Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In getting a sense of the intent of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, I certainly commend the remarks of the shadow minister for social services, the member for Jagajaga, to the House in which she made it very clear that, if one were to simply read the title of this proposed legislation, one could be forgiven for thinking it was looking at some fundamental reform of the social services sector. I certainly echo the comments of the member for Jagajaga in that nothing could be further from the truth. One doesn't have to dig too far into the minister's second reading speech in order to get a sense as to where this legislation actually runs off the rails.

It runs off the rails because it is based, fundamentally, on a misconceived premise that cheap headlines on so-called 'crackdowns' on drug addicts who are using welfare to support their habit are going to be the panacea to transitioning those who are urgently and desperately looking for work in the employment market. We know that nothing will be further from the truth. If only life was that simple.

The real problem here and the real grave injustice that we see as a result of this legislation is that one actually doesn't have to scratch too far from the surface to realise just how far off the mark this actually is. In order to get a sense as to how misplaced the government is in relation to the proposed implementation of this bill, it is writ pretty large in the first few paragraphs of the minister's second reading speech, in which he asserts:

… the community has a right to expect that taxpayer-funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug and alcohol addiction and that jobseekers do all that they can reasonably do to find a job, including addressing any barriers which have prevented them from doing so.

It's those needless headline grabs that really do a grave disservice to the gravity and seriousness of the situation of those who are currently receiving entitlements under our welfare system but who are also desperately and genuinely looking for work. Like all things, one must do much more than simply accept a headline grab such as that in order to work out whether there is any real justification for this bill in the first place.

As usual, the numbers don't lie. Let's look at the numbers in terms of any perceived justification for such an incredibly invasive set of proposed reforms which will simply erode rights and liberties with absolutely no net gain, because the numbers, again, are very telling. Let's look at the extent to which similar proposals have been rolled out in the community in various other jurisdictions. Let's take New Zealand, for example. It's certainly a country that is coming up more than it otherwise would in this place, with the greatest of respect to those in New Zealand, and I'm delighted that we've added to their population by virtue of the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution. So New Zealand is certainly a very topical country in all matters and forms of debate at the moment. So let's look at the numbers in New Zealand, including the Deputy Prime Minister. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a very similar drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, of the 8,001 participants tested, guess how many returned a positive result for illicit drug use? You'd think that if there were some significant numbers behind the 8,001 positive tests, this could be worth looking at. There were 22 participants who tested positive for illicit drug use.

If we want to go further afield, we can go to the United States and look at the numbers there. The numbers in relation to those subject to testing are equally stark. For instance, in the 2004 testing program in Missouri in the United States, 38,970 welfare applicants were tested and 48 tested positive. In Utah, where 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, there were 29 positive results. Just imagine for a moment—and we haven't seen any details of this—the vast cost of undertaking such a program with any real efficacy at all when those numbers reveal that there is a very small positive result rate, having regard to the fundamentally implicit trade-offs involved in undertaking such a so-called reform.

If one isn't sufficiently persuaded about the numbers and just how few such an enormous change would affect, one should quite conceivably go to the evidence to see whether there is any real peer-reviewed, independently objective evidence that demonstrates that such a gross invasion of privacy amongst those who are currently receiving welfare payments is offset by such a program. On that note, since the second reading speech response from the member for Jagajaga, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has handed down its review of this legislation. I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the Labor senators who in a very quick time digested an enormous amount of information on this bill and produced a very fine dissenting report as to the very good reasons why there is no meaningful justification for the implementation of this type of program. Let's look at the evidence. The evidence that was reviewed by Senators Singh and Watt—and what a tremendous job they did—makes it very clear that there is simply no evidence at all to support such an invasive and unnecessary program.

The committee heard from an enormously large number of addiction medicine and drug specialists, including Professor Alison Ritter from the University of New South Wales, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians chapter of addiction medicine, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia and the Ted Noffs Foundation. All of those experts unanimously raised serious concerns about the government's proposal to drug test new jobseekers. Let's take the evidence of Dr Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Services. She stated:

... there is … no evidence that this drug testing proposal would improve health, social or employment outcomes for people. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary … The drug test measure would direct very precious dollars—the overall costs of which are unknown—to a measure which has been widely condemned by leading health experts.

But she was not a lone voice in the wilderness in relation to raising fundamental objections to this program. Professor Adrian Reynolds, President of the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians said that the chapter was 'quite honestly at a loss to see why a drug-testing trial is considered a necessary or effective way to address these issues'. I have found that quotes are very useful in circumstances like this. I take my leave from the minister for energy, who is quite partial to using the occasional quote himself, usually preceded by a fact.

I also note that, in addition to the facts and the quotes that have already been received by the committee, the government had neglected to consult with medical professionals before announcing these messages. One would have thought that, if there were any substance whatsoever in this shameless headline grab and this shameless persecution of those who are already vulnerable in our community, one might have undertaken some consultation with the medical profession. But what we heard is:

Addiction medicine specialists in the drug and alcohol sector more generally have not been properly consulted on these measures. We were surprised by these measures. Our analysis and advice is that the measures will be costly and ineffective and that government should consult with the sector on the development of evidence-based solutions to prevent and better address substance use disorders and increase the availability of treatment services across the nation.

The member for Jagajaga continued, in her second reading speech, to outline even more crucial sectors of the community who were not consulted. She said:

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—

And this is really the crux of it—

"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?"

Isn't it indeed.

What we see here on any assessment is that not only do the numbers not stack up but the evidence is not there to indicate that such an invasive program is likely to have any net benefit, either for the community, for the Treasury coffers or, most certainly, for those who are already vulnerable in this community, who, quite frankly, need support as opposed to demonisation.

Even if one were prepared to disregard the numbers, which are stark, and even if one were prepared to disregard the evidence, which is clear, one would then need to ask, 'Well, to what extent has this actually been thought through when it comes to looking at the availability of treatment?' If such concerted efforts are going to be taken to so-called crack down on those who are addicted to illicit substances and are also receiving welfare entitlements, one would have thought the appropriate and responsible thing to do would be to ensure there is sufficient availability of treatment. But, again—surprise, surprise—nothing could be further from the truth, which, again, simply demonstrates that this proposed legislation is nothing more than a desperate grab to divert attention away from a hopelessly dysfunctional government.

Let's look at the availability of treatment. The dissenting report from the Senate committee confirmed that not only we are entirely improperly placed to provide any wraparound services to those who may be subjected to these trials but there are already insufficient treatment options available to Australians who are seeking treatment for substance abuse issues. If anything, what we are going to see here is that the government's proposals will exacerbate the issue. The committee heard that Australia currently treats 200,000 people for substance abuse issues each year, but that an additional 200,000 to 500,000 people would like to receive treatment but it is unavailable to them. So there is absolutely no clear way through this hopeless mess, which is simply designed to obfuscate from the real issue: a government entirely incapable of doing anything meaningful to lift Australians into a prosperous position, and certainly those Australians who are the most vulnerable.

Even if all of that—the issue about the numbers, the issue about the evidence and the issue about lack of available treatment—weren't sufficient to persuade those to strike down this bill, let's go back to that fundamental grab bag of desperation from the conservatives: law and order. Let's have a look at it to see whether there is any reasonable prospect that implementing this program will have an effect on law and order. Well, again, if the rubber hits the road in relation to this hopeless program, it will exacerbate crime issues. It has been made very, very clear that the likely prospect of the other social impacts in relation to the implementation of this program is that it will simply worsen the broader drug problem and increase crime. On any analysis and at every level, this program is invasive, it's unnecessary, it's entirely wrongheaded and it is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up what is a hopelessly incompetent government.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For some of us in this place today is actually an anniversary. It is a special day for me. I'm one of those who, on 7 September 2013, were elected as an MP for the first time. Whilst there are only a few on this side who have this key date etched in our memories, a lot of Australians remember this date for other reasons. It is the date that this government came to office and, unfortunately, for lots of Australians it's a date that they mourn, because very soon after that election the cruel treatment of the most vulnerable in our community started. Their 2014 budget came shortly after that. In fact, their MYEFO which was presented in 2013 started the big cuts to our social welfare state and the attacks on people who receive social security support welfare payments. Many of those attacks, despite being rejected by this place several times, are contained within this bill that is before us today, and this government continues to wage war on not just the most vulnerable in our community but decent people who are genuinely looking for work.

Through this bill, and in the media, this government is trying to demonise every jobseeker. The government makes out that jobseekers are a scourge on our society and are dragging us down, when they are not; they are simply looking for work. Yes, I, like many in this place, have acknowledged that there is a very small proportion of people in our community who are currently on Newstart benefits who are intergenerationally unemployed. There are some very complex social issues going on within these households and these communities. I have some in my electorate and these individuals and families are doing it incredibly tough. But this is not new for our community or society.

For generations, we have had people living on the margins who are in need of support. They're in need of our compassion; they're in need of our understanding; they're in need of wraparound services. These families and individuals are known not just to our federal agencies like Centrelink and Medicare but to many state instrumentalities and agencies. Our police know who they are. Our schools know who they are. Our DHSS departments around Australia know who they are. They are the people who have had a lot of tough knocks who need support, encouragement, hope and opportunity to be rebuild. Yet, instead, what we see from this government, and in particular in this bill, are more roadblocks and draconian measures that attack the most vulnerable in our community.

Some of the measures put forward in this bill do not encourage people to look for work. Instead, they belittle, vilify and make it incredibly challenging for this cohort to look for work. This includes the measures around drug testing. Many on this side of the House and many experts have condemned the government, broadly and widely, for these measures because there is no evidence that this kind of harsh, draconian approach actually works. We know from research in New Zealand, where they introduced a similar measure, that it did not help people into drug treatment. It did not help people back into work. It was a costly exercise that was rolled out to just win political points against their opponents. It is what a desperate government does to try to cling onto power and a desperate Prime Minister to try to stay in his job. Why is the government pushing ahead with it? It is because they need a bad guy. They need to go out there and continue to vilify jobseekers who are looking for work.

The other point I wish to make is that the government doesn't understand fully who our jobseekers are. In Bendigo, there are 5,800 people currently registered to look for work through jobactive, yet on SEEK.com there are only 400 jobs advertised for Bendigo. So that doesn't suggest that these people need tough measures to get them to look for work; that suggests we just don't have enough jobs in Bendigo. I meet lots of people who come to forums and who come to my office and say, 'Lisa, I applied for every job advertised. Two hundred jobs I applied for! But I know that my chances of getting one of those jobs are slim because there are 5,800 other people in Bendigo applying for those jobs.'

What this government does is spend a lot of time trying to paint those 5,800 people in my electorate as dole bludgers—but they are not—instead of investing in creating genuine job opportunities. What it's done instead is create a PaTH program, which is a $4-an-hour job, taking jobs from young people. They've said to Coles, Safeway and McDonald's, who already employ young people in high numbers, 'How about we give you subsidised free labour and pay them an extra $4 an hour through their PaTH program?' These young people, many of whom are unemployed, don't need training; they need access to entry-level jobs. Yet this government has decided and put out there that these young people don't have skills—they don't have work; they're not ready for work, so let's create a rip-off $4-an-hour job for them. We know that the $4-an-hour job is a rip-off because (1) very few young people have taken it up, and, where they have, they haven't ended up in full-time work afterwards and (2) the government has used it as a reason to kick young people off Newstart and youth allowance, which just forces more young people into poverty.

There is another fact that the government is refusing to acknowledge, which the PaTH program—one of its employment programs—is making worse: new figures show that 43.5 per cent of young Australians aged between 20 and 24 are locked into part-time casual work. You could say that's because they're at university—true, some are—but 43.5 per cent of 20- to 24-year-olds are not engaged in university. So there is a problem. It speaks volumes about young people being unable to access good, secure, full-time jobs. The government says, 'That's okay; we'll drug test them all. The reason why they're not getting into full-time jobs is that they're on drugs.' Wrong! It is just wrong, and it is wrong for this government to vilify young people by suggesting that. It is simply a smokescreen for the fact that it is not willing to do the hard yards to rebuild the apprenticeship system and the entry-level job system in this country.

A generation ago, a young person could leave school at 15, 16 or 17, or they could finish high school at 17 or 18 and finish university in their early 20s, and walk into an entry-level job. It may have been a traineeship at the Commonwealth Bank or a graduate recruitment position in any of the many Public Service agencies that we have. Today those jobs are rare; they just don't exist. What we have seen from this government, through its PaTH program and other employment programs and through this bill, is that, rather than doing the hard yards for Australian young people and rebuilding those jobs, it is instead seeking to demonise and bring in harsher measures for people who are already living up to their mutual obligation.

We in this country have for a long time believed in mutual obligation when it comes to accessing Newstart or social support payments whilst looking for work. I would argue that the vast bulk of jobseekers are living up to their mutual obligation. Whether it be through Work for the Dole, volunteering or actively applying for those 400 jobs that exist when there are 5,800 people applying for them in my electorate, our jobseekers are doing everything they can to get themselves into work. The government is not living up to its side of the bargain, though. It is not creating real job opportunities for people looking for work. Instead, it is continuing its cruel, harsh attacks on people who are looking for work and people who are the most vulnerable in our community—which are not all jobseekers. The government is not genuine at all.

Recently I held a jobactive Centrelink forum in my electorate, and the comments that came through at that forum really speak to the frustration that many in regional communities have with this government's approach to welfare and looking for work. Some of the comments included: 'We try to avoid the job networks at all costs. We contact our students after they leave to try and help our current students find work after graduation.' But the job networks are just not working. Another comment was: 'Newstart is not a new start at all. It is punishment.' Another comment was: 'Big businesses are the job snobs. People who are unemployed are not job snobs.' People say they want to work, but it is big business who snub them in favour of cheaper labour, whether it be overseas backpackers or whether it be through one of the government's dodgy employment programs. Another comment was: 'Stop making us feel subhuman. We want to work. We'll do anything to work, but the more that this government demonises jobseekers, the harder it is for us to be employed.' People spoke about the culture of the job agencies and the culture of looking for work: 'I'm made to feel like a criminal when I go in. I feel like I have a parole officer, not someone who's supporting me to find work.' Again: 'Stop making us feel subhuman or feel like criminals.'

