Introduction
3.1
This chapter sets out the range of evidence the committee received from submitters regarding the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 (the bill).
3.2
The following sections will explore:
support for the abolition of the cashless debit card (CDC) program, including the lack of evidence that the CDC program met its objectives and the negative impact of the program on individuals and communities;
issues specific to the Northern Territory (NT) and Cape York;
the impact of the bill on the operation of the Family Responsibilities Commission;
concerns relating to the future of compulsory income management; and
support for the CDC program.
Support for the abolition of the cashless debit card program
3.3
A large number of submitters expressed strong support for the abolition of the CDC program and commended the Government’s commitment and assertive action on the matter. These submitters raised concerns about the lack of evidence that the CDC program had met its objectives, as well as the negative impacts of the program on individual participants and communities.
Lack of evidence that the CDC program met its objectives
3.4
Many of the submitters who supported the abolition of the CDC highlighted that there was no conclusive evidence that the CDC program had met its objectives, and that the program was incompatible with Australia’s human rights obligations. In doing so, some submitters pointed to the two audits conducted by the Australian National Audit Office which found there was a lack of evidence available to properly evaluate the program’s success and demonstrate that the CDC program was meeting its intended objectives.
3.5
For example, the Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) stated:
It is abundantly clear that there is no robust evidence to demonstrate that the Cashless Debit Card is at all a successful approach and instead, it is actively harmful for the communities in which it has been introduced. This is a stigmatising and discriminatory policy response that seeks to restrict and control and behaviour of individuals, rather than addressing the systemic and structural causes of social issues and challenges in our communities.
3.6
Monash University provided a summary of its research which focused on the Ceduna trial region in South Australia (SA). It concluded that:
Across all measures we found NO IMPACT of the CDC. Meaning, neither a decrease nor an increase in measured crime rates, emergency department presentations, electronic gaming (pokies) nor apprehensions for public intoxication.
3.7
The committee also heard that the CDC program had not lowered alcohol consumption in communities and that there were ‘workaround’ ways for CDC participants to circumvent restrictions and access cash.
3.8
For example, Ms Kathryn Wilkes, Founder of No Cashless Debit Card Australia (NCDCA), argued that the CDC program did not necessarily stop people from drinking as it did not address the root causes of alcoholism. She stated:
You have a core group of people who don't want to get sober. They were drunk before the card; they get drunk on the card, and they're not going to change. An alcoholic has to want to change.
3.9
Dr Jen Cleary, Chief Executive Officer for Centacare Catholic Country SA, advised that the CDC had not helped in reducing alcohol abuse and other substance abuse in Ceduna. She noted that this was because restricting access to income did not fix addiction, as people always found ways to circumvent restrictions to service their addictions.
3.10
Dr Cleary also provided a detailed example of the workarounds happening in Ceduna:
We know, for example, that there are car boot sales happening. There's the instance that I mentioned where you go to the supermarket and buy a big box of nappies, go out into the community, sell them for half the price and then go and buy booze from somebody who's brought it in from Port Lincoln—that's where it's coming from. You're buying it out of somebody's car boot. That is absolutely happening. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. While it might have reduced alcohol sales in the community from the legitimate sources, like the Ceduna community hotel, for example, it doesn't mean it's not happening. It absolutely is happening, because addiction is a medical issue not an income issue.
3.11
Additionally, Mrs Gina Smith, an employee of the Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit, noted:
With the cashless debit card, I had a family member who wanted to swap cash. I was buying groceries with my money; she asked if she could negotiate with me. She said, 'Can you buy all your groceries on my card, and then you give me the cash or whatever your receipt is?'
Negative impacts on individuals and communities
3.12
Submitters who supported the abolition of the CDC drew the committee’s attention to the negative impact of the program on the lives of participants and their communities. The committee heard from individual CDC participants on their lived experiences, some of whom noted they had been put on the card without adequate notice.
3.13
For example, Miss Kerryn Griffis detailed:
I am a single mum of five daughters receiving single parenting payment and family tax benefit A and B, and I was a forced participant of the Indue cashless debit card program. The experience of surviving on this card has been a traumatic one and has vastly lowered my and my daughters' quality of life. As a DV [domestic violence] survivor, I can tell you right now that the Indue card program is, simply put, government sanctioned financial abuse. The social exclusion, stigma, lack of financial flexibility, increased costs and paternalistic nature of the card have had massively devastating mental health impacts on myself and my daughters and generally made life a lot more difficult than it was pre card.
