers that accept the welfare
card for payment of prohibited goods or to issue cash—a penalty for on-the-spot
fines of $2,000 for every $100 of value for business dealings prohibited by the
card.[112]
Other than blocking them from accepting payments in
future, it is not clear what powers the Commonwealth currently has to take
action against merchants.
Privacy concerns
Under proposed section 124PN of the Social
Security (Administration) Act, the Secretary may obtain information about trial
participants from the financial institution that operates welfare restricted
accounts and once it has been received, give information about the trial
participant to an officer or employee of the financial institution for the
purposes of the performance of the person’s duties and the exercise of the
person’s powers.
The Secretary may also provide information about trial participants
to members, officers or employees of a community body.
The amendments in items 2 and 4–10 in Part 2 of Schedule
1 to the Bill are consequential amendments to the A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) (Administration) Act and the Social Security Act.
Formalising Centrepay arrangements
Operation of the Social Security
(Administration) Act
Currently, Division 4 of Part 3 of the Social
Security (Administration) Act sets out the rules for the payment of a
social security payment. The rules operate as follows:
-
a social security periodic payment is to be paid in arrears and by
instalments relating to such periods (not exceeding 14 days) as the Secretary
determines[113]
-
the amount that is to be paid to a person in relation to a period
is the total of the amounts of the social security periodic payment (calculated
by reference to the daily rate of payment applicable to each day) payable to
the person for days in that period on which the social security periodic
payment was payable to the person[114]
-
instalments of a person’s social security periodic payment are to
be paid to that person[115]
and
-
an amount that is to be paid to a person is to be paid to the
credit of a bank account nominated and maintained by the person.[116]
Division 5 of Part 3 of the Social Security
(Administration) Act provides explicit protections for social security
payments by specifying that a social security payment is absolutely
inalienable, whether by way of, or in consequence of, sale, assignment,
charge, execution, bankruptcy or otherwise[117]—subject
to:
- sections
61[118]
and 238[119]
of the Social Security (Administration) Act
- Part
3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act[120]
and
- sections
1231[121]
and 1234A of the Social Security Act 1991.[122]
Under the principle of inalienability which is set out in section
60 of the Social Security (Administration) Act a person who has
qualified for a social security payment and is eligible to receive that payment
during an instalment period has a legal right to the payment and it cannot be
transferred to another person.
An exception to the rule on inalienability lies in Part
3A of the Social Security (Administration) Act, which
provides for payment of instalments of social security periodic payments to a
nominee.[123]
The rationale for the introduction of Part 3A in 2002 has been explained
as follows:
In certain situations Social Security payments are paid to
someone else on behalf of the person entitled to the payment. This occurs in
cases where:
-
the
entitled person is incapable of managing their own financial affairs
-
another
person has a power of attorney for them
-
they
are employed by a Supported Employment Agency (formerly called a sheltered workshop),
or
-
they
are entitled to Youth Allowance as an under 18 year old dependent ...
Often nominees are family members acting for elderly,
disabled or dependent relatives. In other cases they are corporate bodies such
as Supported Employment Agencies, Nursing Homes or drug and alcohol
rehabilitation facilities. Sometimes they are people with less direct connection
to the entitled person such as a manager of a boarding house. In all cases
where incapacity to manage their own affairs is the reason for appointing a
nominee, sufficient evidence of the need for a nominee is required. A formal
guardianship arrangement may be in place or medical or social worker reports
are available.
At present nominee arrangements where payment is made to a
nominee are covered by the legislation, but correspondence nominees are not.
[Part 3A] ... would provide a more comprehensive set of provisions that
distinguish between payment and correspondence nominees set out the duties of
nominees and include present administrative practices.[124]
About Centrepay
Announcing the Centrepay scheme in May 1999, Minister for
Community Services, Warren Truss, stated:
Centrepay has been developed to give
Centrelink customers an extended service that allows them to request deductions
for ongoing expenses such as rent and electricity. Customers can have money
deducted from their Social Security payments and forwarded direct to their
landlord or utility company.
This new service will benefit customers and
companies registered with the program. It will give Centrelink customers
greater choice to help them manage their finances and avoid debt situations.[125]
Whilst Centrepay was originally directed towards the
payment of rent and electricity, other payments were added over time, such as payment of fines in order to prevent costly defaults,[126] phone bills,[127]
air fares,[128]
funeral funds[129]
and house insurance premiums.[130]
How Centrepay
works
Centrepay is a direct deduction facility which is only
available to people who receive a regular Centrelink payment. It is provided
‘fee free’ to its customers. Service providers are charged a service fee which
should not be passed on to the customer. Service providers must sign a
comprehensive contract to mitigate the risks to the Department. The types of
deductions are restricted to approved service reasons which are a mix of
essential services and regular, ongoing, household living expenses.
