Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

I commend and support the comments of the member for Whitlam in respect of this legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. The government's spin in respect of this bill is that it has been brought to the House as a measure that might help get people's lives back in order. The truth is that this bill is nothing more than a budget savings measure.

We know the government's deficit at the end of last year was $37.6 billion, and we know are they heading for another deficit of $30 billion or thereabouts this year—and that's if their figures can be relied on. To date they have proven that they cannot be relied on. We know full well that the net effect of this legislation is for the government to save some $370 million over the forward estimates. Out of that might come some money that they will require in order to pay for the drug-testing provisions that are contained within this bill. We don't know what those amounts are because the government won't tell us. But even when you allow for whatever costs they incur in respect of the drug testing, the fact remains that this is a measure that is going to save the government possibly $100 million a year.

Again, it is the vulnerable welfare recipients that have been targeted by this government. It has been become a characteristic of the coalition government to target the poor. It started with the Abbott-Hockey government, with their first budget in 2014, which was considered so harsh and so cruel that it was soundly rejected by just about everyone across the country, including most of the members of this parliament. We then had a change of Prime Minister and a change of Treasurer, but the same strategy continued. The same harsh measures continue to be seen in the legislation that comes before this House time and time again. If people's lives were truly the focus of this government's legislation, then the $370 million that will be saved would have been put into other welfare assistance programs that might actually have some real effect of helping those people's lives get back on track, but that is not the case. Were it the case, we might be looking at this legislation with a different perspective.

This is a government revenue measure. Whilst I accept that some of the 18 or 19 measures in this legislation are worth considering, I also know that many of them are indeed harsh and should not be supported. That is particularly the case with the drug-testing trial. I note that that trial has been criticised widely, not just by the usual welfare support groups but, indeed, by health professionals and drug rehabilitation specialists across the board. If the measures were going to help, I am sure that those people who have the most experience in helping people with a drug addiction change their lives would be supporting this measure, but they're not. Indeed, if the government were serious about helping those people, then the first groups they should have asked advice from are the very specialists in the field and the health professionals who have to deal with people who have a drug addiction each and every day. They should have sought advice from them, but it seems they didn't.

There will always be people who rort the welfare system, just as there are always people who rort the tax system or any other government initiative out there. That is a reality. Such people will always be found, because if a person has an intent of rorting whatever government system it is that they rort, they will find a way of doing so. We would not oppose any measure that genuinely sought to close down loopholes if they exist. But, again, this legislation is not about closing loopholes; it's simply about making it more difficult for welfare recipients to get the support they need and about denying them the payments they would otherwise receive. Regrettably, this legislation will punish far too many people for whom welfare support is not their choice—those whom, for reasons possibly beyond their control, find themselves in the situation that they are in. In the situation that they are in, they need some kind of welfare support.

When we talk about welfare support, we are not talking about even the minimum average weekly wage of $694 a week; we are talking, in most cases, of payments of around $268 a week. I wonder how many members opposite could live off that sort of money or have ever had to live off that sort of money. Perhaps if they had to walk in the shoes of the very people they are trying to make decisions about, they might see this legislation for what it is and perhaps they would not be so supportive of it.

People on welfare payments, in my experience, already feel as if they are being treated in a humiliating way and quite often find so much of their time wasted because of the hoops they have to jump through in order to get the payments that they are entitled to or that the government provides to them. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I am sure that your office, just like the offices of most MPs in this place, would regularly have people that are seeking welfare support come to you for assistance out of sheer desperation, because they can't seem to navigate the demands that are put on them by the different agencies they have to deal with in order to get some meagre payment. It is a fact of life for most MPs' offices. Regrettably, it seems that MPs' offices have become nothing more than an extension of the Department of Human Services. From my experience in my office, on a regular basis we are trying to help people with their claims.

When we look at the employment situation in Australia, the reality is there are some two million people who are either unemployed or underemployed. That means there are simply not enough jobs out there right now for those people who are genuinely looking for work. So even if one was to accept that some people are not trying as hard as they could, the reality is that there are simply not enough jobs out there for them. Even if and when there are jobs, many of the people who have been unemployed for a long time—there are reasons, in most cases, that are beyond their control. The jobs that are out there are perhaps asking for skill levels that people who are unemployed simply don't have, or the jobs may be outside of the region from where these people come from. It may be there are serious transport difficulties for these people in order to get to the jobs available, or they simply don't have any work experience at all. At other times it might even be a case where there are personal family or health circumstances that are totally beyond their control that limit their ability to either travel or commit to a full-time job. At the end of next month, there will be even more people unemployed as a result of the ending of car making in this country, so it will be even more difficult. We are bringing in this legislation at a time when, as the government must surely know, it is going to become increasingly difficult for people to find work.

I have personally spoken with families and individuals who have been looking for work for months and, in some cases, years. I have no doubt whatsoever that these are genuine people who are looking for work and who are trying their hardest, and the reality is they simply cannot find a job because the jobs are not there. When they have found employment, sometimes it's been in a field totally outside of what they were qualified for or skilled in or they've had to move to a different region, and it's been months or years later. For them, in that intervening time, what were they supposed to do, other than what they have done? And yet we are now saying: 'We want you to do more because, if not, we're going to find ways to cut an additional week of payment to you. We'll find a way of cutting that out.' This legislation is indeed harsh.

I want to speak briefly about a couple of the matters within it. When we talk about people being on welfare, again, my experience is that most people who are on welfare payments would prefer not to be on welfare payments. They would prefer to be in paid employment, where they can perhaps achieve and have some of the things they have always aspired to have. I want to refer just briefly to the drug trial proposal in this legislation. As I said earlier: firstly, there is no evidence to support what the government wants to do and, secondly, it has been widely criticised. Again from my experience, and as the member for Whitlam said earlier, most people who are drug addicts would very much prefer not to be. For some it might be their choice, but I suspect that for most it is not a choice they would willingly make, and if they could get off the drugs they would. And yet we see nothing in this legislation that is truly going to assist them get off their drug addiction. That would be the best way to get them back into the workforce, not to say, 'If you don't pass a drug test you will be automatically taken off.' In addition, for those people who are not drug addicts to be called in and told, 'You are going to have to pass a drug test of some sort', it would be humiliating and embarrassing. Again, I believe it is totally uncalled for and unjustified.

There are other matters in this legislation that I briefly want to go to. One of them is the start date and another is the removal of intent to claim, which are both provisions within this legislation. Both of them have the effect of delaying the commencement time for a person to receive any payments. Both of them are miserly ways of cutting payments to them. When you look at the way it is intended to introduce these provisions, it simply says that when you make a claim or contact the office to make a claim, your payment won't start then. Your payment will start later, after you've jumped many other hoops and brought in forms and all the rest of it.

See this speech in context