3.14
Ms Christine Donaldson, an elder of the Wangkatha Ngadju people in the Goldfields region in Western Australia (WA), shared her experiences of being put on the CDC and observed that the program had not decreased disadvantage in her community:
This card is a tool against my people. We are labelled and judged. It controls our financial management. It removes our people's independence and responsibility. There was no consultation with the targeted people—us, Aboriginals—no information services, no option of input to say it's good or bad or that we want it or we don't. The card has increased crime, racism, elder abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, and self-harming, just to name a few.
3.15
Ms Donaldson also told of the negative impacts on her mental health and way of life:
I feel stripped of my rights, and I feel like we are going back to ration days and being controlled and told how we can spend our money. Personally, I haven't been able to buy at markets and Facebook buy and sell because I'm used to having cash. I've been to Woollies and had declined transactions, which makes me feel ashamed. I can't give my grandchildren money for birthdays, chores or rewards. Rent gets debited from Indue, but if Indue fail to pay rent you end up getting a letter from housing to say you are $800 in arrears. We Aboriginal people like to buy kangaroo meat and tails, but we haven't got access to cars and what have you, and the only shop that was selling fresh kangaroo meat and tails only accepted cash.
3.16
Dr Shelley Bielefeld, an academic from Griffith University who submitted in a private capacity, informed the committee that during fieldwork for her research on the CDC program she had witnessed the multitude of problems caused by the mandatory application of the program. She detailed:
Interviewees gave accounts of their struggles to purchase what they needed, when they needed it, such as school photos, school lunches, school excursions, cars, items of women's clothing, online shopping, hotel accommodation when travelling, health services and local community events requiring cash, such as local festivals.
3.17
Dr Bielefeld further observed that CDC participants she had interviewed repeatedly relayed how the program had made managing their money more difficult, contrary to the objectives of the program.
3.18
Ms Wilkes of NCDCA communicated a snapshot of the experiences of CDC participants:
The heartache that I've seen families go through—where do I start? Rent declines, product declines, abuse, harassment. Harassment in the street. Harassment from the media. The harassment on social media. The mental health collapse. The physical health collapse. Then, watching children going through exclusion from not being able to play their sports, not being able to go to dance classes, not being able to do community events or not being able to do school excursions. Then, hearing from parents, when you're talking about little kids who don't understand, or autistic little kids who don't understand. A stupid thing, like a $2 ice cream day—Indue card day is Friday and the cash portion is Monday, and the gold coin donation is Friday and Mum's got not money. You can't explain to five- and six-year-olds why they can't have that $2 ice cream.
3.19
Additionally, Professor Philip Mendes, an academic from Monash University who gave evidence in a private capacity, shared with the committee a summary of the results of a recent study he had led. The study found that most Indigenous organisations connected to CDC sites opposed the program. He summarised the core arguments of these groups as follows:
The CDC racially discriminates against Indigenous Australians, given they are disproportionately represented in program participants.
The CDC does not address the root causes of gambling or substance abuse, both of which have very deep-seated structural and historical causes.
The CDC is unreasonably applied as a blanket measure to whole communities who consequently experience social stigma, rather than being individually targeted via an assessment of personal capacity and need.
The non-availability of cash hinders participation in mainstream social and community activities.
The CDC is punitive and disempowering in its application and was not based on any substantive consultation with Indigenous communities or, particularly, CDC participants
The CDC does not advance a self-determination of communities and is not compatible with Closing the Gap partnership principles.
The substantial funds spent on the CDC would be more effectively allocated to funding locally-led holistic support services.
Issues specific to the Northern Territory and Cape York
3.20
A number of submitters made comment on the bill as it related to the NT and Cape York. Evidence relating to these two distinct regions is set out in the following sections.
Northern Territory
3.21
Many of the submitters in support of abolishing the CDC nevertheless raised specific concerns that the bill created a framework that allowed the Minister to determine that certain NT CDC participants be transitioned onto compulsory Income Management (IM) under the BasicsCard after the repeal of the program.
3.22
As noted earlier in this report, the IM scheme pre-dates the CDC program and was created in 2007 as part of the Howard Coalition Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response.
