|
senate vote 2019-08-01#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-08-08 15:40:33
|
Title
Bills — Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019; in Committee- Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Replace exiting provision
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The committee is considering opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8730.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6335_amend_ae96acf5-6484-4adf-a2d2-b7a4bb72db23%22;rec=0) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Carol Brown](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/carol_brown) (Labor), which means it failed.
- Senator Brown [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-31.314.1):
- > *These amendments would remove a provision that allows the minister to specify other requirements a person must meet before being permitted to leave the cashless debit card and replace it with a provision that allows the minister to specify more details about how exiting the requirements should be met. This is because Labor does not think the government should be able to make it harder for people to get off the card, particularly given the breadth of the existing requirements in relation to the management of financial affairs, the protection of children and unlawful behaviour.*
<p>I have a couple of extra questions, and then I'll explain our position on these amendments. Yesterday the minister articulated that support would be available for people to fill in forms and to participate in the process to apply for exemptions. Senator Lines, who is now in the chair, asked a question about whether community organisations would also be able to provide that support. I'm just wondering whether funding will be available to those organisations for additional support for people, because some community organisations are already pretty flat out providing service support to community.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>My understanding is the funding is already available for assisting people, broadly. So there is actually funding available for people to exit the card currently under the wellbeing provisions. Obviously, if additional resources are required, we would look at it. But at this stage, we believe that adequate resources are currently being provided to enable the assistance of these people but, obviously, we'll keep a very close eye on it.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Thanks for that. Could you perhaps, if you haven't got it available, take on notice to provide how much it is and which organisations in the trial sites it's going to?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Yes, of course.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Also, I just want to follow up on the costing question and answer that we went over yesterday in terms of the cost of the trials, the $34 million. My understanding is that there's around $126 million over the forward estimates. What is that for? Is it for the ongoing trial sites and the expansion of the Indue card in the Northern Territory? Or is it for something else?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>It's for the ongoing operation of the trial sites, the four trial sites as they currently are, and also forward funding for the NT and Cape York subject, obviously, to the passage of legislation through this place.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I also just want to clarify, in your sum-up, you made comments around the number of purchases that had been rejected from the card. My recollection is you said the number of rejected attempts to purchase alcohol and gambling amounted to $400,000. Are they failed attempts on the card? I'm sure you're aware there has been quite a lot of failed attempts to use the card, not just because people were buying alcohol and gambling but because the system wasn't working or whatever. Is that $400,000 purely around alcohol and gambling or does it also include failed attempts to use the card?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>No, the $400,000 I stated in my summing up statement yesterday was from unsuccessful purchases or alcohol or gambling products.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Thank you for that clarification. Do you have figures on the failed attempts as well?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Just to be clear, are you referring to failed attempts to use the card where the card has been the problem as opposed to some other external EFTPOS machine?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>But an EFTPOS machine can fail more generally. Are you asking about the specific failure rate that is directly attributed to the card?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I'm happy to take that on notice for you.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I can now articulate the Greens' position on this amendment. We will support it. I have thought quite long and hard about this because I do see the other side of the argument, which is this will enable us to make quick decisions if there's some other way to enable people to opt out. My concern is that it could be used in future to make things harder to opt out rather than to facilitate opting out. So, on balance, we will support this amendment because we're concerned about ramping up and perhaps narrowing down how people can opt out.</p> <p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>I just would like some clarification from the minister because, in her responses to questions yesterday, I thought she'd indicated that there was going to be additional funding made available to organisations to provide services to support people to get off the card. And I think she has now said that these organisations are already funded. If she can clarify which is correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>To clarify, in answer to the question from Senator Siewert about the funding that was made available to the community service organisations, that is already built into the funding that we receive. There is, however, additional funding that is available to assist people coming off the card as required.</p> <p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>Is the minister able to tell the Senate how much we're talking about in terms of additional funding? What organisations will be receiving that funding and at what level?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I will take that on notice and get back to you.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I appreciate the minister took that on notice. I'm wondering if she can tell the chamber what the quantum is. Is that available? I appreciate you need to take on notice how much will be available for the trial sites and organisations, but how much is the quantum for this process?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>In the interests of accuracy, I will take that on notice, Senator, but I'll try to get it back to you as quickly as possible.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8730 as moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.</p>
|