Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The mark of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. On this marker, this government shows it has a very, very poor vision of how our society should function. This is a bill which contains provisions that stigmatise and demonise vulnerable Australians and does nothing to help them. So, along with all of my Labor colleagues, I rise to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, to this legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Melbourne. I disagree with him on many matters, but that was a thoughtful contribution to this debate—one of many thoughtful contributions I've been in the chamber to hear. I note that the minister is here, too. I hope that he has been listening. I hope that he has been paying attention to the contributions, to the empathy that has been evidenced in Labor contributions and to the evidence which has been referred to in those contributions, and is reconsidering some of the provisions in this bill.

In question time yesterday, the Treasurer boasted of the economics of opportunity triumphing over the politics of envy. This was a hollow boast from a government of hollow men and women—a government which initially told us about 'lifters and leaners', a government whose former Treasurer spoke of an 'age of entitlement' which had to be ended and a government whose former minister for social security spoke of a 'big society'. These are all wraparounds which have been abandoned, but however this vision has been described by the government—whether led by the member for Warringah or, for the moment, the member for Wentworth—there has been a consistency of vision demonstrated by the Liberal-National coalition. There is a blind faith in the ideology of trickle down, combined with a commitment to shrinking the state and, with it, all of those things which tie us together as Australians.

I was very pleased to have been here for the contribution of the member for Dobell, who demonstrated a very different sense of our collective responsibilities based on her own experience, based on listening to constituents and based on engaging with experts rather than blind faith in ideology. With it, I note that government members—Liberal Party members in particular—often speak of personal responsibility as they seek to divide Australians doing it tough between those who are deserving and those who are undeserving. That is a concept that is really at the heart of some of the worst provisions in this bill.

But, in speaking of responsibility, they are failing to take responsibility to do the job that they are required to do, which is to look after the wellbeing of Australians. What an offensive joke it is that government members speak so often of the importance of citizenship when they, in fact, undermine it in our social compact at every turn. Instead of reaching out to people who are doing it tough, time after time they seek to push down those amongst us who are vulnerable. Through doing this, they diminish all of us.

We see in this bill some provisions which really represent cruelty for its own sake. At its core—as, indeed, the member for Melbourne observed—this is a piece of legislation that is, in large part, designed for tabloid consumption, not for any policy impact whatsoever. It comes in circumstances where we face significant challenges when it comes to social welfare, the provision of social services and, particularly, the challenge of enabling more people to find their way into productive employment. Our social compact is fraying in Australia at the moment, and some of the measures in this bill would exacerbate this when we need to restore its strength.

Our Prime Minister speaks of this bill as an act of love, but this is legislation that is bereft of empathy, much less love. As we consider the circumstances of the people who would be affected by the bill, on the Labor side, we think about the circumstances Australia is in more generally. There is record inequality. We note the sad, depressing picture that the National Accounts data, which was just released, paints of the economic circumstances for most Australians. Under this government's stewardship, we have a government which is simply not delivering for working people and is leaving too many people out of work. Unemployment is too high. Underemployment is too high. Youth unemployment, as many speakers on this side have touched upon, is at unacceptable levels, particularly in areas of regional Australia and bits of suburban Australia, including elements of my electorate. These wider circumstances are, of course, compounded by so many decisions of this government: maintaining the inadequate level of Newstart; proposals which have been put and put again to deny young people any income support; and the ludicrous PaTH program, which other members have spoken upon in this context. We do see in this government a series of attacks on young people through these measures—through school funding cuts and continued policy uncertainty, and also through commitments to deep cuts when it comes to higher education.

I did say 'attacks on young people', but, of course, there are provisions in this bill which attack and stigmatise older Australians too. When we think about our social services, we should remember the misleading picture this government continually paints when it talks about the cost of welfare. They conflate the age pension with the sorts of social supports this bill is concerned with. In The Age today, Peter Martin began an interesting article by saying, 'Drug testing is just the start,' referring to the government's retreat from evidence when it comes to social supports. If only that were so. As I've just said, the provisions in this bill—those which we object to—carry on a tradition of this government attacking the vulnerable and not seeking to offer meaningful assistance.

