Here we take a look at the LNP’s proposed amendments circulated last week:


LNP : further amendment #1:

Basically this is saying , ” when we say X, and mean Goldfields,  we mean this particular  area, geographical point or bordered location, and no where else”, so, it is saying what areas will make up the area in target zone.  Areas not listed in this brief, are not being targeted. LNP refining terms and words.

1  Subsection 124PD(1)

REQUESTS PERMISSION TO “Insert” the following:

Ceduna area means Ceduna within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015 as in force on 15 March 2016 and includes the Surrounding Region (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).

East Kimberley area means East Kimberley within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination 2016 as in force on 26 April 2016 and includes the areas of each of the Included Communities (within the meaning of that determination as so in force).

Goldfields area means the following Local Government Areas as at 7 February 2018:

                     (a)  the Shire of Leonora;

                     (b)  the Shire of Laverton;

                     (c)  the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder;

                     (d)  the Shire of Coolgardie;

                     (e)  the Shire of Menzies.

Local Government Areas means areas designated by the Governor of Western Australia to be a city, town or shire, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).



LNP : further amendment #2:

This amendment would permit ‘sub zones’ to be formed within trial areas, where different rules for the trials could apply altogether. It could mean only certain payments etc are targeted within that zone,  similarly to how this  occurs now between actual sites,  like the difference between Goldfields and Hinkler,.  In misuse or ‘creative interpretation’  of this allowance, it could also permit full payment roll out in one half of a single town, limited roll outs in the other half base don voter preferences, payment type, political supporter base.

It also would empower in the case of a collective trial area such as the entire Hinkler Electorate, the Minister to target Hervey Bay within that Electorate,  but exclude Bundaberg. Fine if you trust your government entirely, not so good if you are a member of a party or group that is dissenting towards government. Without caveats, without any provisions to refer misuse to the crimes act,  this is just way to much power fore any one party to wield, and could CDC arrangements out on a specious or political basis with no active protection or provisional items contained within he Bill to stop them.


2  Subsection 124PD(1) (definition of trial area )

This is the part that explicitly nominates Goldfields as third CDC Trial region. The 2015 legislation uses ‘ trial area’ very ambiguously, so this refines that. Now the three discreet trial sites are NAMED formally in the CDC governing legislation.


Repeal the definition, substitute:

trial area means the following:

                     (a)  the Ceduna area;

                     (b)  the East Kimberley area;

                     (c)  the Goldfields area;

other than any part of such an area determined in an instrument under subsection (2).



LNP : further amendment #3:

This is the one we had a big issue with.

We needed to know, did  this omission and substitution as noted above, remove the cap or ‘limited’ nature of the number of trial site and number caps, nominated in the 2015 legislation and  does it expressly rescind and supersede the governments previous requests in the CDC2017Bill?

ie: Does it substitute the amendment request being made here that DOES seek to remove those caps or add on without changing that requested alteration:;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5939_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5939_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0

That is where we got stuck trying to figure things out,  so we first went here to clarify what they were asing, then we tracked itg back to source:   we ended up here:  5  Subsection 124PF(2).

The section reads ”   (2)  The trial is to occur in up to 3 discrete trial areas.”  which means by this amendment, it will now read

   (2)  The trial is to occur in **THE** trial areas.

After all the running run around, we found that literally again, they are refining language. Fundamentally the initial 2017CDC Bill request  is not changing.


Subsection 124PD(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

             (2)  The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a part of an area for the purposes of the definition of trial area in subsection (1).


LNP : further amendment #4:

Paragraph 124PF(1)(b)

Omit “30 June 2018”, substitute “30 June 2019”.

This amendment extends the current trials until 2019, when they were lawfully scheduled to end this June 2018.

LNP : further amendment #5:

5  Subsection 124PF(2)

Omit “up to 3 discrete”, substitute “the”.


IN THE CURRENT BILL [ Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 .]


1. To change name of ” trial participants’  in legislation,  which on examination, is nonsensical change that made no difference whatsoever to the two section being listed on the brief. It’s wording that doesn’t change anything. A completely redundant cosmetic change, see below:


THIS: >>>>>   Subdivision A–Trial of cashless welfare arrangements

    • 124PF Trial of cashless welfare arrangements

  • 124PG Trial participants




    • 124PF Trial of cashless welfare arrangements

  • 124PG Trial participants


The real kicker was the second part:

THIS BIT >>>>>>2  Section 124PF <<<<

THE 2017 BILL wanted to  >>>>>Repeal the section<<<< THIS is the big one and refers to THIS section of the current usage of the CDC legislation(2015):

SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 – SECT 124PF Trial of cashless welfare arrangements


Trial of cashless welfare arrangements

Currently, this section states that

1:  The trial has to END in June 2018.


2: It limits the  CDC trial to 3 discreet trial areas 


3: Says that no matter how many trial areas, NO MORE than 10K participants are allowed on the trial 

So the question then remained:

Do the “add on” amendments circulated by LNP this week (linked below),  and only made available to the public  the day after ALP announced its proposed amendments, make any difference?

What do they change from what is written in the paragraphs above?

We needed to know, do the amendments just equate to CDC BILL 2017 PLUS SOME or was it effectively, CDC Bill 201 NEW.

