Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. I move:

That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'the House:

(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because it is a cynical attempt by this Government to distract from its political problems; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) drop their costly and unproven drug testing trial of social security recipients that medical experts say won't work;

(b) listen to medical and health experts by implementing proven ways to assist people battling drug addiction by investing in treatment and rehabilitation services; and

(c) stop demonising vulnerable Australians who rely on our social security system.'

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the title of this bill, one might get the false impression that this was part of some big, once-in-a-generation reform to the social security system. It is not. Mr Deputy Speaker, after nearly four years of trying to rip up Australia's social safety net, you might think that the Liberals and the Nationals had finally come to their senses and were embarking on sensible and substantive reform. They are not. For years, the Liberals have said the only way to make the pension sustainable was to cut pension indexation—a $23 billion cut to the age pension. For years, they said the only way to end the problem of youth unemployment was to make young Australians wait six months before being able to access any income support. So you might like to think that this government had learnt its lesson. But on closer examination, it becomes very apparent that this government continues to be desperate to attack the most vulnerable members of our society.

The government could have set about implementing policies that would have helped Australians trying to recover from drug addiction. It could have done that by listening to the health experts and investing in the proven ways of helping people battle with addiction. Yet the Turnbull government has chosen not to do that. Instead, it has decided to pursue a costly drug-testing trial that every health expert says won't work. It hasn't worked when it's been tried overseas, and no health or addiction experts were even consulted in the design of the policy. Of course, this begs the question: why is the government adopting a policy when there is no evidence that it will work? And the answer is that this Prime Minister is desperate to find any issue to distract from his own political problems. That is why this is happening. It's why this issue is being debated today.

Labor did refer this bill to a Senate inquiry. The report of that Senate inquiry is coming down only today, but here we are, debating this issue now in the House of Representatives—because of the political problems of this Prime Minister.

Some of the measures in the bill are so concerning that Labor will oppose them. These include the cessation of bereavement allowance, schedule 4; a change to the start date for some participation payments, schedule 10; removal of the intent-to-claim provision, schedule 11; establishment of a drug-testing trial, schedule 12; removal of exemptions for certain recipients with drug or alcohol dependence, schedule 13; changes to reasonable excuses, schedule 14; and information management, schedule 17. And, after closer scrutiny through the inquiry process, we'll also oppose schedule 3, the cessation of the wife pension. If the government persists on keeping all of these harsh changes in this bill, we will oppose it as a whole. If the government does finally see some sense and agrees to split the bill, then Labor will support some of the remaining schedules. We plan to move amendments in the Senate to separate these schedules.

For the most part, Labor does not oppose the changes made to payments as part of the so-called—this is the government's term—working-age payment reform budget measure, which are schedules 1 to 8 of this bill, although reform is certainly a total overstatement. While Labor is opposing the schedules ceasing the bereavement allowance and the wife pension, we would not oppose schedules 1 to 2 and 5 to 8 if they were presented separately. We're also not opposed to schedule 16, streamlining tax file number collection, nor are we opposed to schedule 18, aligning social security and disability discrimination law.

I just want to go through Labor's rationale for taking this position. I will leave it to my colleagues the member for Gorton and the member for Chifley to speak on the measures relating to the Employment portfolio that are in this bill, and the member for Barton will speak on the measures relating to Human Services which are also on this bill.

First of all: the drug-testing trial. From 1 January 2018, the government is proposing to establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations: Logan in Queensland, Mandurah in Western Australia and Canterbury-Bankstown in Western Sydney. I want to make it clear—this is a really important point—that nobody doubts that we face significant problems with drug addiction in the community. The task for all of us, and most particularly for the government, is to apply policies that actually address the problem of addiction in the community and help people get treatment.

Unlike the government, Labor has actually met with a range of health experts, addiction medicine specialists and community organisations about this proposal. All of them have made it clear to us that they do not support this drug-testing trial. The health experts all say this trial will not work. The experts say this measure will increase crime in the community. The evidence is clear. In jurisdictions around the world where similar trials have been conducted, they have not worked. In New Zealand, in 2015, only 22 people of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result, at a cost of around NZ$1 million. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand. In short, it was a total waste of money.

I'm glad to see the Minister for Human Services is at the table. In his contribution, I ask the Minister for Human Services to say which one of these organisations that opposed or have expressed serious concerns about the trial the government has actually spoken to and whether they've listened to any of them? We have the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, Rural Doctors Association Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Penington Institute, the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the Australian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, St Vincent de Paul Society, the Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. What an extraordinary job this minister has done in gathering the opposition of each and every one of those extraordinary organisations! All of them are either opposed to or have very strong concerns about the government's proposal to have a drug-testing trial.

We saw an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses. They wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to stop this drug-testing trial. By way of contrast, let's just remember who the proponents of the trial are. The chief proponent, the Minister for Human Services, who happens to be at the table, is also, of course, responsible for the Centrelink robo-debt disaster. This is the minister who actually sent debt collectors to hound pensioners for money they didn't owe. We have the Minister for Social Services, who when he was asked on television which experts supported the proposal, couldn't name one—not one. We have the member for Bowman, who said that he doesn't care if this policy means people turn to crime in their desperation, because 'they can detox behind bars.' There's no need to worry about the victims of crime, according to the member for Bowman. Is it any wonder that we have only these people supporting this ill-conceived mess?

The Senate inquiry hearing revealed that the Department of Social Services, who are responsible for the trial, admitted that they do not have data on the wait times for drug treatment services in the three trial site locations. They don't have any information about how long people have to wait to get into drug treatment. The government made the decision to choose these three trial site locations without having any data—no information—about how long people have to wait to get treatment in these areas. We know the local councils weren't consulted. The mayor of Logan, Luke Smith, only found out after a call from the ABC. He said:

I think to announce this from the top down is a disgrace and the lack of consultation is something I am quite amazed by.

The government originally said they were going to use the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program. That wasn't possible because it doesn't give data on specific reasons. It's increasingly apparent that this is just policy on the run from the government. They are much more interested in chasing a headline—particularly a headline attacking people on social security payments—than in good public policy.

Let's do what the government failed to do. Let's actually look at what the experts have had to say about this ill-conceived mess. Matt Noffs, from the Ted Noffs Foundation, said:

This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians.

The Australian Medical Association described the measure as:

… mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem, one that is associated with high rates of disability and mortality. The AMA firmly believes that those affected should be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions, including access to treatment and supports to recovery.

Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs, said:

At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work. Doctors don't necessarily speak with a united voice — we're a very varied group of specialists and people with different backgrounds across the country, so when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen.

Dr Adrian Reynolds, from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said:

Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people.

Associate Professor Yvonne Bonomo, Director of the Department of Addiction Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, said:

International experience shows when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse. There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society. We can expect at Centrelink offices there will be aggression and violence as people react to this. Had [the government] spoken to the various bodies who work in this area and know about this work, we would have been able to advise them this is not the right way. Pushing people to the brink won't make it better.

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. 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?

There is no evidence that it will work, there was no consultation with the experts and they have no idea about how expensive the trial will be. The government haven't even disclosed how much it will cost taxpayers. The experts say it will result in increased crime. What sort of government brings a proposal to the parliament that will see an increase in crime? Labor will not support this measure and we do not support this ill-conceived drug-testing trial.

I recently visited Odyssey House in my electorate of Jagajaga in Melbourne. They have a very significant rehabilitation facility on the banks of the Yarra at Lower Plenty. I was given the opportunity to sit down and talk with some of the men and women who are undergoing treatment for addiction at Odyssey House. I want to take a moment to personally thank each of the men and women who were so willing to speak with me and to talk so openly. One man in his late thirties talked to me about being a 'highly-functional', as he described it, drug addict. He was married with a couple of kids and had a well-paying job that he was good at. He carried on with this life for quite a long time, even though he was addicted. One day, he checked himself into rehab. He knew that he could no longer control his addiction and his abuse of drugs was taking its toll on his family. In most cases, people cited their poor health or a desire to protect their loved ones as the major motivators for why they sought treatment for their addiction, and they made it clear that taking away control over their money won't trigger them to stop using.

Most people who are addicted and abuse drugs do so to mask some terrible pain or trauma that has happened in their lives. Often this is abuse that they experienced as a child. The motivation to mask that pain and suffering means that they'll find a way to get drugs. One young man made it very clear to me that people will turn to crime to get money for drugs. Some of the people I spoke to at Odyssey House also indicated that this trial would mean that addicts would just shift to synthetic drugs or GHB, which are more dangerous and much harder to detect. So there's a serious risk of unintended consequences with this measure. As one of the residents told me, she ended up in a coma as a result of taking one of those synthetic drugs. One of the risks is that by forcing someone into treatment who isn't mentally prepared for rehabilitation it will actually damage other people who are in rehab seeking to overcome their addiction, because they'll try to undermine the treatment program.

Odyssey House is one of the largest not-for-profit providers of drug treatment services. It has around 600 places available each year for people seeking rehabilitation, but they have around 5,000 requests for support each year. So, sadly, just one in nine people who apply for treatment for drug addiction end up in rehab. This is in large part because of the long waiting times for treatment services. One of the health professionals there that day told me that often a drug addict will only have a short window of a few days when they're mentally prepared to seek treatment and go into rehab, and yet the system as it is now means that people seeking treatment are forced to wait one to three months to get access to the treatment services, depending on where they live in Australia. Put simply, the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction far outweighs the number of treatment services available. The government is pursuing a policy that doesn't address the problem. In fact, it won't release the data that it has that shows the unmet demand for drug treatment services across the country. Instead, it's chosen to pursue a costly drug-testing trial that every health expert says won't work. It's a costly trial but, of course, the government still won't say how much it will cost. They could also have done something about the workforce shortages. There are serious workforce shortages in the drug treatment system. I am told that for every 10 jobs available, there are only six workers. But instead, this Prime Minister, who is desperate to find any issue to distract from his own political problems, chooses to demonise vulnerable Australians. It is just not good enough, and Labor will oppose this measure.

I'll speak briefly about schedule 13. Currently, income support recipients with participation requirements can be granted temporary exemptions from these requirements where they're incapacitated due to sickness or injury, with a doctor's certificate, or where there are special circumstances, such as a personal crisis. Schedule 13 of this bill would prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributable to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness or injury or special circumstances, such as eviction associated with drug or alcohol misuse. Health and welfare groups have also raised significant concerns about this change, including ACOSS, St Vincent's Health and UnitingCare. The experts are clear that these proposed changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse as a health condition and a doctor's medical opinion that a job seeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. This would relate not only to acute episodes of substance abuse but also to secondary health problems associated with drug and alcohol use. To give an example: someone receiving treatment in hospital with cirrhosis of the liver associated with alcohol use would no longer be able to use a medically-recommended temporary exemption.

I'll briefly talk about Schedule 14 as well. Currently job seekers can be penalised for a range of very common 'participation failures', as they're called, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. However, these penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 of this bill provides that a job seeker who uses drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. But, as with schedule 13, health professionals have raised concerns that these changes fail to recognise that substance abuse disorder is a health condition. Experts warn that this will not help people overcome addiction, but instead they'll be pushed into crisis, poverty and homelessness. Again this proposal has been put forward by the government without consultation with medical and health experts and, again, the advice from the health experts is that this proposal misunderstands what addiction is and how it should be treated. By contrast to the government, Labor has listened to the doctors and heard their concerns, and we will oppose this measure.

In relation to schedules 1 to 8—the working age payments schedules—the government proposes to consolidate seven working age payments and allowances into a new Jobseeker payment. This includes: Newstart, the sickness allowance, widow pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance, and bereavement allowance. I want to remind the House—and most people would not be aware of this—that the Widow B pension, the wife pension, the widow allowance and the partner allowance are all currently closed to new recipients and have been for some time. They are being phased out as existing recipients reach age-pension age. While the government claims this is a major reform, the changes are, for the most part, essentially cosmetic, because most of the payments will end under the existing policy settings. Nevertheless, if the government were to present some of these separately, we would consider supporting them, but there are two we will not support.