3.23
The Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS), for example, voiced concern about the potential for individuals to be put back on IM:
While NTCOSS supports the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to abolishing the CDC, the scope of this Bill will mean the continuation of compulsory Income Management for over 4,000 people in the NT who are currently on the CDC. These NT residents will be transitioned to Income Management, joining almost 23,000 people from the NT who are currently subject to compulsory quarantining of income support through the BasicsCard. In total, over 27,000 Territorians, the vast majority of whom are Aboriginal people, will continue to be unfairly targeted and impacted by this failed policy approach.
3.24
WACOSS raised similar concerns and urged the committee to amend the bill to ensure that NT participants would not be able to be placed back onto the BasicsCard.
3.25
The Accountable Income Management Network (AIMN) also commented on the pathway forward for NT CDC participants:
While the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill states that a second bill will be put forward in 2022 that will explicitly deal with the program of IM, there is no guarantee that CIM has been ruled out altogether as a policy measure. In practice, this means that a cohort of primarily Aboriginal people may continue to languish on CIM [Compulsory Income Management] under the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory indefinitely, depending on the outcome of community consultations. It should also be noted that CIM under the BasicsCard operates across other States, though the largest number of participants are located in the Northern Territory.
3.26
Change the Record also voiced concern that the bill provides for classes of persons who exit the CDC program in the NT to be placed onto the ‘more restrictive’ BasicsCard.
3.27
Additionally, the Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation raised concerns about the future of NT CDC participants who may be placed onto the BasicsCard under the bill:
Effectively those who transitioned from the Basics Card to the Cashless Debit Card will now be transitioned back to the Basics Card. The Basics Card is not a good alternative to the Cashless Debit Card and is in many respects more limited. The Basics Card for example cannot be used to make online purchases of food or other essential services including purchases of credit for prepayment phones and prepayment electricity meters.
3.28
However, the committee also heard that there were some individuals who appreciated the simpler functionality of the BasicsCard.
3.29
Dr Bielefeld noted that she had ‘grave concerns’ about NT participants going back onto the BasicsCard, given its mandatory nature. She detailed:
I've done fieldwork in the Northern Territory as well, and people are just as concerned about the BasicsCard being a mandatory program with unjust and unfair consequences as they are about the cashless debit card. This is not a case of one cashless card being seen as preferable to the other. This is a situation where people want their decision-making regarding their financial affairs to be returned to them so that they have some autonomy and control over their lives again.
3.30
Emeritus Professor Jon Altman, who submitted in a private capacity, observed that the bill did not address the ‘unresolved issue’ of other forms of compulsory income management in the NT. He urged the Government to clarify ‘as quickly as possible’ whether compulsory income management would be abolished in the future.
Evidence from the Department of Social Services
3.31
The Department of Social Services (DSS) reiterated to the committee that the bill ‘enables’ the Minister, via a disallowable legislative instrument, to denote a class of people in the NT to move from the CDC to the BasisCard. However, the bill does not ‘require’ the Minister to take that action.
3.32
DSS also clarified that should the Minister choose not to require NT CDC participants to move to the BasicsCard, those individuals would cease to be subject to income management in any form.
3.33
The committee sought clarification as to whether, in the scenario that the Minister did choose via legislative instrument to require NT CDC participants to move to the BasicsCard, participants would have a choice in the matter.
This instrument operates on a class of people, so, no, it doesn't involve an individual choice process. I think Minister Rishworth has previously said that reforms to income management are something the government is very keen on and is pursuing but the government wishes to first cease the cashless debit card.
3.35
When queried by the committee as to whether the Minister would be choosing to use the measures in the bill to transfer NT CDC participants to the BasicsCard, DSS responded that that was a decision for Government.
Cape York
3.36
Several submitters provided their views on the CDC program as it specifically operates in Cape York communities in Queensland (Qld).
3.37
The Family Responsibilities Commission (FRC) expressed support for the CDC program and recommended it be retained.
3.38
The Cape York Institute also expressed support for the functionality of the CDC as a piece of technology that could be used in the FRC’s work. As Mr Noel Pearson, Founder and Director, stated:
I'd just say that, in the absence of a solution that had the same functionality as the cashless debit card, our Family Responsibilities Commission and the welfare reform work that we've done via that over the last 20 years will collapse, and that would be a very bad thing. We'd just have to give up.
