Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

From the title of this bill, one might get the false impression that this was part of some big, once-in-a-generation reform to the social security system. It is not. Mr Deputy Speaker, after nearly four years of trying to rip up Australia's social safety net, you might think that the Liberals and the Nationals had finally come to their senses and were embarking on sensible and substantive reform. They are not. For years, the Liberals have said the only way to make the pension sustainable was to cut pension indexation—a $23 billion cut to the age pension. For years, they said the only way to end the problem of youth unemployment was to make young Australians wait six months before being able to access any income support. So you might like to think that this government had learnt its lesson. But on closer examination, it becomes very apparent that this government continues to be desperate to attack the most vulnerable members of our society.

The government could have set about implementing policies that would have helped Australians trying to recover from drug addiction. It could have done that by listening to the health experts and investing in the proven ways of helping people battle with addiction. Yet the Turnbull government has chosen not to do that. Instead, it has decided to pursue a costly drug-testing trial that every health expert says won't work. It hasn't worked when it's been tried overseas, and no health or addiction experts were even consulted in the design of the policy. Of course, this begs the question: why is the government adopting a policy when there is no evidence that it will work? And the answer is that this Prime Minister is desperate to find any issue to distract from his own political problems. That is why this is happening. It's why this issue is being debated today.

Labor did refer this bill to a Senate inquiry. The report of that Senate inquiry is coming down only today, but here we are, debating this issue now in the House of Representatives—because of the political problems of this Prime Minister.

Some of the measures in the bill are so concerning that Labor will oppose them. These include the cessation of bereavement allowance, schedule 4; a change to the start date for some participation payments, schedule 10; removal of the intent-to-claim provision, schedule 11; establishment of a drug-testing trial, schedule 12; removal of exemptions for certain recipients with drug or alcohol dependence, schedule 13; changes to reasonable excuses, schedule 14; and information management, schedule 17. And, after closer scrutiny through the inquiry process, we'll also oppose schedule 3, the cessation of the wife pension. If the government persists on keeping all of these harsh changes in this bill, we will oppose it as a whole. If the government does finally see some sense and agrees to split the bill, then Labor will support some of the remaining schedules. We plan to move amendments in the Senate to separate these schedules.

For the most part, Labor does not oppose the changes made to payments as part of the so-called—this is the government's term—working-age payment reform budget measure, which are schedules 1 to 8 of this bill, although reform is certainly a total overstatement. While Labor is opposing the schedules ceasing the bereavement allowance and the wife pension, we would not oppose schedules 1 to 2 and 5 to 8 if they were presented separately. We're also not opposed to schedule 16, streamlining tax file number collection, nor are we opposed to schedule 18, aligning social security and disability discrimination law.

I just want to go through Labor's rationale for taking this position. I will leave it to my colleagues the member for Gorton and the member for Chifley to speak on the measures relating to the Employment portfolio that are in this bill, and the member for Barton will speak on the measures relating to Human Services which are also on this bill.

First of all: the drug-testing trial. From 1 January 2018, the government is proposing to establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations: Logan in Queensland, Mandurah in Western Australia and Canterbury-Bankstown in Western Sydney. I want to make it clear—this is a really important point—that nobody doubts that we face significant problems with drug addiction in the community. The task for all of us, and most particularly for the government, is to apply policies that actually address the problem of addiction in the community and help people get treatment.

Unlike the government, Labor has actually met with a range of health experts, addiction medicine specialists and community organisations about this proposal. All of them have made it clear to us that they do not support this drug-testing trial. The health experts all say this trial will not work. The experts say this measure will increase crime in the community. The evidence is clear. In jurisdictions around the world where similar trials have been conducted, they have not worked. In New Zealand, in 2015, only 22 people of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result, at a cost of around NZ$1 million. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand. In short, it was a total waste of money.

I'm glad to see the Minister for Human Services is at the table. In his contribution, I ask the Minister for Human Services to say which one of these organisations that opposed or have expressed serious concerns about the trial the government has actually spoken to and whether they've listened to any of them? We have the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, Rural Doctors Association Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Penington Institute, the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the Australian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, St Vincent de Paul Society, the Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. What an extraordinary job this minister has done in gathering the opposition of each and every one of those extraordinary organisations! All of them are either opposed to or have very strong concerns about the government's proposal to have a drug-testing trial.

We saw an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses. They wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to stop this drug-testing trial. By way of contrast, let's just remember who the proponents of the trial are. The chief proponent, the Minister for Human Services, who happens to be at the table, is also, of course, responsible for the Centrelink robo-debt disaster. This is the minister who actually sent debt collectors to hound pensioners for money they didn't owe. We have the Minister for Social Services, who when he was asked on television which experts supported the proposal, couldn't name one—not one. We have the member for Bowman, who said that he doesn't care if this policy means people turn to crime in their desperation, because 'they can detox behind bars.' There's no need to worry about the victims of crime, according to the member for Bowman. Is it any wonder that we have only these people supporting this ill-conceived mess?

