Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to join with my colleagues on this side of the House including the shadow minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, in opposing this legislation. This is not welfare reform. It is anything but. These arbitrary changes seek to create more efficiency at the expense of having any consideration for the personal circumstances of people. I am deeply concerned by many aspects of this bill. In particular, I will address the schedules that I have responsibility for as shadow minister for human services. I will speak about the government's proposal to have claims for Newstart or youth allowance backdated only to the date of initial appointment as opposed to the date of initial contact, in schedule 10. I'll also speak about schedule 11, the government's proposal to make it more difficult for claimants who are unable to collate personal documents and information in a timely fashion. I will also address schedule 12, which is what many people have spoken about—that is, the proposal for the government to drug-test Newstart and youth allowance recipients in a number of electorates, including a very large part of Barton, the electorate that I represent. I'd also like to address schedule 17, the government's proposal to erode the privilege against self-incrimination and the application of natural justice.

In relation to schedule 10, the government's proposed changes to backdating for Newstart and youth allowance are simply punitive and arbitrary. Once again, this government is attacking our young people, those who are doing it tough trying to find a job, and some of our most vulnerable individuals. That is why this is such repugnant legislation. The government is chipping away at their income support at a time when they need income support the most. The purpose of schedule 10 is to change the backdating date of Newstart and youth allowance claimants from the date of initial contact to the date of initial appointment. Currently, a person who claims Newstart or youth allowance and is subject to Rapid Connect is required to attend an initial interview with an employment services provider before their income support is payable. If the person attends the interview as required, the start date for their payment is the day on which the claim is made. But under these proposals, which move the payment start date from initial contact to initial appointment, claimants potentially lose out on much-needed income support at this very uncertain and vulnerable time of their lives, the time when they most need that payment.

These measures do not consider applicants living in rural or remote communities who may have limited access to job providers, or their travel arrangements. These changes will mean applicants need to wait longer to access income support on top of the existing one-week waiting period that applies. Let me be clear, the government is doing what the government does best—that is, chipping away at income support for our young people, jobseekers and those who are down on their luck, at a time of great uncertainty as to how they will meet their daily living expenses. This is arbitrary, it's cruel and it's unnecessary.

I am concerned about the government's proposal in schedule 11 to repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. These sections empower the department to deem a claimant is entitled to a payment or a concession card from the day the department is initially contacted in the following circumstances: if the person lodges a claim for the payment or concession card within 14 days of initially contacting the department; if the person has a medical condition; if the person was caring for or was a partner of someone suffering from a medical condition which impacted on the person's ability to lodge a claim earlier; or if the person was otherwise unable to lodge a claim by reason of special circumstances. It just beggars belief that those considerations can still not be part of the government's way forward. The government has thrown out all common sense by ending backdating in special circumstances. These circumstances could be a result of homelessness, separation, hospitalisation, health issues or difficulties in accessing technology. Repealing sections 13 and 14 would add further hardship to those already facing hardship. Again, the government is attacking the most vulnerable individuals in our society. The government doesn't care if you have a medical issue, if you are caring for someone with a medical issue, or if you have extraordinary circumstances that have prevented you from making a claim. This government boasts about agility and innovation, but there is none being shown here. Where's the agility in throwing out common sense? Where's the ability in ignoring individual circumstances?

I'm also deeply concerned by schedule 12, which many people have addressed. This is the schedule that proposes to trial drug testing of income recipients in selected suburbs around Australia. Many people have articulated well why Labor is most concerned about this. The government crows that this is very popular. Perhaps on the surface out there in some parts of the electorates, it does appear to be popular. But when you start to understand in a really deep way what this actually means, that popularity evaporates. The evidence is just not there. In her opening address, the shadow minister for social services named all of the medical organisations, all the addiction experts and all of those community organisations that work with people with addictions on a daily basis who, speaking with one voice, said clearly to the government, 'Do not proceed with this; this is not a good idea, and it will not lead to outcomes that are positive for the people that you are targeting.' They said that with one voice, and that is quite remarkable.

In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted drug testing, which has been spoken about. Of the 8,000 participants tested, 22 showed positive results for illicit drug use. There is this inherent assumption, this prejudice, with this government that if you are on income support then somehow or other you must be a drug addict. That is obviously far from the truth. These are costly initiatives that will drive people into poverty and crime. As I said, more than 982 doctors, nurses, addiction specialists and allied health professionals signed an open letter calling on the government to end its mandatory drug testing for people receiving income support.