3.39
The Cape York Institute informed the committee that feedback since the roll‑out of the CDC in the Cape York area indicated that the CDC technology for operationalising IM had ‘many advantages’ over the BasicsCard. These advantages included ease of use and increased functionality on the ground, as well as less stigma associated with the CDC. It stated that these advantages had led to a larger uptake of voluntary income management in Cape York since the introduction of the CDC.
3.40
The Cape York Institute also expressed a desire for more clarification from the Government as to how the abolition of the CDC would impact the income management work of the FRC, particularly as there was no readily available technology with a similar functionality of the CDC.
3.41
Specifically, Mr Pearson was of the view that going back to the BasicsCard would be ‘a very big mistake’. He argued that the superior technology and functionality of the CDC was such that it would be ‘madness’ to return to the BasicsCard.
3.42
The Cape York Institute also emphasised to the committee that if the CDC was abolished, there needed to be a replacement card (with the same technological functionality as the CDC) available straight away, in order to enable the unique FRC model of income management to continue. As Mr Pearson commented:
…what we don't want is a period where we don't have a solution. I think that would be a really serious disruption. We shouldn't let one solution go until the other solution is at hand.
3.43
Mr Pearson further observed that, in his opinion, the problematic aspect of the CDC program was not the card itself, but the blanket imposition of it. He detailed:
I don't think it's the card. You're aiming your guns at the wrong target. It's not the card. It's the decision-making about who goes on the card that you need to work out. In Cape York it's the Family Responsibilities Commission that makes that decision. In a sense, I don't agree with a blanket imposition of the card.
Impact of the bill on the work of the Family Responsibilities Commission
3.44
The committee received evidence that raised specific concerns about the impact of the bill on the work of the FRC in Cape York.
3.45
The FRC informed the committee that it was concerned that the bill in its current form would adversely impact the Commission’s operations and the wellbeing of its most vulnerable clients.
…we consider the Bill was introduced without the benefit of a fulsome understanding of the FRC and its points of difference.
3.47
The Cape York Institute echoed these concerns, highlighting the unique model underpinning the work of the FRC. As Ms Sophie Ellerman, Strategic Advisor, noted:
We absolutely urge the government to see the FRC model preserved. It's a very nuanced and highly-sophisticated model of welfare reform compared to what else we've seen.
FRC model
3.48
Section 123UF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act) recognises the independence and authority of the FRC to determine whether a person should be subject to its income management regime.
3.49
When making an income management decision the FRC must give the Secretary notice of the decision. The Secretary then gives effect to the FRC’s decision by commencing the income management of the person’s welfare payment at the proportion and for the time decided by the FRC.
3.50
The FRC explained to the committee the unique nature of its model of income management, centred around Local Commissioners and a client-focused approach:
There is no blanket imposition of income management. It is applied flexibly, on a case-by-case basis by those with local authority (Local Commissioners) who are Elders and other respected community members.
Under the FRC Act [Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 (Qld)], income management can either be voluntary (VIM), where community members can approach the FRC of their own accord, or by way of Conditional Income Management (CIM).
Conditional income management orders are only made by the FRC after the opportunity has been provided to attend a conference with Local Commissioners. At a conference, CIM can be implemented either by agreement, which is always the preferred option, or without agreement and by order of the Commission as a last resort, where it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.
3.52
Since the introduction of the CDC in the Cape York area on 17 March 2021, 352 cards have been cumulatively processed by the FRC. Of the 352 cards, approximately 65 per cent were entered into on a voluntary basis, with the remaining 35 per cent being conditional (that is, under a conditional income management order). The FRC advised that of those 65 per cent of individuals who volunteered to participate, approximately half stated that they were doing it because they liked the CDC.
3.53
The unique way the FRC operationalised the CDC was discussed by the committee during the inquiry. Several witnesses agreed that it was a nuanced framework which encompassed support services and took a more targeted approach to income management.
FRC concerns and recommendations
3.54
In order to address its concerns, the FRC made two recommendations directly relevant to the bill. The first was that the CDC be retained; or as an alternative, should the CDC be replaced by a different card, the new card must have at least the same functionality as the CDC and be able to be activated immediately upon the cessation of the CDC program. In making this recommendation, the FRC was clear that it did not support a return to the BasicsCard, given its inferior technology.
3.55
The second recommendation was to amend the bill to allow the FRC to continue its operations unchanged.
3.56
In particular, the FRC stated that while it appeared that efforts had been made to carve out and distinguish the FRC’s unique operations in the drafting of the bill, the wording of some items remained problematic. It advised the committee that the current wording of the bill could unintentionally work to undermine the independence and decisions of the Commission.