The culture that this government has created within the unemployment and job agency space is about demonising and vilifying. It is not about positive encouragement to look for work. Another participant said: 'Most people want to work. We don't want to be punished for being unemployed. It's not by choice. We want to work.' Another comment was: 'As more labour hire companies enter the market, it reduces the amount of jobs available.' That's a fact. All the full-time jobs this government is talking about are not direct employment. They are through labour hire. They are insecure jobs. People could be sacked at any moment—client request, moved off site. The figures that the government talks about are rubbery, because they're not telling the full story of employment. Another participant said: 'I've signed up for three labour hire agencies—can't get any work. It appears that I cost too much because of my age.' Another person told us: 'Two years with the same company, still classified as casual. I have no choice.' Another comment was: 'The current government has lost all sense of humanity, decency and respect for their fellow man and all Australians.'

These comments go on and on about this government's treatment of people who are genuinely looking for work. Some of the people who have been to see me who are looking for work are older people who have been told that they're just too old, so they do something positive: they volunteer in their community. This is another measure that Labor has real issues with in this portfolio—forcing older people to look for work when they are contributing through volunteering. They can't get work. There are literally not enough jobs for people over the age of 55. They are competing with younger people. They are competing with people who have just as many skills as them, and there is an age bias when it comes to employing people in our community. But, rather than tackling that side of it, this government has said: 'We're just going to strip you of your ability to volunteer. We're not going to acknowledge the discrimination that exists, and we're just going to make it your fault.' They make it the individual's fault because it fits their narrative to demonise these jobseekers.

The Work for the Dole program which the government champions is confusing. I met with one young man who has worked previously at Centrelink. He has 10 years work experience. He's university educated. It is just that the government has sacked a whole bunch of people from the Bendigo ATO office and the Centrelink office, so he is struggling to find work in his field. He's been forced to participate in the Work for the Dole program. He has basically exhausted all of his options with the three providers in our area, because he challenged the programs that they were sending him on. Somebody with a career in administration with social support has been sent out to work on heavy machinery. How does that work? Where is the safety involved in that? This government's Work for the Dole program, PaTH program and employment programs for people looking for work are a joke. They are not suitable and they are not practical. This bill that the government have put forward is just another attempt to demonise good Australians looking for work. This bill that they've put forward creates harsh, draconian measures that seek to save their own political skin and not help people into meaningful work.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Reform is to make changes to something, especially in institutional practice, in order to improve it. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 is not reform. It's a mishmash of semi-reasonable stuff dressed up as reform. There are a few administrative improvements, but really it's just a crucible for the government's latest instalment of damaging, mean measures. Time only permits me to focus on a few of the schedules. Indeed, I was going to talk about other bits, but I am going to make some remarks on the drug-testing trials. It is the most ridiculous and offensive part of the bill. I want to try to step out the reasons that I say so, and I will try to remain somewhat measured and logical on this.

I actually woke up at about 4 am this morning and I was thinking, as you do in that blurry first moment, what city am I in, where am I and what has to be done today? And I remembered that I was listed to speak on this bill and I hadn't really prepared anything—although I'd read it. While wishing that I was still asleep, I was thinking about the part of the bill dealing with the drug-testing trials, and it made me mad—furious—and woke me up. The things running through my head then were exceedingly and totally unparliamentary: ignorant, prejudiced, scuzzbucket, brain-dead moron and bottom feeders. They were the kindest epithets to describe those amongst those opposite who dreamed up this particularly special piece of public policy.

I was reflecting on why I felt so strongly. It is because addiction has touched my family story for my entire life in ways that I have never talked about and cannot fully talk about publicly as they are not my stories to tell. I can say that my father died when I was four. He was a doctor. He battled alcoholism and addiction to prescription drugs. My mum loved and lived with this, and talked to me when I was an adult. My mum went back and did a Year 12 subject, because she never finished high school, and studied psychology. She actually topped the state and won the prize. She beat all the VCE and mature-age students. She did her research on addiction. It made sense, I suppose, of parts of her own life but it also showed the genetic predisposition, which always made me a little scared. I've actually got this weird little totem, or homage, to self-protection in the form of a little Valium tablet that a doctor gave me 15 years ago for something. I never took it and I still have it in the cupboard, knowing perhaps that I have bad genes and hoping that my refusal to ever take a Valium will somehow protect me.

My extended family and friendship group, though, has also been touched by addiction through my entire adult life. I have supported people close to me to recovery over the decades and been there through the relapses. I've pulled needles out of the arms of overdosed victims. I've resuscitated people I love. I've called ambulances. I've also attended funerals of people who had lost their battles. I wish I could truly share my experiences and speak from the heart but, as I said, they are not all my stories to tell—perhaps one day.

From 2000 to 2002, I also led a large inner-city community in Melbourne as mayor at the height of the then heroin epidemic. People were literally dying in front yards, dying in shop doorways and dying in laneways. I was deeply engaged in the policy and advocacy work with the then state government to battle the heroin epidemic. I recall one moment I was particularly proud of where I was interviewed by Derryn Hinch when he was a broadcaster. He was ranting, in his particularly 'ranty' mode, about how we should just let them all die. I was very proud of my self-restraint, because what I didn't share was that I'd just been punched in the head and wrestled to the ground in the Bourke Street Mall by someone I loved because I wouldn't give them money.

These experiences have given me at deep conviction, a firm belief, that addiction is a health issue—a health issue, a health issue, a health issue—which must be treated as a health issue like other health issues. Making it a moral issue simply does not help and criminalising addiction does not help. It's a health issue, a health issue, a health issue. I firmly believe that as a community we must do much more to help people battling addiction. I detest what heroin addiction does to people. It takes prisoner their conscience and makes them do awful things while they have to watch, chained inside the box in their head. It does not destroy their morality. I detest what ice addiction does to people. It drives them crazy with irrational rage, hurting themselves and everyone around them, and does lasting damage. I despair at the impact on my community. I heard stories while doorknocking. The particularly hard ones are from the mothers, begging, wishing, that society would understand this is a health issue and provide more help.

I firmly believe that, with regard to health issues, legislators and policymakers must listen to doctors, researchers, experts; not politicians, shock jocks or ignorant, prejudiced views. Public policy should be based on evidence, reason and research. If this is a health issue, it's notable that the Minister for Health is not listed to speak on this bill—alas, poor Yorick. What advice did the government take when deciding to legislate to remove this illness from the list of reasonable excuses? Did we hear from the Chief Medical Officer? Doctors groups? Scientists? Researchers? Other jurisdictions around the world? No; none. It was dreamt up as a political measure in the monkey pod. Even worse, it flies in the face of evidence from overseas and from our own experts that this doesn't work.

I will just read a small segment of the quotes from the Bills Digest in the submissions from expert groups. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre said:

There is no evidence that any of these measures will directly achieve outcomes associated with reductions in alcohol or other drug use or harm, and indeed have the potential to create greater levels of harm, including increased stigma, marginalisation and poverty.

The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association said:

This proposal does not have an evidence base and is likely to engender greater harm to the community.

The Penington Institute—I actually worked with David Penington when he headed up the then Victorian government's inquiry into heroin reduction and the crisis, as I said, back in 2000. I came to have the most enormous respect for that man. He had been vice-chancellor of Melbourne uni. He'd been dean of medicine. He was a conservative establishment figure, but he had the courage to change his view through the course of the inquiry through listening to the evidence, and he did that publicly. The Penington Institute said:

In Australia there is a real lack of funding for drug treatment services—including medically supported drug treatment. The Government would have been better off making stronger investments there rather than attacking the vulnerable.

The Australian Council of Social Services, which opposes the measure, said:

No expert in drug and alcohol addiction has supported the random drug testing of social security recipients. Trials elsewhere have failed to achieve any positive results.

… …   …

It is unclear what these measures hope to achieve. They are highly unlikely to address people's addictions if they have them and will lead to more people living in poverty. The drug-testing trial will likely be expensive and achieve nothing.

We could go on. We've got submissions of the same ilk from Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, UnitingCare Australia, Melbourne City Mission, the Samaritans and so on—people who actually work in this field.

Perhaps the most nauseating part of this debate has been watching our humble battler millionaire Prime Minister talk about this being a policy borne of love. A policy borne of love would seriously examine the true state of drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services in Australia, and provide funding and do something about it. A policy borne of love would understand that addiction is an illness. Stopping using heroin is—and this may sound strange, but I have supported people through this—something harder than any of us in this chamber, I expect, will ever have to do. But, in terms of recovery, that's the easy bit. That's why people relapse time and time again, because rehabilitation takes months and years and years, plus community support. You have to confront the mess you've made of your life. You have to confront the shame, the humiliation, the stigma and the damage to relationships, and you have to rebuild life as an adult from nothing in so many instances.

A policy borne of love would talk to the families who have lived through these experiences. It would listen to those in the community working in this area who know what is needed. A policy borne of love and a desire to actually do something would not be conceived with no evidence, no advice and no implementation planning that will further stigmatise people. They are making it up on the run. They have no idea of the cost. It would make rehabilitation and recovery less likely, if implemented.

If the government were interested in a policy borne of love and a desire to actually do something, they would be calmly, logically exploring—and even debating here based on expert advice, not prejudiced opinion—what the experts, doctors and researchers say may actually make a difference and help long-term addicts, save lives, reduce harm to families and reduce harm to communities, particularly through crime.

To be honest, we all—I know what we all get—get a lot of the same mail in this place. We all hear from experts. We hear lots of models, pleas, evidence and examples of what happens elsewhere that seems to be working. For example, for heroin addiction, we could pay some greater attention—or the government could—and at least properly assess the potential benefits and the arguments for and against things, rather than pre-emptively ruling things out based on some sort of flawed moral framework. They are things like safe injecting facilities and assisted treatment for the hardest-core, longer term heroin addicts.

We are written to about this stuff. Only last week there was another study sent to us all. I don't know. Does it work better than methadone? There's lots of evidence in other countries from recent trials that it does for some people. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong thing. I'm not a bloody doctor, scientist or expert. I don't know. But I think we do a terrible disservice to the community, families and people we represent when we moralise and point-blank refuse to innovate or keep our minds open in responding to the scourge of addiction. The Bills Digest and submissions coherently set out the many issues and reasons why this aspect of the bill should be consigned to the bin.

In the time I have remaining, I'll turn my attention to a couple of other aspects that, again, make life even harder for those who have the least. One is the proposal to kill the bereavement allowance. It is a short-term payment for up to 14 weeks for people when their partner has died. Getting rid of this is really nice; it's classy stuff, government! It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension and is subject to the same income and assets test. For a pregnant woman who has lost her partner, the allowance is paid for 14 weeks or the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer. Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance—paid at a lower rate and with a more stringent means test—to save $1 million. That's going to make a big difference to the debt and deficit disaster you mob are creating!

But I'll fess up here: as an Australian, I'm happy to agree—right here, right now, government—that it's okay to not treat pregnant women who've just lost their partner as jobseekers or students. We could find the $1,300 extra over 14 weeks for them to grieve. We could keep this payment. I'm okay with that. You can imagine the job interviews, can't you? Your partner has just died and the government's saying, 'Hey, you've got to go to job interviews next week. You've got to do four job interviews. We'll give you extra kleenex.' This schedule could be removed, meaning that the measure does not include changes to the bereavement allowance.

Another one that picks on the vulnerable—and particularly hits people in my electorate—is removal of the intent to claim provision. This is a pretty simple rule that says, 'When you go to Centrelink, you can have your claim backdated to the day you first turned up and were eligible for a payment.' This change would further add hardship to people who aren't able to collate the required information immediately. I know it happens. Not everyone gets their paperwork done on day 1, particularly people who are homeless, in the middle of a separation or in hospital, or those who have serious health issues or can't access technology—because, God knows, you could die and need the bereavement allowance for someone else while you were trying to get through to Centrelink on the 1800 number!

There's a particularly huge impact on people in my electorate—particularly migrants—as 55 per cent in my electorate were born overseas, with at least 60 per cent speaking a language other than English at home. These are people who often have to find additional documents to keep the Centrelink beast happy. They often have to get copies of these documents from other countries, which is not a quick process. They can rush themselves, but they can't always rush a foreign embassy or international mail service. Some people need a bit of a hand to fill out forms or understand what clause 72B actually means. They can find it difficult.

The changes to the liquid assets test currently before the parliament—proposed in another bill—to extend the waiting period up to 26 weeks, depending on your liquid assets, would effectively mean that, before you get 5c from Centrelink, you have to basically run down every last dollar of your savings. It's a nasty, mean little measure designed to make people run down their savings, push them to the brink of poverty and take away that tiny bit of dignity, in terms of a security blanket of a grand or two that they might have built up for hard times.

I've said enough and I think you get my sense of frustration with many measures in this bill. The government could choose to strike out the ridiculous bits—the bits that are there just to bait us to oppose it or as some sort of sop to the right wing of your party—but we'll see. Some bits of the bill, of course, are worth supporting, but I think we've heard enough on those in other speeches.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Bruce for the many good points he made about this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. My contribution will be made from the perspective of someone who represents one of the communities which has been singled out for these drug trials. I was born in that community. I grew up there. I have lived there most of my life. I am raising a family there. I have seen the absolute best of that community. I also care deeply about our most pressing and persistent challenges. I am not naive about those challenges and I don't pretend them away. I care deeply about people who are dependent and people who have fallen behind or have fallen down. I am in this place, as so many of us are on this side of the parliament, to try and help people up and not kick them while they are down.

Unfortunately, this bill is not about genuinely helping people. It is not a genuine attempt to get people off welfare and into work. It is about chasing cheap, tabloid headlines and it is about denigrating Logan city, where I am from, in the government's usual, sneering and snobby way. This drug trial, this policy, has been tried elsewhere and it has failed dismally. Medical experts, one after the other, have said that this is a terrible idea; that it won't work, that it's likely to be counterproductive. As I said, we do have our share of challenges in my community, but pushing the most vulnerable people to the brink will make homelessness, unemployment and crime worse not better, with consequences for the entire community.

This Turnbull government, it pains me to say, is so desperately out of touch that they would rather waste money on schemes that won't work, instead of genuinely supporting local jobs in Logan city and the surrounding suburbs. If those opposite spent more time caring about those jobs and less time chasing cheap headlines or running my community down, we would all be better off. You can see why, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, a lot of people in my community feel, with some justification, that ministers from the other side of this parliament only ever show up in Logan city to bag it. So they can spare us their lectures about our community. They wouldn't know the first thing about our challenges and this bill shows that they don't have a clue about how to properly go about addressing them.