According to the Centrepay Policy and Terms, ‘through
Centrepay, a Customer can authorise the department to deduct regular amounts
from their welfare payments to pay their bills to a Business’.[131]
Unfortunately, the Centrepay Policy and Terms is devoid of
any reference to the legal basis on which that occurs. It may be—though this is
not explicit—that Centrepay relies on the terms of Part 3A of the Social
Security (Administration) Act.
Centrepay and inalienability
The Guide to Social Security Law states that:
The SS(Admin)Act states that, subject to
express legislative exemptions, social security payments are absolutely
inalienable. This means that they cannot be sold, transferred to a third party,
legally charged or be subject to bankruptcy proceedings. This gives legal force
to the intention that payments are designed to provide income support. A
recipient's right to receive a payment or benefit CANNOT be transferred to
another person either by a voluntary act or by the operation of the law.
Although, under the Act, the Secretary may
direct that a payment be made to another party, this would normally only occur
with the consent of the recipient. This does not operate as alienation since
the third party payment is made on behalf of the recipient. If the recipient
does not have the capacity to consent, the Secretary may direct payment to a
third party in the best interests of the recipient.[132]
It is difficult to reconcile the terms of Part 3 of the Social
Security (Administration) Act and the stated intention of the nominee
provisions in Part 3A of that Act, with the operations of Centrepay. On the one
hand the payments to third parties by Centrepay are transfers of the payment or
benefit of one person to another person by voluntary act. This is one of the
things that the Guide to Social Security Law states emphatically cannot be
done. On the other hand, the Guide to Social Security law indicates that a
payment to a third party which is made at the request of the recipient ‘does
not operate as alienation’.
Of concern is the Centrepay Policy and Terms which states
that ‘where the full expected amount is not available, a Deduction of the
available amount will be made’. Presumably, if a social security recipient has
a number of deduction authorities in place it is possible that they will amount
to the total of the instalment in any instalment period. This would seem to be
the very reason for the protection which is provided by inalienability.
Relevant amendment
Item 12 of Part 2 of the Bill inserts proposed
section 61A into the Social Security (Administration) Act to
authorise the Secretary to make deductions from a social security payment and
to pay the relevant amounts to a business or organisation nominated by the
person. This will provide a stronger legal basis for Centrepay’s activities
than reliance on Part 3A may have.
Other amendments
Item 13 of Part 2 of the Bill inserts proposed section
70B into the Social Security (Administration) Act to empower the
Secretary to give a notice to a trial participant or a voluntary participant of
the debit card trial requiring the person to inform the Department if a
specified event or change of circumstances occurs or is likely to occur; and/or
to provide a statement about a matter that might affect the operation of the
debit card trial in relation to the person.
|
Signatories to joint statement calling on Government to
reject Forrest Review Healthy Welfare Card
|
|
Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
|
National Aboriginal
Community Controlled Health Organisation
|
|
ACT Council of Social Service
|
National Association
of Community Legal Centres
|
|
Adult Learning Australia
|
National Congress of
Australia’s First Peoples
|
|
Anwernekenhe National HIV Alliance
|
National Council of
Single Mothers and Their Children
|
|
Australian Association of Social Workers
|
National Welfare
Rights Network
|
|
Australian Catholic Social Justice Council
|
Northern Territory
Council of Social Service
|
|
Australian Community Children’s Services
|
Public Health
Association Australia
|
|
Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations
|
Queensland Council
of Social Service
|
|
Baptist Care Australia
|
Relationships
Australia
|
|
Brotherhood of St Laurence
|
Secretariat of
National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care
|
|
Children with Disability Australia
|
Social Determinants
of Health Alliance
|
|
Consumer Health Forum of Australia
|
South Australian
Council of Social Service
|
|
Council of Social Service of New South Wales
|
St Vincent de Paul
Society National Council of Australia
|
|
Family and Relationship Services Australia
|
Tasmanian Council of
Social Service
|
|
Financial Counselling Australia
|
The Benevolent
Society
|
|
Homelessness Australia
|
Victorian Council of
Social Service
|
|
Jobs Australia
|
Vision Australia
|
|
Mission Australia
|
Western Australian
Council of Social Service
|
|
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Legal Services
|
|
Source: Joint statement, ‘Groups
call for Government to reject Forrest Review Healthy Welfare Card; pursue
decent welfare reform’, ACOSS media release, 12 December 2014.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, p. 4.