Labor is very concerned about the proposed changes to the bereavement allowance. I just cannot believe that this government is going to cut the bereavement allowance, which is paid to people whose partner has just passed away. It's just beyond imagination the lengths to which this government will go. The changes to the bereavement allowance in this bill will leave vulnerable people around $1,300 worse off after the death of a partner. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died. It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension. It's also paid to a pregnant woman who has lost her partner. The allowance is for 14 weeks or for the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. So, if a pregnant woman's partner dies early in her pregnancy, she will be even more than $1,300 worse off. Once again, how does the government even imagine introducing such a policy? It is absolutely beyond me.

Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, paid at the lower rate with a more stringent means test. Future recipients of the bereavement allowance will receive only the rate of the jobseeker payment, which is $535 a fortnight—the same as the Newstart allowance. So, as I said, that will leave a bereaved person in need of income support receiving $1,300 less over the 14-week period than they currently do, or possibly more for a pregnant woman who loses her partner. This is just an extraordinary change. As Charmaine Crowe, from the Australian Council of Social Services, noted:

Someone in that circumstance … it's very difficult to cover the cost of a funeral and other associated expenses. So cutting the bereavement allowance will just place these people into further hardship and make it even more difficult for the period of time after bereavement.

This government has absolutely no shame. We will oppose this. It is unfair and unjustified.

As I mentioned earlier, Labor will also oppose the cessation of the wife pension, in schedule 3. The wife pension is a non-activity tested payment and has been closed to new applicants since 1 July 1995. It's paid to female partners of age pension or disability support pension recipients who are not eligible for a pension in their own right. It's granted to women solely on the basis of their partner's eligibility for age pension or disability support pension. Although the majority of wife pension recipients would move on to the age pension or carer payment and be no worse off—and obviously we don't disagree with that—around 2,900 women will have the indexation of their payment frozen until it becomes equal to the significantly lower rate of jobseeker payment.

Around 200 people on the wife pension who reside overseas will no longer be eligible for any social security payment as a result of this proposed change. These people are under the age pension age and would not be eligible for either another payment under any international agreement or a reportable payment. This would mean they would be up to $670 per fortnight worse off. It would seem reasonable that this group should be grandfathered to avoid them being plunged into a personal financial crisis, particularly given the small number and therefore minimal cost in doing so.

So, in summary, as we have done so often over the last four years, Labor will stand up for fairness by opposing the measures in this bill that will hurt the most vulnerable Australians. If the government puts this bill in its current form to a vote, Labor will have no choice but to vote against it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to speak on this welfare reform package, which Minister Porter introduced. Along with Minister Cash, the three of us helped put this together, with Minister Porter being the leader. Every single element of this package is designed to help people get off welfare and back into work. That's our objective for this package and, indeed, it's one of the overall objectives of the government to support people to get off welfare and back into work, because we know that at the end of the day a job is the best form of welfare that you can get.

In the time I have available, I'd like to really focus my remarks on the drug-testing policy which, of course, the shadow minister spent so much time referring to. If I have time available at the end I might touch on the compliance regime, as well as the intent-to-claim provisions. But let me start by referring to the drug-testing proposal which is contained within this legislation. As members would know, we are proposing to undertake 5,000 tests of people who go onto unemployment benefits at the beginning of next year. Those people will be tested for a number of drugs, and should they be tested positive they will be placed onto a form of cashless welfare in the form of income management. They will then be required to test a second time within 25 days. If they test positive again, then they will be required to undertake a treatment program to assist them to get off drugs and hopefully back into the workforce. No-one loses a cent under this drug-testing proposal. The idea is to identify those people who may have a drug problem, provide assistance to them, and hopefully get them back into the workforce.

I know the former minister opposite has said that there is no evidence that this will work, and I say to the member a couple of things in relation to that. Firstly, that this is a world-first in terms of how we are going about this trial. No-one else in the world has done it like this. There are many countries who have done drug testing of welfare recipients, including our cousins across the Tasman in New Zealand, but no-one else has done it in this way, where we identify people, place them onto cashless welfare and then require them to undertake treatment.

The second point I would make is that this is a 'trial' in the very sense of the word. You do a trial to get the evidence base to determine whether or not it works. If the trial works, you then might expand it. If the trial does not work, you might take a different position consequentially. In this regard, it is very similar to the cashless welfare card trials. We had a lot of critics in relation to that—as you'd know, Mr Deputy Speaker—but we said we'd take a trial to see if it would have an impact on the ground at reducing the harm caused by alcohol, drugs and gambling. We've conducted that trial, we've had an evaluation and it worked, and so consequently we're rolling it out further.

The third point I would make is that while no-one anywhere in the world has undertaken a drug-testing regime as we are proposing here, each of the three elements which underpin our drug-testing regime has been undertaken before, and there is substantial evidence to support the fact that it does have an impact in helping with the reduction of drug taking and helping people get back into work. I would like to take the parliament through each of those elements.

The first element, of course, is just drug testing itself. As members would know, this occurs very frequently now across Australian society. It occurs in so many industries where there is random drug testing. Think about the construction industry, the transportation industry, the aviation industry, the Defence Force, emergency services and border protection—I could go on.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Meat processing!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And meat processing, as the minister suggests to me here. In each of those cases, drug testing is a very regular occurrence. It works, it is effective and it has a behavioural impact in terms of people taking fewer drugs and, obviously, not having people who are drug affected in those workplaces. That's the first step: drug testing. It works, it's used widely and, in fact, we use it on the roads these days as well. It applies across the board. (Quorum formed)

I was talking about the first element of the drug-testing regime, which, in and of itself, is the fact that we test and we do so regularly across society. The second element of our drug-testing proposal is that a person who tests positive goes onto cashless welfare, in the form of income management. Eighty per cent of their payments will be quarantined and not accessible as cash, and therefore cannot be used to purchase drugs.

The question again is, is there evidence for this? Well, if shadow minister Macklin and the member for Barton would care to, they could look at the independent evaluation of our cashless welfare card trials, which we tabled last Friday. In those trials, 80 per cent of people's welfare payments was quarantined and not accessible as cash able to be used for the purchase of drugs—exactly the same proposal, other than a slightly different mechanism being used. And what did that independent evaluation show, in relation to drug use, when a person who has been a user of drugs is now on a form of cashless welfare? I'll tell you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: it showed that 48 per cent of drug takers consequently took fewer drugs—because they were on cashless welfare. Half of all drug takers took fewer drugs because they were on a system of cashless welfare. The evaluation also found evidence of a 'consequential reduction in violence and harm related to illegal drug use'. So there's the evidence of the fact that you can have a system of cashless welfare applied to those people who are drug users and it has the impact of reducing their drug use and reducing violence in the community. Surely that is a good thing that we should all be aiming for.

Interestingly enough, while the Labor Party now oppose this particular measure, they haven't always done so. They haven't always opposed a form of cashless welfare payments to those who have drug addictions. Indeed, when the Labor Party were in government, they introduced a form of income management which would be applied to those people who were referred from the Northern Territory drug and alcohol tribunals because they had been taking substances. So they have used it in the past. In fact, the Labor Party introduced a measure where they had placed 70 per cent of people's welfare payments onto income management. Do you know what the minister at the time, Jenny Macklin, now the shadow minister, said? She said at the time that this would assist the referred person to address their alcohol and substance misuse issues. That's what she said at the time in relation to using a form of cashless welfare for those who have been continual users of drugs. That's the second element of our drug-testing proposal—cashless welfare.

The third element of our drug-testing proposal is requiring a person to undertake a treatment program as an ongoing condition of them receiving welfare payments. Again the Labor Party says: 'There's no evidence. This won't work.' Again I point towards a few things. First of all, I point towards the fact that we have a system of drug courts around Australia. What do those drug courts do when they have people who have been using drugs and getting into trouble with the police? Often they will require the person to undertake a treatment program instead of going into custody. Why do they do this? Because they know it can work. In fact, there have been studies showing that in fact it does work. A Queensland study into this system of mandating treatment said:

… findings do not support the current treatment philosophy of waiting for people with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems to get themselves psychologically motivated … On the contrary, the findings indicate that mandatory treatment seems a promising option …

That's with the drug courts, and I've never heard the Labor Party say that the drug courts are a terrible idea, that we should abandon these drug courts, that the drug courts should never require a person to undertake treatment and that you should always just wait for them to be willing to undertake treatment. The drug courts do that, and we've had studies to show that it actually works in assisting people.

The Labor Party also received a study in 2013 from the Australian National Council on Drugs. That study also found that compelling a person into treatment can lead to better employment outcomes. In fact, it said:

There is some evidence that substance abuse treatment can increase employability for those with alcohol or drug problems …

There is other evidence, in relation to Victorian drug courts, where it's had an impact on reducing the use of drugs as well. We're using the same principle but, instead of a drug court requiring a treatment program, we are using the leverage of the welfare system to require a person to undertake a treatment program.

The treatment program will be specifically tailored for the individual by a medical professional. If they need counselling as their treatment, that's what they will be provided with. If they need something more serious in terms of a detox or rehabilitation, then that's what will be provided. We've provided over $685 million of additional funds towards drug and alcohol treatments. On top of that, just for this trial alone we're introducing an additional $10 million fund to ensure that there aren't any service gaps which may arise from additional demand for treatment services in the trial locations. That's the evidence.

First of all, it's a trial. We're trying something different. We're going to assess it; we will evaluate it. Second, there is evidence for each of the core elements of our trial that this might work. Therefore, it is absolutely worth giving it a go. I cannot understand the Labor Party's position. Why don't they want to try something different to assist people to get off drugs and back into work? Why are they so insistent upon it when they themselves introduced a mechanism of cashless welfare for people who had drug problems? Why are they so against it when they support the drug courts, which require a person to undertake treatment, and we're using the same philosophy here but using the leverage of welfare?

Why are they so opposed to just doing a trial to see if this works?

They say there's no evidence. They say it'll produce stigma. I'll tell you what the evidence is, if we don't try something different. The evidence is that the usage of ice amongst unemployed people will continue to be 2.5 times what it is for the rest of population. That's what the evidence says, and that's what will occur if we don't try something different. The evidence says that the hospitalisation rate from drugs in the Canterbury-Bankstown area, where we're undertaking one of our trials, will continue to increase. It's already increased 21-fold in the last five years. The evidence suggests that'll continue to go up if we don't try something different. The evidence suggests that, if we don't try something different, a whole cohort of people who are on unemployment benefits and who may have a drug problem will effectively be excluded from so many jobs in the workforce that require you to be drug free. That's what the evidence says. We know what the evidence says, if we don't try something different. We've got good evidence to suggest that our trial will make a difference in helping these people, identifying those who may have a problem, getting them the treatment that they need and, hopefully, from that, getting them back into the workforce.

That is what this trial is about. The evidence is there that it can work, but we're going to test it; we'll evaluate it. If it doesn't work as predicted, we'll adjust, and if it does work, surely that is a good thing for the nation. Surely it is a good thing to identify those people who need help and to be able to give them the treatment they need. I think the Labor Party of old would've supported such a drug trial, but now they've been captured by the Left, lock, stock and barrel. The Left are in control of the Labor Party. They are completely against this. They don't want to support those people in need. I commend this bill to the House and ask the Labor Party to support these drug-testing trials.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( I will join with my colleague the shadow minister for social services in rising to speak on this legislation and condemning the actions of the government that we've just heard about from the minister. As the shadow minister for health, I particularly want to focus on one policy that this legislation enables—the drug-testing trial of social security recipients, as outlined in schedule 12. The minister's just tried to point out that this is somehow a health measure, but I don't see the Minister for Health—the person who has carriage of health policy in the government—speaking on this legislation. He's not on the list. I look forward to his staff now scrabbling for him to come and defend why this is good drug and alcohol policy, because it is not. If the government is trying to pretend that this is somehow a good drug and alcohol policy, what a load of rubbish!

We know that the government has made this decision because it is a savings measure. It is a savings measure and a political wedge at the expense of a very vulnerable, addicted group of people. That is what this legislation is about, nothing else. That is why the government is doing it, not because it cares about people who have drug addiction, not because this is good drug and alcohol policy and not because there is any evidence at all that this is what you do in the drug and alcohol space. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Health defend this policy and defend why the government thinks this is what you do in the drug and alcohol space. Frankly, this policy showcases some of the worst excesses of this government. It is an ill-thought-out policy. It is not evidence based when you come to drug and alcohol policy. It is against expert advice and it is in fact missing critical details. It is so ill-considered that experts say it could even make crime and drugs worse in this country. That is what the experts are saying.