The bill includes a whole range of budget measures from the 2017 budget across the social services, employment and human services portfolios, and implements a whole range of complex measures. Others have made contributions on those. I would like to focus exclusively on that drug-testing trial, including in my electorate and in Logan. I want to focus on five reasons why it is a bad idea. The first is the most obvious: it won't work. As I have said, the experts have told us and it has been tried elsewhere and it didn't work. It failed dismally in New Zealand in 2013; it didn't meet its objectives. It failed in the US states of Missouri and Utah. The experts have voiced their very real concerns that testing could encourage people to use less traceable drugs like synthetic cannabis or even just switch to alcohol. There is a six-week lag for people who are trying to give up cannabis, which still shows up in the tests. We will have long waiting lists, which mean that people who do want the help they need won't be able to get the help in a timely fashion. That brings us to the second concern: the issue around health outcomes.

The list of health experts who oppose this trial is too long to list in a 15-minute speech. That is how many people have come out saying that this is a terrible idea. Let me just pick out a few of those organisations, Deputy Speaker. The Australian Medical Association described it as, 'A mean and non-evidence based measure that simply won't work.' The Australasian College of Physicians said, 'This will fail and it will lead to poor outcomes.' The president of that organisation said, 'All indications are that it will further marginalise people who already experience a greater burden of social, physical and personal disadvantage.' The Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs said, 'Not only will this fail to reduce drugs; it will increase crime and drive social division.' St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia—almost 1,000 doctors and nurses signed a letter, and they have more than 20,000 combined years of experience—said, 'There is no evidence to suggest the policy will work or help people with drug addictions.' Not one health or community organisation has come out in support of this trial.

The third reason I think this is a horrible idea is that it will be counterproductive when it comes to things like addressing crime in our community. This point was made very effectively and very well by the Mayor of Logan City, Councillor Luke Smith, not by any stretch a Labor person. Our mayor in Logan City has come out courageously, I think, against these drug trials. He wasn't consulted on them, but he's made some very good points. There was a story in The Courier-Mail under the headline 'Crime spike warning over drug test trial', in which Mayor Smith said:

They're going to find a different way to feed their addiction. We're concerned this could lead to crime spikes.

That is a very real concern that a whole range of people in our community have—that pushing vulnerable people to the brink will force them to find other ways to feed their addiction.

The fourth reason it's a terrible idea is that, as I alluded to a moment ago, there was no consultation with our community. The community doesn't want this drug trial. I don't just mean people associated with the political parties; I mean people right through the community. We've got terrific community organisations in Logan City. They are the best in the country. People are spending all of their days, all of their time, often all of their careers, trying to help people who have fallen behind or fallen down. They are trying to help them back up—that great objective that we should all share. They don't want this drug trial. They weren't even told about it in advance. The media knew about it before the council and all of these community groups. The Mayor of Logan City said that this policy was based on an 'atrocious lack of understanding of what's going on on the ground', and he described it as a 'disgrace'.

But it's not just the mayor who is saying that. Cath Bartolo—one of the best people in my community—who runs a terrific organisation called YFS, described the measure as 'punitive' and 'not backed by evidence'. She is on the front of our local paper, the Albert & Logan News, and is quoted as saying, 'It would not reduce unemployment in Logan. It's a punitive approach.' That's just one of the community groups that has come out and slammed it. Our local churches have also spoken about this. Father Dave from St Paul's at Woodridge, one of the great Catholic Churches in my electorate, has spoken on this. It's not usual for Father Dave to come out and have a spray about government policy but, in the Catholic Leader, Father David Batey from St Paul's, said:

At a human level, it could be heartless. At a practical level it could be something … but it probably needs more sociological consideration of what happens to people.

It seems like one more thing that is going to make people who are poor, even poorer.

'Make people who are poor, even poorer'—the words of one of our very highly regarded local Catholic priests. Logan Rosies is an organisation that goes to Woodridge station and other parts of our community to hand out food to the homeless. The coordinator of that organisation said:

What it's doing is increasing the stigma.

I could go on and on, but all of these community groups have made the point that it won't work and that it stigmatises our community unfairly.

The fifth reason that this is a bad idea is that it's a waste of money. It makes no sense given the mess that those opposite have made of the budget. We've got gross debt at half a trillion dollars. The deficit for this year is 10 times greater than it was expected to be in Joe Hockey's first budget in 2014. We've got debt and deficit through the roof. They can't tell us how much this program will cost. They're throwing good money after bad on a proposal which all of the experts say won't work. The government don't even know how much this testing will cost because they haven't decided what kind of testing it will be and there are very different costs associated with the different kinds of testing. We also know that, if they try to do it on the cheap, there's a real risk of some false positives. If they try to do it cheaply, just to get to some kind of half-hearted outcome, they might get more positives than is actually the case. The more expensive tests, of course, will blow out the budget problem even further.

So, despite overwhelming expert advice, local objections, a lack of consultation and a lack of evidence—despite all of these things—the Turnbull government is pushing ahead in my community of Logan City. It just goes to show how arrogant and out of touch this Prime Minister and his government are. They think they know better than thousands of nurses and doctors, community organisations like those in my electorate, the churches, the health groups and the AMA. In their arrogance, they think that they know better than people who have spent their entire lives trying to help people who have drug addictions. And that really is what this is all about. They are chasing headlines and going out of their way to denigrate Logan City, and they think that they know better than the experts.

Of course, they've got plenty of form in wasting money on these sorts of ideological exercises. We know the High Court is dealing with one of them today: the $122 million that is being wasted on another ideological frolic because they don't have the Australian community's best interests at heart. If they genuinely cared about helping people out of welfare and into work, they wouldn't, without evidence and at a significant cost to the budget, demonise jobseekers. They wouldn't fly in and out of communities like mine just to bag them; they would actually consult with communities about their genuine needs and the sorts of programs that actually have some prospect of helping people who are in this awful situation that we would not wish on anyone.

That the minister responsible for this drug-testing trial, Minister Tudge, was the same guy who brought so much pain into my community—and, indeed, into lots of the communities of those on this side of the House, including the member for Moreton's community—with the Centrelink robo-debt debacle says everything about this government. Only the Liberal Party could allow Centrelink to stuff up something as badly as robo-debt was stuffed up and then promote them to handling drug trials in communities like mine. If you can't even handle debt recovery, what possible hope do you have—whether it's Minister Tudge, Minister Porter or anyone else—of successfully delivering this program the right way.

To make it worse, the member for Forde has just been bumbling around the electorate. Countless people who are just desperate for an alternative have come up to me in Waterford and Loganlea on his side of the Rankin-Forde border. When it comes to issues like this, they know they will never get from the member of Forde a member who will stand up for the interests of the community when ministers fly in and bag Logan City. They will not get that from the current member for Forde, and we hope that, after the election, there will be a very different member for Forde.

Those opposite haven't heard the end of this. We will oppose this policy proposal for all the reasons I have identified, including the five I have principally mentioned. We will fight this. It's badly motivated. It's mean-spirited. It won't work. It's costly. The community doesn't want it. It's counterproductive. The list of problems with this ridiculous policy goes on and on. We will oppose it because we listen to the experts. We will oppose it because we consult with our communities. We will oppose it because we care about helping people who need help—not punishing and demonising them with policies like this.

We are always up for a genuine conversation, a genuine discussion, about how to help people who are battling addiction receive the treatment they need. But we will never, ever be in the cart when it comes to kicking people in the guts when they're down and out. They need us to be in this place standing up for them, speaking up for them and devising policies that actually have some prospect of working for people who find themselves in a situation where they are addicted to drugs. It is not the role of the federal government to make these lives worse; it is the role of the federal government to do what we can to make these lives better. I'm proud of how we work together in my community to address our challenges. I'm disappointed to see this legislation brought before us when it will jeopardise all of those efforts, when it will damage the community, when it will be counterproductive and when it will fail anyway.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. At the heart of the raft of reforms that were in the bill presented on I think 22 August is the implementation of drug testing for welfare recipients. This really highlights the very big philosophical debate here: what are welfare payments supposed to do? Are they obligation free or do they come with a mutual obligation? Are they simply, as the definition would say, government provided support for those unable to support themselves, with no strings attached? Or is it taxpayer support to bridge the gap to allow recipients to, firstly, live with some dignity and, secondly, return to the workforce if they've been in it previously or enter the workforce for the first time where it's deemed, of course, appropriate that they should present for work?

I think all of us in this place accept that the best form of welfare is a job. Quite simply, the best form of welfare is a job. I'm an absolute disciple of the second definition—that welfare payments are about assisting one through a tight period in one's life. Then government services bring the tools to get that person into the workforce. Not only is that good for the individual person; it's fundamental to the long-term viability of their families. We know that children who grow up in households where no-one ever works, in households that are totally reliant on welfare payments, will find it harder to achieve the levels of education that they need to be a success in their life. We know that, while anyone can fail at parenting, the level of failure for those households is higher. Every member of this House knows that because those people come to us for help when their lives are falling to bits—'I don't know how to handle this. I'm having trouble with Centrelink. I can't manage my payments. I can't keep the payments up on my kids' mobile phones.'

Everything we do in this place should be about bringing about a better future for the citizens of Australia. Not all those decisions are easy. Sometimes you have to take a tough line. I listened to the last two speakers with great interest. There has been a long list of naysayers who say that this will not work, this is flawed and this will cause fundamental damage in our society. Not quite as long a list of people but a very similar list of people opposed the introduction of the cashless debit card in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley. I spoke in this House earlier this week on the outstanding 15-month report that we've received on that particular reform. Of course it was opposed by the Greens and by any number of academics. They said it would be counterproductive and that we didn't have good evidence to introduce it—all the same arguments. I know the Labor Party supported us through the introduction of that trial, and I thank members of the opposition for that support. I suspect it would not have come about if it were not for the then member for Brand's support. He was a passionate believer that this was the right path. I think he met some strong resistance within his own party room.

But it has been delivered, despite the predictions of doom. People said that people would go around it, they would alter their behaviour and there would be a swing up in the crime rate. There are very similar arguments in this debate at the moment—if we force welfare recipients to take a drug test, it will drive them to prostitution and crime. That has been alleged. That's the kind of thing that was alleged about the cashless debit card as well, but that wasn't the outcome. It's not what we've seen at all. In fact, we've seen in those communities huge improvements on a whole raft of measurable statistics. I think this amendment, which addresses schedules 12 and 16, should absolutely be supported.

The transition to work, for those who have been unemployed for some time, is a difficult task. The drug testing will identify those who are taking illicit drugs, because we know it's difficult to engage with training at the right level if you are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and, for some workplaces at least, it's impossible to get on the work site, because that where you could be tested there as well. There is not testing at all work sites; there are some where you can operate under the influence of drugs and alcohol—it's not permissible, but you may not be detected.

One of the things I think every member of this chamber is facing is the reality of the ice epidemic. Like probably every other member of the chamber, I've attended a number of ice forums around my community and met with local groups that are trying to respond on behalf of families and victims. One of the things that parents say to me is: 'Can't you do something about the money? We don't have any control over the money. Our children need help, but they get money from the government and they go and spend it, and we don't have any control over it.' Well, that's difficult to do because once you're 18 you are an individual and you will be treated as an individual. But I think those people are expecting help from us when they look into our eyes and say, 'Can't you do something?' Well, we've been trying, and previous governments have been trying.

This government has put $685 million over four years into drug and alcohol services and $300 million into the National Ice Action Strategy. But it's not enough and it's not solving the problem. So I think we have to look further at this group of welfare recipients. I think a previous speaker was taking the line that welfare recipients aren't drug takers and that this was not a particular issue in this group of people. In fact, the statistics tell us that they are about 2.4 times more likely to be drug users than the general population, and it's an absolute block to their progression.

Those who test positive will come under extra management. There will be an income management part of this remedial action, but I think the most important parts are the associated services that will accompany it, and those will be extra counselling and extra assistance with weaning themselves off drugs and alcohol—drugs, particularly, in this case. That person will be treated as an individual with issues. They won't be treated as just a great block of humanity, if you like; they will be treated as an individual with issues and they will have tailored programs to assist them to make this change. Those who rail against this legislation tend to focus on that part that looks like big brother or government treading on the individual. It's nothing like that at all. It's not meant to be like that. It's meant to be about assisting these people to make the changes that they need. I think that to ignore these issues is a failure of government and a failure of all of us in this place.

It's important to remember that this is a trial. I said to the people of Ceduna: 'Remember, it's a trial. If it's no good, we'll get rid of it.' We don't keep doing things that don't work. Well, sometimes, unfortunately, people do, but it's not my intention to keep doing things that don't work. If we have this trial of 5,000 people around Australia and it's as bad as those opposite tell us it's going to be, well, we won't keep doing it. But, if it works, like the cashless debit card works, we will keep doing it. We will expand the trial. If it is making a change to people's lives and delivering the things that they need—delivering safer households for their children, delivering long-term educational outcomes—then it's something we should back. But we won't know unless we try it. So I think it is so important that we go ahead. I commend the minister. We are having a trial to see whether this is the thing that can make the difference—the kind of turning point that the cashless debit card may be. I often told the good leaders of Ceduna: 'It is highly likely, quite possible, that in the future we will look back on this time in history and say, "You were the brave people that changed the course of the way these things are done in Australia."' It is quite likely—I hope it comes about—that we will say the same thing about this particular piece of legislation in 10 years time, but I don't know. We'll see how the trial eventuates.