3.57
The FRC singled out four items that it deemed required amendment. Each of these are examined in turn below.
Item 38 — provides ability for persons to request their CDC participation ceases
3.58
Item 38 of the bill inserts new subsections (3) to (7) into section 124PGD of the Administration Act to close entry to cashless welfare arrangements and allow program participants to request that they cease to be a program participant in the Cape York area on or after closure day but before the repeal day (when cashless welfare arrangements cease for all remaining participants).
3.59
Specifically, cessation will occur through an administrative process – first by request from a CDC participant, followed by the issue of a notice from the Secretary (within seven days of the request) confirming that the person ceases to be a CDC participant.
3.60
The FRC raised two core concerns with this item. Firstly, that it risked removing participants from the CDC without proper consideration of the risks involved; and secondly, that it undermined the decision-making powers of the FRC as set out in law. Each of these are discussed below.
Undermining the FRC
3.61
The FRC voiced concern that the item does not sufficiently recognise that the decision whether a person in ‘the Cape York region’ should be a program participant rests entirely with the FRC, not with the Secretary. This is because by virtue of subsection (1)(c) of 124PDG of the Administration Act, the Secretary is limited to only giving effect to the FRC’s decision.
3.62
The FRC observed that should the bill not be amended, item 38 would remove power away from Local Commissioners. Local Commissioners are Elders and respected leaders in their communities who are already required to consider a multitude of factors when making decisions under the Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 (Qld) (FRC Act), including the best interests of children and other vulnerable persons.
3.63
The FRC highlighted that instead, the power would lie with the Secretary, who is compelled by the proposed amendment to automatically grant the request from an individual, who is the subject of a compulsory income management order by the FRC.
3.64
Ms Tammy Williams, Commissioner of the FRC, explained that this served to undermine the FRC:
…it appears then to create a situation where we [the FRC] make a legally-binding decision but there's a backdoor option—a mechanism by which an individual can come off automatically. Therefore, it appears then to undermine the decision-making of an independent commissioner.
Lack of consideration of risks
3.65
The FRC also highlighted that the item allowed a CDC participant who had made a request to the Secretary to be automatically taken off the program, with no consideration given to the risks identified by the FRC which caused the participant to be on the CDC in the first place. As Ms Williams noted:
…there's no detail in item 38 about the considerations that the secretary takes into account; it appears to be drafted in a way in which it is an automatic outcome—the person requests, the person must be taken off.
3.66
In raising the concern, Ms Williams emphasised that the FRC Act already provides opportunities for participants to exit the CDC program, with appropriate safeguards in place:
Whoever is on income management under the Cape York model, for the purposes of transition, should not have the opportunity to apply directly to the secretary because the FRC also has mechanisms, which have worked very well, for individuals to come off. They've got a right of appeal and, second of all, there's an administrative process which is used quite effectively—like I said, a voluntary application. Decisions are determined, on average, in fewer than three days. For those who are conditionally income managed it has to be determined, again, back at conference. On average it's 10 days to determine. I'd say that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the decision to be on income management is always appropriate at the relevant time, and that this is a provision that is not only unnecessary but which will also not only create a risk but seeks to undermine the commission's decisions.
3.67
The FRC recommended that the bill be amended so that item 38 does not apply to Cape York.
Item 26 — provides exemption of former NT CDC participant’s from FRC jurisdiction
3.68
Item 26 of the bill repeals subsection 123UF(4) of the Administration Act, which deals with the relationship between Parts 3B and 3D of the Administration Act, and was originally inserted to facilitate the transition from income management to CDC arrangements.
3.69
The item substitutes in a new subsection 123UF(4) which provides that if a person was a program participant under section 124PGE of the Administration Act on the day before the closure day, and the Secretary makes a determination under subsection 124PHA(1) or 124PHB(3) of the Administration Act on or after the closure day but before the repeal day so that the person exits the CDC program, that person cannot enter the income management regime under section 123UF at any time after the determination is made.
3.70
The explanatory memorandum (EM) notes:
This bar to entering income management applies only to program participants under section 124PGE of the Administration Act (that is, individuals who became a program participant due to their Northern Territory residency), and not to other program participants. This is appropriate as the intent is to end compulsory income management in most CDC program areas other than the Northern Territory and Cape York through legislative instruments before Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Principal Act commences.