The Senate inquiry hearing revealed that the Department of Social Services, who are responsible for the trial, admitted that they do not have data on the wait times for drug treatment services in the three trial site locations. They don't have any information about how long people have to wait to get into drug treatment. The government made the decision to choose these three trial site locations without having any data—no information—about how long people have to wait to get treatment in these areas. We know the local councils weren't consulted. The mayor of Logan, Luke Smith, only found out after a call from the ABC. He said:

I think to announce this from the top down is a disgrace and the lack of consultation is something I am quite amazed by.

The government originally said they were going to use the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program. That wasn't possible because it doesn't give data on specific reasons. It's increasingly apparent that this is just policy on the run from the government. They are much more interested in chasing a headline—particularly a headline attacking people on social security payments—than in good public policy.

Let's do what the government failed to do. Let's actually look at what the experts have had to say about this ill-conceived mess. Matt Noffs, from the Ted Noffs Foundation, said:

This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians.

The Australian Medical Association described the measure as:

… mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem, one that is associated with high rates of disability and mortality. The AMA firmly believes that those affected should be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions, including access to treatment and supports to recovery.

Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs, said:

At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work. Doctors don't necessarily speak with a united voice — we're a very varied group of specialists and people with different backgrounds across the country, so when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen.

Dr Adrian Reynolds, from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said:

Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people.

Associate Professor Yvonne Bonomo, Director of the Department of Addiction Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, said:

International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse. There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society. We can expect at Centrelink offices there will be aggression and violence as people react to this. Had [the government] spoken to the various bodies who work in this area and know about this work, we would have been able to advise them this is not the right way. Pushing people to the brink won't make it better.

Dr Alex Wodak, the President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, said:

Had the Turnbull government consulted experts before unveiling this plan, they would have been advised to drop these measures pronto. Drug testing trials for people on income support have been trialled and abandoned in a few countries. In addition to causing significant harm to affected people and the wider community, they came at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Isn’t the government supposed to be reining in wasteful spending?

There is no evidence that it will work, there was no consultation with the experts and they have no idea about how expensive the trial will be. The government haven't even disclosed how much it will cost taxpayers. The experts say it will result in increased crime. What sort of government brings a proposal to the parliament that will see an increase in crime? Labor will not support this measure and we do not support this ill-conceived drug-testing trial.

I recently visited Odyssey House in my electorate of Jagajaga in Melbourne. They have a very significant rehabilitation facility on the banks of the Yarra at Lower Plenty. I was given the opportunity to sit down and talk with some of the men and women who are undergoing treatment for addiction at Odyssey House. I want to take a moment to personally thank each of the men and women who were so willing to speak with me and to talk so openly. One man in his late thirties talked to me about being a 'highly-functional', as he described it, drug addict. He was married with a couple of kids and had a well-paying job that he was good at. He carried on with this life for quite a long time, even though he was addicted. One day, he checked himself into rehab. He knew that he could no longer control his addiction and his abuse of drugs was taking its toll on his family. In most cases, people cited their poor health or a desire to protect their loved ones as the major motivators for why they sought treatment for their addiction, and they made it clear that taking away control over their money won't trigger them to stop using.

Most people who are addicted and abuse drugs do so to mask some terrible pain or trauma that has happened in their lives. Often this is abuse that they experienced as a child. The motivation to mask that pain and suffering means that they'll find a way to get drugs. One young man made it very clear to me that people will turn to crime to get money for drugs. Some of the people I spoke to at Odyssey House also indicated that this trial would mean that addicts would just shift to synthetic drugs or GHB, which are more dangerous and much harder to detect. So there's a serious risk of unintended consequences with this measure. As one of the residents told me, she ended up in a coma as a result of taking one of those synthetic drugs. One of the risks is that by forcing someone into treatment who isn't mentally prepared for rehabilitation it will actually damage other people who are in rehab seeking to overcome their addiction, because they'll try to undermine the treatment program.

Odyssey House is one of the largest not-for-profit providers of drug treatment services. It has around 600 places available each year for people seeking rehabilitation, but they have around 5,000 requests for support each year. So, sadly, just one in nine people who apply for treatment for drug addiction end up in rehab. This is in large part because of the long waiting times for treatment services. One of the health professionals there that day told me that often a drug addict will only have a short window of a few days when they're mentally prepared to seek treatment and go into rehab, and yet the system as it is now means that people seeking treatment are forced to wait one to three months to get access to the treatment services, depending on where they live in Australia. Put simply, the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction far outweighs the number of treatment services available. The government is pursuing a policy that doesn't address the problem. In fact, it won't release the data that it has that shows the unmet demand for drug treatment services across the country. Instead, it's chosen to pursue a costly drug-testing trial that every health expert says won't work. It's a costly trial but, of course, the government still won't say how much it will cost. They could also have done something about the workforce shortages. There are serious workforce shortages in the drug treatment system. I am told that for every 10 jobs available, there are only six workers. But instead, this Prime Minister, who is desperate to find any issue to distract from his own political problems, chooses to demonise vulnerable Australians. It is just not good enough, and Labor will oppose this measure.