In 2015-16 there were 4,325 occasions when people did not meet some form of their obligation because of drugs and alcohol. That's a lot. Certainly a lot of people could still meet their commitments under the influence of drugs and alcohol, so these are very concerning figures. The member for Bruce made a very heartfelt and personal contribution. I thank him for that. It's not easy to expose your past in this place and talk about people close to you. He didn't want to go into detail, and I certainly don't blame him for that, but it was a heartfelt contribution, and I thank him for that. One of the points he made in it stuck with me. He said, 'It doesn't help to make drug use a criminal offence.' Do we extrapolate from that that the member for Bruce actually thinks we should decriminalise drug use around Australia? There might have been a time, when I was a very young man sitting around a table with my mates, having a glass of red, when that might have sounded like a good idea, but I tell you what: once you've had children and had a look at the bigger world, it doesn't seem like a good idea. It seems like a very, very bad idea. Anyone who would entertain that kind of proposal I will oppose vigorously. The damage that is being done in our community at the moment by drug use is absolutely huge. As I said, it will be intergenerational and it will haunt Australia and, in fact, most of the Western world and beyond. It will haunt us for generations. We need to try everything. We need to try out every tool we've got in our toolbox to have a go at this. This is one tool that's on offer, and I for one am very strongly in favour of backing it.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. This Turnbull government legislation includes several measures announced in the 2017 budget, with the primary purpose being the aggregation of several payments into one jobseeker payment and the establishment of a drug-testing trial and the removal of exemptions for jobseekers who experience substance dependence. Unfortunately it really is no surprise that the Turnbull government has chosen to go down this road. We've now seen punitive measures like some in this bill being taken in a wide range of the Turnbull government programs. Remember, this is the government that unleashed debt collectors on pensioners and people on disability support, for money that they did not even owe. Remember, this is the government that 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 or to make them do $4 an hour internships that would not even have a guaranteed job at the end. This is a government that is so vicious in the way it treats people, particularly those who are the most vulnerable in our community.

There are several measures within this bill that Labor will oppose. As such, I say up-front: we do not support this bill from the Turnbull government, a callous, disconnected government. In particular, one of the most disgraceful elements of this bill is contained in schedule 12: the establishment of a trial of drug testing for jobseekers. This measure provides for a two-year trial in three regions: Mandurah, Canterbury-Bankstown and Logan, just to the south of my electorate—and I commend the member for Rankin for his passionate speech prior to me.

These trials involve mandatory drug testing for 5,000 people on Newstart allowance and youth allowance. The government plans to use a two-step process to select individuals for testing. First, the government will profile a group of people who they deem more likely to use drugs; and, second, it will then randomly select individual recipients from this profiled group. The tests will then be conducted by third-party drug-testing providers. The government has not announced the cost of this, nor does it know the detail of the types of tests that will be conducted.

Under the process set out in the bill, a person who tests positive to a prescribed drug will be subjected to income management for a period of at least two years and they will also be subject to ongoing random drug tests. Labor always welcome proposals from the government to address drug addiction. We know that this is a problem in our community. But these proposals actually have to have people who can find treatment and work together—the people and the treatment service provider need to be matched up. That is what will produce the best solution for each individual.

Last week, the Senate committee investigating this proposal heard that half the number of Australians who want treatment for drug and alcohol addiction cannot access it. I said that correctly, Deputy Speaker Bird: half of those. Why is that? It is because service providers cannot keep up with the demand. We've heard many people talk about the scourge of ice in our communities, particularly in the bush and regional parts of Australia. The Department of Social Services also admitted the Turnbull government did not source information regarding the current waiting time for treatment services in the trial sites and don't even know how long the 120 people they estimate will test positive may have to wait for treatment. If you know anything about the treatment of drug addiction, when people are ready you need to act urgently. We are going to have a red flag raised, but we don't have any idea how long it will take for people to be actually treated.

This proposal from the Turnbull government only seeks to window-dress a complex issue. It is a three-line slogan for the newspapers rather than something for the good of Australian society. Virtue-signalling to the Right of your party does not help one person beat their addiction. It is faux concern writ large. Deputy Speaker, you might recall that drug testing has been part of the international welfare debate for a very long time. Advocates for such a punitive measure often argue, without any basis in evidence, that drug testing does a number of things, like somehow ensuring that people are ready for work or sending a message that drug use is unacceptable.

It is a shame for this out-of-touch Turnbull government that very few industry experts, stakeholders or even local councils of the proposed trial sites support the policy. I now understand why the Turnbull government didn't bother to consult any of these people, because they would not have liked what they heard. In fact, the Logan mayor, Luke Smith, had to hear about this decision on the ABC. The government could not even pick up the phone. That's right—not consulted by the Turnbull government; he heard about it through the media. As reported in The Courier-Mail this week, Councillor Smith is rightly concerned that this testing regime is being forced onto vulnerable locals. He is worried that it will cause problems with homelessness or crime in the community, and this minister has done nothing to alleviate these concerns.

If the Turnbull government had bothered to consult drug and alcohol experts like the Penington Institute or social services groups like the Samaritans, they would have heard these exact concerns. Groups like these who have a long history in this area have been putting forward this serious issue and many more in publications, position papers and media releases for quite some time. The Turnbull government has been unable to provide any evidence to support the establishment of their drug-testing trial. Medical professionals, the drug and alcohol treatment sector and the social services sector have raised significant concerns about these measures—not only the impact it will have on jobseekers but that it won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem or provide them with any treatment.

The AMA, as the peak professional organisation representing medical practitioners in Australia, submitted to the brief Senate inquiry the following:

… the AMA considers these measures to be mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem—

I'm glad that the health minister is here to hear the AMA's concerns—

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.

…   …   …

The AMA is concerned that the approach could inadvertently result in increased incarceration for welfare recipients with a substance dependence.

The Australian Council of Social Services, the peak body for community services, in their budget snapshot from May opposed the measure, saying:

… the Budget continues to demonise people with a range of new welfare crackdown measures. No expert in drug and alcohol addiction has supported the random drug testing of social security recipients. Trials elsewhere have failed to achieve any positive results. ACOSS strongly opposes this measure.

You heard earlier the contribution from the member for Jagajaga who provided an extensive list of organisations that do not support this measure.

In addition to the organisations I've already mentioned, we have the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, the St Vincent de Paul Society, Wayside Chapel, Anglicare, Catholic Social Services Australia, the National Social Security Rights Network, Odyssey House, Jobs Australia, Community Mental Health Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, to name but a few.

What an extraordinary job Prime Minister Turnbull has done in gathering the opposition of each and every one of these organisations. If only his own political party were as united behind him. All of these organisations either oppose or have strong concerns about the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial. This Turnbull government policy does not enjoy the support of the relevant sectors' experts and stakeholder groups. It is just another attempt by the harbour-side mansion gang to demonise jobseekers without any basis in evidence and likely at significant cost to the budget. This change will not help people to overcome addiction. This is not how addiction works; instead, they'll be pushed into crisis, they'll be pushed into poverty and they'll be pushed into homelessness and potentially even into crime.

Let's look to overseas examples. Drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries. Surely, the government department turned their mind to that and looked through the evidence to see where it has been effective. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, only 22 of 8,001 participants returned a positive result for illicit drug use. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general New Zealand population estimated to be using illicit drugs at a cost to their budget of approximately NZ$1 million. Similar results were found in the United States. In Missouri's 2014 testing program, of the state's 38,900 welfare applicants, 446 were tested with only 48 testing positive. In Utah, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, with only 29 returning a positive result. These are costly initiatives that drive people into poverty and crime and that taxpayers must fund. It is a waste of taxpayers' money.

In my role as the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I've looked at this bill and evaluated it with respect to our commitments and international obligations to protect human rights. The committee reported that the proposed drug testing limits the established right to privacy and seriously questioned whether this limitation can be justified by the Turnbull government. The randomised drug test is not reliant on any reasonable suspicion that a person has a drug abuse problem. You've heard about the process. It will be randomised. Any selected person is forced to disclose private medical information to the third-party external firm contracted to conduct the testing and subjected to an invasive medical procedure. If they test positive once, even if it was the first time they had used an illicit drug or if it was a false positive, their payments are quarantined for two years. Furthermore, it is unclear if there will be adequate privacy safeguards as to the medical and drug related information disclosed to a privately contracted provider of drug tests.

By its very design, this proposal seeks to limit the privacy rights of a large group of people in order to identify a very small number of people who might have a drug problem. For example, in relation to drug testing in Florida, only 2.6 per cent of welfare recipients tested were found to have used drugs, despite exposing a significantly large number of people to these invasive drug tests.

The Human Rights Committee reported that the drug-testing proposal limits the established right to social security—which, I point out to those opposite, is a right—and seriously questioned whether this limitation was possible to justify by the Turnbull government. The statement of compatibility with human rights in the bill's explanatory memorandum does not address the availability of less rights and restricted measures. This is particularly important in the context of the right to social security, given a strong presumption that retrogressive measures are prohibited under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that Australia is a signatory to.

The committee reported that the proposed drug-testing proposal limits the established right to equality and non-discrimination, and seriously questioned whether this limitation could be justified by the minister or by the Prime Minister. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal to protection of the law without any discrimination on things such as race, sex, religion, political view, nationality or other status. When a person's drug use becomes an act of dependence, of addiction, this person has a disability. Not only does this fall within the other status within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but a person is also protected from discrimination by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Human Rights Committee—a committee that doesn't have a Labor majority—has serious questions about potential infringements with entrenched human rights: the right to privacy, the right to social security and the rights to equality and non-discrimination. But here we are: standing in the chamber with this Turnbull government legislation seeking to ram the whole bill as it stands through the parliament with these concerns not being addressed by the minister. This is yet another measure from an arrogant, divided, lost, aimless Turnbull government, a government that is unwilling to address the inequality being experienced by so many in our society and a government that is so vicious in the way it treats people, particularly the most vulnerable in our community. The way this regressive drug-testing regime is being targeted towards particular communities—particularly low socioeconomic-status communities—raises the serious question: does the Turnbull government disapprove of illegal drugs or does it disapprove of poor people? I will leave that for others to decide.

I say again the commitment of the Labor Party. We enthusiastically support the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga. The other parts of this legislation, we do not support.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join my colleagues in expressing grave concern about elements of this bill, and I commend the member for Moreton on that very powerful speech. There are a number of elements of this bill that Labor is very, very concerned about, and we have heard at length from colleagues today and throughout the course of this week about their concerns about the drug testing.

Concerns have been raised by many Canberrans about the drug testing. I've received a number of emails and messages. I've had conversations with people at my mobile offices and my coffee catch-ups about the fact that these are measures of grave concern, not just to Labor but also to the Canberra community and, I know, many parts of the Australian community, as well. I join my colleagues in expressing concern about this—and, as I said, there are a number of concerns about this bill which I will outline. These are concerns of not just members here on this side of the chamber—our Labor members who have fought the good fight on this issue—and not just members of the Canberra community and not just members of other communities but experts throughout the country.

The member for Moreton highlighted the question: where is the evidence? There is no evidence that this drug-testing idea is going to work. Judging by what has happened internationally, it would suggest that it has been less than a success. In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients. In 2015, only 22 of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. This detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general New Zealand population estimated to be using illicit drugs. And similar results were found in the United States. In Missouri's 2014 testing program, of the state's 38,970 welfare applicants 446 were tested, with 48 testing positive. In Utah, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, with 29 returning a positive result.

These were costly initiatives that drove people into poverty and crime. The suggestion from this government is that this idea, which has been roundly condemned, is essentially what they want to do to these people. It has been roundly condemned by the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia, the National Social Security Rights Network, Community Mental Health Australia—and the list goes on and on.

The recent Senate inquiry heard overwhelmingly from medical professionals that these proposed drug-testing trials are deeply concerning. They made it clear that these drug-testing trials will not work. What did they say? I am quoting here from Matt Noffs from the Ted Noffs Foundation:

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 …

Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs has 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.

Minister for Health, when you hear doctors speaking with a united voice, I think you should listen. Dr Reynolds from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has said it is:

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

On top of the evidence that we heard from this range of medical professionals, there was also an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses to the Prime Minister calling on him to drop the drug-testing trial. To the minister, who is sitting here in this chamber, I say: please listen. As Dr Marianne Jauncey said, it's very rare that you get united voices across the medical profession, but 'when you do hear doctors speaking with a united voice I think people should listen'.

As I said, there are a range of measures in this bill that are deeply concerning to Labor and to members of my community. My dear 78-year-old mother lives by the mantra 'old ain't dead'. That was a message that we got loud and clear at a recent positive ageing forum that I held with the shadow minister for ageing and mental health, the member for Franklin. I thank her for taking time out of her busy schedule to listen to the concerns of Canberrans about impediments to their positive ageing. These are impediments to their being able to realise their potential to live an intellectually and physically stimulated life that is healthy and fulfilled until the end of their days—a life where they're fit, they're healthy, they're being intellectually stimulated and they're actively participating in the community. At this positive ageing forum we heard from over 80 Canberrans about the impediments to their achieving that aspiration. The forum was such a success that we'll be holding another one either later in the year or early next year. These Canberrans met to discuss their experiences and to talk about how they stay fit and healthy, and the value that they bring to our nation's capital and the fact that they want to stay active, be recognised and make an active contribution to our community until the end of their days.

At the forum, the discussion ranged from aged care and retirement villages to the role of pets, nutrition, exercise and access to sunshine for health and wellbeing. It came up with a number of positive ideas, but it also provided the opportunity for Canberrans to vent their frustration about the impediments that serve as barriers to their actively participation in our Canberra community, in our nation's community, in the lives of their grandchildren and their children and in the broader citizenry of this nation. They raised concerns about the lack of support to navigate the My Aged Care portal and the complex nature of accessing aged-care services, healthcare cards and the pension.

Aged care is of significant concern for many Canberrans, and the stories provided at the forum were personal, powerful and saw many participants in tears just talking about their experiences. It was clear that, while community organisations work to help senior Australians—senior Canberrans—to stay active and engaged in our society, the Turnbull government has sat on its hands and provided no positive ageing strategy.

A major concern raised at the forum was the lack of housing for older Canberrans, particularly women. There have been reports that a number of older women are couch surfing. We've all heard these reports. It's happening in our electorates each and every day. Older women are couch surfing or sleeping in cars as a result of unaffordable housing or the lack of crisis accommodation.

In Canberra, 316 people aged 55 years or older sought help from homelessness services last year, and 44 per cent of this group were women, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. A number of factors contribute to the homelessness of older women. They include the breakdown of a relationship. One of the major issues, though, is domestic violence—women fleeing domestic violence. It includes rent prices and insufficient superannuation to retire on.

Whenever I speak on the fact that we do, as a nation, have a challenge in homelessness among older women and older men, I get women, particularly, coming out of the audience, coming up to me after I've spoken, in tears, talking to me, and the pattern is the same. These are women who are working. They're on very modest incomes. They're in the private rental market—and rents here in Canberra are high. They have very little superannuation, because they've been out of the workforce quite a bit. They're invariably divorced or they've had a relationship breakdown. A number of them have been victims of domestic violence. They've brought up the kids on their own, and they are terrified of their retirement. They are absolutely petrified about ensuring they have a comfortable retirement, because renting a property in Canberra—and I'm sure it's the same in many parts of the nation—on the aged pension is a real challenge, let alone heating that property and maintaining a car on very little superannuation. This is a major challenge for us as public policymakers. It's a major challenge for our nation. It's a major challenge for Canberrans, and it was one of the most significant issues raised at my aged-care forum.