Firstly, let's look at what schedule 12 actually proposes. It establishes this two-year trial for drug testing 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance in three locations: Mandurah, Logan and Bankstown. Welfare recipients will be randomly selected and notified of a requirement to attend an appointment with the department. At this appointment, they'll be notified of a requirement to provide a sample of saliva, urine or hair for the purposes of a drug test. Recipients who test positive to the initial drug test will be put on income management for a period of 24 months. Jobseekers will have the option to dispute the result of a positive test and to request a retest. If the retest is also positive, the jobseeker will have to repay the cost of the test. Jobseekers who return a positive test result will be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days. If the jobseeker tests positive to the second test, they will need to repay the cost of the test. These are some of the broad details of what we know, but there is a big list of what we don't know.

At Senate estimates and through the Senate inquiry Labor established to allow for more scrutiny of this legislation, it has been established that the government hasn't consulted and, in fact, doesn't have the necessary detail to actually conduct these trials at all. The department couldn't confirm the drugs that were going to be tested, they couldn't confirm the exact tests that were going to be used and they couldn't confirm how much the trial was going to cost. They can't say how much the drug test would cost the individual if they are required to repay them. They can't say how many addiction specialists are in each trial site for referral. They haven't confirmed what form of income management the trial will take. They cannot give basic details of the trial, because this isn't a thought-out policy developed on evidence. It is another attempt to demonise jobseekers at significant cost to the budget. Jobs Australia CEO David Thompson said he was concerned that this trial would see vulnerable people turned away from welfare assistance because of the demeaning and humiliating nature of the process. He said that people would be more likely to turn to charities for assistance, putting further pressure on their resources, or would, maybe, be forced to turn to crime. If we really want to get people into the help they need, then this policy is not the way to do it.

One of the worst lines the Prime Minister has put forward in defence of this drug testing trial is that it's about 'love'. This is not love. Love is the parent who is desperately trying to get their child into rehab, spending the day calling and calling, and only to be told there are no places available. Love is the drug addiction specialist whose waiting list is so full that they can no longer take names and accepting someone for urgent treatment because they think a life is at risk. Love is the partner who refinances the family property to pay for private rehabilitation because there is nowhere else for them to turn. This government's policy isn't love; it is an insult.

In implementing the policy, the government hasn't allocated any extra funding for public rehabilitation, despite the fact that waiting lists are under immense strain in this country. In my home state of Victoria, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association reports that services have up to a six-month wait for access. Across Australia, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500 publicly funded drug and alcohol rehab beds dealing with more than 32,000 requests. Often, waiting lists become so long that they no longer accept applicants onto the waiting lists. In 2015, St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, one of the nation's leading drug rehabilitation centres, had a waiting list 100 people long.

The drug and alcohol treatment sector has been clear about the impact of this flawed policy. In response to the budget announcement, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association said:

… the Victorian AOD treatment sector is already significantly overburdened and this policy will only increase the burden, through capturing individuals who use drugs but are not experiencing substance dependence. This limits access to those people who are in dire need for treatment and have been waiting, in some cases for months.

The Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies said:

We know that Western Australia's alcohol and other drug treatment services are already struggling to meet demand. Coercing people to attend treatment at the risk of losing their source of income will likely result in the displacement of people who access treatment voluntarily.

These are the experts who deal wish issues of addiction every single day, and the government has not listened to them. In fact, the Minister for Social Services cannot name a single alcohol and drug or medical expert that does actually support this trial. The government also cannot point to evidence of where similar trials have worked, because the evidence shows that they do not work. The drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective. The minister's attempt to conflate criminal justice diversion programs that stop people going to jail is frankly an absolute insult.

The New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients in 2015 and only 22 of the 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. In 2013, the Australian National Council on Drugs, which coincidentally was defunded by the Liberals, published a review of the evidence on this topic. It is noted that a similar trial, which was implemented for four months in Florida in the United States, cost the States more than $118,000 and ran at a net loss of approximately $45,000. The review also found there was evidence from the USA that denying benefits to people who are drug dependent could result in 'increases in poverty, increases in crime, increases in homelessness, and higher health and social costs'. The review also cited a study of people whose welfare benefits were discontinued when their drug dependency was no longer classified as a disability. While this is a different situation, it brings up some interesting conclusions. The group who lost their welfare benefits reported worsened psychiatric comorbidities, and the study found that drug-use levels remained the same among those who had lost their benefits.

One of the biggest concerns is raised by the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association. They say that this trial could simply generate a shift in illicit substance consumption patterns. That is, people will consume and try substances that they think won't be detected by standard drug tests. The association says:

This will likely create unknown harms and further complexities for our treatment services and emergency departments.

In coming to its position, Labor has listened very carefully to the serious concerns of health experts. The health sector have united against this plan because they know it is bad policy and that it simply won't work. Last week, nearly a thousand doctors, nurses and healthcare workers, including 109 addiction specialists, put their names to an open letter against the plan. The letter they signed said:

Making it harder for people struggling with drug and alcohol problems to access income support will push people who need treatment into poverty, undermining their chance of recovery.

They also noted that they were in no way consulted by the government. This has been a common theme, because the government simply doesn't consult anyone.

To make matters worse, in the last few days the Minister for Social Services said that health experts—and he referred to them in quite derogatory terms—including the AMA, didn't support the No Jab, No Pay legislation when it was introduced either and, somehow, that this was evidence that they were wrong. That is, frankly, just another insult to a sector that I would have thought the government would be very careful about, having only just re-established some relationships with the AMA and doctor organisations. The government might want to be a little bit careful about what they actually say and do with these organisations, given the absolutely appalling relationship they had with them following the 2014 budget. But, no, they've decided to jump the shark on this one. The president of the AMA has quite correctly pointed out that they supported the No Jab, No Pay measures from day 1. Our health experts know better than most the importance of boosting vaccination rates. The concerns that some doctors raised about No Jab, No Pay were in relation to making sure that vulnerable and disadvantaged people had a chance to catch up. The minister needs to get the facts right when he's making such outrageous claims. In fact, it shows that they are absolutely desperate to try to win an argument rather than purport the facts. Of course, the government don't care about facts or what experts have to say.

On the other hand, Labor have been listening. We have carefully listened to the serious concerns of health experts and addiction medicine specialists in community organisations: the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Penington Institute, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Australian Council of Social Services, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, and the St Vincent de Paul Society. Labor have listened to the expert advice of health professionals, and that's why we will oppose the government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, summarised it well when she said:

At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work ...

If the government really wanted to help people, they would be investing in frontline services instead of putting more strain on the system, and in particular in residential rehab. We note that there are measures we could potentially support, if they are separated from other measures in this bill—and we will be moving amendments, as the shadow minister has indicated, in relation to these in the Senate. In addition to the drug testing of welfare recipients, there are numerous reasons why we cannot support the legislation. Schedule 13 will prevent temporary exemptions from being granted. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses a drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. But if they refuse treatment and their substance use disorder causes them not to comply with jobseeker requirements a second time, their payments will be suspended. And there are numerous other examples.

The experts say that the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse as a health condition and the doctor's medical opinion in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. The legislation is not in line with expert advice; it goes completely against it. This is not good drug and alcohol policy. This is not a genuine attempt to help people with drug dependency. This legislation, in fact, demonises them and makes the problem worse. It will not help with addiction. It will put pressure on already overstretched alcohol and drug services across the country. It could see people turn to different drugs and it could, in fact, make crime worse.

I also want to briefly talk about the measures to stop over 55-year-olds engaging in voluntary service as part of their participation requirements. I know the government has announced a trial in my own electorate. Frankly, if the trial is what it looks like, which is just an upgrade of IT services, it makes up for nothing in terms of the capacity for older Australians to participate in the voluntary workforce, which is very critical in my electorate, and it certainly does not make up for the fact that this government has cut the car industry and has forced these people into unemployment. (Time expired)

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. From my perspective, work has always acted as a great provider for people in so many ways. It gives people a sense of purpose and the opportunity to participate, connect, collaborate, create, and achieve individual and shared goals. Work also allows us to make a personal contribution to our communities through the labour and taxes we provide to build a better future together. The problem is that not all is fair in work and welfare at the moment and many people are riding on the coat-tails of those who are doing the right thing.

In late June this year, the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, presented the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill to the parliament. This bill supports the coalition government's commitment to comprehensive reform of the Australian welfare system. It also delivers the coalition's 2017 budget commitments to create a welfare system that is easier to navigate and helps to move people from welfare to work. The welfare reform bill 2017 will improve support for people moving into work and ensure a safety net for those who need welfare assistance the most. Today, I'd like to focus on key areas of the bill that are relevant to my seat of Leichhardt. The welfare reform bill will continue to provide a safety net for jobseekers in need of assistance. However, it will also make it tougher for those who deliberately flout the system, by introducing a stronger compliance network. It will do this by introducing a demerit point scheme similar to the one currently used for drivers licences, as part of a tougher framework.

In Far North Queensland, I have been actively working with a variety of employers, individuals and institutions to stimulate and promote jobs growth in our region. For too long there have been those who have been shirking their community responsibilities, leeching off workers and abusing the Australian welfare system, which is meant to be there for those in genuine need. New figures show Cairns currently has the second-highest number of people on the dole after Bundaberg. It has more than 4,350 people receiving the dole. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that there are jobs currently available in fruit picking, milking sheds and cafes in Far North Queensland, but many people are turning their noses up at these jobs. I've heard myriad excuses, especially from young people who don't want to work. They have poor excuses like, 'It's too hot,' 'It's too far to travel,' 'It's an impact on my social life,' 'The job isn't good enough,' or, 'The pay is too low.' This leaves the employers with no option but to hire backpackers to fill vacancies, especially in our hospitality industry.

This shouldn't be the case when we have so many people sitting on their backsides at home doing nothing but collecting welfare. Sometimes we need to give people a gentle push to motivate them to act. A person's first job, as I'm sure you'd be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, is usually not the start of their career, but it is the first sentence in their resume. Irrespective of the task, unemployed people need to show that they can get out of bed every day, turn up for work on time, make a solid contribution and be reliable. When they can demonstrate this consistency, they've taken the first step on the path to a career.

Earlier this year, I ran a Youth Jobs Boot Camp in Cairns. A young Indigenous man by the name of Elijah Ibell came along and showed real enthusiasm and commitment. A local training provider at the event called enVizion Group Inc. was so impressed they hired Elijah the same day as a part-time digital support officer. Both the employer and Elijah came away from that event very, very happy. That is a fine example of what you can achieve when you show that you are keen and you actually want to work.

Another element of the coalition government's welfare reform bill is that for the first time in Australia we'll see 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance participate in a two-year drug-testing trial at three locations around the country. People who are already receiving welfare payments, of course, will not be tested. The reality is that if a person presents themselves for a job and they are drug affected they have very little chance of being successful and are clearly not job ready. They are also a risk to themselves, to their work colleagues and, of course, to customers.

Those who are chosen to undertake a drug test will be randomly selected when they go for their routine Centrelink appointment. This is similar to the way roadside drug and alcohol tests are conducted by police or how drug testing is done in the mining industry and various other sectors. Locations for the drug-testing trial are being determined by elements such as high unemployment, high drug use—based on wastewater analysis, crime statistics, research and internal departmental data—and the treatment options available. (Quorum formed)

The purpose of the drug-testing trial is to identify people with drug issues and provide them with effective intervention, to help them so that they can enjoy the many benefits that come from earning a living through work. Jobseekers who return an initial positive drug test will continue to receive the same amount of welfare payments, but the welfare payments will be quarantined to help them manage their money to pay for essential living costs and to limit their ability to fund drug abuse. If a jobseeker tests positive a second time, they will be referred to a medical professional to assess their circumstances and to identify appropriate treatment options, which will then form part of their mutual obligations.

Locations for the drug testing will be announced in the near future. I'd certainly welcome the selection of Far North Queensland as one of those locations for drug testing. In March this year, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission released its findings on wastewater monitoring in Queensland and found that the level of Oxycodone and Fentanyl prescription opioid painkillers, known as 'hillbilly heroin', is higher in the Cairns and regional Queensland than the national average. At the same time, the ACIC's former Chief Executive Chris Dawson said that for many years US authorities had warned him that the abuse of prescription drugs was a very significant problem and that a large number of Oxycodone users graduate to heroin. In addition to this, the use of cannabis and ice in Far North Queensland remains a very big concern in our communities. I believe that a drug-testing trial in Far North Queensland would assist in reducing drug use and enable them to realise their potential as contributing members of our society.