The minister, in his second reading speech, talks up this bill as strengthening welfare conditionality. For government members, this punitive approach to welfare seems to be a self-evident good. But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I note research from the Social Europe organisation, which, across 18 EU nations, has formed a very different view of some of these harsh, conditionality based approaches to welfare provision. It has suggested that, if we are interested in helping young people, particularly from vulnerable cohorts, into work, there are many, many more effective approaches, such as investing in skills, investing in people—as Labor would do—and, in particular, looking at active labour-market approaches. But, of course, this government prefers the ideology of victim blaming to evidence. So, again, we hear discussion of system integrity in place of addressing the real issues at hand. It's just dissembling. In this bill, the government compounds this failing by dressing up a grab bag of measures as somehow constituting meaningful reform.

This is a complex bill with many and varied provisions and, as such, it has, quite appropriately, been the subject of consideration by a Senate inquiry. But this constitutes a major failure of process on the part of the government and the minister, because we have not had the opportunity to consider the findings and the significant evidence presented to that Senate review process. The government is much more concerned with using this as a political distraction from its wider failings and its wider political challenges. The Senate inquiry report has only just been submitted. I certainly have not had a proper opportunity to consider it. This concern can't simply be passed over because it compounds a wider failings on the part of the minister and the government—a failure to consult adequately in preparing the legislation we're now debating and a profound failure, and probably a related one, to found key provisions of this legislation in evidence.

The inquiry, which has just reported, contains some very, very troubling revelations. I refer, in particular, to the revelation to the effect that the department does not know the present waiting list for treatment in the trial areas for the drug trials flagged in Queensland, WA and Sydney. This is just extraordinary when these provisions are at the core of the rationale for this legislation. It shows, again, why this bill should be rejected if the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga are not passed. I say that because it is the case that there are uncontroversial measures contained in this legislation— elements of this bill—which are worthy of support. But many are not, and I refer to schedules 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17. I also note that, as the shadow minister has flagged, provisions contained in schedules 3, 9 and 15 will also be opposed if the entirely reasonable concerns that have been advanced by the opposition are not addressed.

I won't go into great detail across the range of these provisions, because I do want to make some remarks on the drug-testing trials, which are at the core of what is so fundamentally wrong with the bill before us. But I do want to echo the comments of my friend the member for Kingsford Smith and also those of the member for Canberra who spoke so effectively about the punitive measures contained in this bill and their impact on cohorts of older Australians—cruel provisions absent any justification, and the government doesn't even appear to be particularly inclined to present that justification. Certainly, it has not done so in the very few contributions to this debate made by government members.

Turning to the drug-testing trials, the proposal here demonstrates so many of the differences between this government's approach and Labor's. We join the experts—who we have been listening to, unlike the minister—in calling on the Prime Minister to come over the top of this minister and stop these trials. The government has proposed trials for Newstart and youth allowance recipients in three locations: Logan in Queensland; Canterbury-Bankstown in Sydney; and Mandurah in WA. They have done so without consulting affected communities or listening to the experts. The member for Rankin spoke to the impact on the Logan community, particularly. The effect on communities is something which ought to have been considered and, of course, the wider issue, which all Labor speakers have gone to, is the absence of evidence.

The member for Jagajaga went through some of the organisations opposed to this tabloid exercise in nastiness on the part of the government, and the member for Grey in his contribution on this debate spoke of this being a long list of naysayers. Well, what a curious thing to say. Of course, all of us in this place bring to this debate, and all debates, a sense of how we see the world, how we see the role of the state and how we relate to one another. However, surely evidence comes in somewhere along the line and surely we should be listening to the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Pennington Institute, the Kirby Institute, UnitingCare Australia, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, ACOSS, Homelessness Australia, St Vincent de Paul, the Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, the National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. We should pay some regard to the evidence that has been presented by those who know best.

Here we have a proposal, absent community consultation, absent support in affected communities and absent any evidence base other than the desperation of the government to whip up tabloid insecurities by stigmatising vulnerable Australians. We should not demonise people wrestling with drug addiction. Instead, we should take the time to consider how they have fallen into addiction and how we might help them. On this side of the House, we remember and recognise always that addiction is a health issue; it is not a choice, as St Vincent's Health have made clear. The stakes here are so high not only for individuals who are affected, who are battling with demons, but for all of us. The advice of the Ted Noffs Foundation is something that I urge the minister, as he leaves the table, to have some regard to.

Another observation I would make very briefly is to have regard to the experience elsewhere, which has been a complete disaster. The detection rate in New Zealand, I note, was lower than that of the general population estimated to be using illicit drugs. It was a total waste of money there and it will be a total waste of money here. I oppose this proposal and the many other objectionable elements in this cruel, heartless and purposeless bill.

See this speech in context