Also raised was the need for women to have access to decent superannuation and a decent retirement income through superannuation. We all know there have been countless surveys, and just recently the Not so super, for women study revealed a woman's median superannuation total by retirement was $80,000. My dear old mum retired with less than $20,000—she's on the age pension now. Now, that is just 47 per cent of what a man the same age accumulates over the same time—$80,000. The author of the study said that, on average, women retire with less than three years worth of modest retirement living. I speak to these women whenever I make speeches about the challenge of homelessness.

This government has shown, through its policies, how out of touch it is with Australia. A main concern for the forum was the plan that the government has to increase the pension age, with particular reference to the discrimination that older Australians face in the workforce. There are measures in this bill that make the situation even worse. Around 375,000 Australians will be hit by the Turnbull government's plan to increase the pension age to 70, and the hike to the pension age means that, between 2025 and 2029, Australians who are currently in their 50s, who have been planning their retirement, will be stung by this change. I was just talking to my uncle, and my cousins are going to be affected by this—my cousins live in Wodonga. We were going through the charts just recently and found that they will have to work for longer.

The proposed changes will likely see Australia on track to have the highest pension age by 2035. Rather than increasing the pension age, the government should focus on the ever-increasing delays in the processing of age pension claims. The amount of time that some Canberrans have had to wait for their simple claims to be processed is deeply concerning. Members of my community and throughout our society have contributed to our economy their entire working lives, yet they are being forced to wait months for their age pension applications to be processed.

We know this government has a very poor track record when it comes to looking after the most vulnerable in our community, but turning its back on age pensioners and forcing them into uncertainty is completely unacceptable. It's not just the pockets of age pensioners that this government has its hands in. Some special benefit recipients aged between 55 and 59 are volunteering in our communities for 30 hours per fortnight to meet their contribution requirements so they can receive Newstart, and part of this legislation will require recipients to make up 15 of those 30 hours with paid work. I'm not sure where this idea came from and I'm not sure whether this government has actually had any engagement with women and men who aren't in the workforce and are over 55 and looking for jobs.

I have had two men aged over 55 working in my office as volunteers. They had lost their jobs. I couldn't afford to pay them, but they made a significant contribution. From that work, they have managed to get a paid job, but they went through some very significant challenges. The fact that this government has introduced this requirement is just breathtaking. What evidence does the government have that this is actually going to work? Where is the evidence that this is going to work? These people are already finding it very, very challenging to get work due to the ageism that is prevalent in Australian society, and the government is making the situation even worse.

I join with members of my party, the Labor Party, who have spoken against the unfair measures in this bill. It's been a common theme over the last four years that, in the absence of adequate support being provided by the government, Labor has been the only voice for vulnerable Australians, the only voice protecting vulnerable Australians. (Time expired)

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too speak in opposition to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and in support of the amendment moved by the shadow minister. The problem with this bill is that it represents a typical right-wing government ideology, a typical coalition government ideology. It is an ideology where people who receive welfare, people on government payments, ought be viewed with suspicion, that they should be seen as undeserving and people who are seeking to bludge and receive something for nothing from the government. The government doesn't understand the difficulties that many low-income families and pensioners and people who are struggling to make ends meet go through every day just to survive, just to put clothes on their kids and feed their families.

That is inherent in what the government are seeking to do today through this bill. They don't understand what it is like to struggle. They don't understand how difficult it can be for a kid who grows up in a family where the parents don't work, the parents may be drug-addicted or one parent may have been in jail for a period of time. A kid in that circumstance is at a disadvantage in getting an education, getting into further education or getting into employment. The fact is that a kid in that circumstance is behind the eight ball from the start. They have very, very little chance. If you look at the evidence of studies on intergenerational poverty and breaking that cycle, for those born into that circumstance through no fault of their own it is a very, very difficult situation to get out of.

The government don't believe that Aboriginal people have the right to be angry about what has happened to them in the past and the disadvantage that their people continue to face on a daily basis, with the difference between their life expectancy, educational levels, health outcomes and employment outcomes and those of other Australians. That is evident in the fact that it was the coalition, the Howard government, that refused to make the apology to the stolen generation, refused to say sorry for those acts of injustice that were perpetrated on Aboriginal people for many, many decades in this country by Australian governments that we all know now were wrong. They were simply wrong. Yet John Howard, as the Prime Minister and leader of a coalition government, refused to apologise. And, when Kevin Rudd delivered the apology from that very dispatch box there, there were members of the coalition—who still sit in this House, on the government front bench—who walked out of this parliament in disgust. They are still members of this parliament and they still bring that approach of not understanding the plight of Aboriginal people to reforms such as those in the bill that we are debating here today.

They believe that workers should be seen and not heard, that workers don't have the right, through unions, to collectively bargain to better themselves and that, if they just worked a bit harder, they'd all be able to make a lot more money. They don't understand what it is like to be homeless, to not have a place to sleep at night, to sleep in the car with your kids when you've been booted out of your home and you've got nowhere else to go and you can't get into public housing—and, in New South Wales, that would be because the state Liberal government don't invest enough money in building more of it. They don't understand what it's like to be unemployed—the psychological effect that can have on you and your family, when you are going to job interview after job interview, being rejected because an employer doesn't like the look of you or because you may not have that additional period of experience that they're looking for. And they certainly don't know what it's like to be living solely on the pension, to not have other forms of income to rely on to get by.

That's inherent in the approach that they're taking to energy policy in this country. They are not doing anything about climate change or providing certainty for investment in the energy sector, and therefore prices are skyrocketing and pensioners can't afford to put heaters on during winter to keep themselves warm. They don't understand what it's like to be in a low-income or middle-income family in this country. They are out of touch, and it is demonstrated by this bill that we are here debating today. This bill perfectly demonstrates the heartless and ideologically driven approach of this coalition government to some of the most vulnerable members of our society and the fact that, in order to appear tough, they're willing to enact laws that are based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that have not been recommended by independent bodies and that have been shown time and time again to do more harm than good. I am speaking, of course, of the compulsory drug trials for unemployed Australians that they're seeking to introduce through this bill.

This bill includes several 2017 budget measures across the Social Services, Employment and Human Services portfolios. Schedules 1 to 8 implement the social security part of the 2017 budget entitled 'Working Age Payments Reforms'. These schedules will consolidate seven working-age payments and allowances into a new jobseeker payment. These payments are the Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, widow B pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance and bereavement allowance. The wife pension is a non-activity-tested income support payment paid at the age pension rate to female partners of age pensioners or disability support pensioners who are not eligible in their own right for a pension. To qualify for a wife pension, a person must have lodged their claim prior to 1 July 1995, which is when the payment was cut off to new entrants. As at 2020, it is estimated that there would be around 7½ thousand wife pension recipients. Of these, 2,250 will transfer onto the age pension and 2,400 onto the carer pension. Two thousand nine hundred women will transfer onto the jobseeker payment and just 200 women, who reside overseas, will be left with nothing as a result of this change. It seems reasonable that this group should be grandfathered, to avoid them facing a financial crisis, and unreasonable that they should be attacked in the manner that is contained in this bill.

Schedule 9 of the bill removes the ability of certain special benefit recipients of Newstart allowance, aged 55 to 59, to be taken to have satisfied the activity test by engaging in voluntary work for at least 30 hours per fortnight. The changes will allow relevant recipients to be taken to have satisfied the activity test if they are engaged for at least 30 hours per fortnight in a combination of approved unpaid voluntary work and suitable paid work—at least 15 hours must be in suitable paid work. Unfortunately, ageism is a considerable hurdle for those in their 50s, 60s and beyond who are trying to secure a job. That this is the case was backed up by overwhelming evidence provided by experts in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill. We've all encountered this as members of parliament. It happens on a regular basis. We've all had people in their 50s and 60s who have been made redundant, predominantly in the manufacturing sector, in blue-collar occupations, coming in to see us, saying, 'I want to work, but no-one will take me on. They won't take me on because of my age and because my skill set is seen as outdated.' Changes such as this just make it harder for those people to get by—to make ends meet—and ultimately to get back into the workforce. This change to the legislation means that those aged in their late 50s must secure at least 15 hours of paid work to qualify for their support payments. It is a difficult task made all the more difficult by the fact that, say, for the carer transition assistance payment, which is not due to start until 2020, the government didn't see it necessary to provide any form of additional support to help people overcome this barrier. So it is imposing this new restriction but is providing no additional support, no extra assistance, at all for jobseekers in this age bracket to overcome this barrier that they face daily.

According to the Department of Employment, once a person aged between 55 and 59 is out of work, the length of time they spend looking for work before they secure it is 73 weeks, on average. This compares to the overall average of between 40 and 50 weeks. Labor feels that this is an unfair change that will lead to significant hardship for that cohort of workers and welfare recipients, and that is why we oppose it.

The bill also sets up a drug trial for jobseekers. This is the government's much-vaunted drug-testing regime for potential jobseekers. This element of the bill is particularly heinous, given the cruel intent and the fact that there is no evidence to back it up. In fact, in every jurisdiction where drug testing has been tried it has failed resoundingly and ended up costing the government a lot of money. Schedule 12 of the bill will, from 1 January 2018, or the date of commencement, establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations. Testing will be undertaken by a contracted third party. Now, that is the key in all of this. A big multinational corporation that's involved in this sort of work is rubbing its hands together saying, 'You beauty! Another big juicy contract from the government coming up.' It will do drug testing of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. You can bet your life that the outcome will be that this will cost the government a hell of a lot of money but won't produce any results at all, because we all know just how difficult it is—and about the lack of resources, particularly in the state of New South Wales because of cuts by the New South Wales Liberal government—to get people into drug treatment programs that are suitable for their circumstances. There's no indication from the government in the budget papers or in the explanatory memorandum to this bill of the cost of this program, which in itself is criminal. How can you bring into this parliament a bill with a big outlay, a big contract to a third-party provider that's likely to be a multinational corporation, and not say to the parliament how much it's going to cost? It's unbelievable, in this era of so-called fiscal rectitude, that you could do that and not say how much it's going to cost.

But worst of all is that this drug trial will achieve nothing, except to punish the most vulnerable jobseekers in our nation. The President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, Dr Alex Wodak, has written on this. He said on 22 August:

Remember that people who use drugs are somebody’s son or daughter, brother or sister, mum or dad, or boyfriend or girlfriend. Many, through no fault of their own, had a shocking childhood or terrible education and never enjoyed a decent job.

He went on to say:

Addiction medicine specialists, GPs, nurses, and healthcare workers of all stripes will tell you that people struggling with alcohol or drug dependence almost always keep consuming their favourite poison even after they have lost everything – their health, partner, kids, job, property and their freedom (after appearing before a court). The scientific definitions of addiction regard “continuing use despite severe adverse consequences” as a central characteristic of this condition. So ripping income support away from these people is not going to help them recover.

That's the view of Dr Alex Wodak, an expert who's spent his life working in this field. It's a view that's supported by the Australian Medical Association and by so many other organisations that work in this field. The evidence is that it simply will not work. But it goes back to what I was saying earlier: it's because those on that side of the parliament don't understand what it's like to be in this circumstance of having a drug addiction and not being able to break the cycle whereby kids grow up in poverty. That is inherent in this bill and inherent in the fact that they want to be seen to be tough and to punish these people as their means of looking like they're cracking down on welfare cheats and bringing fiscal rectitude to the budget. That's the wrong approach, and it's an approach that will end up costing this country a lot more money and not producing the outcomes we seek to achieve.

So, all in all, I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to this reform and to the other elements of this bill that go against that notion of a fair go in Australia and of helping the most vulnerable get back on their feet so they can enjoy a decent life and participate in our society. I urge others to vote down this legislation.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be following the member for Kingsford Smith in this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and I echo the comments and concerns that he and many colleagues on this side have raised in relation to this bill. From the outset, I want to say that there are so many elements of this bill that not only are unfair and cruel but simply will not work. I join all my colleagues from this side who have quite rightly condemned the government for the very harsh measures contained within this bill. And of course this all comes on top of the government's other very harsh and cruel measures, such as their cuts to health care, education and pensions. They're making all those cuts at the same time that they're giving those big tax cuts to big business and multimillionaires.

The impact of the government's harsh cuts are felt very strongly in our regional and rural areas. In some ways those cuts are so much harsher in areas like mine, where we have cuts from the Liberal and National governments at both the state and the federal level. As I've said many times in this place before, in those country areas, in rural and regional areas, the National Party is to blame; I often say that the National Party choices hurt. In terms of this bill and the National Party's support for it, those National Party choices are really going to hurt those people who are living in regional and rural Australia, particularly through the really nasty and mean measures in this bill—specifically, the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. The experts have made it clear that the drug-testing trial will not work, but the government has refused to listen to what those experts have said.

Now to some of the detail of the bill. The bill comprises 18 specific schedules encompassing the multiple portfolios of Social Services, Employment and Human Services, with their designs, of course, arising from the 2017 budget. The fact is that most of the schedules and most of this bill, just like the government that's putting it forward, are very much cruel and out of touch. Schedules 1 to 8 implement the working-age payment reforms. This change will seek to consolidate seven working-age assistance payments into one standard payment; the new payment being known as 'JobSeeker Payment'. That new payment will include those in receipt of Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, widow B pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance and bereavement allowance.

We on this side strongly oppose schedule 4 of this bill, which relates to the bereavement allowance. The schedule as it currently stands will replace the bereavement allowance with the lower payment rate of the jobseeker allowance. Essentially, this is a cut to those who, indeed, need it most. It will also come with harsher means testing. Labor cannot and will not support a cut such as this to people grieving after the loss of a loved one. It is in fact quite a heartless move designed for the savings that it will bring. The recent Senate inquiry heard details that the Turnbull government's cuts to the bereavement allowance for low-income households will leave some as much as $1,300 worse off. Of course, as we know, the bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died and is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks. Make no mistake, this very cruel cut to vulnerable Australians receiving short-term income support following the loss of a loved one will really hurt them very harshly. There really is no policy justification for such a harsh cut. There really is none at all, other than the savings that they will get. It beggars belief that this government can be so mean and nasty. Indeed, Charmaine Crowe from ACOSS said:

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 those people into further hardship and make even more difficult the period of time after bereavement.

All of the measures the government keeps taking continue to make it harder for those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised. Every day, every year and at every budget we see harsher and harsher measures from the government. Rest assured, we will keep fighting for those who are being disadvantaged and further marginalised by the government.

I particularly want to highlight schedules 12 and 13 of the bill because I believe these are perhaps some of the worst examples of some of the harshest actions we've seen from this government. These elements of the bill seek to establish a drug-testing trial and remove exemptions for drug and alcohol dependency as a mitigating circumstance for non-compliance with the activity test for payments. From 1 January 2018, the schedule will establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations. We see that the government's target with this is our younger people and those looking for work—again, often the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable and the most in need of our help. If we're talking about regional and rural Australia, they are even more disadvantaged, even more marginalised and in need of assistance from government, and those are the people they are targeting. It also really demonstrates the government's very deliberate ignorance when it comes to looking at surrounding drug, alcohol and substance abuse issues and factors.

The legislation also fails the people who are very much aware they have a problem but can't solve it on their own and need assistance from services that the government funds and provides. The fact is that they need our help, not punishment and further marginalisation. This is a very serious and complex health issue, and it needs to be addressed in such a serious manner, not by demonising those people or cutting the funding. It's not that simple; it's not that easy. It is actually very complex.

I come to this debate in this place to speak about it from the perspective of a former police officer. I know that just cutting off government benefits doesn't stop the drug use, doesn't stop it happening and it doesn't fix the problem. It is complex and it does require all of the services and agencies to work together from all perspectives—yes, from the health perspective; yes, involving law enforcement as well—not just one action such as cutting the payments. That's not going to fix it. It will, in fact, make it a lot worse, because demonising addiction doesn't fix anything. People will tell you that across a whole range of agencies. It doesn't fix the problem. In fact, it actually causes more problems. It even makes it worse—it doesn't even fix it; it creates more problems—because one of the major effects of this legislation will, no doubt, be an increase in crime. There is no doubt about that. That's a real concern that many locals have raised with me. They know that will be the result of this particular legislation. Many addiction medical specialists have raised serious concerns about the legislation as well. We're waiting for the government to confirm exactly what sorts of tests they're going to be using for that. We know there are often some false positives in those tests. For example, if a person is taking antidepressants, they could test positive for amphetamines. There are a lot of issues around the actual testing regime. We haven't seen too much detail about that.

As I have said, this is primarily an attack on the most vulnerable in our community when it should be considered primarily a health issue. This isn't just what I or Labor believe. In fact, an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses was sent to the Prime Minister calling on him to drop the drug-testing trial. That whole range of specialists were very clearly calling on him to do that. Indeed, very importantly, many service providers on the ground are also saying that this trial will not work.

I would like to speak briefly about my electorate. I was recently contacted by Mr John Lee, the founder and president of the homeless outreach provider You Have A Friend. He emailed me specifically about this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to commend John Lee and to tell the parliament what a remarkable difference John has made and continues to make in our community. He has a deep commitment to helping those people who are homeless and who have been through difficult times. The organisation he founded, You Have A Friend, supports more than 300 people in my electorate who are homeless, facing homelessness or marginalised. They are helped with food, housing, transport and general support. The organisation relies purely on donations or funds raised from their op shop to finance the organisation. There is a lot of community support for John and for You Have A Friend as an organisation.

John is a man I greatly admire and respect, so when he contacted me about his concerns about the legislation I took those concerns very seriously. I would like to read from the email that John sent to me. He said:

Dear Justine,

I am alarmed and shocked at the latest proposal by our Federal Government.

That is mandatory testing of drug and alcoholic persons and cutting their social benefits if they fail such tests.

…   …   …

If those on social benefits fail the test, their social benefits will be immediately cancelled!

Besides that, those incapacitated by sickness or an accident caused by alcohol or other drug issues will also have their support cancelled!

I find this absurd and totally inhumane.

He goes on to say:

Justine, in the 15 years I have worked with the homeless, I can cite many occasions of mothers and people coming off drugs or alcohol.

Without benefits during that very trying time, I know many would not have survived.

Besides that, it appears the government wants to force those persons who are "caught" to undertake mandatory rehabilitation.

I wonder if the government realises that there would not be enough facilities to cater for all those they establish are taking drugs.

He goes further to say:

The consequences are massive.

Increase in crime or simply left to die in the parks!

Once addicted, I know it can be a very serious problem for many.

This addiction not only affects the lower end of the social scale, but also many from all walks of life.

Let's face it, without condoning the disease, what do many homeless and marginalised have left after our government refuses to help them with housing, or adequate social funding …

He finishes by saying:

Justine, I am requesting that you and as many of your colleagues please vote against this inhumane Bill.

I can say to John that I and my Labor colleagues will do that, because we believe it is inhumane and we believe it is very cruel. Can there be a clearer message to the Turnbull Liberal-National government that this bill and the presumptions they base it on are just plain wrong?

The recent Senate inquiry heard overwhelming evidence from medical professionals, addiction specialists and community organisations against the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. Again, experts made it clear that the trial just will not work. Also, the experts warned that the trial will increase crime in the community. The Senate inquiry also heard the trial could adversely impact the medical treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering from drug and alcohol addiction.

As I've said, no-one doubts that we face significant problems—we absolutely do. I saw that when I was a police officer. I speak to police now and I hear that. I hear it from people right across the community. We have serious and significant problems. We have to work together in a complex manner to solve that. We know that drug addiction, particularly in some of those regional areas, is very serious, but there is no evidence to say that this trial will work. We should be focusing on methods that do work and working together to get better results. Indeed, those opposite don't have any evidence to say that it will work.

Let's again look at what some of the experts say. 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.

Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs 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 …

She goes on to say:

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.

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

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.

Listening to all that evidence from the experts, I call on the government to listen to them. Listen to the service providers. Listen to those within the medical fields as well. Listen to the people on the front line, like those I've quoted—John Lee, someone who's worked with the homeless and the marginalised for 15 years. I call on the government to drop this cruel and out-of-touch legislation.

There are many other elements of this bill that are equally harsh. We look to the part of the bill that seeks to remove the ability to fulfil the required activity test with the 30 hours of volunteer work for 55- to 59-year-old recipients of Newstart and some special benefits. Elements of that are indeed quite cruel in taking away the capacity for volunteering. These measures will actually be quite harsh because they will do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians, who are already disadvantaged. It will actually take people out of volunteering when they can't volunteer as much to qualify, and that's going to have a very detrimental effect upon society generally when we look at the large number of people in that age group who do volunteer. In a sense, by forcing them out to meet other activity tests, it's going to have a flow-on effect on the great work that volunteers do within our community. Again, it is overly harsh, overly punitive and overly cruel to a group that does often have difficulty sourcing employment—the people who engage in volunteering. There is a whole range of issues right throughout this bill that I think will have a very detrimental effect on those people throughout our community.

As I've said, we oppose many of those elements and we on this side will continue to fight for those people in our community who need our assistance most—the people who are going to be most impacted by this government's cuts. We'll fight the harsh measurements that the government continues to pursue. I, and the people in regional areas too, will always stand up and fight the National Party who, time and time again, walk away from people in country Australia—walk away from people in the regions—by continuing to come into this House and vote for harsh measures, whether it's cuts to education, health, pensions or family payments. Here they are now, attacking the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised, and people in rural and regional Australia will remember what the National Party have done to them.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. Many people on this side of the House have spoken about the harsh schedules in this bill. I'm going to speak from my firsthand experience over the last 20 years of working with people with substance dependency.

Dependency doesn't discriminate between those who are working and those who are looking for work. The government's attempt to conflate drug misuse with unemployment is not just wrong; it's harmful. While I was training as a pharmacist, I worked in a community pharmacy—one of the first in New South Wales to provide an opioid treatment program. This program, underpinned by the principles of harm minimisation, has led to many people being able to rebuild their lives and relationships and gain employment. It has been provided by community pharmacies since the late 1970s. I met teachers, chefs and executives who were all turning their lives around with the support of GPs, pharmacists and addiction specialists.

More recently, I worked as a mental health pharmacist, providing clinical support to an OTP clinic and a withdrawal management unit in Wyong Hospital. This in-patient unit provides withdrawal management from an evidence based, clinically-proven harm minimisation approach. It works. The problem is there are just 15 beds at Wyong Hospital for the entire Central Coast. This unit is also part of the statewide referral process, receiving clients from all across New South Wales, particularly from regional areas such as western New South Wales and the Tamworth region, where there are no local services.

If the government is genuine in its claimed intention to help those burdened by dependence, a good first step would be properly funding units like this and not attacking welfare recipients. The current services are overstretched and there are long waiting lists. Clients wait anxiously by their phone for a text message, hoping that they can enter as soon as there is an available bed. If there is to be any likelihood of success, the government must work with the states to ensure there are sufficient places for people entering treatment, and the necessary mental health and social services available.

This legislation implements a range of complex measures, many lacking detail and many lacking an evidence base. As previous speakers on this side of the House have indicated, there are measures that Labor could potentially support if they are separated from other measures in this bill. However, there are several measures that Labor will not support, including establishing a drug-testing trial for certain social security recipients, removing exemptions for drug or alcohol dependence, changes to reasonable excuses, axing the bereavement benefit, postponing the start date for some participation payments and removing the intent-to-claim provisions so that payments are delayed until claimants are able to complete the documentation requirements.

The most disturbing aspects of this legislation are the proposed drug-testing trial for social security recipients and compliance changes relating to drug and alcohol dependence. As I mentioned, I've worked as a pharmacist in a withdrawal management unit for alcohol and all other drugs as part of a dedicated team working from an evidence based harm-minimisation approach. Consistent with my experience is the widespread opposition to these measures among health and welfare groups. Concerns have been raised by, amongst others, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, the Australian Council of Social Service and UnitingCare. These measures fail to meet even the most basic standards for evidence based policy. To quote from the submission to the Senate inquiry by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre:

There is no evidence that any of these measures will directly achieve outcomes associated with reductions in alcohol or other drug use or harms, and indeed have the potential to create greater levels of harm, including increased stigma, marginalisation and poverty.

Drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries and there is no evidence that it is effective. For example, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients, In 2015, only 22 of 8,000 participants tested returned a positive test result for illicit drug use. This measure was introduced without any consultation with those with expertise in the area of drug rehabilitation and treatment. Kevin from Tumbi Umbi in my electorate put it very plainly:

I am amazed that the government is considering withholding welfare payments from drug and alcohol dependent people without consulting with addiction medicine specialists over the policies. They have not been given the chance to share their concerns and expertise.

Further, a wealth of scientific evidence in clinical experience has proven that people suffering from severe alcohol and drug problems cannot be punished into recovery. Pushing people into poverty will only undermine their chance of recovery.

Addiction medicine specialists are concerned about the technical aspects of the trial also. While details of the costs of this measure have not been made available, the cost of conducting reliable tests is significant. According to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 'gold standard' urine tests cost between $550 and $950 to administer. Lower cost tests present a risk of false positives. The government has provided no details to suggest that additional resources will be made available to rehabilitation services to deal with any increased demand as a result of this trial.

Comments from the treatment sector are consistent with my experience locally on the Central Coast. There are long waiting lists for treatment locally and around the country, particularly in regional and remote areas. These trials will put increased pressure on the system and, where treatment is unavailable, jobseekers who are identified as having a dependency will have difficulty accessing the treatment prescribed. A constituent of mine, Amber, made a telling comment about where public funding could be better directed, and that is to treatment services, not punitive drug testing. This is what Amber wrote to me:

If this government genuinely wants to help people struggling with drug and alcohol problems, Parliament should redirect public funding away from harmful, extensive drug testing trials and expand referral pathways to treatment services.

Another constituent, Gerry, wrote: 'People unfortunate enough to be in the grip of addiction will not be helped by further reinforcement of their problem. Rather than insinuate that they are not to be trusted by requiring them to be tested, the better approach would be to encourage them to engage in alternative activities or programs which have the potential to entice them into more hopeful life-changing behaviour.' Gerry lives opposite the Salvation Army's rehabilitation centre, and its success in transforming lives damaged by drugs and alcohol reflects a more understanding approach than that proposed by the government.

Furthermore, health professionals warn that treatment is not successful unless someone is ready to seek treatment. Forcing people to turn up will not address their dependency and will only put pressure on already overstretched services. I would like to share another comment I received from a constituent, a social worker with over three decades of experience. She wrote to me: 'As a social worker with 37 years of practice experience—17 years in the government income support and employment services field—I am horrified to hear about the progress of this punitive and dangerous policy.' This is from a social worker. 'This policy, if it goes ahead, will create extreme poverty for a group of people who are struggling with significant physical and mental health concerns. Based on my practice experience, I know that most of these people have been confronted with traumatic life experiences, creating a complex range of social and emotional responses that place them in a dangerous situation if they are unable to access income support. This is also likely to make people in this situation more likely to become isolated and even to attempt suicide. There is also a risk that people in this situation and who are denied income support will respond in drastic ways which may impact on the safety of family members and members of the public.' This is consistent with my experience working with alcohol and other drug dependency for over 20 years. I first started as a trainee pharmacist in the mid-nineties and have continued as a mental health pharmacist at Wyong Hospital for the last 10 years. As a clinician, a mental health worker and a local member of parliament, I am deeply concerned by these punitive and risky measures.

I will now move on to the removal of exemptions for drug and alcohol abuse. Currently, income support recipients with participation requirements can be granted temporary exemptions from these requirements where they are incapacitated due to sickness or injury or where there are special circumstances such as a personal crisis. Schedule 13 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 circumstance such as eviction associated with drug or alcohol misuse. Health and welfare groups have also raised concerns about this change, including ACOSS, St Vincent's Health and UnitingCare. Experts say that the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance misuse, substance dependency as a health condition and doctors' medical opinions in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. This would relate to not just acute episodes of substance misuse but also secondary health problems associated with drug and alcohol use, of which there are many.

UnitingCare's submission to the Senate inquiry states:

It is our view that the welfare system should provide a basic safety net for people most in need and that presence of chronic and significant health conditions should not lead to punitive responses. We subsequently oppose the measure on the basis of its propensity to undermine the effectiveness of treatment strategies that an individual may be seeking or undertaking …

Currently job seekers can be penalised for a range of very common participation failures, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who cites 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. If they refuse treatment and their substance-use disorder causes them to not comply with jobseeker requirements a second time, their payments will be suspended. As a pharmacist, a mental health worker and local MP, I join with other health professionals who have raised concerns that the changes in schedules 13 and 14 fail to recognise that substance-use disorder is a health condition.

In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians commented:

The proposed removal of exemptions is fundamentally stigmatising and vilifying of individuals suffering addiction; which in itself is a known barrier to seeking treatment and overcoming addiction.

…   …   …

Furthermore, the RACP is seriously concerned that Schedule 14 provides for the application of financial penalties in cases where income support recipients do not participate in treatment. Again, this approach places vulnerable people at increased risk of poverty, homelessness and significant social and financial disadvantage.

I worked in mental health at Wyong Hospital for the 10 years before I was elected. I saw people burdened by dependence. Those same people didn't have access locally to the resources they needed to be able to seek treatment, to gain support and to be able to turn their lives around. These changes will only put these really vulnerable people more at risk. We discharged people to couches, to cars and to caves. We have to wrap around the mental health and social services support if we are to have any likelihood of success.

In summary, these changes will not help people to overcome addiction. This is not how dependency works. Instead they will be pushed into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime. It will place further burdens on the families of those experiencing drug dependency and on already overstretched welfare services. I would like to conclude my remarks on these measures by quoting from Margaret and Ron in my electorate. Margaret said:

My husband and I know, from past experience, just how demoralising it is when you can't find a job and you have to ask for help. To add extra to the burden with drug testing is cruel and humiliating. We are thankful we are no longer in this position and feel for those that are

Finally, Ron said:

This is the most obscene suggestion I have heard in 80 years.

These measures are cruel, as are measures in other schedules. The abolition of the bereavement allowance, hurting Australians at their most vulnerable, would only result in savings of $1 million over the forward estimates. The death of a partner is one of the most difficult times in anyone's life. Grief compounded by financial stress is cruel. Cutting the support for bereaved persons at this time is a harsh and mean-spirited measure and must be opposed.

To sum up, there are measures in this bill that Labor could potentially support if they were separated from other measures; however, there are several measures that Labor will not support and that I cannot support as a pharmacist, as a mental health worker and as a local MP. We are open to working with the government on these complex social problems if they are committed to genuine attempts to help people burdened by addiction, but we will not support blatant attacks on the most vulnerable in our community with no basis of evidence.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have an employment crisis for young people in this country. To look back over the last few years, it is always the case—in fact, it's been the case since they've been keeping statistics—that youth unemployment is higher than general unemployment, and you would expect that. You would expect, because of where young people are at in their lives, that they may find it harder to get a job or may not be looking quite as actively as others. They may not be experienced and educated and so on. So youth unemployment, if you look back over the graphs, always sits higher than general unemployment.

What we also find, though, is that, whenever there's an economic downturn or a recession, it hits the young proportionately harder than it does for everyone else, and the two lines on the graph diverge. Unemployment goes up generally for everyone when we reach tough economic times, but it goes up more for young people. So young people find themselves in a proportionately worse position. What you also find, as you look back over the last 50-odd years of economic history in Australia, is that, given a couple of years, the lines come back into sync again. Youth unemployment comes back to about the same level compared with general unemployment, as more and more people find jobs and the economy picks up and recovers.

But, when you look at what's happened in Australia since the GFC, something very different has happened. Unemployment for young people spiked after the GFC but, unlike every other time in recorded economic history in Australia, youth unemployment has not come back into line with general unemployment. In other words, not only did young people get especially hit hard when the GFC happened and found themselves experiencing rates of unemployment around 12 per cent but also, a year after the GFC, that has not come back into line; it has continued to grow. Youth unemployment was around 11 per cent or 12 per cent immediately after the GFC and it is now higher—it's now around 13 per cent. But, meanwhile, general unemployment has flattened out. So young people in Australia have found it very, very hard to get a job since the GFC.

When you consider that the way they count the unemployment statistics means that, if you are working an hour a week, you are counted as employed, and, when you dig a bit deeper, the picture becomes even worse. When you start asking about underemployment and you start asking young people who have a job, 'Would you actually like to work more?' you find that the figures become even more alarming—and, again, it's got worse since the GFC. So we now find ourselves in a situation in Australia where underemployment for young people is around 20 per cent. So 20 per cent of people who are lucky enough to have jobs are saying, 'I'd actually like a bit more work and a bit more money.' Back in 1978 that figure for young people was about four per cent, and it's now 20 per cent. So 20 per cent of young people are finding themselves underemployed. So, when you add together the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate for young people, we get a rate of something like 30 per cent. So, close to a third of young people in this country are saying, 'I want a job but can't find one' or 'I've only got a couple of hours work a week and I'd like more.'

That's not surprising when you consider how expensive housing is now and how difficult it is for young people to find a place where they can live—and that's just renting in many cases. For most people, buying or owning a house is now just a dream. When you consider how expensive housing is, when you consider that, under this government, wholesale power prices have doubled in the last four years—and young people need electricity as well—and when you consider that young people, if they are lucky enough, go on to TAFE or university, it is not surprising that often young people are finding themselves in huge debt.

We've got a situation in this country where it is felt that we are turning our backs on young people. They are screaming out for more work and better pay and they are not getting it. It is at record numbers. As I say, there's a 30 per cent underutilisation rate. It has not been that high for a very, very long time in Australian history. So what does this government do? The government could turn around say, 'We're selling our young people out. We are not creating the jobs that they need, we're not giving them the incomes they deserve and we're leaving the ones without jobs on unemployment benefits that are below the poverty line.' In fact, as many have said, they are a disincentive to get work. You end up living in poverty and you spend all of your time just trying to make ends meet and you can't afford the extra money to do that bit of extra training or to get a haircut or to buy some new clothes to go to a job interview. Everyone is saying that—not just the Greens. The Business Council of Australia is also saying that.

The government could say: 'We've got a bit of a problem, with 30 per cent underutilisation of young people. Clearly, the jobs aren't out there for them. Clearly, people want more work and more jobs and are not getting them. So let's put our shoulders to the wheel and work out how to create more jobs.' But, no; instead, this government turns around and says, 'We are going to blame young people for not finding jobs'—jobs that weren't there in the first place. If you had unemployment or underemployment rates of two or three per cent, then, maybe, the government could stand up with a straight face and say, 'If you can't find yourself in work, then we're going to treat you in a certain way.' I wouldn't agree with that, but the government might have some logic in its argument. But, when 30 per cent of young people are saying, 'We'd like some work, or more work, but we can't find it,' what does the government do? The government turns around and says, 'We are going to treat young people and anyone else who's fallen on hard times, and can't get a job, as potential drug addicts, and we are going to randomly drug test you. If you fail that random drug test, woe betide you, because you may find yourself without income.'

Instead of having a bit of a self-reflective look at the fact that it is presiding over a 30 per cent underutilisation rate amongst young people and saying, 'Maybe this is our fault as the government and we might want to turn it around and do something to fix it,' the government turns around and says, 'We are going to blame young people and everyone who is doing it tough.' Because it's performing so poorly in the polls and doesn't have the guts to do the hard work to create meaningful work for people in this country or to lift people out of poverty by lifting the level of unemployment benefits, it does the usual tabloid thing. It picks up the playbook of every conservative government and says, 'We're going to blame the unemployed, stigmatise them and treat them all as potential drug addicts.' What does it do then? It does compulsory drug testing.

If the government understood the first thing about people who are addicted to drugs, it would know that when addiction has got a hold of you, especially on some of the really tough drugs, you do anything to feed your addiction. You steal from your friends and your family, and you burn bridges there. You steal from your employer sometimes. And then, when that all runs out, you break into other people's houses to nick their stuff and sell it in order to feed your addiction. Once you've run through all of your friends and your family and you've potentially got yourself a criminal record, maybe you end up in prison or, if you've managed to avoid the law, maybe you find yourself out on the streets with no meaningful source of income at all. That is what addiction does to people. It makes them behave in a way where the only thing that matters is getting the next hit. If you really care about getting people off drugs, the crucial thing is to try and grab people when they are in that situation and get them into treatment, because we know treatment works.

But what the government is doing is saying that, if it happens to find you in that situation, then it's going to make life even worse for you and, potentially, take away the only source of income that you've got. It's not going to turn around and give you additional treatment—there's no extra money coming from this government to fund additional treatment services or to take steps to ensure these people find their way into treatment. No; this government says, 'We're going to put you even further into desperation.' If someone is addicted to a drug, to the point where they're prepared to burn their family and friends, where they're prepared to commit criminal acts, what do you think they're going to do when this government takes away their money? This is a government that is forcing people into crime. When the crime statistics go up, when there are more break-and-enters as a result of people no longer having an income, blame this government. Blame the Liberal and National parties, because they will have put people in the situation where they know that they'll do anything because they're in the grip of a drug, and the government says, 'We don't care. We're going to make your life even tougher.'

Of course, because this is only an electoral ploy—it's about saving money and about trying to win votes; the government is going for the double whammy here—the government isn't interested in looking at the real problem with drugs in this country or how one might solve it. If the government was, it would have listened to everyone—everyone from medical health professionals through to people who work with people who are on drugs—who fronted up to hearings into this bill and made the point that the best thing you can do is fund a proper drug treatment sector and get people into treatment and into health.

If the government were interested in doing more than simply playing the politics of it, they would have listened to the CEO of the Ted Noffs Foundation who said: 'If we're going to do drug testing, is it going to apply universally to everyone?' He made the point that in some places ice use has plummeted, but the drug that has gone up in some places is cocaine. He said to the committee: 'Who uses more cocaine than anyone else? Canberrans.' Clearly, this government is not interested in tackling addiction or excessive drug use because, if it was, it would be applying it across the board. It would be applying it across the board and saying, 'Hang on, maybe drug use is getting out of control in the kinds of drugs that might not find their way onto the front page of a tabloid and might not be good conservative fodder because they are actually drugs that rich people use.' No, the government is not interested in that. The government is only interested in trying to boost its standing in the polls by taking the stick to people who are doing it tough.

I will come back to what I said at the start. We have an unemployment and underemployment crisis in this country amongst our young people. If you go to some regional areas, that 30 per cent underutilisation rate that I was talking about before is up above 50 per cent. Go to some of the public housing estates in my electorate. At one, the woman who runs the community centre told me that, in the last survey she did, there was nigh on 82 per cent unemployment and underemployment. People just can't find work. When you understand that is the kind of society that we are creating—that the Liberals are presiding over a society where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing and where we have an extraordinarily large class of young people now who, since the GFC, have never been able to find a decent job—then we're at a fork in the road in Australia.

We could have the courage, as the government and as the parliament, to say, 'We've got to act in the public interest. There's a looming crisis here, and it's our job to make sure that, in the 21st century, no-one is left behind.' And that means lifting the level of welfare so that people aren't below the poverty line and making sure that there are decent, meaningful jobs. That's the Greens' proposal—to actually offer people a bit of choice, a bit of hope and a bit of meaning in their lives and to say, 'If you fall on hard times, the government is there to help you get back on your feet. And if you or your son or daughter find yourself in trouble with drugs, we will help you get the treatment that you need.' But, instead, this government only knows one thing—and that's the big stick. When, as I said, the crime figures go up, blame Malcolm Turnbull, blame the minister, because they are pushing people towards crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. As outlined by previous members, but especially the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for families and social services, Labor supports some of the measures in the bill but, if it stays in the current form, we will move to protect those in the community who need a helping hand to get back on their feet—the most vulnerable in our community.

I'm extremely concerned about some of the changes that are outlined in this bill, and one of the first things I want to draw your attention, and the attention of other members in this House, to is the bereavement allowance amendments that are in this bill. The proposed changes in the bereavement allowance will impact people who have just lost a loved one—a spouse, a husband, their life-long partner, their wife. We know the traumatic experience that they go through; yet we see changes that are proposed by this government that will make people $1,300 worse off after the loss of a partner. For a lot of people $1,300 is a lot of money—it certainly is for some of the constituents I see in my electorate. How does someone even come up with such a cruel budget saving measure like this? We saw lots of cruel budget measures in 2014, 2015 and 2016, but this is one that is very cruel because it affects people at their lowest point, when they're absolutely mourning the loss of a family member.

Unfortunately, as I said, time and time again, we see this form. The government are absolutely ideologically obsessed. This bill is about obsession with ideology: 'Let's have a go at the unemployed. Let's have a go at dole bludgers. Let's have a go at the most vulnerable people.' The government are not doing their job. What is their job? Their job is to create employment, but that is not what they are not doing. This is another diversion tactic we see constantly with the government. It diverts away from the real issue—the issue that should be absolutely No. 1 on their list—which is to create jobs. When you create jobs, you get people into work. When you look at the number of unemployed in our country and the number of job advertisements out there at the moment, it doesn't fit. You can't put a triangle into a square and you can't put a circle into a triangle; it just does not fit. You have to create jobs to get people off the unemployment line. Currently, the government, through their ideological obsession, are diverting away from those issues of how to create jobs, how to get people into work and how to get them off welfare benefits—issues they are absolutely not dealing with.

As already outlined by many of my colleagues in this place, we get to the point of the drug testing for jobseekers, which is in schedule 12, and the compliance changes in this bill that relate to drug and alcohol dependence. Again we see the government, ideologically, continuing to push for this despite warnings from experts. We heard the warnings earlier from the member for Bruce, who spoke about a range of experts that have condemned this move. We hear warnings that this change will not help people overcome their substance abuse or addiction. Someone that is addicted to a particular substance needs medical help and medical attention, not punishment. We need to give these people the opportunity to go to a rehab centre, to see a doctor, to do all that they can through the medical science that exists to get them off that addiction. I haven't seen any proposal in this bill or in the last budget of extra money to assist people who require the medical attention that is required to get them off the addiction to a particular substance.