This bill, which is in line with the coalition government's 2017-18 budget announcement, will also consolidate seven current working-age payments into a single payment for jobseekers. This is a positive move that will make it easier for Far North Queenslanders and others to navigate our welfare system and Centrelink. The welfare reform bill will also see jobseekers aged between 30 and 49 increase their annual activity requirements from 30 to 50 hours per fortnight and the participation requirements of people between the ages of 55 and 59 will also be strengthened. From 20 September 2018, welfare recipients will only be able to meet half of their annual requirements for 30 hours per fortnight through volunteering. Most people in this age bracket are keen to remain in the workforce; they have much to contribute to society and must remain valued members of our communities. Work provides them with this opportunity and allows them to do something useful and rewarding, while continuing to earn a living at the same time.

At this point I must say that I'm constantly impressed by the many extremely talented and creative people I've met who live in Far North Queensland. I recently caught up with two older Indigenous ladies from Mornington Island, Netta Loogatha and Elsie Gabori, at the Cairns Indigenous Art Fair. These ladies are a fine example of what can be achieved if you get up and have a go, regardless of your age. Two years ago Netta and Elsie started their own fashion label, called MIArt. Now, their creations feature on fashion catwalks around the country and are sold in major art institutions. Their latest collection of hand-painted neoprene bags is stocked in the NGV Design Store in Melbourne's Federation Square. What an inspiration they are to all, but especially those who may fear they have passed their use-by-date and that no-one wants to employ them.

This is true now more than ever with technological advances, the power of social media and global moves towards an entrepreneurial workforce. You're never too old to try something new, be creative and have a go. There are also incentives from employers to take older employees with the Restart wage subsidy program. Think about what you enjoy and what you're good at and then, as one well-known sporting brand used to say, 'Just get in and do it.' You might be surprised where it leads you, as it has been for Far North Queensland Indigenous fashionistas Netta and Elsie.

While I'm focusing on the importance of working, I'd like to mention one recent initiative that I've been working on in Far North Queensland to boost jobs and innovation in the local economy. This includes the Tropical North Queensland Regional Jobs and Investment Package, an initiative that will distribute $20 million in grants for key projects that will create jobs and boost infrastructure, innovation and training skills, such as in building and construction, defence and marine, education and training, and health and tourism. We've had about 44 applications for that across a broad spectrum, and I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the results of that.

As I mentioned earlier, we also had a Youth Jobs Boot Camp and launched the Youth Jobs PaTH Program, which provides industry focused training to prepare young people in Far North Queensland for work. It also allows local employers to trial these young people by giving them $1,000 to offer internships and provides local businesses up to $10,000 to contribute to the training and development of the young persons they hire. We have also conducted an apprenticeship forum and seen the appointment of Cairns' very own entrepreneurship facilitator, Tara Diversi. Tara is a proven innovator with strong regional and community knowledge of start-up business development, and she is passionate about working with young people. Tara is currently building networks with schools, colleges and business advisory services and providing practical assistance for young people to access local mentors, business partners, finance, office space, equipment and ongoing business development training. There are many other examples of work that I'm doing to boost jobs and innovation in the economy in Far North Queensland; however, time won't allow me to go through them all.

My point is that the future is bright for jobseekers in Far North Queensland—if you want to work. It's reasonable for taxpayers to expect that, if someone is able to work, they should do so rather than riding on the coat-tails of others who have jobs. I'm confident that this legislation is a positive turning point for our welfare system and one that will ensure that it remains focused on its key objective of creating a fairer welfare system that supports more people to work not just in Far North Queensland but across our country. (Time expired)

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reforms) Bill 2017, as I was not elected to sit idly by while this government attacks people in my community. Inequality in this country is at an all-time high, and we are feeling it in Longman. Families are struggling to get by, while millionaires are coasting by on a $16,000 tax cut. Pensioners are facing rising prices for their utilities. Workers have received a cut to their take-home pay, their pay and conditions have been undermined and their work is being outsourced, while big businesses are receiving exorbitant tax concessions. Surely the government can see the rise of inequality in Australia. Surely this should result in the government taking leadership and taking steps to reduce this inequality or, at the very least, to reduce its impact. But, in my time here, what I have seen is a government that's done nothing but mismanage our nation's economy.

Cutting funding to essential services is not good economic management, and wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on fruitless endeavours that do nothing but stigmatise and marginalise vulnerable communities is about as far from good economic management as you can get. This government is wasting $122 million on a harmful postal survey, a survey which was brought out of bigotry in society and marginalises same-sex people and their families. This survey does nothing to better my community or our country. The survey has no economic benefit for my community or my country. All it has achieved is the further demonisation of a subset across our community. The drug testing of welfare recipients that is outlined in schedule 12 of this bill achieves just as much. In fact, it will more than likely cause far more harm than it will good.

Here's what we know about the drug testing. We know medical professionals and the drug and alcohol treatment sector have expressed significant concerns about these measures. We know experts have warned that the trials will not assist people to overcome addiction but will instead push them into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime. And we know drug testing of welfare recipients is a shallow and conceited effort designed to demonise people who need our support the most. But here's what we don't know. We don't know what type of testing will be used. We don't know what it will cost—inevitably it's going to be expensive; reliable urine tests cost somewhere between $550 and $950 to administer. And we don't know what evidence the government has that this is even a good idea.

Right now no health or community organisation—let me be clear: not one—has yet come out publicly in support of this trial. In fact, the only evidence we have seen to date is from some overseas examples. Let's take New Zealand, for example. Their government introduced a similar program just a few years ago. In 2015 only 22 of over 8,000 people who were tested returned a positive test for drug use. That's lower than the rate of drug use across the broader New Zealand population. It cost New Zealand around $1 million to find this. That's over $45,000 per result that they achieved. If anything, this example shows that welfare recipients are less likely to use illicit substances, which begs the question: why are we starting with this vulnerable segment of our community?

Let me be clear, though: I'm not standing here saying that no welfare recipients use illicit drugs. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not standing here advocating for drugs or denying the harmful effects of drug addiction, as we see it in a lot of the communities and the families we represent. In fact, I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying we need to take measured steps forward, consult with experts, consult with medical professionals and understand the effects and the consequences of this schedule of the bill, not just in the short term but further down the line. We need to recognise that drug addiction is a serious issue that plagues our community. But, more importantly, we need to recognise that this is not just an issue for the poor or people on welfare; it's an issue that affects people from all walks of life.

If this is a policy based on love, as we've heard from the Prime Minister, then why are we ignoring so much of our society who really do need love? Prime Minister Turnbull, I have to give you a message: the people see right through this doublespeak. They know that a policy based on love would help all people overcome addiction and offer them support, care, compassion and some guidance—and not by cutting their payments or singling them out as a group in our society. A real policy based on love would be formulated through considered consultation with healthcare professionals like the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians or even the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. If the policy were based on love, the government would consult with the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine or St Vincent's Health Australia. But they won't, because each of these organisations and many more like them have expressed really strong concerns about this proposal. The government don't want to listen to anyone who won't show unwavering support for this narrative.

Really, this government won't listen to anybody but their own members—like the member for Bowman, who represents the south side of Brisbane, in Queensland, and who so lovingly said that he isn't worried about welfare recipients turning to crime, because 'they can detox behind bars.' Can you believe that? How much love and compassion is in that statement? 'They can detox behind bars'! This just raises more questions. It makes me wonder: why are the government so intent on moving forward with this trial? It's obviously not for health reasons, otherwise they'd listen to the experts and professionals who say that the trial will do more harm than good. It's not for the crime and safety outcomes, otherwise they wouldn't be proudly saying that there will be more people committing crimes and ending up in jail. It's not about delivering savings to taxpayers. Welfare payments are $267 a week. Seriously, that's considered below the poverty line.

On welfare it can be a struggle just to get by, let alone afford drugs. On the other hand, drug testing thousands of welfare recipients would come at an enormous cost. It's a tremendous burden on the taxpayers, and if some of these recipients were pushed to crime and subsequently jailed, as the member for Bowman would more than happily see them be, they would cost the taxpayer around $300 a day. Prison is clearly not cheap at $300 a day. So it really baffles me that the government is looking to reduce welfare payments wherever they can, when they clearly aren't weighing up all of the economic outcomes.

Drug testing isn't the only way that this bill is seeking to cut welfare payments either. The government is just more vocal about the part that I have just been through, because it's easy to malign the drug users of Australia. What they aren't as vocal about, and what they're quietly slipping in through this bill, is how they want to make it more difficult for carers and parents to receive payments as well. I'll give an example: the schedule which precedes the drug-testing trials, schedule 11 of this bill, seeks to remove the intent-to-claim provisions for those seeking a welfare payment. Intent-to-claim provisions allow people to effectively have their claims backdated to the time of first contacting the Department of Human Services. It makes the system more reasonable for people with trouble collating the necessary information they need to put in a claim.

People may have trouble collating the information that they need if they're homeless, or if they've just been separated from a partner, or if they have a health issue or if they have an issue accessing technology. Don't get me started on accessing technology—let's talk about NBN at another time! What if they have trouble accessing the information they need to put together their claim? These are people who need our support—not millionaires and big business. These are the people who need our support. The increasing waiting times would add to the one-week waiting period that many claimants already have to face.

It's pretty common knowledge that Centrelink is a pretty big mess—and I don't mean the staff. Let me be very clear here: I do not mean the staff when I talk about Centrelink. Many of the people who work there are hardworking locals. They live in our community; they live in my community. They live down the street and they go to the sporting clubs that we go to. They're hardworking people. They have to make do with the limited resources they're given in an understaffed environment. I'm talking about the system and the way it's mismanaged under this government—how wait times have ballooned and people have been demonised by shameful robo-debt debacles. And now this government is seeking to exploit these wait times to avoid paying the welfare payments that people actually need.

This government may try to spin this as savings, but in reality this is just a cruel government taking money from vulnerable people. These are vulnerable people who need financial support just to get by. Members of this government have claimed they strive for equality of opportunity for all Australians. So it baffles me that they would be seeking to cut vital payments from needy people. How can we expect them to go to a job interview if they can't afford to do so? How do they pay for a bus ticket or a train ticket? How do they put fuel in the car? This isn't about equality of opportunity. This is inequality at its finest—tax concessions for the rich and cuts to resources for the poor. It's become standard Liberal government practice. They are acting out of habit, rather than taking a considered and measured step forward.

We in the Labor Party are willing to support any well-thought-out reform that will lead to positive change. We're absolutely willing to support that, and we won't fight it. In fact, we won't even seek to oppose every schedule in this bill. If every schedule were raised separately, we wouldn't seek to oppose this at all, because, for the most part, we don't oppose the changes made in schedules 1 to 8 of the bill as part of the working-age payment reform. While we're opposed to schedules seeking to cease bereavement allowance or wife pension, we're not opposed to schedules 1, 2, 5 or 8, nor to 16 or 18. But let's be clear about this: these aren't sweeping reforms. Streamlining tax file number collection, which is in schedule 16, isn't some grand change. Streamlining their tax file number collection isn't a meaningful reform that will bring equality to people in Longman.

Australia wants meaningful reform. Australia wants a way forward. It wants a government that will take positive steps to reduce inequality, and only Labor will do that. Labor has a plan to tackle inequality in Australia, and we will achieve this. The Labor Party will make Australia a fairer place for all and we will achieve this. And until we win the leadership in the next election, we will fight this government. We will fight them whenever they try to take steps in the other direction, whenever they try to cut payments for those who need them and whenever they try to marginalise vulnerable people. We will fight the government on this bill. We will not stand idly by. I will not stand idly by while they make things worse for people in my community, and we will not stand by when they make things more difficult for people right across Australia.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Longman started off her speech with an extraordinary claim that the government has done nothing for the economy. Like other members opposite, the member for Longman, no doubt, has very limited understanding of the economy. However, let me point out that in the last financial year 240,000 new jobs were created—240,000 new jobs! We know from various recent surveys that investment is up, particularly in the non-mining sector. We have a new set of national accounts out, looking at the June quarter, which show economic growth at 0.8 per cent and show a 1.2 per cent increase in total wages paid. Let's have a look at this claim that the government does nothing for economic growth. Is growth up? Absolutely. Jobs, are they increasing? Absolutely. And is investment increasing? Absolutely. And I don't mind the member starting her speech with that because it's flawed, therefore, from the very beginning.

