Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the previous speaker for her contribution and all those participating from this side of the chamber. I have to say that I'm a bit bemused by the fact that there's been such a drop-off of government members speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. So few of them have actually participated, which raises a number of questions, I would have thought, about the belief that exists within the government ranks about some of the measures incorporated in this legislation.

As we know, this bill seeks to amend a range of quite complex measures across social services, employment and human services portfolios. As usual, I'm indebted to the Bills Digest from the Parliamentary Library and the work they've done on this legislation. As the Bills Digest tells us, schedule 12 amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to enable the government to run drug-testing trials in three locations. From 1 January 2018, 5,000 new recipients of unemployment payments will be asked, under this legislation, to take drug tests as part of a trial to take place in three locations across the country. People who refuse to take the tests may face penalties. People who test positive on the first test will be placed on income management. If they test positive on later tests, they may be asked to accept drug treatment as part of their mutual obligation requirements.

The government argues that the drug-testing trials have two objectives: to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, the social security system and to provide new pathways for identifying recipients with drug abuse problems and facilitating their referral to appropriate treatment facilities.

However, that's not the full story. As again I'm reminded by the work being done by the Parliamentary Library, there are a number of issues that may be of concern. Firstly, the government did not consult with outside experts or service providers while developing the policy. I will come to that in more detail in a moment, because, as we're reminded by the Bills Digest, few welfare agencies, health professionals or drug treatment experts regard a combination of random drug-testing and penalties for refusal to undertake treatment as a promising approach. Indeed, I will explain in detail the concerns of these organisations.

Secondly, a number of policy experts and commentators have suggested that drug-testing measures are more about signalling the government's disapproval of drug use than they are about assisting the problem drug users into employment.

Thirdly, if the cashless debit card or a similar card that is distinctive and readily identifiable is used to income-manage recipients who test positive on a drug test, that may lead to a stigma because it identifies cardholders as drug users. So they are stigmatised and indeed victimised.

Fourthly, the availability of drug and alcohol treatment is in the context of national undersupply. Fifthly, and lastly, the Department of Human Services will engage contractors to administer drug tests and determine that a person should be subject to income management. That raises some very serious concerns, and that is why Labor has moved an amendment which will seek for the House to decline to give the bill a second reading. As we argue, it's a cynical attempt by this government to distract from its political problems—that we know about. And it calls on the government to drop their costly and unproven social security recipients drug-testing trial that medical experts say won't work, to listen to medical and health experts by implementing proven ways to assist people by investing in treatment and rehabilitation services to battle drug addiction, and to stop demonising vulnerable Australians who rely on our social security system.

We expect a lot from our government, but what we want them to do that is most important is to look after the most marginalised, disenfranchised and, ultimately, victimised people in our community. This piece of legislation is doing precisely the opposite. We expect leadership from the Prime Minister. He says this legislation is an act of love. I say to the Prime Minister it's a very poor act of love. It's a very strange definition of what love is, as my comrade reminds me, if you're seeking to victimise and stigmatise people, because that is the outcome of this legislation on the people this aims to recruit into this drug trial.

It's very important that the Prime Minister comes into this place as the leader. He is the Prime Minister of the country. He should be using his position for all Australians, not just for some Australians, and what he is doing here is penalising some of the most disadvantaged, marginalised people in this country. He has no problem, as we saw last weekend, attacking the Leader of the Opposition in the most puerile way—in a very childish and schoolboy manner. Yet he can't bring himself to look after the interests of these Australians who, as we're being told by people who know this business, will be victimised, will be demonised and will be stigmatised by this approach. You can't have it both ways in this country. You either govern for all Australians or you don't. In this case the Prime Minister and the government have made it very clear to all who care to listen and watch that they are not interested in properly governing in the interests of all Australians regardless of who they are or where they live.