The experts tell us that this will push people into poverty and into crime. If you are addicted to heroin, for example, the addiction is very, very harsh. Those that have any understanding of it will know that it is one of the hardest additions to break. Someone with a heroin addiction will do anything possible to get their next dose and their next hit. It is an illness that exists within that person. What we should be doing is helping those people through assisting them with rehab centres, et cetera, not punishing them and then putting them into a position where perhaps they have to commit a crime to get their next hit. This is what this bill will do. That is what the experts are saying as well. They are warning that these changes will not help one person overcome addiction. The experts tell us this.

What does the government really want here? What is it asking for? Look at other countries around the world that have implemented such programs and then just chucked them out because they haven't been working. What is the government really doing? Again, it's playing up to the tabloid front page dole-bludger stories that we see regularly and those stories that appear on the 6.30 programs after the news. What this government really wants to do here is divert away from the real issues of health, education and, really importantly, creating jobs so that we can put people into dignified paid work. The government doesn't want to help these jobseekers; it wants to scare people away from asking for help finding a job.

Where will these people go? The government will turn away people trying to escape a judgemental 'big brother' testing service. And who's going to conduct these testing services? We haven't seen the details. Will people turn up with a little cup every time they go to Centrelink? Will they sit there and have their blood taken? How will this be conducted, and who will conduct it, more importantly?

As if this isn't bad enough, the government can't tell us what it will cost. What are the costs for this? What are the cost-saving measures? Will there be cost-saving measures? I doubt very much that there will be any. New Zealand, just next door to us, spent millions of dollars, and, out of 8,000-odd people who were tested over that period, fewer than 25 people were found to have any drugs in their system—a minute number. And the costs were extraordinarily high, so there was no cost-savings measure in it.

We hear that the government wants to outsource the drug-testing to a private provider, and we have absolutely no detail of how that private provider will operate, who they are or what they're doing. It's just a thought bubble—that it's going out to a private provider. We've heard the argument from the government: 'Just let us trial this service. Let's see how it goes.' Well, it's been trialled, as I said, just across the ditch in New Zealand. The New Zealand government tried a similar plan back in 2013. In 2015 only 22 of the 8,001 participants returned a positive result—a minute number, a rate much lower than for the general population in New Zealand. There were similar results in the US when they tried it. So why is the government doing this? It is copying an experiment that failed in New Zealand and in the US. It is intrusive and unfairly targeted. It is an unfairly targeted experiment, with the Australian taxpayers picking up the bill and welfare recipients as the guinea pigs.

What are the welfare experts in the community saying—the people who are in the know, the people who deal with these welfare recipients regularly, the people who have done the research, the people who have evidence in front of them? St Vincent's Health, the Australasian College of Physicians, ACOSS and UnitingCare have all raised concerns, on top of the community-wide opposition. I've been inundated with emails, phone calls and letters to my office from people opposed to this. We've seen the failed experience from overseas, but we haven't explored the financial cost. According to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the gold-standard urine test costs between $550 and $950 to administer. That's per test—per person, in other words. Actually there could be multiple tests for one person—it might not be just that one test—so it could cost close to $2,000 per person, not to mention issues around false positives and additional conflicts between Centrelink staff and clients, putting public servants, security officers and social workers at great risk of interruption to their work, violence and a whole range of other things.

Why are we talking about this issue in this place when there are so many other things that we should be doing? We should be looking at bettering employment opportunities; looking at the employment agencies, how they operate and how they provide people with work; and looking at giving people the opportunity to get more education in order to get work. These are the things we should be debating in this place, not looking at the most vulnerable people in our electorates, in the country, and giving them a kick up the backside. This is wrong. It is not right. These are vulnerable people. They are people who, for whatever reason, are not working. The majority of people I meet who are unemployed want a job. There is no doubt. I have mums and dads come to my office regularly with their 17-, 18-, 19- and 20-year-old sons and daughters, and I can see when I talk to these kids that they want to work. There are very few people who think: 'This is great; I'm on the dole, and this is the life for me.' When you can't afford to pay your rent, pay your electricity bills or put petrol in your car, why would anyone want to be on the dole? We're dealing with the most vulnerable people, who have ended up where they are because of their circumstances. We should be assisting them, not making their lives harder and treating them like lepers.

Again, I'll make this point, and I make it regularly in this place: when a government has nothing to offer, they offer distractions through policies like this. Whether it be on refugees, the unemployed or the 'big, bad unions', this is another distraction by the government because they're not offering the Australian people anything at this point. The government want the focus off them and onto these people, and off their current problems in the hope that perhaps their current problems will disappear. Just think about this for one minute: the government have made a calculated decision to attack some of the most vulnerable people in the community. They've actually made a calculated decision: 'Let's attack the unemployed.' Give us a break! I warn the government: you're not fooling anyone on this particular point.

I've got a couple of emails that were sent to me by constituents from the seat of Hindmarsh. Mal at Semaphore Park wrote:

I believe this process is a pathetic strategy to blame unemployed people generally for being unemployed and as people unworthy of help and inclusion into our society. Any reforms affecting addicts should be research based and proven. These people deserve help and compassion, not poverty and desperation.

Joan from Novar Gardens wrote:

Scientific evidence and clinical experience shows that people suffering from severe alcohol and drug problems cannot be punished into recovery. One can't keep tipping people over the edge into poverty. They need every support mechanism from professionals and the community to recover.

Paul from Torrensville, in my electorate, said:

I urge you and colleagues to oppose the Turnbull government's plan to strip income support from those with addictions using mandatory drug testing. This proposal lacks evidence and is characterised (once again) by a failure to consult with professionals with experience and expertise in this area.

Finally, surely, we have understood by now that the difficult issue of addictions requires evidence-based strategies driven by compassion—

something that's lacking in this government—

and creative thinking. Please think carefully about this proposal from the government and strive to remove it from our country's thinking and behaviour.

I stand with those constituents. All of us on this side stand with those constituents. Let's be clear on this issue: with drug addiction, including prescription opiate abuse becoming a real issue here in this country at the moment, we need to take this seriously. But the blatant attacks on the most vulnerable in our community with no basis in evidence and an apparent open chequebook for drug tests show that this government has lost its way yet again. This is a government that is out of ideas, out of imagination and out of touch. Soon, if they keep attacking the most vulnerable in our communities, it will be out of office.

What we need to be doing is looking at ways to ensure that we create jobs. Have a look at the number of unemployed in this country and then go to the statistics that show how many job advertisements there are, whether they be on SEEK.com or in the local papers. It does not fit. The equation doesn't equal—you just can't get a solution out of it. If you want to really combat this area, if you really want to do something about unemployment, instead of attacking those most vulnerable people who have ended up on the dole queue, why don't you look at doing something decent? Create jobs, ensure that our education system is up to scratch so people can get the education that's required to get jobs and bring those numbers down. That's the way to do it. That's the way a true government would do it.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Addiction is incredibly complex and, indeed, addressing the issues that surround poverty is equally so. From the outset, I would like to say that I spent considerable hours examining the proposals in each section and I've also engaged extensively with stakeholders, including Volunteering Australia, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, St Vincent's Health Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia and ACOSS, among a few. It's been a great privilege, on behalf of the NXT team, to have responsibility for this portfolio area. I am very grateful for the time stakeholders have given to me. They are busy professionals undertaking critically important work in our community. They've done this so that I can more properly examine this bill and have a deeper understanding of the challenges many Australians face with addiction. I've also followed the Senate inquiry process closely: the submissions made by stakeholders and the compelling testimony given by specialists in the field. Despite working in the NGO sector for some years, the information brought to the fore through the process of examination of this bill has been incredibly insightful.

Every decision NXT makes in this place is influenced by the evidence before us, and for me in this instance it has been critical to listen to and, on many occasions, to go back to the specialists who work with Australians suffering addiction—those who have specialist advocacy roles in the welfare sector—and meet with local government officials where trial sites have been identified. I would like to thank the Logan City Council mayor, Luke Smith, and his team for taking the time to meet with me and to explain the work they are undertaking within their council and within their community for those suffering with addiction.

Beyond the evidence, we must determine what exactly it is that we want to achieve from welfare reform. I believe that as a society we want to do all we can to ensure that every person who is receiving a jobseeker payment is indeed job ready, and we owe this to the taxpayers of Australia. Importantly, we also owe this to the recipients of Newstart and youth allowance. It is unacceptable for government to accept that some recipients are suffering from addiction and not to do all we can to assist those people to access rehabilitation and support to beat that addiction and to strive for a life of happiness and prosperity.

There are parts to this bill that I do support, and I think it's best to unpack the sections of this bill to better examine and explain to the parliament where that support lies and where I have concerns with this bill. I can see logic in the government's decision to simplify the categories for payments. I know that constituents in my electorate find reading through the rather thick Centrelink booklet quite complex. Schedules 1 to 8 collectively are a net cost to government of just over $15 million. However, there will be a significant administration reduction to government, and this will also make the Centrelink system much easier for recipients to navigate.

Specifically, schedule 4, the bereavement payment, will provide the Centrelink recipients with a triple upfront payment to assist with unexpected expenses that occur when you lose a partner. However, there does need to be further supports available in the rare occurrence that a person is expecting a child at the time that their partner passes away. I believe that such an example was raised during the Senate inquiry process. I would urge the government to consider amendments so that we can provide necessary support during such tragic circumstances.

Next is schedule 9, the requirement for Newstart recipients aged 55 to 59 to complete at least 15 hours of job activity or employment, with a balance of up to 15 hours in their mutual obligations in volunteering. Volunteering Australia has raised concerns that this proposal would diminish their volunteering workforce. This proposed measure will move people away from volunteering positions and will possibly have a detrimental impact on the volunteering sector, affecting service provision, workforce capacity and the long-term financial viability of volunteering support services and volunteering organisations, which provide essential services to the community.

A further concern is that this proposal does not recognise age discrimination as a very real issue in the workforce—and such discrimination is experienced in some industries long before age 55. I'm troubled that some Newstart recipients in this age group, particularly those with lower levels of English and lower levels of skills, could be spending years—absolutely years—applying week after week with no interviews and no offer of employment, and that would be crushing. So I would encourage the government to consider amendments to this schedule, possibly in the Senate—preferably in the Senate. Over a set period of time, perhaps after 12 months, they could set it so that a person would no longer need to do 15 hours in each and could possibly just resume 15 hours a fortnight of volunteering. Volunteering is an effective way to engage with society, and often it does lead to employment outcomes. I think that we need to recognise the valuable contribution that volunteering makes: $290 billion to our national economic and social wellbeing—particularly in regional areas, where volunteering rates are much higher than the national average.

The Rapid Connect process outlined in schedule 10 has merit. However, we need to ensure that there is immediate financial assistance available to new applicants who have no means either to make that appointment with the jobactive provider on the phone or indeed even to get to that appointment. I believe that this particular schedule will have a greater impact on and result in greater hardship in regional and remote areas where there is no public transport and where jobactive providers are often some distance from home.

I believe that schedule 11 raises the greatest concerns for those living in regional and remote areas and older residents who may not be computer savvy, have an internet connection and have their documents, such as bank statements, electronically stored or have public transport access so that they can get to the services to get that documentation. To take my electorate of Mayo, for example, in the last 25 years I've seen our bank branches close. We have limited public transport across our region and a lot of distance between our jobactive providers. This makes it much harder for a person in my electorate to reach such expectations. When we make decisions in this place, they have a blanket effect across the nation and we must remember that the experiences of those of us who do not live in capital cities is very different. I would encourage the government to consider this schedule, in particular, through a regional lens.

I support schedules 16 and 18. However, I have deep concerns with schedule 17, which restricts the fundamental common privilege against self-incrimination. This schedule contravenes what are considered important values and long-established principles of common law.

Schedule 12 of this bill is a schedule that has concerned the sector the most and has been the focus of much media attention. This schedule provides for a random drug-testing trial of 5,000 new youth allowance and/or Newstart recipients in three regions of Australia—Mandurah in Western Australia, Western Sydney and in the local government area of Logan in South-East Queensland. According to testimony given on the trial, it is expected that 120 recipients will fail two drug tests and then those recipients will be placed on income management as a first measure—and I acknowledge that the minister believes that number could be between 200 and 300 recipients. We have no details on the cost of such a trial and, explicitly, the government has said that the cost of the trial is not for publication. There are no details in the legislation of what sort of drug testing would be applied and the efficacy of such. There are wildly different levels of accuracy among drug detection tests and wide-ranging costs to conduct such tests. Tests include saliva, hair, urine and blood—all with differing degrees of invasiveness.

So let's unpack that schedule. Firstly, we are talking about spending possibly millions of dollars on drug testing, and we don't know how much of taxpayers' money has been put aside for this, to capture somewhere between 2.4 per cent and six per cent of the trial group. The connotation of this schedule is that we would be demonising communities that we already know are communities with pockets of disadvantage for the purpose of capturing a couple of hundred people at most. This appears to me to be a scatter-gun logic approach that is without evidence and I believe devoid of logic. Why would we spend thousands on such a trial when we know, according to the department's own records and from the minister's own speech, that just over 4,000 people each year self-report that they have an issue with addiction, drug or alcohol and are unable to fulfil their job activity requirements because of this addiction?

At the moment we accept that certificate from an medical professional or an allied health professional, but we do nothing about the addiction—nothing from a social welfare perspective to meaningfully assist that person to address that addiction. The evidence currently before us suggests redirecting the funds allocated for the drug trial to target people who self-identify and that that support should be flexible, evidence based and tailored to the individual. Importantly, that support should be under the guidance of specialists, so that the person can receive assistance and support by way of counselling through to intensive behavioural therapy and, in some instances, in-patient treatment.

It cannot be accepted that we leave people without a direct pathway to support, and the best approach to ensure this is, in reality, to provide workplace strengthening in the medical and social services sector, greater specialist training supports and increased funding for telehealth, so that specialists can reach out to professionals working with patients suffering addiction in rural Australia. Some of the workplace strengthening will require federal government support and some state government support, and the best way for this to occur is through a sector-led working group to work closely with governments, both state and federal, to create a national addiction strategy.

One of the most concerning findings raised during the Senate inquiry process was the estimation of unmet demand. We know that approximately 200,000 Australians each year seek treatment for addiction. Estimations of unmet demand sit somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000. This is a guestimate, and a rough one at that, and is just unacceptable on so many levels. In the Senate inquiry, Professor Alison Ritter, Director of the Drug Policy Modelling Program for the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, gave evidence that there had been modelling done to establish state-by-state estimates of unmet demand, but that modelling, despite requests, has not been done publicly.

Debate interrupted.