3.71
Part 3D, Subdivision C of the Administration Act sets out circumstances when persons are not subject to cashless welfare arrangements, namely when the Secretary makes a determination that they are satisfied that:
being a program participant would pose a serious risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing (section 124PHA); or
the person can manage their own affairs (section 124PHB).
3.72
According to the FRC, item 26 appears to have the effect that if a NT resident had been the subject of a determination under 124PHA(1) or 124PHB(3), after the closure day but before the repeal day, they cannot enter the income management regime of the Cape York area ‘at any time’ after the determination is made.
3.73
Ms Williams commented:
In a sense, the FRC's interpretation of this is that it is seeking to provide exemption for Northern Territory participants from the FRC's jurisdiction.
3.74
Ms Williams advised the committee that this posed a ‘real operational and jurisdictional risk’ for the FRC, given one of the communities under Cape York income management, Doomadgee, is a gulf community located very close to the NT border. She explained:
There are family and cultural connections and even land boundaries that cross the Northern Territory border. People frequently come into Doomadgee to participate in ceremonies and catch up with family members.
3.75
The FRC indicated that it was concerned that item 26 would in effect exempt a class of persons (i.e. former NT CDC participants) from any future application of the FRC Act should they move to a community within the FRC’s jurisdiction (such as Aurukun, Coen, Doomadgee, Hope Vale or Mossman Gorge) and would otherwise be deemed within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
In its current form, the Bill may give rise to the situation where a former Northern Territory CDC participant does not have to abide by the socially responsible standards of behaviour required in their new home community, such as Doomadgee (for example by not enrolling their children in school or failing to keep them safe from harm) because of a historic exemption provided by the Secretary.
3.77
Ms Williams further elaborated:
Therefore, although historically they [the former NT CDC participant] have been able to satisfy that they can manage their own affairs, if they were to return to Doomadgee and, let's say, for example, fail to enrol their child at any school in Queensland and are named as being the subject of child abuse, under this amendment, the local commissioners of Doomadgee and I will never be able to subject them to our jurisdiction. We will not be able to.
3.78
The FRC concluded the item 26 was ‘unnecessary’ and recommended that it should not proceed.
Items 20 and 23 — require the FRC to re-issue notices notwithstanding the existence of valid income management decisions
3.79
Items 20 and 23 of the bill would amend sections 123UF (1)(b) and 123UF(2)(c) of the Administration Act respectively. These two sections set out who may be subject to the income management regime in the Cape York area.
3.80
These items ensure that the FRC must issue a new notice on or after the closure date to trigger entry or re-entry into the income management regime for persons exiting the CDC program in Cape York.
3.81
The FRC flagged that it foresaw difficulties concerning the Commission’s ability to implement these amendments to the Administration Act.
3.82
As Ms Williams commented:
The effect of those amendments is that they require the FRC to reissue notices notwithstanding the existence of valid income management decisions. I have still to understand the intent of this. I suggest that it's probably of operational convenience, to help with the transition, that there be a point of time as an end date so that there is clarity about who will continue after the end date.
3.83
The FRC Act allows the Commission to make legally binding decisions about whether a community member, within its jurisdiction, should be the subject of income management (for a period greater than three months but less than twelve months). If all of the elements set out in section 123UF of the Administration Act are satisfied, including that the notice given by the Commission to the Secretary requiring a person to be income managed was given under a law of Queensland (that is, the FRC Act), then the decision ordinarily remains a legally valid decision of the FRC until the income management order or agreement expires.
3.84
The FRC explained that decisions to impose a period of income management on a client (that is, conditional income management) may only be made at a conference, and conferences may only be held about valid agency notices. This is a process which occurs over weeks, and sometimes months, depending on the specific circumstances of each client.
3.85
The FRC informed the committee that, in addition to ‘the uncertainty posed by questions of law’, it was concerned that the practical implications of the proposed amendment would incur an unnecessary administrative and cost burden on its operations, as well as intrusion on the client.
3.86
Ms Williams observed that this was not ideal for the FRC’s operations, and noted that further clarity would be required. She explained:
What items 20 and 23 appear to want the FRC to do, to help the transition period, is that at a certain point in time we just issue new notices to the secretary—almost, effectively, ending income management or legally binding decisions and for Anne and myself to re-issue new notices to the secretary. I do not know how, legally, we can do that. Granted, I have not had very long at looking at this, but that is something that you would need to get advice on, and there are operational impacts for us.
