Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I think when it comes to the legislation before the House today, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, what we've got is legislation that really reeks of politics. That's what this is about. If we cast our minds back to the budget night, where I think the Minister for Human Services was going to go down the sewer and collect human waste material and test it, it was, at that point, a very half-baked idea. Of course, it's months and months later, and now we finally see, after the government trying to play the politics around drug-testing trials for welfare recipients, legislation that really has a bit of politics in it, some administrative changes and elements that are deeply flawed.

There are a number of changes that Labor have been very clear that we're happy to support, if split from other measures in the bill—things like, for example, streamlining tax file number collection and aligning social security and disability discrimination law. They are sensible things and things that we would support. As I think the shadow minister said, they are hardly reform, hardly an amazing reforming government agenda, but they are sensible measures nonetheless.

But there are some really, really important aspects that we will not support. I'd like to draw the attention of the House to those. The first one I would like to bring the House's attention to is abolishing the wife pension. The wife pension is a non-activity-test payment that has been closed to new applicants since 1 July 1995. When you look at this measure, the majority—I understand—will be transferred onto the age pension and carer's payment with a small minority having a cut. I think it says about 2,900 women will be transferred onto the jobseeker payment. These are a number of women who have not worked for a long time. It is pretty mean-spirited of the government to take this very small group of women who have not worked for a long time and say, 'We're going to phase out this payment for you'. It's not a huge amount of money. It really shows this government's callous attitude to anyone receiving an income support payment.

Then we also have the other callous measure that has the potential to cut the payments of those receiving a bereavement allowance. This is for those who have lost their partners. It is a short-term payment of 14 weeks. This government has said, 'No, no, no'. It can be longer for a pregnant woman if they lose their partner. Now this government is going to snatch that away from them. Really, this is not welfare reform. This is just being mean-spirited.

The one that I really think is not just mean-spirited but shows how out of touch this government is with those looking for a job are the changes to the activity test for people 55 to 59. Currently, people in this age group have to fulfil their activity test to get their Newstart payment by looking for work or volunteering for 30 hours per fortnight. This government is going to say that recipients would need to fulfil their 30 hours per fortnight of activity, but only half of that can be voluntary work. The rest of the time, they've got to go out and look for work. That's a nice concept. If the government has ever spoken to anyone between the ages of 55 and 59, trying to find work out there, they would know that these are not bludgers. These are not people flouting the system and deliberately trying to escape their requirements.

I have spoken to so many who have found themselves in a situation where they've been made redundant, lost their job or been only able to achieve part-time work. They desperately want to work more and no-one will employ them. This comment comes to me time and time again. In fact, I have had older Australians looking for work say that they first put their resume in with their age and they get no interviews. So they think: 'Well, okay. I'm going to put my resume in without my age.' They get an interview but do not get the job. One could only suggest that it is down to what I believe is significant age discrimination when it comes to workplace employment.

This is the real life experience of those older Australians desperately looking for work. The government says, 'Go and retrain'. They go back and retrain and they still can't get work. This government says to them, 'Look, you're finding it difficult to get a job.' They may then find a voluntary organisation that they feel passionate about, giving them 30 hours a fortnight. The government says: 'No, that's not good enough for the activity test. You've got to go and put yourself through the ringer time and time again. You can only do half of that work voluntarily. For the other half, you've got to keep turning up to interviews and keep getting rejections over and over and over again.'

You know what? The government does not understand how demoralising that is for people—how demoralising it is for people just turning up and putting their resume in over and over again. All they can say is, 'I've got the skills, I've got the passion and I want to work, but guess what: they just won't employ me.' This is something I hear from older Australians over and over again. So this measure to ensure that 55- to 59-year-olds cannot achieve their activity test by volunteering, once again, is just so mean spirited. It really shows that the government does not understand what the reality is out there.

We are going to be facing this in South Australia soon. We have so many people that are going to find themselves redundant with the closure of Holden—not just those directly working at Holden but also those working in manufacturing and industries associated with the automotive industry. I tell you: some of those people have given 20, 30 or 40 years of loyal service, and they still want to work after this. But it is going to be hard for them to find jobs, and really this government, through this measure, just shows that it has no concept whatsoever of the age discrimination that older Australians face going back into the workforce.

Whether it's the bereavement allowance, the wife pension or cutting the number of voluntary hours that count for your activity test, this is not reform. This is just mean-spirited picking on vulnerable people and trying to make out that they are somehow stealing from the taxpayer when, indeed, what they are asking for is just a little bit of support, and you want to rip that away.

I will finish my comments with the drug trials proposed in this piece of legislation. This is to pick welfare recipients and put them through a trial of drug testing and then change their payments or their access to payments as a result. When it comes to legislation and good public policy, we know that, when you put in a policy, you should have an outcome in mind. One would assume that any policy around drug and alcohol testing would be designed to try and minimise drug and alcohol use. That's what you'd think the outcome would be. Well, we know the measure before the House today will do nothing whatsoever to tackle addiction in our community.

Drug and alcohol addiction is a powerful, powerful thing. It is a medical issue that needs to be tackled properly in a medical way. We also know that you need to be ready and have the capacity to deal with that addiction. Being made homeless and desperate is not going to put you in a frame of mind to tackle your addiction. It's not just me and it's not just Labor; there is a list of bodies, which many of my colleagues have gone through before, from the AMA to every addiction organisation to ACOSS, all saying that this measure will not work. It will not do what the government claims it will do—that is, reduce drug addiction and alcohol abuse.

I am the first one to want to tackle the scourge of addiction in our community. I am the first one to say, 'Let's make sure that we give all the support and resources to those that want to make their lives better by tackling their addiction and their drug and alcohol dependency.' But you don't do that with a punitive measure with no drug and alcohol treatment.

What I found astounding is the admission from the government that they hadn't even checked what services for drug and alcohol treatment were available in the trial sites. You would think that, if there were going to be some sort of program to tackle drug and alcohol addiction through cutting people's payments, they'd say, 'Well, let's do it in a place where there are actually some services where people who want to get help can get help.' But they did not even check that. They did not even look at that critical piece of information, which brings me back to the point where I started: this drug and alcohol trial is condemned by medical professionals. It's condemned by those representing many vulnerable and disadvantaged people. It hasn't worked overseas, and many of my colleagues have gone through that.

So there is a fundamental question before the House: why is this legislation being introduced when it's not going to work? The only answer I can come up with is politics. The government is divided and desperate. It has a weak Prime Minister. He is a Prime Minister who can barely hold his party together, who's being attacked by the Left and by the Right of his party. He is so fundamentally weak that he cannot do anything except play politics with vulnerable people.

I urge the government to rethink this damaging policy, this policy that will not work, this policy that's all about politics. Be a better government. Govern in the interest of Australians and not this rank political agenda that is desperately being used to try to hold the Right and the Left together.

See this speech in context