[2]. Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999, accessed 15 September 2015.
[3]. A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, accessed 15 September
2015.
[4]. Social Security Act 1991,
accessed 15 September 2015.
[5]. Stronger Futures in the
Northern Territory Act 2012, accessed 15 September 2015.
[6]. D
Arthur, Income
management: a quick guide, Research paper series, 2015–16, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 2015, accessed 24 September 2015.
[7]. Ibid.
[8]. M
Brough (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Social
Innovations Dialogue, Hunter Valley, New South Wales, speech, 29 April
2006, accessed 24 September 2015.
[9]. Racial Discrimination
Act 1975, accessed 27 September 2015.
[10]. D
Arthur, Income
management: a quick guide, op. cit.
[11]. Department
of Social Services (DSS), ‘Income
management in the Ceduna region’, DSS website, last updated 5 December 2014,
accessed 24 September 2015.
[12]. For
information about the originating Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and the relevant
Bills Digest see Parliament of Australia, ‘Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 15 September 2015.
[13]. D
Arthur, Income
management: a quick guide, op. cit.
[14]. Department
of Human Services (DHS), BasicsCard
merchants, DHS website, accessed 24 September 2015.
[15]. Department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), Indigenous jobs and
training review, PM&C website, accessed 16 September 2015.
[16]. PM&C,
Indigenous
jobs and training review: public submissions – November/December 2013, PM&C
website, accessed 16 September 2015.
[17]. PM&C,
Public Submissions providing feedback on the recommendations of
Creating Parity – The Forrest Review – October 2014, PM&C
website, accessed 16 September 2015.
[18]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest Review: creating parity, report prepared for PM&C,
PM&C, 2014, accessed 15 September 2015.
[19]. Ibid.,
‘Recommendation 5: healthy welfare card’, p. 28.
[20]. Ibid.
[21]. Ibid.,
p. 103.
[22]. I
Goodenough, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 15 September
2015, p. 23, accessed 16 September 2015.
[23]. Deloitte
Access Economics, Efficient
and modern payments: benefits of government prepaid cards, report
prepared for Visa AP (Australia) Pty Ltd, Deloitte, Barton, ACT, April 2012, p.
10, accessed 15 September 2015.
[24]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest review: creating parity, op. cit., p. 27.
[25]. Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO), Administration
of new income management in the Northern Territory, Audit report, 19,
2012–13, ANAO, Barton, ACT, 2013, accessed 15 September 2015.
[26]. L
Hefren-Webb (Branch Manager, Welfare Payments Reform, Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Evidence to Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 18 October 2012, p. 72, accessed
15 September 2015.
[27]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest review: creating parity, op. cit., p. 103.
[28]. Ibid.,
p. 102.
[29]. A
Tudge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister), ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 August 2015, p. 8803,
accessed 16 September 2015.
[30]. Reserve
Bank of Australia (RBA), Reform
of credit card schemes in Australia, volume I, RBA, 2001, p. 3,
accessed 24 September 2015.
[31]. R
DeGennaro, ‘Merchant
acquirers and payment card processors: a look inside the black box’, Economic
Review, 91(1), January 2006 pp. 27–42, ProQuest database, accessed 24
September 2015.
[32]. ANZ
Bank, ‘Commercial
cards: merchant category code controls’, ANZ website, accessed 24 September
2015.
[33]. Australian
Bankers’ Association, Submission
to PM&C, Indigenous jobs and training review, 19 September 2014,
p.5, accessed 15 September 2015.
[34]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest review: creating parity, op. cit., p. 106.
[35]. DHS,
‘BasicsCard:
merchant application’, DHS website, accessed 15 September 2015.
[36]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest review: creating parity, op. cit., p. 107.
[37]. Department
of Human Services (DHS), ‘Registering to become a BasicsCard merchant’, DHS website,
accessed 7 October 2015.
[38]. Department
of Human Services (DHS), BasicsCard
Merchant Terms and Conditions, DHS website, accessed 7 October 2015.
[39]. Ibid.
[40]. J
R Bray, M Gray, K Hand and I Katz, Evaluating
new income management in the Northern Territory: final evaluation report,
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, September
2014, p. 303; Deloitte Access Economics, Place
based income management – process and short term outcomes evaluation, report
prepared for DSS, Deloitte, August 2014, p. 91, both accessed 16 September 2015.