So we had to go back to  “Proposed amendments” : Paragraph 124PF(1)(b) Omit “30 June 2018”, substitute “30 June 2019”. ….and we started again.

We re-read every term and linked it to its concurrent Act sub section or header and we can say that , to our understanding (limited) of these NEW proposed amendments, and their changes, we are seeing that Government no longer appears to be requesting Section 124PF be repealed/scrubbed at all. Instead they appear to be seeking to ADJUST 124PF, to add a year onto the trial which is the same as the ALP request.

If we are correct, then in practice, what this new proposed amendment, by the LNP,  is to NOT remove the CURRENT limitation on the number of trial sites which under CURRENT legislation stands at 3.  It is also, not removing the limitation on the number of participants which stands at 10,000 people.

BUT: It does mean a 3rd site [ Almost certainly Goldfields as the budget has  already been approved by last years senate for this region and it would be unlikely to get a budget for Hinkler Electorate confirmed by a hostile Senate before June 2018 – the original end date of the 2015 legislation.]

What these proposed changes do not do!

ALP Amendment’s restrict government to a 2 site trial program deployment.  NO THIRD SITE. So the LNP’s further amendments do NOT stop a 3rd site.

While ALP’s amendments DO increase the trial duration for one more year to 2019 the same as the LNP’s further amendments  they  significantly alter the oversight  requirements and refine or define definitions for participation – they state clearly that the Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (including procedural requirements) for how an agreement on trial roll out is reached. That means YOUR voice….and that means making it an OBLIGATION of government to provide protection for funding, and for families, in trial regions.

We will try to nut out ALP’s proposed amendments later for you but we wanted to explain LNP”s amendments now so people were more informed and hopefully, less confused and stressed.

While we are pretty certain we are reading it right, and please keep in mind, that all future outcomes depend still on LNP’s next moves – to withdraw or vote it through with further amendments/without futher amendments, we ask you to please not take our understandings as GOSPEL! We are NOT legislative policy researchers. This is a lay person reading only. Okay?

The bottom line is here though, that this all means the pressure we, you, NXT and ALP have put on LNP has forced them to backtrack and to propose these new amendments that no longer remove the limitations they had been hoping for. That is not small thing and if they do get it passed with those amendment sin palce, it means no more cart blanch powers as we feared, FOR NOW people..for now and that is still, IF LNP do not withdraw the Bill entirely.

Complelling them to propose new amendments, in itself,  compelling this massive step back, is a HUGE HUGE victory. Well done!! Pelase score the win! They want to use incremental policies, we’ll just have to get used to taking incremental victories right!!

We realise noneof this is any  help at all to stop a  Goldfields  roll out if  and however the Bill is passed or withdrawn, and now other than shining a light on information for them so they can know how the trial is MEANT to be conducted  so  to help fight it on the ground. We are not sure what we can do.

To our understanding Government needs a bill, for each new site, with a secure legislative instrument in place for YOU the community to access. So when you hear “legislative instrument” – think  “your pathway to changing HOW they roll it out” , if you do get steamrolled and lose your choice on the actual roll out itself. The wording of that instrument that is in place in legislation now,  is in the legislation2015 linked below.

By the use of Instrument, all current and projected  trials were already meant to be tailored for your best benefit, you were alos mean to be be included in DECISON making not just being informed about the card… but as you can see that process itself got usurped and manipulated. These trials are meant to be tailored BY YOU not just your “good community leaders” or the Dept.

You will need to resist cart blanch roll out or steam rolling in your area, and to force them to tailor the roll out, in such a way to be less hurtful to you, to more flexible and open to change an opt outs or stand upand fight it all together. Either way, we can support you in that process. Just inbox anytime.

As you can see by this mornings posts and Senate actvity, these instruments can be and ARE being abused and consent IS being manufactured all too easily…so if you plan to #resist them you need to the best of YOUR ability,  organize yourselves, get documents, read read reader, and then interview interview interview, discuss,  demand..ACT and #Keepgoing, even if it just one voice..or a thousand..resistance is FERTILE not futile. Know your arguments, know THEIR arguments and your counter arguments be prepared to be BRAVE.

Congratulations everyone for this not so minor victory…its not much but its ours:)

SNS2…and my poor long suffering housemate.





Social Security Act:  SEE PART 3D–TRIAL OF CASHLESS WELFARE ARRANGEMENTS ( 2015 Amendment Bill created this section)

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015 : ( This allowed the sites to come into being)

Memorandum: ( Explains the Amendment Bill above, but not really)

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017: ( Further Amends the Amendment Bill 2015 and the Social Security Act)

2017 Explanatory memorandum :;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5939_ems_92264413-4a31-47a1-bd6b-80a7cff8d04e%22

2017 ADD On to the Explanatory Memorandum:;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5939_ems_12f7b23e-5633-4b69-bf9f-7a59ff57e420%22

( Neither of the 2017 explanatory notes say offer simple terms  what is being amended and what real world impact that means for CL recipients).

LNP FURTHER AMENDMENTS to the 2017 Bill :;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5939_amend_eab1fb33-3604-4cab-bec2-78ae5d20259a%22

ALP FURTHER AMENDMENTS to the 2017 Bill :;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr5939_amend_c5fba6d3-0d4d-411a-9be5-a20e0aac9215%22

Author: thesaynoseven

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: