Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
Family Responsibilities Commission
Amendment Bill 2012
Explanatory Notes
Short title
The short title of the Bill is the Family Responsibilities Commission
Amendment Bill 2012.
Policy objectives and the reasons for them
The objective of the Bill is to make the necessary amendments to the
Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008 (the FRC Act) to ensure that
the operations of the Family Responsibilities Commission (the FRC) are
extended by 12 months. Extending the FRC operations will enable
continued support for the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial (the Trial),
which aims to restore social norms and local authority; and change
behaviours in response to chronic levels of welfare dependency, social
dysfunction and economic exclusion in the communities of Aurukun,
Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge. The Bill also addresses current
difficulties being experienced in meeting the legislative requirement that all
three Family Responsibilities Board members attend Board meetings, by
amending this provision to provide for a quorum of two members.
Achievement of policy objectives
The Trial has been operating as a partnership between the Queensland
Government, the Australian Government and the Cape York Institute for
Policy and Leadership since 2008. The Trial focuses on a range of
initiatives to improve educational, economic development, employment
and housing opportunities. Alcohol management plans (in Aurukun and
Hope Vale only) including alcohol treatment and diversionary services also
support the Trial.
The FRC is a central feature of the Trial and is a statutory body established
under the FRC Act, which is legislated to expire on 1 January 2013. The
FRC operates to restore local Indigenous authority and build stronger and
Page 1
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
more resilient communities, through attaching behavioural obligations to
the receipt of welfare payments. Community members in the four Trial
communities are `notified' to the FRC for: failing to enrol their children in
and send them to school; coming to the attention of the Department of
Communities Child Safety and Disability Services for a child safety
matter; being convicted of an offence in the Magistrates Court; or, failing to
remedy a breach of a tenancy agreement. The FRC Commissioner and
Local Commissioners hold conferences with community members to
address the behaviour and to take action enabled under the FRC Act.
Evidence, including an independent implementation review of the FRC
released in November 2010, together with the Annual Highlights Report
for Queensland's Discrete Indigenous Communities July 2010 - June 2011,
published in December 2011, has revealed that, during the operation of the
FRC, Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge have experienced
relative stability in the levels of reported offences against the person and
hospital admissions for assault-related conditions. Further, school
attendance in the Trial communities has improved or been maintained at
higher levels.
The extension of the FRC until 31 December 2013 will allow further
opportunity to consolidate the gains the Trial has made in terms of the
safety, wellbeing and welfare of the people in the Trial communities,
particularly for women and children. The extension will also provide time
for the results of an independent evaluation of the Trial to be considered in
determining future welfare reform initiatives.
The provisions within the FRC Act that impact on the expiration of the Act,
the vacation of FRC Commissioners and Board members' offices, and the
ending of family responsibilities agreements or orders require amendment
in order to reflect the extension of the Trial and the continued operation of
the FRC until 31 December 2013. It is reasonable and appropriate that
these amendments to the FRC Act be made as they are essential to enabling
the continued operation of a central component of the Trial until 31
December 2013.
Alternative ways of achieving policy objectives
There are no other viable alternatives to amending the FRC Act that will
achieve the policy objective of extending the operations of the FRC for a
further 12 months and enabling the range of welfare reform initiatives
provided under the Trial.
Page 2
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
Estimated cost for government implementation
To date, the direct financial contribution to the Trial from the State and
Australian Governments totals approximately $90 million. The known total
Australian Government contribution to date is $48 million, while the
Queensland Government has committed $41.9 million in direct costs. The
State has allocated costs sufficient to extend the Trial for a further 12
months, after making efficiencies in staffing, program management and
program costs.
The Queensland Government's contribution includes $1.6 million towards
the operations of the FRC. The Australian Government has confirmed that
it will cover the balance of the costs involved in extending the operation of
the FRC for an additional 12 months.
Consistency with fundamental legislative principles
The Bill is considered to be consistent with the fundamental legislative
principles (FLPs) set out in the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld).