Then, of course there are the crocodile tears about the very bill we're speaking about today. There's no doubt the Labor Party love to talk about the word 'inequality' but, as we have seen, the members opposite have chosen the wrong course. There is an extent to which there is inequality and people in our country who are vulnerable and need help. There is a choice to make: you can be passive and watch, or you can proactively help. This bill is all about taking that second option. It is about the government proactively looking at helping the situation. And so this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill, brings together a suite of timely reforms and fulfils a firm budget commitment to improve the welfare system, to make it more straightforward and better focused on helping Australians transition from welfare to work.

The Australian welfare system has for decades, ramping up over time, achieved an enormous redistribution of wealth to provide a level of support for the welfare of individuals and families courtesy of the Australian taxpayers sharing a significant proportion of their personal incomes. The cost of the welfare system, our social safety net, is equivalent to 90 per cent of all personal income taxes paid in Australia. It is far and away the largest portion of federal government outlays, far bigger than expenditure on health, or defence or anything else. Taxpayers, therefore, require that their government from time to time review welfare structures and methods to ensure that the level of support is sustained and fit for purpose and that it is justifiable expenditure, reaching those who need it and those who are indeed deserving of it.

The coalition undertook such a review of a significant element of the welfare payment system in 2014. The reforms proposed in this bill flow principally from the work of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, led by Patrick McClure, a former head of Mission Australia. He was asked by the Abbott government to undertake a root-and-branch review of the working-age elements of the welfare system. The aged pension, which is the largest single welfare expenditure, was not part of that review and is being dealt with separately by the government for the same reasons—to ensure that money is appropriately targeted and spent.

Mr McClure and his reference group determined that the system was indeed in need of major reform in order to better protect sustainability, manageability and fairness. They reported that ad hoc changes over time had led to 'unintended complexities, inconsistencies and incoherencies'. As a result, they said, disincentives were created for people to work. The system had fallen out of step with labour market realities and community expectations in terms of the fundamental purpose of most forms of support for people of working age—to give them a significant degree of support with intent that encourages and supports them to return to the workforce where they are capable of doing so.

The conclusion, therefore, was that without reform, the fiscal, economic and social sustainability of that part of the safety net dealing with working-aged Australians would be compromised. And that's unthinkable in a country— (Quorum formed)They just keep doing it. Every single time that the coalition points out that Labor want to keep people down whereas we lift them up, they call a quorum. They're ashamed. If I were on their side, I, too, would be awfully ashamed.

As I was saying, here we have a situation where it would be absolutely unthinkable if the social safety net that we have in this country is compromised. Thus, the need for reforms that this bill represents. It has to be taken into account that our safety net in Australia is an expensive one. Welfare spending by the federal government, the taxpayer, in 1999-2000 was $90 billion. In 2015-16, it was $155 billion. It is so clear that the stakes in managing this amount of money are enormous. They require the sort of rigorous oversight represented by the measures in this bill. Clearly, and especially in light of an ageing population and a massive commitment to improved spending for the disabled through the NDIS that is now ramping up rapidly, we need to be doing everything we can to ensure that benefits are fair, fit for purpose and, above all, sustainable. These realities show the significance and the importance of this bill. It represents a necessary, timely and comprehensive reform of working-age welfare payments that makes the system simpler and more sustainable. It makes it a system which has a stronger focus on the crucial task of supporting people to make the transition from welfare to employment.

A major measure here to simplify the system is the introduction, from March 2020, of a single jobseeker payment that replaces seven existing payments. The Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance and widow B pension will cease in March 2020, to be replaced by the new single-payment format, which will reduce administrative complexity. There will, for the first time, be a single set of rules and rates for people of working age with the capacity to work, based largely on the existing Newstart eligibility requirements.

A major thrust of the bill, also reflected in many separate measures, is that it firmly entrenches long-term employment as the best outcome for people who enter the welfare system, with special emphasis on mutual obligation principles. If a job is available and the recipient is able, they should take it, rather than become long-term welfare recipients. One of the special measures in this area goes to the activity test, which currently provides Newstart support for older but still working-age Australians in the bracket of 55- to 59-year-olds who are said to have met the activity test if they do 30 hours of voluntary work a fortnight. From September next year, in order to give added emphasis to the thrust of the bill that a job is the best form of welfare, paid work of 30 hours a fortnight, or a combination of paid and voluntary work with the voluntary component no greater than 15 hours, will enable the recipient to continue receiving that support.

In the same vein of encouraging paid work for those who are able to undertake it, there will be a stronger emphasis on the responsibilities of those with alcohol or drug problems. This is an important measure, given their disproportionate representation in the welfare system. People who are unemployed are 2.4 times more likely to be drug or alcohol dependent, and that cohort is much more likely, while on welfare, to use that dependency as an excuse for not engaging in obligations to seek work. This gets to the heart of what this measure is all about, because it comes down to helping people. We know that the best way of ensuring people can get on top of their addiction is to improve their ability to find a job. Again, a job is the best form of welfare.

Today's bill proposes that Newstart and youth allowance recipients who return a positive drug test during a two-year trial program across three locations will have their payments placed on income management to limit their ability to buy drugs. Should a second drug test prove positive, then the recipient will be referred for professional treatment, which will then form part of their mutual obligations. Again, this is not a punitive measure, nor is it designed to stigmatise or unfairly penalise welfare recipients suffering from substance abuse. It is aimed squarely at helping those Australians held back by alcohol, held back by drugs. It is aimed at getting them back into the workforce for their benefit—and, indeed, for the long-term benefit of the country and the Australian taxpayer, who can no longer simply and indefinitely fund this problem.

Mutual obligation, beyond the substance abuse measures, will also be extended more widely by the bill, to apply more stringently to all recipients. Most of our two-thirds attend all their required appointments in relation to the search for employment, and a suspension of payments for the one-third who miss too many of those appointments is typically enough to get them back on track, but there is a minority that is just gaming the system.

The bill establishes a demerit system so that those who are constantly avoiding their mutual obligation requirements will be monitored and more stringently penalised. These are all very worthwhile measures, and the core issues here in this bill are essentially (1) the maintenance of a welfare safety net that is fair and fit for purpose and (2) that taxpayers rightly deserve that the government of the day acts on its obligation to ensure that the very significant cost of that safety net is no higher than it needs to be. I commend the bill to the House.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party and National Party's relentless demonisation of people in this country who access our welfare system is something that needs to stop. It has to stop. Think what the research by the member for Fenner shows, that a dollar spent in the Australian social security system does more to reduce inequality than a dollar spent in any other welfare system in the world. It's not perfect but our system is helping people. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, rather than helping people as the previous speaker suggested, is actually about hurting people, demonising them for the circumstances in which they have found themselves.

For many people, our welfare system provides a safety net that allows them breathing space to get back on their feet—just. Yet what we see as an appalling attack on people who have found themselves at their most vulnerable, those opposite seem to see as a success. I hope that anyone who says that the government and the opposition's policies cannot be differentiated, that they're both the same, as you sometimes hear people say, are listening because what I'm about to say shows that we are chalk and cheese. The Turnbull government is successfully creating a conversation that refers to single mothers, people with disabilities, people with mental health issues, especially chronic mental illness, older Australians, people from diverse backgrounds, people who are poor, students, carers—all these groups—as dole bludgers, as leaners, as a problem to be shamed and monitored and punished at every single opportunity; that they must be reminded of their place, as if the act of asking for help from the state is not humbling enough for nearly every person.

Only this week I spoke to a resident of the Blue Mountains who had recently lost his job. While he has prospects of other work, right now he is struggling. A father of two children, he described for me how he had sold off many of his possessions, exhausted his savings and was now forced to apply for Newstart to tide him over until he finds a new job. He doesn't want to be on welfare. He wants to be self-sufficient, and I hope he will be soon. He is possibly at his most vulnerable and we need to be treating him with dignity, not derision. Those opposite have politicised welfare for their own political gain, taking cheap shots. I wonder at their sense of invincibility, as if they are somehow of a different species, human perhaps but a human who can't fall ill, who can't have an accident, who can't experience bad luck in life.

I wish this bill was a one-off act from the government, but their utter disrespect for people who desperately need a leg-up is in their DNA. They wanted to make young people wait six months before receiving unemployment payments. They reduced family payments. In fact, look at the 2014 budget or the omnibus bill from earlier this year to see their default position—and now the latest attacks. Let's start with the proposal to introduce a mandatory drug-testing trial for recipients of Newstart and youth allowance which (a) won't work, (b) has no support from any health or medical professionals nor community organisations and (c) is going to cost a lot of money. Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs sums it up well. She says:

At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work.

We on this side are open to working with the government on genuine attempts to help people battling drug and alcohol addictions, but we will not support blatant attacks that have absolutely no basis in evidence. Despite the judgemental rhetoric from those opposite, the experts tell us this will not help people overcome their addictions. Instead, they say, it will push them into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime. While there is much more I could say about this particular measure, I know it has received plenty of attention from my colleagues and will continue to, and so I will look at other sections of this bill, which are also awful.

One part of this bill that I don't want to see slip through unnoticed is the proposed changes to current activity requirements for people aged 55 to 59 on income support. Under the current activity test, you can fulfil the requirements of 30 hours work a fortnight by volunteering. Volunteering is an effective way of not only contributing to our society and supporting great organisations so that they can continue to carry out the excellent work they do but also giving the individual involved personal benefits. It can act as a pathway to employment; it provides vital connections and a sense of community; it enables the development of new skills; and it keeps people healthy and active. Of all those things, I think the connection to other people is absolutely vital. We know that people in communities that are connected are resilient, and that their overall mental health is better. That's the sort of reform we should be looking for.

It is ironic to me that we have a parliamentary friends of volunteering group, yet this measure attacks the basis on which that group operates: that volunteering should be valued. Leep is a volunteering organisation that operates in my electorate of Macquarie. They've written to me expressing their concerns with the government's changes. One part of their letter caught my attention, and I would like to read it to you now. They said:

Volunteering is the backbone of a robust, safe and engaged community. The benefits that it brings volunteers, organisations and the broader community deserve to be highly regarded and appreciated at all levels of government.

Unfortunately this government's proposed changes do nothing to support the volunteering industry. The changes require that a minimum of 15 hours of the 30-hour activity test for 55- to 59-year-olds is spent on job-related or job-search activities, rather than volunteering. Volunteering is ruled out for those 15 hours. Prioritising finding work would be a great option, if there were jobs around, but unemployment in my electorate is about twice the level of that in the Prime Minister's seat of Wentworth. There are too many people for the available jobs, and the over-55s are not necessarily going to be the ones chosen first. Once out of work, the length of time a person aged 55 to 59 spends looking for work is 73 weeks—or more than a year—compared to the overall average of 40 to 50 weeks.

I've heard government members talk about a new program targeted at helping people over 50 back into the workforce, the Career Transition Assistance program. That isn't due to be rolled out nationally until 2020, but these other changes come in next year. I'd like them to explain to a currently unemployed 57 year old where the fairness is in that. Volunteering Australia CEO Adrienne Picone has said:

The tightening of the activity requirements will do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians who are an already disadvantaged and discriminated group in the labour market.

Let's not forget that there is just one job available for every 10 people who are locked out of employment or who need more paid work. You'd think that the first step in figuring out this puzzle would be to start addressing the lack of work available. That would make sense, but not to this government. No, that's not the approach they take. They like to make people look for jobs that just aren't there, and then shame them for not being able to get one. The Volunteer Involving Organisation, which also operates in Macquarie, shares my concerns and has said that it is 'most disappointing that the government is focusing on enforcing mutual obligation without a commensurate effort into facilitating job opportunities for mature-aged workers'.

The Centre for Volunteering data shows that volunteering makes an estimated annual economic and social contribution of $290 billion to the economy, a contribution that will be jeopardised by these changes. Forcing people to give up voluntary work, where new skills are learnt and old skills are developed, in favour of undertaking job search related activities, which do little to expand their skills base at times, is a move that will completely fail to improve their job prospects. There is only one winner here, and it's not the people on income support, it's not the volunteering organisations, it's not even the labour market, it's not the economy and it's certainly not the community, particularly not my community of Macquarie. The only winner here is the Turnbull government in their so-called war on welfare.

