Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is simplistic, patronising and demonising and shows a complete lack of insight on the part of the government and the social services minister. For the benefit of those just tuning into the debate, let me recap. The bill will rename the Newstart allowance and combine it with six ancillary unemployment related benefits to, as the government says, simplify the working-age payment system. The bill also aims to streamline a number of the government's own administrative processes. It is, in part, a tidying-up exercise—that's fine. The bill, though, falls well short of being a systematic realignment of welfare payments. Vast areas of administrative complexity remain, and those in need of help won't find it noticeably easier or any less daunting to gain access to their rightful entitlements. You read this bill and you wonder just how many will continue to struggle or miss out simply because they don't understand the system or know their rights.

But there are multiple stings in the tail as well—there always are with this government. The bill significantly raises the bar on those with medical problems who need to access the social security system because they cannot find a permanent or semi-permanent place in the world of work. It's merely the latest instalment in this government's crusade against the disadvantaged. It's already the case that a jobseeker who fails to attend an appointment without reasonable excuse with their employment services provider will have their jobseeker payment suspended. When a jobseeker fails to attend a further employment appointment, they incur what is eloquently dubbed 'a reconnection failure', and their benefits are suspended until they comply with the relevant statutory requirements.

The overwhelming majority of jobseekers comply with the law, and, on the government's own admission, there are only a small number of jobseekers who repeatedly miss appointments or try to game the system. Nonetheless, compliance measures are to be further tightened from 20 September 2018. Jobseekers aged 30 to 49 will have activity requirements of 50 hours per fortnight, up from 30 hours. Jobseekers aged 55 to 59 will no longer be able to meet their mutual obligation requirements solely by undertaking voluntary work. Jobseekers aged over 60 will be required to participate in defined mutual obligation activities of at least 10 hours per fortnight. It would seem the government has discovered a solution to the age discrimination in the labour market but just hasn't bothered to tell us about it. Sometimes older people must have the feeling that someone is out to get them.

In addition, the bill introduces an entirely new element—the proposed trial drug-testing regime for all persons seeking access to Newstart and what will become jobseeker payments. The sharp end of the government's approach is best captured in the minister's second reading speech where he boasted that these reforms will make access to unemployment benefits even more conditional than they are and will target those who run foul of the government's burgeoning compliance framework.

Labor's starting point is that we don't see welfare recipients as targets or lab rats. Labor recognises that the existing arrangements are robust and subject to the laws of increasing costs and diminishing returns. That is exactly the case with these measures. They will cost a lot and they are not likely to give any meaningful return. We recognise that the Australian welfare system—and both sides of politics can take credit for this—is very efficient at reducing inequality and is amongst the most highly focused and lowest cost in the world. It's also the case that lifelong welfare dependency rates in Australia are comparatively low, and the vast majority of those in need of support tend not to stay on support for lengthy periods. As a result, the great majority of beneficiaries are, for the bulk of their lives, also taxpayers. They pay their share of income tax and, even if they are on benefits, they have to stump up for their share of the GST.

Labor's starting position is that the bill should be considered on its merits, and where verifiable improvements can be demonstrated we will support them. Part of that verification process is a clause-by-clause examination of the bill by not one but two parliamentary committees. Unfortunately, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its report on 9 August, expressed concerns about the diminution of individual rights and a lack of clarity in core provisions in the bill. As one would expect, given the far-reaching and contentious nature of the measures involved, the substance of the bill went to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry on 22 June. It hasn't been reported until recently. We certainly have not had time to scrutinise its findings.

The parliament should deal expeditiously with this, but proper care and diligence with these matters are very important. We've been denied this. The current debate in this chamber has been called on without allowing members adequate time to consider the Senate committee's findings. It's not just a matter of allowing enough time to read the community affairs committee's report, but it's about hearing feedback from those affected by the government's proposals. Again, there has been nothing. It is frequently said that parliamentary and political processes lack community respect. How, one might ask, can we expect to engender such much-needed respect if we don't respect those processes ourselves? Labor has, from the outset, recognised that there is good and bad—and some very big dollops of ugly!—in these proposals. Two Senate reports have raised similar concerns, but we haven't been allowed time enough to scrutinise them.

Importantly, it's also beyond doubt that a number of the practical matters require further elaboration by the government. The treatment of medical complaints should not be interfered with by excessive moralising or by the promotion of social engineering. As a doctor, you don't deny help to a patient on the basis that it's your own bloody fault. By contrast, this bill is rife with value judgements and is, seemingly, intent on making an art form out of compliance arrangements. They don't recognise the disadvantage that they're dealing with and don't allow the human rights of welfare recipients to be respected. It smacks of regulatory overkill and a complete lack of understanding of the complex nature of addiction and drug dependence. In his rather simplistic announcement of the drug-trial sites, Minister Porter failed to justify any support at all for this part of the bill.

There's ample evidence, too, that coerced medical treatments produce high-cost outcomes and very poor results. Researchers, such as the respected Professor Peter Whiteford of the ANU, have pointed to overseas research that suggest there's only a very limited link between substance abuse and continued reliance on income. If you're going to resort to compulsion, you need to be certain that you don't put lives at risk, that you treat people with respect, that you get the right connection between cause and effect, that you ensure that whatever you do is effective and that you don't waste money or resources that could be better deployed elsewhere. You also set yourself proper standards and proper benchmarks. The proposed drug trial, for instance, fails on all of these criteria. You can add that to the fact that similar trials have failed or yielded unimpressive results, or have been curtailed, in New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the USA, where they have been attempted.