[41]. K
Andrews (Minister for Social Services), ‘Putting
welfare dollars to work’, The Australian, 18 December 2014, p. 12,
accessed 15 September 2015.
[42]. J
R Bray et al, Evaluating
new income management in the Northern Territory: final evaluation report,
op. cit., p. 165.
[43]. Ibid.,
pp. 135–136.
[44]. Details
of the terms of reference, submissions to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee and the final report (when published) are on the inquiry
homepage, accessed 16 September 2015.
[45]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
digest, 9, 2015, The Senate, 9 September 2015, p. 20, accessed 11
September 2015.
[46]. S
Neumann, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 15 September
2015, p. 22, accessed 16 September 2015.
[47]. W
Snowdon, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 15 September
2015, p. 58, accessed 16 September 2015.
[48]. R
Siewert, Greens:
Labor must be true opposition and reject healthy welfare card, media
release, 19 August 2015, accessed 15 September 2015.
[49]. Ibid.
[50]. ‘Memorandum
of understanding between the District Council of Ceduna and key
representatives of Indigenous communities across the Far West Region of South
Australia (the communities) and the Commonwealth of Australia (the
Commonwealth)’, published by A Henderson, ‘Cashless
welfare card: SA community of Ceduna says new regime will save lives’, ABC
News (online edition), 5 August 2015, accessed 2 October 2015.
[51]. District
Council of Ceduna, Submission
to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, The
harmful use of alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities,
2 April 2014, p. 1, accessed 10 September 2015.
[52]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[53]. District
Council of Ceduna, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, 18 September
2015, p. 2, accessed 7 October 2015.
[54]. Ibid.
[55]. Ibid.
[56]. Australian
Government, ‘Income
Management Summary – 27 March 2015’, dataset, data.gov.au website, 15 June
2015, accessed 10 September 2015.
[57]. South
Australian Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, 18 September
2015, p. 3, accessed 1 October 2015.
[58]. Cape
York Institute, Response
to PM&C, Indigenous jobs and training review (Forrest Review), September
2014, p. 7, accessed 16 September 2015.
[59]. ACOSS,
‘Groups
call for Government to reject Forrest Review Healthy Welfare Card; pursue
decent welfare reform’, ACOSS media release, 12 December 2014,
accessed 7 October 2015.
[60]. ACOSS,
Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, 18 September
2015, p. 2, accessed 1 October 2015.
[61]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[62]. National
Welfare Rights Network, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into the Social Services
Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, 25 September 2015, pp.
17–18, accessed 1 October 2015.
[63]. P
Mendes, J Waugh and C Flynn, The
place-based income management trial in Shepparton: a best practice model for
evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, July 2013, accessed 1 October
2015.
[64]. FamilyCare,
Submission
to PM&C, Indigenous jobs and training review (Forrest Review), 19
September 2014, accessed 16 September 2015.
[65]. Carers
Australia, Submission
to PM&C, Indigenous jobs and training review (Forrest Review), September
2014, accessed 16 September 2015.
[66]. Consumer
Action Law Centre, Submission
to PM&C, Indigenous jobs and training review (Forrest Review), 18
September 2014, p. 2, accessed 16 September 2015.
[67]. Australian
Bankers’ Association, Submission
to PM&C, Indigenous jobs and training review (Forrest Review), 19
September 2014, pp. 3–4, accessed 16 September 2015.
[68]. Ibid.,
pp. 4–5.
[69]. Australian
Bankers’ Association, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, 22 September
2015, p. 1, accessed 1 October 2015.
[70]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, p. 1.
[71]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 11 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[72]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Twenty-seventh
report of the 44th Parliament, 8 September 2015, pp. 20–29, accessed
9 September 2015.
[73]. Ibid.,
p. 23.
[74]. DSS,
‘Income
Management Evaluations’, DSS website, accessed 9 September 2015.
[75]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest Review: creating parity, op. cit., p. 107.
[76]. Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999, proposed paragraph 124PC(d).
[77]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PF(2).
[78]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PD(2).
[79]. The
term trigger payment is defined in proposed section 124PD as (a) a
social security benefit (other than a mature age allowance under
Part 2.12B of the 1991 Act); or (b) a social security pension being a
carer payment; a bereavement allowance, so long as the recipient has not yet
reached pension age; a disability support pension; a pension PP (single); a
widow B pension; a wife pension; or (c) a payment under the scheme known as the
ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as living allowance. The
exclusion of mature age allowance is unnecessary as this payment has ceased.