It doesn't stop there though. The Prime Minister can't help but put his Point Piper fingers in a few more pies. So who else is on the list? In what other ways can we demonise people? The government is proposing to remove the intent-to-claim provision in this legislation. As it stands, people are allowed to have their claims backdated to the point when they first contacted the Department of Human Services. As many of us know through our electorate offices and the experience of our constituents, the Centrelink system is not always the easiest to navigate, no matter who you are. Add in a few hurdles—for instance, paperwork lost in a house move—and getting that claim through can turn into a really lengthy business.

People who are illiterate, people who are homeless, children who are coming out of care, people who are sick, older Australians, people battling mental illness, victims of domestic violence and people living in rural and regional Australia a long way from a Centrelink office—all of these groups, understandably, may take a little bit longer to complete their applications and gather and present the required paperwork, and this government wants to punish them for that. What's more, if you're not great on a computer, you get extra punishment. So when it's already tough, this government wants to make it tougher. Thank you! Let that sink in for a moment: it wants to punish people's disadvantage.

Before seeing this bill I wouldn't have thought that anyone in this place would target a group of people so directly for such little gain, but this government has done thoughtless and heartless things like this before, so it should come as no surprise that it is at it again. There is another group that the government has in its sights with this bill. It hasn't even spared people who are on income support and lose their partner. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment that supports people when they lose their partner. It's paid for 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension and is subjected to the same income and assets test. For a pregnant woman who loses her partner the allowance is paid for 14 weeks or the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. Surely this is a simple act of compassion.

The government wants to replace the bereavement allowance with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance. This means that not only will a person who has just lost their partner have to meet a more stringent means test but they will also receive less financial support. A grieving husband, wife or partner will be left $1,600 worse off over the 14-week period at the hands of this government. So they lose a partner and the government makes their life even harder. This is a cruel cut, with no justification other than once again to be seen to be cracking down on welfare. This part of the bill could easily be removed by the government, and I encourage it to do so.

One other area that really concerns me is the changes that take away any discretion around penalising jobseekers who fail to attend Job Services appointments or employment without reason. This might be a jobseeker who is found to have failed to start a job that they accepted. Anyone who has faced unemployment needs support in the early days of a new job. The longer you have been unemployed the harder it can be to take that first step. Their self-confidence has already taken a battering. I can't imagine that anyone wouldn't have a level of anxiety in that situation. When you throw in the level of mental health issues that we know our society faces, these are punitive measures that are the least helpful device. There needs to be discretion around these measures.

What we have is evidence of what I can only, sadly, describe as a heartless government which looks only to hurt people, not to support them. We are better than this. There are nine more cuts to welfare recipients in these bills. They're called 'reform'. Reform should be about improving a system and supporting people more, not making their life harder. I really ask those opposite to consider: what if it was someone in your family who had fallen on hard times? They may well have fallen prey to drugs; they may well have addictions. Are you the sort of people who just want to turf people out and say, 'Too bad; you're on your own?' Or are we the country that thinks the state should step up, support people and give them a chance to turn their lives around?

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our welfare system is designed to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or who are unable to participate in the workforce. It's not created to perpetuate people's drug habits. Taxpayers have the right to expect that their taxes are not used to fund illicit lifestyles. We also know that, without assistance, many people with substance abuse problems can't or won't take action to help themselves.

Data shows us that substance abuse is a bigger problem for people on welfare. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey showed that those who were unemployed were 2.4 times more likely to use drugs such as methylamphetamine, or ice, than these who were employed. While there are some existing mechanisms in place for identifying jobseekers who have substance abuse issues and assisting them to seek treatment, the government is committed to trialling a new approach to tackle this very significant problem. This measure is not about penalising jobseekers who are drug dependent. This trial is about ensuring taxpayers' money isn't used to fund illicit lifestyles. It is about testing new ways to help people with substance abuse issues to overcome them and re-enter the workforce.

The best form of welfare is a job. Everything should be geared towards supporting capable people into work wherever possible. This is the fundamental principle on which our policies are based. As part of the drug testing trial, the government has committed up to $10 million to create a dedicated treatment fund. (Quorum formed)

I thank the member for Lyons for the intervention. I was playing squash this morning with the former member for Lyons. What a great pity this place did not continue to be served by that man, the former member for Lyons. He wouldn't be worried about these trivial quorum matters like those opposite are. Whilst I couldn't beat the former member for Lyons at squash, I'd be really confident that I could beat the current member—and I extend that invitation. I think we could sell tickets to that event. The Labor Party's continued kind of trickery is only fun for those opposite in the House. I think those outside this building would much prefer us to get on with the business of this place, including the very many students in the gallery today who have come to watch democracy in this nation at play.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the member for Lyons, as part of the drug-testing trial the government is committing up to $10 million to create a dedicated treatment fund. This fund will be able to provide additional treatment support in trial locations where the existing state or Commonwealth supports and services are not sufficient to meet any additional related demands as a result of the trial.

Those opposite are saying, 'We don't think it's appropriate that you should drug test welfare recipients.' That flies in the face of what those of us on this side believe. We believe Australian taxpayers' funds should not go to supporting illicit lifestyles and, indeed, that people who are supported in their endeavour to look for employment should be able to do so in a drug-free environment. Those opposite are also opposed to that $10 million of additional funding going to communities to provide treatment services. I ask you to seriously consider imagining that you are looking into the eyes of a drug dependent constituent of yours and you are saying to them, 'We're not prepared to provide you with that additional support.' I can't understand why those opposite are not with us, but there you are.

The specific details of the treatment fund will be determined in consultation with the Department for Health, as it should be; the primary health networks; and the drug and alcohol sectors before the trial starts in 2018. This $10 million is in addition to the almost $685 million the Commonwealth is already contributing over four years, from 1 July 2016, to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on individuals, families and communities. That is because the Turnbull coalition government understands the harm that these drugs perpetuate on the individual, on their family members and on the communities in which these people live.

This $685 million includes an investment of almost $300 million over four years as part of the National Ice Action Strategy to improve treatment, after-care, education and prevention, and to support community engagement to tackle ice. Of this investment, more than $240 million will go to treatment services that are currently being rolled out through the government's primary health networks and will be fully in place on 1 January next year when this trial starts. The availability of appropriate treatment in the trial locations will be monitored.

The National Drug Strategy 2017-2026 calls for a balanced approach across three pillars of harm minimisation: a balanced approach across demand reduction, supply reduction and, importantly, harm reduction. The Australian government is committed to reducing harmful and illicit drug use and supporting people that recover from substance addiction and misuse. This includes harnessing the welfare system to deter substance abuse and provide pathways to recovery. The key principles underpinning the National Drug Strategy are evidence, informed responses, partnerships, coordination and collaboration, and national direction with jurisdictional implementation. The government considers that the drug-testing trial is consistent with these principles.

This trial is all about developing an evidence-based effective approach to interventions in Australia, working hand in glove across government with local Primary Health Networks and treatment providers, and leveraging national mechanisms to try to improve outcomes for individuals, their families and their communities. This measure will trial the drug testing of jobseekers in three locations only. The trial will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation, to build an evidence base regarding the effectiveness of this kind of intervention in Australia's welfare context. I remind members opposite, it is a context in which you are 2.4 times more likely to be subject to illicit substance misuse.

Drug testing of certain welfare recipients has been legislated in at least 15 states in the United States of America on either a fully rolled out or trial basis. It is also conducted in New Zealand as a pre-employment option that potential employers can request. It is not uncommon for employers in Australia to require employees or prospective employees to undertake drug testing as part of their obligations to provide a safe working environment, particularly in safety-sensitive industries such as aviation, mining, transport and construction.

I believe deeply in the maxim that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I formally record my position, which is that I am perfectly comfortable, at any time—indeed, from now, given that we are, hopefully, about to legislate a system of drug testing in these three trial sites—during the course of that trial, and indeed thereafter, to be subject to random drug testing at any time. I believe, quite frankly, that if we expect this of members of our community, then, as citizens who represent our community in this place, we should be leading by example. I have said as much in the media, but I wish to confirm as much in the House. As my wife said to me when I raised this issue with her, 'Tony, unless they're testing for KFC, I think you'll be okay!'

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have no doubt, this bill will make massive changes to the social security and job search system we have in this country. You would think that changes as big as this would be supported by thought, proof, evidence and a tested road map, but as you dig into the changes you see that the detail is not forthcoming and there's very little to prove that this will actually make the job of jobseekers finding work easier.

Before considering all of those changes in this contribution to the debate, it's important that we also consider this in the broader environment in which these changes are being brought in—specifically: what does our labour market look like, what's unemployment like in this country and how will these changes have an effect? If we consider the labour market the Turnbull government is presiding over, it's a weak one. While it's ticked down slightly recently, the current unemployment rate is at about 5.6 per cent. It's worth bearing in mind that this is almost as high as the worst levels we experienced through the global financial crisis. In recent years, the link between economic growth and wages growth has been severed, which means that not everyone is sharing in the benefits of the economy.

In today's labour market, a significant portion of the workforce are stuck in temporary or casual jobs where they work like full-time employees but they don't get all the benefits of it. We have a growing and chronic problem of underemployment. Around one-third of part-time workers—1.1 million people—say they want more hours but can't get them. Groups like Anglicare Australia have undertaken the Jobs Availability Snapshot, which showed that the shortage of positions available for low-skilled jobseekers runs at six jobseekers for every position advertised—six people chasing one job. That's a significant shortage of entry-level work for jobseekers. You can't ignore these statistics, because they demonstrates how weak the labour market actually is. And the reality is that the Turnbull government doesn't have, and has never had, a plan for jobs or for putting the right supports in place to help people find jobs. It's that simple.

Everything else is spin—like, for example, what we're seeing with the government's Youth Jobs PaTH program. This is a billion-dollar program trumpeted as a solution to youth unemployment, and it's turning out to be a sham. Last week we had news of a huge breach of the system. The government only moved to correct that after it became news. One young person worked up to 58 hours in one week in an intern placement at a Melbourne cafe. This is despite the fact the government said young people wouldn't be forced to work more than 50 hours a fortnight. That was 58 hours in a week instead of the guaranteed—we were told—50 hours maximum in a fortnight. Another intern worked for a company for days without any formal, signed agreement to outline their protections and how things would operate in that firm. A program the Turnbull government says will help young people is actually seeing them work many hours above program limits, without pay—and those interns are government-subsidised within that program.

It's clear that the Turnbull government doesn't have the right protective measures in place to stop poor practices affecting young people in the program. Under PaTH, the government expects young people to police businesses for the government and blow the whistle if they are exploited. These recent cases have shown young people aren't confident enough to do so, and are worried about their Centrelink payments being affected if they do call out bad employers. This is a horrible position to put young Australian jobseekers in. Just today, we heard that 1,300 people have had their welfare payments suspended in connection with the PaTH program but only 413 have actually got a job out of it. The government has cut the payments of more people than have found a job from this program. It's typical: so far under PaTH, more people are being punished than helped.

Making matters worse, while the employment minister told a newspaper that 413 people had found a job through PaTH, her colleague in the same place, Senator James McGrath, yesterday told the Senate that 10,000 people had found jobs. The Turnbull government have no idea what they're doing; they're simply fudging the numbers to get a good headline. The headline should be about people actually getting good jobs out of good training and good skills development. That is the type of headline they should be chasing, but they won't. Senator McGrath also said the Department of Employment would be auditing employers participating in PaTH. That's the kind of monitoring the government should be doing before interns join, not after the government have been caught out and interns have been exploited by employers who are not doing the right thing. It shouldn't take an embarrassing news story to kick this government into gear. But the Turnbull government don't actually care about young people or protecting them as they search for work.

The program is looking more and more like an expensive rort. Besides failing to stop the exploitation of young people, it's consistently failing to meet its own targets. Five months into the program, 1,000 young people have been placed as interns; the program expects 30,000 in one year. This program started in April; it's now September. They've only had 1,000 so far, so they have a massively huge task ahead of them to meet their own targets.

