Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

And meat processing, as the minister suggests to me here. In each of those cases, drug testing is a very regular occurrence. It works, it is effective and it has a behavioural impact in terms of people taking fewer drugs and, obviously, not having people who are drug affected in those workplaces. That's the first step: drug testing. It works, it's used widely and, in fact, we use it on the roads these days as well. It applies across the board. (Quorum formed)

I was talking about the first element of the drug-testing regime, which, in and of itself, is the fact that we test and we do so regularly across society. The second element of our drug-testing proposal is that a person who tests positive goes onto cashless welfare, in the form of income management. Eighty per cent of their payments will be quarantined and not accessible as cash, and therefore cannot be used to purchase drugs.

The question again is, is there evidence for this? Well, if shadow minister Macklin and the member for Barton would care to, they could look at the independent evaluation of our cashless welfare card trials, which we tabled last Friday. In those trials, 80 per cent of people's welfare payments was quarantined and not accessible as cash able to be used for the purchase of drugs—exactly the same proposal, other than a slightly different mechanism being used. And what did that independent evaluation show, in relation to drug use, when a person who has been a user of drugs is now on a form of cashless welfare? I'll tell you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: it showed that 48 per cent of drug takers consequently took fewer drugs—because they were on cashless welfare. Half of all drug takers took fewer drugs because they were on a system of cashless welfare. The evaluation also found evidence of a 'consequential reduction in violence and harm related to illegal drug use'. So there's the evidence of the fact that you can have a system of cashless welfare applied to those people who are drug users and it has the impact of reducing their drug use and reducing violence in the community. Surely that is a good thing that we should all be aiming for.

Interestingly enough, while the Labor Party now oppose this particular measure, they haven't always done so. They haven't always opposed a form of cashless welfare payments to those who have drug addictions. Indeed, when the Labor Party were in government, they introduced a form of income management which would be applied to those people who were referred from the Northern Territory drug and alcohol tribunals because they had been taking substances. So they have used it in the past. In fact, the Labor Party introduced a measure where they had placed 70 per cent of people's welfare payments onto income management. Do you know what the minister at the time, Jenny Macklin, now the shadow minister, said? She said at the time that this would assist the referred person to address their alcohol and substance misuse issues. That's what she said at the time in relation to using a form of cashless welfare for those who have been continual users of drugs. That's the second element of our drug-testing proposal—cashless welfare.

The third element of our drug-testing proposal is requiring a person to undertake a treatment program as an ongoing condition of them receiving welfare payments. Again the Labor Party says: 'There's no evidence. This won't work.' Again I point towards a few things. First of all, I point towards the fact that we have a system of drug courts around Australia. What do those drug courts do when they have people who have been using drugs and getting into trouble with the police? Often they will require the person to undertake a treatment program instead of going into custody. Why do they do this? Because they know it can work. In fact, there have been studies showing that in fact it does work. A Queensland study into this system of mandating treatment said:

… findings do not support the current treatment philosophy of waiting for people with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems to get themselves psychologically motivated … On the contrary, the findings indicate that mandatory treatment seems a promising option …

That's with the drug courts, and I've never heard the Labor Party say that the drug courts are a terrible idea, that we should abandon these drug courts, that the drug courts should never require a person to undertake treatment and that you should always just wait for them to be willing to undertake treatment. The drug courts do that, and we've had studies to show that it actually works in assisting people.

The Labor Party also received a study in 2013 from the Australian National Council on Drugs. That study also found that compelling a person into treatment can lead to better employment outcomes. In fact, it said:

There is some evidence that substance abuse treatment can increase employability for those with alcohol or drug problems …

There is other evidence, in relation to Victorian drug courts, where it's had an impact on reducing the use of drugs as well. We're using the same principle but, instead of a drug court requiring a treatment program, we are using the leverage of the welfare system to require a person to undertake a treatment program.

The treatment program will be specifically tailored for the individual by a medical professional. If they need counselling as their treatment, that's what they will be provided with. If they need something more serious in terms of a detox or rehabilitation, then that's what will be provided. We've provided over $685 million of additional funds towards drug and alcohol treatments. On top of that, just for this trial alone we're introducing an additional $10 million fund to ensure that there aren't any service gaps which may arise from additional demand for treatment services in the trial locations. That's the evidence.

First of all, it's a trial. We're trying something different. We're going to assess it; we will evaluate it. Second, there is evidence for each of the core elements of our trial that this might work. Therefore, it is absolutely worth giving it a go. I cannot understand the Labor Party's position. Why don't they want to try something different to assist people to get off drugs and back into work? Why are they so insistent upon it when they themselves introduced a mechanism of cashless welfare for people who had drug problems? Why are they so against it when they support the drug courts, which require a person to undertake treatment, and we're using the same philosophy here but using the leverage of welfare?

Why are they so opposed to just doing a trial to see if this works?

They say there's no evidence. They say it'll produce stigma. I'll tell you what the evidence is, if we don't try something different. The evidence is that the usage of ice amongst unemployed people will continue to be 2.5 times what it is for the rest of population. That's what the evidence says, and that's what will occur if we don't try something different. The evidence says that the hospitalisation rate from drugs in the Canterbury-Bankstown area, where we're undertaking one of our trials, will continue to increase. It's already increased 21-fold in the last five years. The evidence suggests that'll continue to go up if we don't try something different. The evidence suggests that, if we don't try something different, a whole cohort of people who are on unemployment benefits and who may have a drug problem will effectively be excluded from so many jobs in the workforce that require you to be drug free. That's what the evidence says. We know what the evidence says, if we don't try something different. We've got good evidence to suggest that our trial will make a difference in helping these people, identifying those who may have a problem, getting them the treatment that they need and, hopefully, from that, getting them back into the workforce.

That is what this trial is about. The evidence is there that it can work, but we're going to test it; we'll evaluate it. If it doesn't work as predicted, we'll adjust, and if it does work, surely that is a good thing for the nation. Surely it is a good thing to identify those people who need help and to be able to give them the treatment they need. I think the Labor Party of old would've supported such a drug trial, but now they've been captured by the Left, lock, stock and barrel. The Left are in control of the Labor Party. They are completely against this. They don't want to support those people in need. I commend this bill to the House and ask the Labor Party to support these drug-testing trials.

See this speech in context