I'm a bit over this Prime Minister, to be very frank, because on the weekend he was in Darwin for a whole of an hour. A whole hour he was in Darwin, attending the local Country Liberal Party conference. We know he's got huge problems, but what was his major message from this meeting of the luminaries of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory? A reminder: he was there for an hour. It was basically to attack the people of the Northern Territory for saying they were concerned about fracking. That's what his message was. He was telling the Northern Territory government that they should overlook the interests, needs, demands and desires of the people of the Northern Territory and just get on with it. Again we're seeing a Prime Minister who clearly has a tin ear. He can't listen, doesn't understand and won't watch and learn from what people who live in regional or remote Australia in this instance think, want and need.

It is no surprise to me that the Prime Minister has adopted this course. But I have to say to him: why doesn't he just look at the evidence and listen to what people who are involved in looking after people who are marginalised in our community say about this legislation. I want to point to a particular submission which was made to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 by a Western Australian organisation—a very good organisation, an organisation that I have a lot of confidence in. It is the Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia. They say:

We contend that the proposed changes outlined within the above schedules, will not result in any significant decrease in alcohol and other drug use by those on welfare, or result in any significant savings by the Commonwealth Government—the intended aim of the Bill.

That's what this is about. This is not about looking after the interests of Australians; this is about cost-cutting and getting savings for the government. If they were fair dinkum, they would look at the views that have been expressed.

I agree with the Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia, who say:

that's clear—

that's also clear—

You would think, would you not, Deputy Speaker, that if you were going to administer this sort of approach on drug use or the abuse of drugs, you would actually go to the drug strategy that this government is actually proselytising. But no, that's irrelevant to this approach. This Prime Minister, who ought to know better and who parades himself around as a true Liberal, instead of listening to the concerns of people who know, closes his mind, with a very blinkered approach pushed, no doubt, by those on the right-wing rump of the Liberal Party and the Nationals.

The Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia go on to say:

which it is. Drug abuse, misuse of drugs and alcohol abuse are largely health-related issues. Alcohol and other drug dependency, as they say in their submission, is a health issue that 'requires primarily a health-focused response to address the needs of those people with complex needs'. Therefore, you would think that if the government accepted that proposition—which they clearly don't—they would adhere to the direction and investment in the strategies outlined in their own National Drug Strategy 2017-26. Not this government. They can say one thing on one day and another thing on another day, depending on who the audience is or what their purpose is. This Prime Minister and his government have shown yet again how duplicitous they really are.

Also—these proposals in this submission pick this up—the government do not outline the provision of any extra investment to voluntary support and treatment services for people with drug and alcohol dependency, who in this case are Aboriginal people. The bill has not been involved with and is not inclusive of community consultation. What we need, as this document points out, is 'further investment in culturally appropriate, evidence-based and ideally community-led, early intervention and prevention services'. That is true. That's what we need. If we've got a concern about alcohol and drug abuse, that's what we need to do.

Deputy Speaker, you've only got to look at the propositions being put by so many others. This government ought to—but they clearly don't want to—listen to the propositions which have been put to them. For example, the president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, Alex Wodak, has said:

The drug treatment system in Australia is overloaded and underfunded. Unless that crisis is addressed, these people will go to the back of an already long queue.

Hear, hear! But what are we doing? Instead of looking for jobs for these people and instead of addressing their concerns and their needs around alcohol and other drugs, what we are doing is saying to them: 'Come in, have a drug test. By the way, mate, you've shown up. You've got a problem with alcohol or other drugs. We might have to look after your income.'

I note a very touching photograph I saw on the television this morning of the Prime Minister at a football game on the weekend. It was a very touching, beautiful photograph of the Prime Minister with a grandchild, giving a warm embrace to the grandchild with one hand and holding a beer in the other. I don't have a problem with the Prime Minister drinking—none at all—just as I don't have a problem with the member for Warringah having a drink now and then, yet the member for Warringah has admitted that he got so stonkered that he couldn't even come in to vote on important legislation. That's not a problem. Everyone laughs it off.

See this speech in context