If you look across the broader job search program, the job search tools themselves aren't working. The first example is the Employment Assistance Fund, a billion-dollar fund that should help remove any barriers that jobseekers are facing through training or skills development. When you look at how much has been spent—we confirmed back in May that only 15 per cent of this $1 billion employment fund had been spent. Jobactive kicked off in July 2015. Theoretically, 30 per cent of that fund should have been spent by now, but only 15 per cent has been spent. I keep being told that the government has made the guidelines around the fund too hard to interpret, meaning it's often left alone by employment service providers, and then the government pushes the blame for the underspend onto the providers. As with the Youth Jobs PaTH internship program, the government won't take responsibility for its own failure on the employment fund.

We can also look at the amount of money we're spending in this country on wage subsidies to help get the jobless into work. In all the cases, including the Restart wage subsidy, youth wage subsidy, parent wage subsidy, long-term unemployed and Indigenous wage subsidies—across all those categories—only 35 per cent of the forecast expenditure on wage subsidies to get people back into work has been spent. Clearly these subsidies aren't working. So when the government complains about dole bludgers or about paying welfare to people who don't deserve it, remember: this government doesn't take responsibility for its own mistakes. It doesn't take responsibility for its own failing job programs. More importantly, not only does it not take responsibility for its mistakes, it doesn't fix them so as to get people into work.

Here is a snapshot of the job network under this government and how the job programs are performing. We have 730,000 people, roughly, out of work in this country. We spend roughly $9 billion on government job programs. It's the second largest area of procurement outside of defence. We have 40,000 employment service consultants. Only 20 per cent of the people helped by the government's job programs find work that lasts longer than 26 weeks. Only 35 per cent of wage subsidies have been spent, an underspend on the employment fund. This is the state of the job network under the Turnbull government.

We have people like the Minister for Human Services, Mr Tudge, coming in here and saying that their idea is to get people off welfare and into work. Well, the Turnbull government is spectacularly successful in getting people off welfare and they're spectacularly unsuccessful in getting them into work. All they're about is driving them off the welfare roll, not getting them into a job, which should be the aim of these types of reforms. It's about hammering the jobless; it's not about helping them get work.

Let's look at some of the schedules in this legislation being considered by the House that are directly related to employment and affected by this labour market and the failures of these job programs. Schedule 15 changes the compliance framework for income support recipients to mutual obligations and participation payments. It is a two-phase framework. One phase deals out demerit points to jobseekers who fail to comply with their obligations. If a jobseeker accrues four demerit points in a six-month period, they'll be assessed to see whether they are put through what's called an intensive phase. In the intensive phase there are three escalating penalties or strikes. First strike, you lose one week's payment; second strike, you lose two weeks; and the third strike is cancellation of the payment and a four-week exclusion from reapplication.

This compliance reform was produced without employment sector consultation. It will cut more people off welfare payments than the current system, without any apparent improvement in the actual jobseeker employment outcomes. Under the current system, roughly 72,000 penalties are applied, but under the proposed system, that number will more than double to nearly 150,000 penalties applied. And despite introducing suspensions of the first four demerit points, to allow people to reform their behaviour before receiving a financial punishment, the system is going to see more people lose payments than ever before, because the waivers and discretions that are provided to the departmental secretary and delegated authorities will be largely removed from the system. We will oppose the measures, unless the government reinstates waivers and discretion for employment service providers and the departmental secretary when assessing demerits or financial penalties. There are some people under terrible circumstances, and it will actually be counterproductive to apply this compliance framework in the process of trying to get such a person into work. If it is counterproductive in getting people into work, then why apply the measure? The only reason you would do that is basically because you want to hammer those people, not help them.

The National Employment Services Association and Jobs Australia have voiced concern that the government hasn't consulted adequately how the new system would operate. For example, NESA said there's a level of discretion now, where you take into account the whole person's circumstances, that is important. But that kind of balance is being removed under this proposal. NESA pointed out that the sector had only received a few meetings with the Department of Employment about the new framework and had not received any indication about what training would be provided. Again, we need the detail. ACOSS noted that evidence from the UK showed that inflexible and punitive compliance sanctions had the reverse effect and would increase the risk of participants becoming homeless. It had negative outcomes, particularly in terms of engagement with the labour market. We want people engaged and we want people getting jobs, but the evidence from other parts of the world, where this has been tried, is that the reverse occurs. That's why discretion and waivers must be retained in the system and, again, it should be done in a way to help people get into work. I urge the government to reinstate discretion and waivers into the compliance framework.

Schedule 9 in this proposal removes the ability of Newstart allowance and some special benefit recipients aged between 55 and 59 from fulfilling the activity test by volunteering 30 hours per fortnight. The big reform that this government is heralding is that they actually want to hurt community organisations that are reliant on volunteer labour by those who are aged 55 to 59. They think this is the big reform they need to do. Let's be very clear: the Turnbull government is going to hammer those community groups by cutting the amount of time people can volunteer and still receive jobseeker payments.

The across-the-board response of volunteer and charity organisations that contributed to the Senate inquiry into this bill was, 'Don't do this.' That was the response. They believe this change will decimate the number of people and volunteer hours available to community organisations helping neighbourhoods across this nation. Volunteering Australia tore through the logic of this change very succinctly. They said they were:

… concerned that the tightening of the activity test could move people away from volunteering positions, which will have a profound impact on the volunteering sector. The proposal will also do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians—an already disadvantaged group in the job market.

Anglicare pointed out the simple truth about the job market. Their snapshot shows there's only one entry-level position for every six jobseekers, and we know that this age cohort experiences higher levels of discrimination. The government knows this too. This is why they're rushing in what's called their Career Transition Assistance Program in trial form only. The actual program begins in two years' time, but the jobseekers who are affected now get hammered in terms of their welfare payments.

With that program itself, $98 million is only being spent over four years. This should be done by employment service providers right now: doing a skills audit, working out what the training requirements are and helping them market themselves to employers. That stuff can be done right now, but this career transition program that's being put in place by the government is simply a fig leaf to show that they're doing something for 55 to 59 year olds that's going to happen in two years' time and not now. It is, frankly, a disgrace.

When we look at all the measures that have been put in here so far as they apply in the employment sector or in getting jobs for people, they are about making it harder for them to get work while also making their life harder during the period of time they're looking for work—if this were fair dinkum. We want people to work; we need people to get into employment. We need the investment in skills and in those people's positions. For once, it would be great to hear the employment minister actually talk about getting those people into work in a way that invests in them rather than denigrates them. All we hear is ideology. We don't hear anything practical or pragmatic to help Australians get back into work.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. The Turnbull government backs its commitments. It stands by the workers of Australia and it stands by the mutual obligations between citizens on welfare, the government and taxpayers. We know that those opposite have proved to be no friend of the workers, with their dodgy union deals and their job-killing taxes that we've been hearing about for some time. We on this side do stand for workers, and we want more Australians to be in work. We want them to be in a job. (Quorum formed)

It is so great to have an audience here, especially on this side, because, as we know, we on this side actually stand for people getting a job. People just wanted to hear that and to know that those on the other side do not. We understand that the best form of welfare comes not from this government, or any other government, for that matter, but from a well-paying, stable job. This is why we are backing our commitment to comprehensive reform to Australia's welfare system and introducing this bill.

The bill we're debating today has seen extensive consultation, with some 271 public submissions and 231 online comments received. The reference group has met with 160 organisations across all capital cities. Consultation has taken place with government departments, state and territory governments, and welfare groups. The development of this bill has taken legal advice into account to ensure that it is consistent with privacy laws, disability discrimination laws and human rights obligations. This bill contains an integrated suite of measures to deliver a simpler and fairer welfare system. This bill provides savings, increases simplicity and allows for a stronger assurance of the mutual obligations that those on welfare in this country abide by. Most importantly, the bill focuses on supporting people into work. That should be the ultimate goal of our welfare system. And that is what the Australian taxpayer expects.

Included in this bill is legislation to introduce a new jobseeker payment from 20 March 2020, which will replace some seven existing payments. This new payment will replace the Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance, widow B pension, widow allowance and partner allowance. Achieving all of this will aid simplicity, make our welfare system more accessible and more sustainable, and smooth the delivery of its services, which is what the taxpayer and those who receive welfare expect from the government. This will help not only Centrelink customers but also its staff. This bill also provides for a faster connection to employment services, commencing on 1 January 2018. Faster connection to employment services means, of course, faster employment. And who doesn't want that? This bill will introduce measures to address substance misuse by welfare recipients. To do this it will remove exemptions from mutual obligation requirements for those with drug or alcohol related reasons. It will also tighten regulations relating to excuses considered reasonable for noncompliance with obligations.

But that's not all that this bill does. The bill provides for a comprehensive restructuring of the entire welfare system, including the introduction of a points based demerit system to ensure jobseeker compliance. This strengthens the penalties for persistent and deliberate noncompliance but will have no effect on those complying with their jobseeker obligations, which is the way it should be. We do not believe in punishing those who only want a fair go. I think all Australians would accept that. What we do believe in is a fair go for the taxpayers of Australia as well.

Our reform package also contains several streamlining processes, which will take effect from 1 January 2018. One such efficiency is changing the current system where intent to claim is deemed to be a claim. This measure will produce savings and also encourage jobseekers to engage with the system sooner, which should be encouraged. We will also be streamlining the collection of tax file numbers and improving the efficiency of processes around welfare fraud referral. Despite what those opposite may try to imply, the objective of this bill is simple: to create a fairer welfare system that supports more Australians to move into jobs. Australians are not mugs, and they don't like being taken for mugs either. They reasonably expect that those who can work should work. It's as simple as that, and the bill we are introducing represents that expectation.

This is a positive turning point for Australia's welfare system, focusing it better on what should be its key objective. Nobody wants to demonise those on welfare, and this is not some mean-spirited act from this side of the House. What we do want—what I want and what the Australian taxpayer wants—is to see people moving from welfare to gainful employment. I think we all want that. The intergenerational welfare trap is far too prevalent in this country, and I see the impact of this far too often in my vast electorate of Durack, where many of Australia's disadvantaged people live. I do not begrudge anyone access to welfare when they need it, but it is also incumbent upon individuals to take responsibility for themselves and, if capable, seek out employment opportunities. This bill simply reinforces this responsibility while seeking to assist those who are not capable of doing so.

As I've said, this bill is designed to address substance abuse amongst welfare recipients. To this end, some 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance will take part in a two-year, drug-testing trial rolled out over three trial sites. The three drug-testing trial site locations have now been announced, and I'm confident that the residents in these areas will see the benefits of this policy. For the first time, our welfare system will address substance abuse amongst welfare recipients. Many of those who earn their salary in my electorate are required to pass a drug test to start work each day, particularly in the mining industry. I don't think it's unreasonable that those who benefit from their taxes are held to the same standard. And I might just put on record—as my friend the member for Barker has done—that, given that I earn my living from the taxes of the taxpayers, I have no objection to being drug-tested every single day. Indeed, when I worked in the mining game and also in the agricultural industry, I was subjected to drug testing and I have no issue with it whatsoever.

This drug-testing measure is not designed to be punitive. As I've said before, this is not some mean-spirited act where the dreadful Liberals and the National Party are trying to be nasty to people. It is not that at all. The specific aim of this bill is to help those with a drug or alcohol problem. That is the point of this reform. The point is to help them to deal with their substance abuse and, ultimately, to provide a pathway for them to secure employment. Helping those with a history of drug and alcohol use to secure employment will allow them to enjoy the advantages and the security that comes from earning a living through work. That is what this bill aims to achieve.

Jobseekers who return an initial positive drug test will continue to receive the same amount of welfare payments. The drug-testing trial is not about cutting welfare from people who use drugs and alcohol. However, they will have their welfare payments quarantined to help them meet essential living costs and to limit their ability to purchase drugs. If a jobseeker tests positive a second time, they will be given a referral to a medical professional. The professional will assess their circumstances and work with the individual to identify appropriate treatment options. These treatment options will then form part of the mutual obligations moving forward.

These measures are all designed to assist vulnerable Australians to escape the scourge of drugs and to take away the funding for those merchants of misery who deal them.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't work!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay will have ample time during her 15-minute contribution. I ask her to remain silent for the rest of the member's contribution.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has already committed nearly $300 million to support the National Ice Action Strategy as part of a total commitment of $685 million aimed at reducing the impact of alcohol and drugs on communities, on families and on individuals. In late June this year, we saw the WA police raid dozens of houses in the Kimberley and issue some 82 charges relating to drug possession and distribution. The Kimberley district inspector, while not commenting on the specific quantities of drugs found, confirmed that the impact would have been devastating if it had hit the streets of the Kimberley. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics, and clearly on this side of the House we know all about that, knows that the best way to reduce supply is to reduce demand. If this bill can go some way to putting drug dealers out of business—and it will have that impact—then it should be supported wholeheartedly.