However, any potential breaches of FLPs are addressed below.
The primary FLP issue involving the FRC extension, in terms of whether
the proposed legislation has sufficient regard for the rights and liberties of
individuals in accordance with section 4 of the Legislative Standards Act
1992 (Qld), relates to the potential infringement of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
In order for the Trial and FRC to operate effectively, behavioural
obligations of community members were attached to the receipt of welfare
payments in the four Trial communities. For this provision to be legal there
is a requirement to meet the conditions of a `special measure' under the
Commonwealth Government's Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
The 12-month extension of the Trial and FRC to December 2013 is likely
to be considered a `special measure' under section 8(1) of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and, therefore, it is unlikely it would breach
that Act. However, a `special measure' is temporary and cannot continue
once the objectives of the Trial are met. To maintain `special measure'
status, community and stakeholder consultation, as extensive as the
previous two consultation processes, was needed with all communities
subject to the Act prior to government deciding to extend the Trial.
The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) will not impact on a 12-month
extension and that there is no conflict with section 4(2) of the Legislative
Page 3
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
Standards Act 1992 (Qld) which requires legislation have sufficient regard
to the rights and liberties of individuals with respect to a contravention of
the Racial Discrimination Act.
The proposed amendment of section 156 (When particular agreements or
family responsibilities orders end) to change references from "1 January
2013" to "1 January 2014", also raises an FLP issue. Agreements, orders
and related obligations due to expire on 1 January 2013, will now be
preserved for the life of the agreement or order, or until new section 156
expiry date, 1 January 2014 (depending on whichever is the earliest).
However, there is nothing in the Act that prevents the making of
agreements or orders that extend beyond the Trial end date if the FRC
believes that these achieve the objects and purposes of the Act.
The preservation of particular agreements and orders that would have
ended on 1 January 2013, if not for the section 156 amendment, is
consistent with and will also contribute to the continued achievement of the
objects of the Act and therefore, this amendment has sufficient regard for
the rights and liberties of people in the Trial communities.
Consultation
In 2012, consultation with Trial stakeholders was conducted to assist the
government in determining whether or not to extend the Trial for one
calendar year, from December 2012 to December 2013.
The 2012 consultation involved engagement with the same level and range
of stakeholders as in 2011, including the Trial partners, State and regional
agencies, Councils, service providers, unions, and community groups.
Consultation was undertaken with original stakeholders that were
consulted during the development of the Family Responsibilities
Commission Act in early 2008. Additional stakeholders consulted included
the service providers in the Trial communities, the FRC Commissioners
and staff and Cape York regional organisations.
Key stakeholders consulted include Mayors and community leaders,
Community Justice Groups (CJGs), and community members, service
providers, relevant Queensland and Australian Government agencies, FRC
Commissioners and staff, the Commission for Children and Young People
and Child Guardian and relevant unions.
Page 4
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
Key outcomes
Of the people consulted, there was a commonly held view that the Trial has
a positive effect on the behaviour of community members, with community
members seeing more children going to school and communities being
"quieter" than before the Trial commenced. The Trial has been regarded
by many as a key driver for improved school attendance and school
readiness in the communities and that focus on consistent school
attendance and valuing education needs to continue. The value of the
measures aimed at schooling and education, including Student Education
Trusts and Student Case Managers were widely known and generally
accepted and supported by the communities.
Most stakeholders consulted commented that people knew how the FRC
could assist in addressing their problems and some were actively seeking
Trial-related support outside of the formal FRC process. However, in some
cases respondents felt that the FRC model was problematic, in that it did
not involve community leaders as much as it should in designing and
delivering solutions and may be creating dependency among those who had
come to rely on its services.
It was perceived by stakeholders that the Trial had created new avenues
including the FRC, the local program offices, Wellbeing Centres, and
Village Opportunity Hubs for people to seek assistance.