Even if, legally, we could do that, the operational impacts of—the ability to re-issue a notice can only come about if it's a conditional income management, a CIM, once a conference has been held and a client has had procedural fairness rights enjoyed by them. We can only call someone for conference if they have been the subject of a trigger notice—so a convicted in court; domestic violence, being named in a domestic violence; school attendance. Only if those conditions are in existence can we have a conference, and only in a conference setting can the decision to subject someone to conditional income management allow us to make a decision and then issue that notice to the secretary, to give effect and put them.
So I don't know how it is that we can just re-issue new notices, and it would need Anne and her team and colleagues to actually reconvene conferences so that those decisions could be made afresh. Again, I don't know the law about whether that would be legally possible, because that process is set out in a state law.
3.87
The FRC recommended that further clarification be provided on the impact of items 20 and 23.
Response from the Department of Social Services
3.88
The committee sought information from DSS to clarify the issues raised by the FRC.
3.89
In response, DSS confirmed that they had met with Commissioner Williams to discuss the FRC’s concerns and recommendations to amend the bill. DSS confirmed that the intent of the bill was to recognise the unique arrangements in place for the FRC and preserve them, so that the FRC could continue to operate ‘effectively and in accordance with its statutory responsibilities’. DSS also noted that the Minister for Social Services had affirmed this intention in direct discussions with the FRC.
3.90
At a public hearing, DSS reaffirmed that the intent of the bill was to enable the FRC to operate ‘in the manner in which it wishes to operate’. As Ms Liz Hefren-Webb, Deputy Secretary, Families and Communities at DSS stated:
To the extent that, inadvertently, aspects of the legislation [the bill] may need slight adjustment, I absolutely take that on board, but the intent is that the FRC is able to operate exactly as it wishes to operate.
3.91
Ms Hefren-Webb further reiterated that the bill had sought to recognise the unique arrangements of the FRC:
That's why the legislation [the bill] had significant provisions aiming to keep Cape York separate from the rest of the arrangements and, to the extent that we can strengthen those, we will certainly be seeking to strengthen those.
Concerns relating to the future of income management
3.92
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, many submitters welcomed the abolition of the CDC program, and acknowledged that it was a step in the right direction. However, the majority of these submitters also argued that the bill did not go far enough and called on the Government to end all forms of compulsory broad based income management.
3.93
For example, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) stated that while it welcomed the abolition of the CDC, it held ‘strong concerns’ that compulsory income management continued under the bill. It recommended that the bill be passed, but that the Parliament work towards abolishing compulsory income management as soon as possible.
3.94
Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, who submitted in a private capacity, welcomed the decision to end the CDC. She noted that the decision was in line with the peer-reviewed evidence base which had continually shown that the measure caused more harm than good. However, she also emphasised that peer-reviewed research demonstrated ‘numerous and inbuilt’ issues with compulsory income management, including the exacerbation of financial hardship, experiences of stigma and discrimination, and the disproportionate targeting of Indigenous communities. She stated:
Let me be clear: research shows that broad based compulsory income management is a failure. We knew that in 2014, and it hasn't changed since, despite millions of dollars spent by previous governments trying to show otherwise.
3.95
Associate Professor Klein urged the Government to abolish all forms of broad based compulsory income management, including the BasicsCard.
3.96
Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT) indicated that it supported abolishing the CDC. However it strongly encouraged the Government to abolish all forms of compulsory income management, including the BasicsCard. It stated:
We support options for alternative voluntary income management programs that are consistent with the rights and needs of Aboriginal people in the context of the Northern Territory and have been shown to work.
3.97
Similarly, at a public hearing in Darwin, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA) stressed the importance of voluntary income management:
While ALPA supports the abolishment of the CDC, we believe that there is further work to be undertaken in relation to compulsory income management…ALPA believes that regardless of what design income management takes, it should always be voluntary and with significant community consultation and involvement.
3.98
Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation delivers human services for the benefit of Aboriginal people from Alice Springs, its town camps, and Central Australia. It commended the Government on the commitment to abolish the CDC program, calling it ‘a positive first step’. However, it also strongly advocated for all forms of compulsory income management to be repealed.