I want to say something about the people who work in Centrelink. It should not be their job to randomly select people who should be subjected to these drug tests. They, together with the experts that I have spoken to, know that this is a foolhardy way to deal with what is a very serious issue. This requires a medical response; it does not require the punitive actions that this government is undertaking. The government has confused addiction, a healthcare issue, with income support and welfare.

We know from the evidence and from what the experts have said that this won't stop addiction and dependency. In fact, these initiatives will turn people away from income support, when they are one of the groups in our community who need it the most. The notion that somehow or other controlling someone's income is going to deal with the very serious and complex issue of addiction is just a nonsense. This government and this minister must understand that. They don't understand it, or they don't care—one of those two things. This will drive people into homelessness. It will create more crime and, of course, it will impact heavily in terms of poverty.

I want to tell you a personal story. This is a true story about Family Drug Support Australia. Each year I attend Family Drug Support Australia's Annual International Remembrance Day for families who have lost family members to accidental overdoses, drug-related suicides and other drug-related deaths. I attend with my dear friends Kay and Karli Bellere, who go to remember Malu. I also remember Tina at that service. Family Drug Support Australia fulfils a very important role in the community by providing support to family members of those with an alcohol or drug dependency through education courses and training programs. FDS was founded in 1997 by an amazing man that you would all know, Tony Trimingham. He lost his son to a heroin overdose. It's also attended by Pastor Bill Crews of the Exodus Foundation.

This is the story of Tony, a man who turned personal tragedy, pain and experience into a meaningful and helpful service to others struggling through the pain and isolation of having a loved one with a drug dependency. Tony and the FDS family know the complexities and pain of addiction and of dependency. FDS also advocates for health based approaches to addiction and dependency. If you ask them, they'll tell you that criminalising, stigmatising and otherwise penalising drug use is no meaningful way to address addiction dependency. Healing, touching people's lives and loving is the way in which Tony and Bill, and all of us that attend that annual service, say this should be responded to.

This government has thrown out common sense. It simply refuses to consider the complexities of addiction and dependency. Schedule 13 will prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributed to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness, injury or special circumstances such as eviction associated with drug and alcohol issues. Currently, jobseekers can be penalised for a range of very common participation failures, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where a person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses a drug and alcohol dependence as an excuse for participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up that treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. If they refuse, we know what will happen—they will be suspended. The experts say the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse. Ask FDS, AMA and the massive list that the member for Jagajaga read out.

I will just say a few things in conclusion. Schedule 17 is a proposal to affect information obtained by DHS for claims to be used in subsequent investigations or prosecutions of criminal offences—it erodes the privileges against self-incrimination. This is not to be supported. The purpose of schedule 17 is to align coercive information-gathering provisions in the acts governing the new tax system, parental paid leave, social security administration and students' assistance. Currently, the four acts empower the relevant department secretary to seek information about persons subject to these laws. These relate to payments under those laws.

The government says that it's concerned that the administrative focus of these provisions currently inhibits the admissibility of evidence. The government says that it's concerned that the provisions relating to the privileges against self-incrimination are vague. Let me be clear: this is a blatant attempt by the government to roll back the privilege against self-incrimination. These are people on low incomes and with limited access to quality legal representation. This is a blatant attempt by this government to intimidate and frighten the most vulnerable class of individuals, with hints of investigation and prosecution.

In the last minute or so that I have, I will say as the shadow minister for human services that we have seen the blundering, stumbling way in which this government is handling the social security portfolio. In particular, I refer to the robo-debt debacle, which people will not forget, where people were stigmatised and accused by the government of committing offences and crimes that they had not committed, where the government took no responsibility and the onus of proof was left with those being falsely accused. Labor will stand up for those that need a hand up. Labor will stand up against these draconian, dreadful, cruel attempts to undermine the people in this community that most rely on government, that most rely on us to be able to give them that hand up when they need it. People on welfare are not second-class citizens. They are people like any one of us, who could fall on hard times and, from time to time, need the assistance of government to get them through the day and the night. This bill and these reforms and these changes are draconian. They are unnecessary and they are cruel. I oppose this bill.

See this speech in context