[80]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PG(1).
[81]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed section 124PI.
[82]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsections 124PJ(3) and (4).
[83]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, p. 2.
[84]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed section 124PE.
[85]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PK(1).
[86]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed section 124PP.
[87]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PQ(2).
[88]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PF(1).
[89]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, p. 4.
[90]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PF(2).
[91]. DSS,
‘Cashless
debit card trial – Ceduna’, DSS website, 31 August 2015, accessed 8
September 2015.
[92]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, p. 2.
[93]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed paragraph 124PG(2)(b).
[94]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed paragraph 124PG(2)(a).
[95]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, op. cit., p. 4.
[96]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed section 124PH(1).
[97]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed section 124PH.
[98]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PH(4).
[99]. Subparagraph(a)(xv)
of the definition of ‘restrictable payment’ at proposed subsection 124PD(1)
of the Social Security (Administration) Act provides that mature age
allowance under Part 2.12B of the Social Security Act 1991
is not a restrictable payment. This would appear to be
unnecessary as the payment has ceased.
[100]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition
of restrictable payment at proposed subsection 124PD(1).
[101]. Social Security
(Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(1).
[102]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(2).
[103]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PJ(3).
[104]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PK(3).
[105]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, proposed subsection 124PL(2).
[106]. DSS,
‘Cashless
debit card trial – Ceduna merchant information’, factsheet, DSS, 2015,
accessed 11 September 2015.
[107]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015, p. 3.
[108]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, op. cit., p. 27.
[109]. C
O’Neil, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill
2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 15 September
2015, p. 64, accessed 17 September 2015.
[110]. E
Carpenter-Song, ‘Anthropological
perspectives on money management: considerations for the design and
implementation of interventions for substance abuse’, The American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 38(1), 2012, p. 53, EBSCOhost database,
accessed 15 September 2015.
[111]. Memorandum
of understanding, op. cit.
[112]. A
Forrest, The
Forrest Review: creating parity, op. cit., p. 108.
[113]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, subsection 43(1).
[114]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, subsection 43(3).
[115]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, subsection 44(1). The requirement that
payments are paid to a person is subject to Part 3A of the Act, which sets out
the rules for paying to a nominee. See DHS, ‘Someone
to deal with us on your behalf’, DHS website, accessed 9 September 2015.
[116]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, subsections 55(1) and (2). Note that
subsection 55(4) authorises the Secretary to direct that the whole or a part of
the amount is paid to a person in a different way. If the Secretary gives a
direction, the amount is paid in accordance with the direction.
[117]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, section 60.
[118]. About
deducting amounts and paying them to the Commissioner of Taxation.
[119]. About
deducting amounts and paying them to the Child Support Registrar.
[120]. About the
income management regime.
[121]. About the
recovery of social security debts by deduction from a person’s pension, benefit
or allowance.
[122]. About
deductions by consent from the social security payment of a person who is not a
debtor.
[123]. Social
Security (Administration) Act, section 123F.
[124]. D
Daniels, Family
and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Initiatives and Other
Measures) Bill 2002, Bills Digest 47, 2002–03, Parliamentary Library,
Canberra, 2002, pp. 1–2, accessed 8 October 2015.
[125]. W Truss
(Minister for Community Services), Centrepay—easy
bill paying for Centrelink customers, media release, 7 May 1999,
accessed 8 September 2015.
[126]. L Anthony
(Minister for Community Services),
Centrelink option for fine defaulters, media release, 27 February 2001,
accessed 8 September 2015.
[127]. S Kearney, ‘Phone
bill payment scheme for pensioners’, Sunday Telegraph, 21 September
2003, p. 29, accessed 8 September 2015.
[128]. C Smith, ‘One
way air ticket home’, Northern Territory News, 21 April 2003, p. 1,
accessed 8 September 2015.
[129]. J Gibson, ‘Funeral
fund push signs up aborigines’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 October
2007, p. 3, accessed 8 September 2015.
[130]. N Bita and J
Owens, ‘Insurers
on notice over flood definitions’, The Australian, 6 April 2011, p.
7, accessed 8 September 2015.
[131]. Centrepay
Policy and Terms, p. 6, contained in DHS, Centrepay:
resources, DHS website, accessed 8 September 2015.
[132]. DSS,
8.4.3 Protection
of payment, Guide to social security law, version 1.215, released 21
September 2015, DSS website, last updated 5 March 2007, accessed 8
October 2015.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.