Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In getting a sense of the intent of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, I certainly commend the remarks of the shadow minister for social services, the member for Jagajaga, to the House in which she made it very clear that, if one were to simply read the title of this proposed legislation, one could be forgiven for thinking it was looking at some fundamental reform of the social services sector. I certainly echo the comments of the member for Jagajaga in that nothing could be further from the truth. One doesn't have to dig too far into the minister's second reading speech in order to get a sense as to where this legislation actually runs off the rails.

It runs off the rails because it is based, fundamentally, on a misconceived premise that cheap headlines on so-called 'crackdowns' on drug addicts who are using welfare to support their habit are going to be the panacea to transitioning those who are urgently and desperately looking for work in the employment market. We know that nothing will be further from the truth. If only life was that simple.

The real problem here and the real grave injustice that we see as a result of this legislation is that one actually doesn't have to scratch too far from the surface to realise just how far off the mark this actually is. In order to get a sense as to how misplaced the government is in relation to the proposed implementation of this bill, it is writ pretty large in the first few paragraphs of the minister's second reading speech, in which he asserts:

… the community has a right to expect that taxpayer-funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug and alcohol addiction and that jobseekers do all that they can reasonably do to find a job, including addressing any barriers which have prevented them from doing so.

It's those needless headline grabs that really do a grave disservice to the gravity and seriousness of the situation of those who are currently receiving entitlements under our welfare system but who are also desperately and genuinely looking for work. Like all things, one must do much more than simply accept a headline grab such as that in order to work out whether there is any real justification for this bill in the first place.

As usual, the numbers don't lie. Let's look at the numbers in terms of any perceived justification for such an incredibly invasive set of proposed reforms which will simply erode rights and liberties with absolutely no net gain, because the numbers, again, are very telling. Let's look at the extent to which similar proposals have been rolled out in the community in various other jurisdictions. Let's take New Zealand, for example. It's certainly a country that is coming up more than it otherwise would in this place, with the greatest of respect to those in New Zealand, and I'm delighted that we've added to their population by virtue of the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution. So New Zealand is certainly a very topical country in all matters and forms of debate at the moment. So let's look at the numbers in New Zealand, including the Deputy Prime Minister. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a very similar drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, of the 8,001 participants tested, guess how many returned a positive result for illicit drug use? You'd think that if there were some significant numbers behind the 8,001 positive tests, this could be worth looking at. There were 22 participants who tested positive for illicit drug use.

If we want to go further afield, we can go to the United States and look at the numbers there. The numbers in relation to those subject to testing are equally stark. For instance, in the 2004 testing program in Missouri in the United States, 38,970 welfare applicants were tested and 48 tested positive. In Utah, where 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, there were 29 positive results. Just imagine for a moment—and we haven't seen any details of this—the vast cost of undertaking such a program with any real efficacy at all when those numbers reveal that there is a very small positive result rate, having regard to the fundamentally implicit trade-offs involved in undertaking such a so-called reform.

If one isn't sufficiently persuaded about the numbers and just how few such an enormous change would affect, one should quite conceivably go to the evidence to see whether there is any real peer-reviewed, independently objective evidence that demonstrates that such a gross invasion of privacy amongst those who are currently receiving welfare payments is offset by such a program. On that note, since the second reading speech response from the member for Jagajaga, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has handed down its review of this legislation. I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the Labor senators who in a very quick time digested an enormous amount of information on this bill and produced a very fine dissenting report as to the very good reasons why there is no meaningful justification for the implementation of this type of program. Let's look at the evidence. The evidence that was reviewed by Senators Singh and Watt—and what a tremendous job they did—makes it very clear that there is simply no evidence at all to support such an invasive and unnecessary program.

The committee heard from an enormously large number of addiction medicine and drug specialists, including Professor Alison Ritter from the University of New South Wales, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians chapter of addiction medicine, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia and the Ted Noffs Foundation. All of those experts unanimously raised serious concerns about the government's proposal to drug test new jobseekers. Let's take the evidence of Dr Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Services. She stated:

... there is … no evidence that this drug testing proposal would improve health, social or employment outcomes for people. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary … The drug test measure would direct very precious dollars—the overall costs of which are unknown—to a measure which has been widely condemned by leading health experts.

But she was not a lone voice in the wilderness in relation to raising fundamental objections to this program. Professor Adrian Reynolds, President of the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said that the chapter was 'quite honestly at a loss to see why a drug-testing trial is considered a necessary or effective way to address these issues'. I have found that quotes are very useful in circumstances like this. I take my leave from the minister for energy, who is quite partial to using the occasional quote himself, usually preceded by a fact.

I also note that, in addition to the facts and the quotes that have already been received by the committee, the government had neglected to consult with medical professionals before announcing these messages. One would have thought that, if there were any substance whatsoever in this shameless headline grab and this shameless persecution of those who are already vulnerable in our community, one might have undertaken some consultation with the medical profession. But what we heard is:

Addiction medicine specialists in the drug and alcohol sector more generally have not been properly consulted on these measures. We were surprised by these measures. Our analysis and advice is that the measures will be costly and ineffective and that government should consult with the sector on the development of evidence-based solutions to prevent and better address substance use disorders and increase the availability of treatment services across the nation.

The member for Jagajaga continued, in her second reading speech, to outline even more crucial sectors of the community who were not consulted. She said:

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—

And this is really the crux of it—

"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?"

Isn't it indeed.

What we see here on any assessment is that not only do the numbers not stack up but the evidence is not there to indicate that such an invasive program is likely to have any net benefit, either for the community, for the Treasury coffers or, most certainly, for those who are already vulnerable in this community, who, quite frankly, need support as opposed to demonisation.

Even if one were prepared to disregard the numbers, which are stark, and even if one were prepared to disregard the evidence, which is clear, one would then need to ask, 'Well, to what extent has this actually been thought through when it comes to looking at the availability of treatment?' If such concerted efforts are going to be taken to so-called crack down on those who are addicted to illicit substances and are also receiving welfare entitlements, one would have thought the appropriate and responsible thing to do would be to ensure there is sufficient availability of treatment. But, again—surprise, surprise—nothing could be further from the truth, which, again, simply demonstrates that this proposed legislation is nothing more than a desperate grab to divert attention away from a hopelessly dysfunctional government.

Let's look at the availability of treatment. The dissenting report from the Senate committee confirmed that not only we are entirely improperly placed to provide any wraparound services to those who may be subjected to these trials but there are already insufficient treatment options available to Australians who are seeking treatment for substance abuse issues. If anything, what we are going to see here is that the government's proposals will exacerbate the issue. The committee heard that Australia currently treats 200,000 people for substance abuse issues each year, but that an additional 200,000 to 500,000 people would like to receive treatment but it is unavailable to them. So there is absolutely no clear way through this hopeless mess, which is simply designed to obfuscate from the real issue: a government entirely incapable of doing anything meaningful to lift Australians into a prosperous position, and certainly those Australians who are the most vulnerable.

Even if all of that—the issue about the numbers, the issue about the evidence and the issue about lack of available treatment—weren't sufficient to persuade those to strike down this bill, let's go back to that fundamental grab bag of desperation from the conservatives: law and order. Let's have a look at it to see whether there is any reasonable prospect that implementing this program will have an effect on law and order. Well, again, if the rubber hits the road in relation to this hopeless program, it will exacerbate crime issues. It has been made very, very clear that the likely prospect of the other social impacts in relation to the implementation of this program is that it will simply worsen the broader drug problem and increase crime. On any analysis and at every level, this program is invasive, it's unnecessary, it's entirely wrongheaded and it is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up what is a hopelessly incompetent government.

See this speech in context