I'll speak briefly about schedule 13. Currently, income support recipients with participation requirements can be granted temporary exemptions from these requirements where they're incapacitated due to sickness or injury, with a doctor's certificate, or where there are special circumstances, such as a personal crisis. Schedule 13 of this bill would prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributable to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness or injury or special circumstances, such as eviction associated with drug or alcohol misuse. Health and welfare groups have also raised significant concerns about this change, including ACOSS, St Vincent's Health and UnitingCare. The experts are clear that these proposed changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse as a health condition and a doctor's medical opinion that a job seeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. This would relate not only to acute episodes of substance abuse but also to secondary health problems associated with drug and alcohol use. To give an example: someone receiving treatment in hospital with cirrhosis of the liver associated with alcohol use would no longer be able to use a medically-recommended temporary exemption.

I'll briefly talk about Schedule 14 as well. Currently job seekers can be penalised for a range of very common 'participation failures', as they're called, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. However, these penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 of this bill provides that a job seeker who uses drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. But, as with schedule 13, health professionals have raised concerns that these changes fail to recognise that substance abuse disorder is a health condition. Experts warn that this will not help people overcome addiction, but instead they'll be pushed into crisis, poverty and homelessness. Again this proposal has been put forward by the government without consultation with medical and health experts and, again, the advice from the health experts is that this proposal misunderstands what addiction is and how it should be treated. By contrast to the government, Labor has listened to the doctors and heard their concerns, and we will oppose this measure.

In relation to schedules 1 to 8—the working age payments schedules—the government proposes to consolidate seven working age payments and allowances into a new Jobseeker payment. This includes: Newstart, the sickness allowance, widow pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance, and bereavement allowance. I want to remind the House—and most people would not be aware of this—that the Widow B pension, the wife pension, the widow allowance and the partner allowance are all currently closed to new recipients and have been for some time. They are being phased out as existing recipients reach age-pension age. While the government claims this is a major reform, the changes are, for the most part, essentially cosmetic, because most of the payments will end under the existing policy settings. Nevertheless, if the government were to present some of these separately, we would consider supporting them, but there are two we will not support.

Labor is very concerned about the proposed changes to the bereavement allowance. I just cannot believe that this government is going to cut the bereavement allowance, which is paid to people whose partner has just passed away. It's just beyond imagination the lengths to which this government will go. The changes to the bereavement allowance in this bill will leave vulnerable people around $1,300 worse off after the death of a partner. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died. It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension. It's also paid to a pregnant woman who has lost her partner. The allowance is for 14 weeks or for the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. So, if a pregnant woman's partner dies early in her pregnancy, she will be even more than $1,300 worse off. Once again, how does the government even imagine introducing such a policy? It is absolutely beyond me.

Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, paid at the lower rate with a more stringent means test. Future recipients of the bereavement allowance will receive only the rate of the jobseeker payment, which is $535 a fortnight—the same as the Newstart allowance. So, as I said, that will leave a bereaved person in need of income support receiving $1,300 less over the 14-week period than they currently do, or possibly more for a pregnant woman who loses her partner. This is just an extraordinary change. As Charmaine Crowe, from the Australian Council of Social Services, noted:

Someone in that circumstance … it's very difficult to cover the cost of a funeral and other associated expenses. So cutting the bereavement allowance will just place these people into further hardship and make it even more difficult for the period of time after bereavement.

This government has absolutely no shame. We will oppose this. It is unfair and unjustified.

As I mentioned earlier, Labor will also oppose the cessation of the wife pension, in schedule 3. The wife pension is a non-activity tested payment and has been closed to new applicants since 1 July 1995. It's paid to female partners of age pension or disability support pension recipients who are not eligible for a pension in their own right. It's granted to women solely on the basis of their partner's eligibility for age pension or disability support pension. Although the majority of wife pension recipients would move on to the age pension or carer payment and be no worse off—and obviously we don't disagree with that—around 2,900 women will have the indexation of their payment frozen until it becomes equal to the significantly lower rate of jobseeker payment.

Around 200 people on the wife pension who reside overseas will no longer be eligible for any social security payment as a result of this proposed change. These people are under the age pension age and would not be eligible for either another payment under any international agreement or a reportable payment. This would mean they would be up to $670 per fortnight worse off. It would seem reasonable that this group should be grandfathered to avoid them being plunged into a personal financial crisis, particularly given the small number and therefore minimal cost in doing so.

So, in summary, as we have done so often over the last four years, Labor will stand up for fairness by opposing the measures in this bill that will hurt the most vulnerable Australians. If the government puts this bill in its current form to a vote, Labor will have no choice but to vote against it.

See this speech in context