Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have a bill before the House which seeks to discriminate, demonise and deter people from seeking genuine help. Whilst there are measures contained in this bill—some that on this side of the House we would potentially support if they were separated—it's largely a bill that has been thrown together by the government with next to no consultation and zero evidence as to whether any of the measures would actually make a difference to Australian's lives. It's a bill based on a hunch—not on evidence, not on medical advice—just a hunch.

Along with introducing drug testing for vulnerable Australians seeking to enter the workforce, the government also wants to again increase the time a jobseeker has to wait to receive payments—something which it seems hell-bent on doing. It wants to remove the provisions that have previously been put in place to allow people to effectively have their claims backdated to the time of first contact with the Department of Human Services. They want to remove exemptions for drug or alcohol dependence as a reason for not being able to attend jobseeker meetings.

All of this is expected to cost the taxpayer over $100 million, with savings only achieved by forcing desperate people into a life of poverty by ripping out the safety net that currently supports them. This is absolutely clear from the government's planned savings of $200 million by pushing back the start date for some participation payments and forcing people to go hungry whilst they wait. But this is just the tip of the iceberg for a bill which implements a range of complex measures accompanied by very little detail and no evidence.

Currently, as we've heard, Newstart and special benefit recipients between the ages of 55 and 59 can fulfil their activity test by volunteering up to 30 hours per fortnight. Under this proposed legislation by the Turnbull government, those eligible volunteering hours would be slashed in half, having a direct, negative impact on thousands of community and non-profit organisations who rely on volunteers.

It was only last week that I had the privilege of celebrating National Meals on Wheels Day and was able to recognise and support the incredible work of volunteers who serve within national Meals on Wheels organisations in the Oxley electorate. I went out on runs with volunteers from Centenary Meals on Wheels and Woogaroo and District Meals on Wheels. These volunteers, who I acknowledge today in the House of Representatives, are directly affected by the proposed changes and rely on the current legislative provisions to meet their activity test requirements. That includes their essential work with organisations like Meals on Wheels, which delivers nutritious meals to seniors and pensioners throughout the community.

It's absolutely clear from examples such as this that giving older Australians the ability to meet their activity requirements through volunteering benefits not only the organisations they volunteer with but the wider community. The overwhelming evidence provided by experts to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry considering this legislation was that mature jobseekers face significant adversity, such as ageism, when they try to enter the workforce.

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of meeting with Volunteering Australia's CEO, Ms Adrienne Picone, to discuss the importance and work of volunteers, who make an estimated annual economic and social contribution of $290 billion. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, Volunteering Australia stated:

… the tightening of the Activity Requirements will:

This is the peak body representing volunteers in Australia. What the government is doing by passing this legislation will have a direct negative impact—this may be news to those government members in the chamber tonight. I would urge every government member to talk to the volunteer organisations in their electorate. Better still, set up a meeting with Volunteering Australia and hear from them firsthand. This is not the Labor Party. This is not some political motive. This is the direct impact of these changes, from people working in the volunteering sector.

Volunteering can be an effective way to engage in society—such as a pathway back into gainful employment—encourage economic participation, build work skills and keep people healthy and active. However, these punitive measures for older Australians fail to recognise this. Instead, they force people to give up voluntary work to undertake job related activities that fail to improve their job prospects. The government proposal seeks to adjust the obligations of the 55-to-59 cohort by forcing them to enter the workforce, even though the government hasn't provided any additional help to overcome the significant barriers they face.

While the participation rate and unemployment rate for this cohort is similar to the population overall, once out of work, the length of time a person aged 55 to 59 spends looking for work is 73 weeks. This compares to the overall average of between 40 and 50 weeks, according to the Department of Employment during the Senate inquiry hearings. This change in provision also affects schedule 3 in the legislation. When taking into consideration that widowed women will be most affected by halving the number of volunteering hours that people aged 55 to 59 can use, Volunteer Australia said that 80 per cent of volunteers aged 55 to 59 were women and often had lost their husband. The government must reconsider this change that would see huge impacts for the volunteering sector.

However, as we know, perhaps the most disturbing of all these measures is the government's plan to introduce drug testing to welfare recipients. This is a short-sighted, ideological plan that carries a next-to-zero evidence base on its effectiveness. The minister even said so in this place while delivering the second reading speech, when he said:

… there is little comparable evidence available to tell us whether this sort of intervention would be effective in the Australian welfare context.

That's the minister who was introducing this change. What are we doing here when the minister himself admits in this place that there is little evidence available to tell us if this will be effective? In this debate tonight, we've heard lecture after lecture from members opposite. When we look at the speakers' list, we see that they are members in ultra-safe Liberal seats—no marginal members, besides the member for Forde, and I'll come to that.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

I take the interjection from the member for Barker, who wants me to acknowledge that he is a marginal seat holder. He received a 14 per cent swing against him at the last election. That's how popular the member for Barker is. He almost lost his seat.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

I'll take the interjection. He wants to be known as the person that is unpopular in his electorate. Well, I can tell the member for Barker that these changes will make him more unpopular. But I'm not here to give the member for Barker any free advice.

Ms Burney interjecting—

Thank you, member for Barton; I'll take your guidance. When there is so much at stake, when Australians' lives are on the line, what does this government do when it's in trouble? It always attacks the most vulnerable. If it's not migrants or new Australians arriving into this country, it's pensioners and, if it's not pensioners, it's unions standing up for workers. We see this time and time again, and this is the latest of the government's tricks. We won't stand for it and neither will the community. Don't take my word for it. When submissions were called for the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry and report on the bill, the committee was inundated with submissions from groups and organisations who were almost unanimous in their objections to what the bill entails.

We've heard from the minister and eight members of the government who are so proud of this bill's effects. According to the government, groups such as the National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children, People With Disability Australia, the National Council of Women of Australia, the Australian Association of Social Workers, Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Anti-Poverty Network SA and Anti-Poverty Network Victoria, the Law Council of Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Social Policy Research Centre, Community Mental Health Australia, St Vincent's South Australia, Volunteering Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Salvation Army, Uniting Care Australia, the Australian Medical Association, and Care Australia—and the list goes on and on—are wrong. According to the government, all of those people are wrong. All the experts and health professionals in the sector are wrong and we are to take the word of eight government backbenchers that somehow they know better.

I advise the chamber that further to that long list, nearly 1,000 doctors, nurses and healthcare workers from organisations have written an open letter to this parliament calling on federal MPs to reject the proposal. But that evidence is all irrelevant to the government and to the minister. These medical professionals, who have more than 20,000 years of combined practical experience, state in their letter:

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.

But, apparently, all of those health professionals are wrong, all of the experts in the sector are wrong, and the minister has got it right. Well, I can tell you that out in the real world, out in the community, they know—

See this speech in context