Allow me to quote my Royal Australasian College of Physicians colleague Associate Professor Adrian Reynolds on why the proposed drug trial is poor policy, practically un-implementable and a wasteful distraction from the very real needs of Australians suffering from addiction.

As doctors we value evidence and we don't accept that this trial will create a meaningful evidence base. History shows that drug testing people is an unreliable and ineffective way of identifying those who are suffering from substance abuse issues, particularly when used indiscriminately.

These are not isolated or novel comments from a senior member of the medical community. Go to the evidence presented to the Senate community affairs inquiry and read on if you need more convincing. The AMA, St Vincent's Health, Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Penington Institute, the Australian Drug Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre all see the drug-testing trial as an expensive and ineffective dud. It's hard to find someone in the know who doesn't see this government's strategy as seriously flawed, ill-judged and, to my point of view, just plain nasty. I note, too, that even those such as Senator Lambie, who are happy to support the increasing use of a cashless welfare card, are less than enthusiastic about the government's drug-trial proposal.

For a political party allegedly deeply committed to controlling the excesses of governmental power, this bill is literally bursting at the seams with authoritarian fervour and populist excess. Governments that are free and easy with terms like 'mutual obligation' should be doubly sure to have met their own obligations before they set about preaching to others. Quite understandably, the government's announcement that it wanted to run drug-testing trials and further tighten the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits was greeted by calls for politicians to be subjected to similar testing. That's not solely because, as a group, politicians are particularly on the nose—even if we are. The reaction in the community may stem from many in the community rightly thinking that high levels of unemployment represent a failure on the part of government to discharge its primary obligation to the community: creating the preconditions in which all those who want to find a job can find one.

Whole industries have been allowed to go to the wall. Macroeconomic policies have been geared to fighting inflation by allowing unemployment to rise or by leaving unemployment at levels designed to fight inflation first. If you are one of the 800,000 unemployed people, the chances are it's a lot less to do with you and a lot more to do with policy failure, forces beyond the control of the government, global economic difficulties, technological change, predatory business conduct or just plain bad luck. Those who want to blame the victim and deny access to unemployment benefits and the like are often hard-pressed to explain how that sits with the six or seven people frantically chasing every job vacancy and a record number of Australians, over a million, wanting more hours of work than they can get. It makes no sense either to worry about the $10 billion annual spend on jobseeker payments but care little about an annual government IT spend of $10 billion and be faced with multiple IT failures, which we've already seen.

Those opposite might—although they would be ill-advised to do so—look to the lift in the Australian labour market in recent months. Yes, that is welcome, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the sorts of measures we have before us today. Before we all get too excited, let's not forget that the current rate of unemployment is no lower now than it was when this government came to office four years ago and the rate of underemployment has actually risen in the last four years.

The government has given no indication at all that it will lift existing benefits. For singles without children, Newstart provides the princely sum of $267.80 a week—not enough to live on—so they rely on family support and the support of others. The value of the Newstart allowance has declined in real terms over the last decade. The bill fails to address any of those issues. Presumably, the available options for those who will be forced to the wall will be living rough, seeking help from friends, family and others, and charities or turning to crime. If turning to family and friends is the government's plan B, perhaps it needs to think again. The most recent household income and labour dynamics survey shows household incomes have also stagnated.

I want to conclude with two particular aspects of the bill that also give concern. The appeal rights are atrocious. The bill allows for the imposition of financial penalties by the department. It does provide for those decisions to be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, jobseekers will no longer be paid, pending the outcome of any appeal, and will only be back-paid if their appeal is successful. We know that appeals to the AAT can take many months to complete. For welfare recipients, who are often from families that are themselves on limited incomes, the practical operation of these items appears to diminish the effectiveness of the right to seek review. Also, there is no entitlement to practical or financial support in pursuing appeal rights, and even successful appellants can't claim the legitimate cost of exercising those rights. To me, that seems like stacking the deck against the individual, who is often disadvantaged, in favour of what those opposite might be minded to call 'Big Brother'.

The bereavement allowance has already been dealt with on multiple levels by multiple speakers and is absolutely appalling. The government is proposing to cut government allowances for those in bereavement situations by over $1,200 per claimant. It will affect about 1,000 people annually. The government's saving is minuscule. It really is just mean-spirited and atrocious.

In conclusion, this bill demonstrates to me that the government really does not understand addiction at all. People have addictions because they have medical problems. Addiction is a longstanding medical issue in Australia. I went through the time when we had a high incidence of narcotic addictions. We're now seeing amphetamines and ice addictions. We are dealing with people who often have multifactorial medical and social problems. They will not be fixed by this bill. It's an atrocious infliction on people's human rights. It fails to take on any of the advice from the experts who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. It fails to understand how people will be impacted. It fails to acknowledge that people will move from the trial testing sites to other areas. They'll probably walk away from social security because they're so threatened by it. They will certainly turn to crime. And it is likely to save the government very little money at all. This is an atrocious bill. It is a signal to me that the government is out of step with what a humane government should be. I feel that it is really at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to social security benefits.

See this speech in context