3.99
Change the Record, a First Nations-led national justice coalition, stated that it supported the move to abolish the CDC program. It characterised the bill as ‘a step in the right direction’, but noted that as currently drafted it missed a ‘vital opportunity’ to abolish all forms of compulsory income management.
3.100
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) also characterised the bill as a ‘missed opportunity’ to remedy the income management regime, a scheme it described as ‘having no justification morally, politically or economically’.
3.101
NAAJA recommended the bill be amended to repeal Part 3B of the Administration Act to remove all forms of compulsory quarantining of welfare payments.
3.102
NAAJA additionally set out six core reasons for the abolition of all forms of compulsory quarantining of welfare payments, all of which the APO NT also endorsed:
(i)
Compulsory quarantining of welfare payments is discriminatory and paternalistic.
(ii)
The existing income management regime is ineffective.
(iii)
Compulsory income management by the Commonwealth Government perpetuates ‘top down’ policy without Aboriginal leadership.
(iv)
The income management regime is prone to practical failures in remote Aboriginal communities.
(v)
Compulsory quarantining of welfare payments fails to target underlying systemic problems.
(vi)
The Commonwealth Government has a popular mandate to repeal the income management regime.
Support for the cashless debit card
3.103
A number of submitters expressed support for the CDC program. Many of these submitters put forward the view that the CDC should be continued, citing the positive impact of the program in their communities. Some submitters in support of retaining the CDC contended that there had been inadequate consultation in relation to the Government’s announcement to abolish the CDC. Others called for more information about the transition process and support mechanisms which would be available for regions exiting the program. While some supporters acknowledged the Government’s intention to abolish the CDC, they called for a delay in abolition until alternative support arrangements could be properly developed and funded.
3.104
For example, the Goldfields Voluntary Organisation of Councils in WA argued that the CDC program had shown ‘significant benefits in improving the lives of those that have trialled it in the Goldfields region’.
3.105
The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, located in the Goldfields-Esperance region of WA, contended that the CDC had made a ‘significant difference’ in its local community, including a reduction in levels of alcohol consumption and crime.
3.106
The Shire of Laverton in WA also expressed strong support for the CDC, asserting that it had seen significant benefits in the local community as a result of the program. It noted that it considered the Government consultation on the decision to be insufficient and urged the retention of the scheme.
3.107
The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder also raised concerns about the level of consultation surrounding the abolition:
There was significant consultation undertaken in the region prior to the introduction to the program; however, the decision to abolish the CDC has been made with little consultation with the community and the City remains unconsulted on the support mechanisms that will be in place for people now transitioning off the CDC.
3.108
The District Council of Ceduna in SA advised the committee that while there had been some objectors, the majority of the Ceduna community was ‘very supportive’ of the card. It called for the program to be continued and characterised the 2016 introduction of the CDC to the area as:
…. a ground-breaking innovation to minimise the availability of alcohol, drugs and gambling, at least for people in receipt of income support benefits.
3.109
The Minderoo Foundation, which has been engaged in the WA trial sites since the initial program rollout, voiced support for the CDC and argued that the removal of the program had the potential to exacerbate vulnerability in communities. It raised concerns about the speed with which the decision to abolish the CDC was ‘being rushed through the Parliament without appropriate or meaningful community consultation’.
3.110
Additionally, the Minderoo Foundation sought to highlight the consequences for communities in the absence of the CDC program. It flagged that there was ‘confusion and frustration’ amongst the WA CDC communities in response to the abolition announcement and outlined:
In our conversations this week, the community leaders and members we've spoken to say they:
Need more information to understand the immediate impacts of the CDC being removed so they can share with and support CDC users in their choices
Are concerned about the ability of services to respond quickly. Particularly in regional locations with limited banking presence, the impacts of delays to reissuing cards and families would be left without access to money for essentials
Want to know how existing and future federal funding will allow for services to flexibly respond to needs
Want to see long-awaited wrap-around services delivered that match the needs of the most vulnerable in the community and
Do not feel the legislative timeframes provide for genuine community consultation and community-led decision-making.
3.111
The Minderoo Foundation emphasised that it was critical that CDC communities had access to ‘the information required to empower decision-making on their future’.
3.112
It also drew attention to the need for support services to operate in conjunction with the CDC program, noting:
The Federal Government, at the time, made a commitment to provide further investment into wrap around support services to complement the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) roll out, but this wasn't delivered.
3.113
Further discussion on the need for wraparound support services is discussed in the following chapter.