I would like to note that the long-serving, now-retired police commissioner in Western Australia, Karl O'Callaghan, recently wrote on the need for welfare reform and the potential for the benefits that it can bring. On 1 July, he penned a piece in TheWest Australian talking about the cashless welfare card and how that would save kids and families. Although this is not about the cashless welfare card, I want to take the opportunity to place on record—and my good friend the member for O'Connor is here in the House now—an acknowledgement that the third trial site for the cashless welfare card is in Kalgoorlie and the surrounding areas. Kalgoorlie is my home town, so I know the people there are very grateful to the member for O'Connor and to Minister Tudge for their work in bringing the card to the Goldfields. I'm quite sure that that card is going to change lives and is going to turn around many of those families who are in desperate need of help. I shall end there on that note and say: I commend this bill to the House.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very keen to give my contribution, following the member for Durack's disgraceful comments about people on this side of the House and that this measure is not punitive. I rise to support Labor's position on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and in doing so place on record my concerns about the efficacy of these measures that the government is trying to implement.

As usual, this proposed legislation is a reflection of all the hallmark traits that this government has—lazy, incompetent in consultation and only interested in punitive measures which are based on popular opinion, not research, fact or professional input. Just a bunch of born-to-rule judgemental MPs who sit around on their fancy yachts casting aspersions over the lives of young people who are unemployed. They come in here with their mates from The Daily Telegraph making fun of, ridiculing and demonising anybody who hasn't made it by their standards. Anyone on a disability pension is given a front-page splashing—a front-page treatment on The Daily Telegraphgiven scornful looks and dragged across the front pages, demonising their very existence. How dare they have a disability!

Then, with all of the Christian values we hear espoused over there, they judge anyone who happens to be unemployed or need the support of our social security safety net, claiming it's their own fault, that getting a job is somehow a rite of passage and that jobs are easy to come by. I would like to hear just one of them come in here—the hypocrites on the other side who come into this place—and tell the real story about employment in this country. Just one. One would be a good start. The reality is that there is one job for every seven Australians. In my part of the world, that I'm proud to represent, we have one local job for every 200 people. It is called the jobs deficit, and I would implore anybody to visit my office and get a copy of the report and read about the reasons for why we have such a deficit.

What's more, we have a proposal to make our community even more populated by 2050 without any real action, or ability or commitment to delivering new jobs. We might hear the minister for infrastructure talk a big game on jobs with the Western Sydney Airport. However, the reality is that these are pie-in-the-sky job figures based on nothing more than a dream—dreamed-up figures that are nothing more than empty promises.

Here in Australia we have a government hell-bent on punishing people who are desperately seeking employment, a government that refuses to take any responsibility for the inequity facing our communities and a government that is too lazy to do anything about creating meaningful employment, just further casualisation. This government ripped $17 billion out of school education, rebranded it as Gonski 2 and said that money in education doesn't equal better outcomes. Well, I believe in unicorns and fairies and for some time, for a third of my life, I believed in Santa; however, it's a stretch for even me to think that thin air will improve our educational outcomes, which, tada, the member for Durack might like to know, lead to poor outcomes in employment. With the background I have in my professional life I can tell you that it will not.

The government won't address falling wages. They want to cut the wages of anybody who relies on penalty rates. They won't invest in TAFE. In fact, in my community, apprenticeships have fallen by 37 per cent under this government. When it comes to falling wages and penalty rates, have we seen the government's modelling on the cost to the welfare system of those people who are reliant on penalty rates? No, we have not. What about the tertiary sector? They have stripped millions of dollars out of universities. The university in my area, which supports some of our lowest socio-economic students, will feel this the most.

Let's just recap where we are. Lazy government—tick. Won't invest in jobs and keeps promising the Earth on invisible jobs in Western Sydney that won't be built until 2025, not relieving any of the unemployment pressures now—tick. One job for every seven Australians—tick. One job for every 200 residents in Western Sydney—tick. This government has cut $17 billion out of education—tick. This government has voted to cut the wages of 700,000 Aussies through the slashing of penalty rates but has not told us how we're going to pay for it—tick. A drop in the number of new apprentices being trained in Western Sydney of 37 per cent—tick. Now they're coming after the university, which has many students who are the first in their family to train at a tertiary level—tick.

This is an exceptionally poor track record for a government which promised jobs and growth. None of those things that I mentioned say anything about jobs or growth. So what's the government's response? What is the response of the people opposite? What are they doing about this? Are they being 'agile and innovative'—a key term coined by the Prime Minister—to create more jobs? The jobs of the future, perhaps? No. Are they investing in training and skilling up young people? Also, no. Of course, they are just interested in punishing the vulnerable young people who are in receipt of our social security safety net. They are taking zero responsibility for the part they are playing to create and perpetuate joblessness.

Schedule 12 of this legislation and the proposed establishment of a drug-testing trial would see 5,000 people on Newstart and youth allowance randomly selected—to pee, to spit or to have their hair pulled out—to be drug tested—all of which is still up in the air. Because if you are unemployed and on welfare, of course you are also on drugs! How could we be so remiss as to miss that linkage? How could those two things not be intertwined? How could those two things not be inextricably linked? What is this government saying to all of the people in receipt of welfare? 'You're using drugs.' What is the government saying to all Australians who are not in receipt of welfare but are sitting on the judgemental benches? 'Anyone on welfare is also on drugs.'

Professionals with over 20,000 years of combined experience have all come out to condemn these actions. It is a shame that the member for Durack has left, but I do see the member for Tangney over there. He might want to take particular note of what I'm about to say. The professionals have all stated that this will do more harm than it will do good, and it will. Imagine the effects of being judged by an entire nation and told that, simply because you need help and support from Centrelink, you are a drug user. I'm not sure that they taught me that when I got my education at school, but it is certainly nothing that helped me get a job or where I am now. It is of no surprise to me that 1,000 individual practitioners, including the boss of the AMA, Dr Michael Gannon, have all rejected this idea and have been speaking out against it. These are professionals—not MPs, who come in here with opinions, but people who are trained in this space.

Do not misquote and do not mistake me as not being in favour of supporting people who live with addiction. In the Hansard is my own family's experience of someone who continues to be and was addicted at the time of my birth, when I was being raised, and during my adult life. I fully support any initiatives that will help—and I underscore the word 'help'—people who live with addiction. I support initiatives that have sound research, sound practice and sound support; not on-the-hop, lazy, opinionist policy that will do nothing more than stigmatise those who need that the least. I have watched, and I continue to watch, the effects of addiction close up. I've seen the deep impacts of what living with addiction does, and there is no punishment equal to the torment that is living with addiction. I have watched a man lose his job, his family, his home, his freedom and his friends—a good man who, if not for addiction, would give you a kidney. People who are addicted do not need punitive measures like this one that the government has proposed. They need practical ones—rehabilitation, support services and a clear way forward.

The government are asking a whole section of our community to take the blame for their incompetence—a section of society that should have had the opportunity for education, training and support throughout their lives. The government are taking punitive steps to hinder those people's ability to get a job, in the main by not providing anything more. Then they are saying to those who do rely on welfare to support their habit—and I understand that there are some whose addictions will be funded by Centrelink: 'We will punish you and push you into a life of further disadvantage to fund your habit.' I do not accept that this is sustainable, suitable or the best practice. It is certainly not the best use of the public resources that we have at our disposal as MPs to help them—and I include in the resources at our disposal those 1,000 professionals with a combined 20,000 years of experience.

The Prime Minister has got his legislation all mixed up. This legislation isn't about love. He might be confusing it with the other legislation he's so gloriously messed up, the one about letting people who love each other get married. That bill is indeed about love. This one—schedule 12, in particular—is about punishment, being cruel and draconian and harming already harmed people. This bill does nothing to address the jobs deficit or to prevent addiction from occurring in the first place. This isn't about a race to the bottom either, because you lot already won that race a long time ago, under your former Prime Minister, and you continue to win it under this one.

I implore the members opposite to take some time with the 1,000 professionals who understand and are well educated in addiction, to find out what alternative steps—which is what they always seek when they come in here with their dorothy dixers—might be available to them in the pursuit of actually helping people who need it and not harming them.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just listened to 10 minutes or so of no useful contribution to this debate whatsoever, because, as usual from those opposite, it's a culture of complaint, whingeing, whining and putting no practical solutions on the table—once again, we see those opposite put no practical solutions on the table. I'm proud to stand in this chamber today and speak in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, as a member of this parliament who is having a trial in my electorate, in the City of Logan.

I want to start today by directly addressing some of the criticisms from those opposite. I ask a couple of simple questions. Do you support struggling families or do you not? It is a simple question, but it goes to the very heart of what is being discussed here today. This government is proposing a bill with a wide range of reforms to our welfare sector, but the most important thing is that these changes are designed to support those living in hardship and to help them ultimately break free of the cycle of welfare dependency. These are people living in very difficult circumstances, and these people are crying out for assistance. These are people who need a new strategy that will help them deal with a very difficult time in their lives.

Ms Husar interjecting—

I appreciate the fact that the member for Lindsay continues to interject, but her contribution that we just listened to added nothing substantial to the debate. What do we get from the opposition? Only time-wasting and cheap attempts at political point-scoring. We certainly hear no realistic alternative solutions to a situation that at least we can all agree is real in many, many people's lives.

The second question I will ask those opposite about this bill is: do you support taxpayer dollars funding drug habits? I suspect none of them over there would support that particular notion either. We know that those opposite know, and that everyone knows, that taxpayer dollars should not in any way be funding the presence of drugs on our streets. We know, sadly, though, that it is happening, and we know hardworking taxpayers out there are demanding that their money be used to improve their communities and not drag them down. Yet, while this government works to deal with that reality, those opposite whinge, moan and complain, and again provide no other solution as to how we can fix it.

Opposition members interjecting—

I say to those opposite: here is the solution. This bill directly seeks to address both of these incredibly important issues. If you care about struggling families breaking free from the welfare cycle, you will support this bill. If you care about taxpayers' dollars being used appropriately, you will support this bill.

It was announced some two weeks ago that Logan in my electorate of Forde will be one of the three sites undergoing the drug-testing trial included in this bill. I want to emphasise at the outset that it is a trial, and I strongly support the Logan community being included as one of the trial sites. It is a community that I grew up in and I know very, very well. It's a community I love, and I do not and cannot shy away from the fact that drug addiction issues exist in the city, and that those issues must be addressed if we are to move forward.

To begin with, unfortunately, Logan has a higher than average inflow of entrants on to the two welfare payments included in this trial, and that alone makes it an ideal location to seek to properly establish through this trial whether the strategy that we are proposing works. On top of this, data from the Department of Human Services also indicate that the proportion of jobseekers in Logan with a drug or alcohol vulnerability indicator is above the national average. Furthermore, jobseekers in Logan that are granted a temporary incapacitation exemption due to a drug dependency diagnosis increased by some 162 per cent from December 2014 to December 2016.

Now, I'm the first to acknowledge that Logan's existing drug and alcohol services do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. The challenge we face, however, is how to get those that are truly in need of these services to access them. This trial is designed to identify jobseekers with drug addiction issues, where that is a barrier to employment, and then ensure they are connected to the treatment services appropriate to their individual circumstances. I note with interest that Logan City Council, which has been one of the more vocal critics of this proposal, utilises drug testing for their employees to ensure that they meet council employment requirements.

Under this bill, the government is committed to investing up to an additional $10 million to support the treatment of drug users identified in this trial. That is on top of the Australian government's commitment of almost $685 million over four years from 1 July 2016 to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on families, individuals and communities across Australia. Some $7 million of that figure has been spent in Logan over the past 18 months in providing additional services to Lives Lived Well and their facility at Logan House, and also for a support service that has been set up more recently in Beenleigh.

Income management has already been used in Logan, and it is a proven and effective tool to help welfare recipients manage their money. Income management ensures that the basic living needs of welfare recipients are met and consequently limits the amount of cash available to fund illicit drugs.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Forde will be given an opportunity at the that time to conclude his contribution.