Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill absolutely reaffirms to me that the Turnbull government is more interested in the name of so-called welfare reform and putting down and demeaning the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community, instead of providing our unemployed and our underemployed with the means to improve their circumstances—indeed, more interested in labelling those who suffer from addiction than supplying a real social support for people to find work which sustains individuals, families and communities, or supplying medical treatment for addiction or mental health issues.

This bill, like so many bills since the horror 2014 budget introduced this reform, aims to target Australians already struggling to make ends meet. Let us not forget that this government's predecessor sought to defend the denial of income and supports to people under the age of 30 for six months in each year. There are aspects of this bill which are deeply concerning to many who are providing services, including health and social services, to those affected. Labor has referred this bill to a Senate inquiry, which is due to report its findings today. Yet here I stand, speaking on the legislation ahead of the conclusion of the Senate inquiry. Once again, this shambolic government is attempting to avoid scrutiny—for yet another of their poorly-written pieces of legislation, which has the effect of demonising welfare recipients. It is not coincidental that certain news outlets have run what I can only describe as dole-bludger stories recently, highlighting those who—they say—are rorting the system.

Labor takes the issue of social welfare very seriously. With careful study, there are some elements of this bill that Labor could potentially support, if they were separated from other measures in this bill. But, as presently drawn, this bill is fundamentally flawed. Overwhelmingly, these are measures that Labor cannot and will not support, as the government has not made out any case in favour of the reforms sought to be advanced. In particular, this includes the establishment of a trial of drug-testing of people looking for work—and yes, we do understand that this is a trial, but it's a trial without purpose and without the necessary supports.

From 1 January 2018, the government is seeking to trial the drug-testing of 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance. This is a solution for a problem which lacks any evidentiary support. What is the reason for this policy? Is the government seeking to begin a program of rehabilitation for people found as a result of drug-testing to be drug-dependent? Is there funding for treatment of addiction? Is the welfare of people found to be taking drugs really at the heart of this decision? The answer to these questions is a resounding no. This government is simply not interested in allocating sufficient funding for programs aimed at assisting people who return a positive drug test.

In my electorate of Bass, there are waiting lists to use the limited facilities available for serious issues of addiction, let alone mental health treatment. Medical professionals in the drug and alcohol treatment sector have raised significant concerns about the measures in this bill. And of course, all we get from this government is criticism of the 'leftie' medical professionals who are opposing this. The main concerns, including those I've raised here, are that the program won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem, nor will it be able to provide them with the treatment that they require. At this stage, the government has not explained what the costs involved in the program will be, nor do they know what type of test will be conducted.

There is little evidence to support how a program like this will be effective. It's not the case that these programs haven't been tried elsewhere. Our neighbours in New Zealand began a drug-testing program in 2013 among their welfare recipients. Despite the program running for a number of years, in 2015 only 22 of 8,000 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. I say again: 22 out of 8,000. In 2014, in the US state of Missouri, 446 welfare recipients were tested, with only 48 testing positive.

Testing for drugs is an expensive exercise that doesn't address the issue of a person's addiction—unless, of course, there are also treatment options available or the testing is part of, for example, a court-sanctioned program. Unlike drug testing in connection with a person's work for occupational health and safety reasons, there is no proper rationale for linking the receipt of Centrelink benefits with drug testing. Community groups that are at the coalface of addiction, dealing directly with people who struggle day to day, have publicly raised concerns about these measures and what the consequences might be. Again, all they receive from this government is criticism. The government is showing its usual disdain for listening to community concern and is recklessly placing mentally vulnerable people under ever-increasing pressure. Despite the government asking the House to vote on this bill today, they have yet to fully disclose the detail. Addiction specialists have voiced their concerns about technical aspects of the trial. There are a number of ways that drugs can be tested for, with some testing being more reliable than others. With cheaper tests comes the risk of false positives—for example, if a person is taking antidepressants, my information is they can test positive for amphetamines.

I have spent some time talking about the government's flawed drug-testing proposals, but there are other significant difficulties with this legislation. Schedule 9 changes the activity test for persons aged 55 to 59. Under the present regime, Newstart and some special benefit recipients aged 55 to 59 may satisfy the activity test by volunteering for 30 hours per fortnight. This is a positive thing. Our communities benefit from that. But, under the proposal, recipients will need to fulfil 30 hours per fortnight of activity with voluntary work and suitable paid work, with 15 of the hours constituting paid work. There are already significant problems with age discrimination within the workforce. This is, not surprisingly, an issue in areas of high unemployment, particularly in areas with high youth unemployment. The high rates of youth unemployment are mirrored by high rates of unemployment for those aged 55 to 59.