Consultation results in Aurukun, Coen and Mossman Gorge were
consistent with the results of consultation in 2011 and supported an
extension of the Trial. Hope Vale community consultations suggested that
the community was more supportive of the Trial than in 2011.
Many of the community members consulted referred to benefits of Trial
Services such as Wellbeing Centres, Opportunity Hubs, Parenting
Programs, Basics Cards, MPower, Family Income Management, and
Student Education Trusts.
Aurukun, Coen and Mossman Gorge
Stakeholders were extremely supportive of the Trial and the services
provided as a result of the Trial.
In Aurukun, positive examples were provided of how the Trial had
improved conditions in the community of Aurukun and there was no
outstanding criticism of the FRC or of welfare reform.
In Coen, there was concern expressed that if the Trial and the FRC were to
be discontinued, another mechanism would be required to manage the
Page 5
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
school attendance and compliance matters which were considered to be
effective.
In Mossman Gorge, stakeholders stated that the FRC had resulted in
positive changes in the community in terms of local leadership, good
behaviour, positive relationships with Police and encouragement for the
community to take responsibility for their people.
Hope Vale
Community members and service providers were supportive of the Trial
and noted improvements, including less unrest in the community, a
decrease in Child Safety notifications and a monthly integrated case
management approach as benefits of the Trial. There were concerns that, if
the Trial were to come to an end, there would be a big impact on school
attendance and that there would be a need to continue the services that had
been provided as part of the Trial.
Consultation with the Council presented the only strong dissenting view
regarding the continuation of the Trial and the FRC. However, the Council
also mentioned that the Wellbeing Centre was having a positive impact and
that Income Management was assisting some people.
Consultations with other Stakeholders
Stakeholders, including representatives of Queensland Government
Agencies, the Australian Government, Government Champions and their
support officers, unions and educational bodies were generally supportive
of an extension of the Trial. However, there were comments that the results
of the independent evaluation would be important in determining future
initiatives which would need to be cost-effective, sustainable and not
resulting in disruption to communities.
Consistency with legislation of other jurisdictions
The proposal to extend the FRC Act is consistent with the income
management regime under Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration)
Act 1999 (Cth) (the Social Security Administration Act). Section 123UF of
the Social Security Administration Act makes specific provision for the
FRC to give the Secretary of the Australian Government's Department of
Families, Housing, Community Services, and Indigenous Affairs notices
requiring that persons be subject to income management.
Page 6
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
Notes on provisions
Part 1 Preliminary
Clause 1 is the `Short title' and notes that the Act is to be cited as the
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Act 2012.
Schedule 1
Clause 2 notes that this Act amends the Family Responsibilities
Commission Act 2008.
Clause 3 amends section 123 (Board meetings). Subsection 123(3)
currently states that all board members must be present at a board meeting.
To address the practical issues arising when a member is not available to
attend a board meeting, Subsection 123(3) will be amended to become `At
a meeting of the board, a quorum is at least 2 members'.
Clause 4 amends section 152 (Expiry of Act) by changing 1 January 2013
to 1 January 2014 to allow for the continued operation of the FRC for a
further 12 months.
Clause 5 amends section 155 (Vacation of office on expiry of Act).
Subsection 155(1) currently states that section 155 applies to a commission
member or board member holding office immediately before 1 January
2013. To reflect the extension of the expiry date of the FRC this will be
amended to 1 January 2014. Subsection 155(2) currently states that a
member's office is taken to have been vacated on 1 January 2013. To reflect
the extension of the expiry date of the FRC this will be amended to 1
January 2014.
Clause 6 amends section 156 (When particular agreements or family
responsibilities orders end). Subsections 156(1) and 156(2) state that
family responsibilities agreements, including agreements about income
management, and family responsibilities orders that are in force
immediately before 1 January 2013 end on 1 January 2013. To reflect the
extension of the expiry date of the FRC the references to 1 January 2013 in
subsections 156(1) and 156(2) will be amended to 1 January 2014.
Page 7
Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012
ŠThe State of Queensland 2012
Page 8