On a number of occasions I have already attended distressed constituents. These constituents completely understand their obligation to undertake paid work, but they have expressed to me their extreme frustration at the absence of any real employment, despite, in many cases, their wishing to work and possessing advantageous life skills and significant workplace skills. I'm concerned that this proposal has been undertaken without proper consideration of the opportunities that this cohort can actually receive in the form of paid work. The overwhelming evidence provided by experts to the Senate inquiry suggests that mature jobseekers face significant adversity, including ageism and age discrimination, and that prevents them from entering the workforce. The policy underpinning this change suggests that these people will obtain work by forcing them to enter the workforce. The government, however, has not provided any additional support to help this cohort overcome the significant barriers which exist to obtaining and retaining employment. This is yet another example of government by decree, as it were, providing a solution, just as it proposed with respect to young persons only receiving benefits for six months in any one year.

In addition, experts in the volunteering sector are very worried—and they should be—that the changes may reduce the number of people volunteering in Australia. I've spoken in this place on a number of occasions about volunteering, in particular in the context of community legal centres. There is no doubt that my local community legal centre receives a significant benefit from the many hours donated to it by its legal literacy volunteers. It's perfectly appropriate that the sector has raised its concerns about the loss of volunteers, who play an important role in providing support in a range of areas to other people within our communities.

Whilst the government has announced a new program targeted at helping people over the age of 50 back into the workforce, the Career Transition Assistance Program, it is not due to be rolled out nationally until 2020, while the changes in this schedule come into effect from September 2018. The plan for a targeted program shows the government is concerned about this cohort's ability to re-enter the workforce, but the government has fallen into significant error by tightening their obligation years before introducing this support.

The final area or aspect of this bill I need to mention is the introduction of the new targeted compliance framework. This schedule, schedule 15, changes the compliance framework for income support recipients subject to mutual obligations and participation payments. A two-phase framework will be introduced. Phase 1 gives demerit points to a jobseeker for failing to comply with obligations. Four demerit points in a six-month period trigger an assessment to see whether support is required or whether the jobseeker needs to enter what's called an intensive phase. The intensive phase includes three escalating penalties, not ironically called 'strikes'.

With further failure, strike 1 is one week of payment lost; strike 2 is two weeks of payment lost, and strike 3 sees the cancellation of payment and a four-week exclusion from reapplication. Demerit points accrued during the first phase will be removed on a rolling six-month basis, something like a driver's licence penalty, so that they are not permanently accrued.

Payment suspensions would also apply for every failure to attend appointments, activities or job interviews; failure to enter or comply with an employment participation plan; failure to show up to a job referral; and/or refusal or failure to commence a suitable job. Misconduct and unreasonable behaviour would also result in suspension. The scheme also imposes the obligation to meet a requirement to end a suspension. Jobseekers who have failed to attend or have committed misconduct will be able to be fully paid back once they have re-engaged by entering an appointment. Jobseekers who are suspended for failure to enter a BPP or complete job search will need to enter the plan or complete job search to end suspension and be back paid. There are other requirements which I will not detail.

The problem is the fact that this compliance reform was produced without employment sector consultation. There is no doubt that this will cut more people from welfare payments in the current system without any apparent improvement to jobseeker employment outcomes. The government claims that the best form of welfare is a job—it has said that time and time again—but where is the evidence regarding the outcomes with respect to this particular proposal? Yet again, they are more interested in imposing a penalty than understanding what will produce the best outcomes. Under the present system, 72,000 or more financial penalties are applied each year. It's estimated that under the proposed system this will rise to 147,000 penalties. Despite introducing a system of suspensions for the first four demerit points to allow some people to reform their behaviour before receiving a financial punishment, this system will see more people losing payments than before because waivers and discretion are currently given to employment service providers and those waivers and discretions will be removed from the present system. This is a system which has been operating reasonably effectively.

The government remains determined to introduce changes without providing any evidence that cutting more people off welfare will improve their ability to obtain a job. It is obtaining jobs by decreeing that you need to be in employment. The stakeholders, the employment industry stakeholders, the National Employment Services Association and Jobs Australia have voiced concern that the government has not consulted with industry about how the proposed system will operate. ACOSS has expressed its concerns, noting that modelling should be completed—it is currently absent, we believe—to determine the impact of the proposed new system of moving people into paid work. They went on to suggest that an independent review of the whole compliance system should be considered as one has not been completed since 2010.

There are obvious negative outcomes for mental and physical health. The experience in the United Kingdom shows that tougher compliance sanctions have a reverse effect and would increase the risk of participants becoming homeless, with obvious negative outcomes for success in seeking employment. Again, there are obvious negative outcomes for mental and physical health. Self-esteem, relationships and engagement with the labour market will be adversely affected. Further—and I think this is something of significant concern—they say that the strict sanction regimes harm psychological wellbeing and affect a person's ability to secure work in unintended ways, such as distracting their attempts to find secure work by concentrating on compliance alone rather than obtaining the best job available. Again, this government fails. It fails by seeking to decree that people should be in employment. It fails in the sense that it hasn't done the work and it hasn't produced the evidence. It needs to be condemned. This legislation should be opposed.

See this speech in context