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

To conclude my remarks on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017: what we've seen, in the measures that the government wants to introduce to delay payments to people who apply for welfare assistance, is a desperate move from a desperate government. Then we saw, in question time today, an answer from the minister which has outdone Chemical Ali during the war in Iraq, when he was denying what was happening there. Just as in the sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the Black Knight was denying what was happening to him at the time, the minister, totally out of touch with reality, suggested that the process that people are going through with Centrelink at the moment has been improved and that there are no problems with it. Nothing could be further from the truth than that.

What the government is saying is: 'We're going to put you through an even more difficult process than you already go through right now. You won't get your payments commenced until the process is finished—not at the time you start—by a department that is totally either underresourced or overwhelmed with applications.' The government knows exactly what it's doing. It is deliberately and intentionally wanting to delay the start of the payments in order to save a few dollars so that it can then try and balance its budget. Nothing could be more unjust and unfair than what this government is proposing.

The last matter, as to the unfairness, goes to the treatment that this government wants to dish out to people who are 55 years and over, where it is now saying that you can no longer fulfil your commitment to society by volunteering in your community; you will have to, like the rest of the people looking for support payments, go through applying for jobs or be in paid employment. I made the point earlier, at the beginning of my remarks, that there simply are not jobs out there. When there are far more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available, employers will not give people who are 55 years and over much of a look-in at all. It is going to be incredibly difficult for them to get jobs which are simply not there. And yet, again, this government is saying to them: 'If you don't go through this process, we will also take away payments from you.'

It is getting about as low as it possibly can when it starts putting those sorts of pressures on people who are clearly depending on the welfare system not because they want to but because they have no choice. We will have more of those people over the coming months—particularly in the region that I represent, because of the closure of Holden—and, quite frankly, to bring in this legislation and make their life even more difficult than it currently is just shows the depths that this government will sink to in order to try and balance its budget.

For those reasons, of course, I will not be supporting this legislation and will be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. The government may well be trying to get the legislation through by saying that, amongst the 18 measures contained in this legislation, there are some good ones, but the bad ones clearly outnumber the good ones, and this legislation should not be supported.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to join with my colleagues in rising to speak against the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and condemning the actions of this government. There are many proposed measures contained in this legislation that those on our side cannot in good conscience support. These include the axing of the bereavement allowance—an especially callous and cruel part of this legislation. The bereavement payment is a very short-term payment offered to those whose partners have recently died. In addition to the axing of the bereavement payment, this legislation seeks to push the starting date for some participation payments to new roles. It removes the intent-to-claim provisions that have been longstanding in the Centrelink regime. It also looks at changes to what constitutes a reasonable excuse. Finally, of course, it seeks to introduce a proposed trial for drug testing of those on social security.

This legislation is wrong in so many ways, but I particularly want to focus today on the component of this legislation that goes to the drug-testing trial of the social security recipients. It is shameful that this government has attempted to frame this policy as some type of health measure—as if targeting and punishing vulnerable and addicted Australians is somehow in their best interests and, indeed, in the best interests of our community. This policy is nothing more than a crass savings measure, and not a very good one at that. This policy will, in all likelihood, end up costing taxpayers more and achieving very little. The proposed trial is far from good, evidence-based policy making. It runs against all expert advice. It is so poorly thought out that some experts warn that, if rolled out, it may actually increase crime and drug use in our community. This trial could also inadvertently impact the medical treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering from drug and alcohol addiction.

Mr Speaker, you will not find a single organisation working in the field of drug and alcohol rehabilitation that will support this punitive policy. What you will find, however, is a great number of medical experts, addiction specialists and widespread community groups who have strongly urged the government against introducing this policy. I want to list just some of those organisations that have spoken out against this proposed drug-testing trial, because it's important that their considered opinions are noted and their opposition is recorded as part of this debate. These respected organisations include: the Australian Medical Association; the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine; the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs; 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 Penington Institute; the Kirby Institute at UNSW; the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association; 360 Edge, a specialist alcohol and other drug consultancy; the Australian Council of Social Service; UnitingCare Australia; Homelessness Australia; the St Vincent de Paul Society; the Wayside Chapel; Anglicare; Catholic Social Services Australia; the National Social Security Rights Network; Community Mental Health Australia; the Public Health Association of Australia; the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services; and the Ted Noffs Foundation. There are others, but time does not allow me to continue the list.

Rest assured that you will not find one medical expert who has come out to defend this as sound drug and alcohol addiction policy. Why? Because it is not. Even the CEO of Jobs Australia, David Thompson, has slammed the policy, saying he thinks all it will do is stop people asking for help because 'they feel the whole process … is really quite demeaning and humiliating'. If the government is trying to pretend that this is somehow a policy justifiable on health grounds, they are deceiving both themselves and the Australian people. The government needs to listen to the experts. The experts have made it crystal clear that this drug-testing trial will not work.

A doctor in my electorate, in Newcastle, recently contacted me, pleading for this policy not to go ahead. She is a doctor who is a medical specialist trained in paediatrics, epidemiology and genetics, and has had considerable experience working with families damaged by Stolen Generation pain, violence and abuse. She has written to me saying:

Many of the children of these families, as well as children with learning difficulties, autistic traits and severe anxiety turn to self-medication with alcohol and drugs in adolescence, or adulthood.

The idea that stopping their pocket money will remove this need or prevent substance abuse is childish and petulant. How can we as a developed nation continue to let ourselves fall into these punitive and silly games to make our politicians look 'strong'.

That's what doctors in my electorate are saying.

Australians go to their doctors and listen to them for medical advice. It's time that Malcolm Turnbull did the same. Mr Turnbull needs to listen to a doctor like Dr Anna Kelly, a general practitioner working in my electorate of Newcastle, who has also written a powerful letter arguing for this policy not to go ahead. Dr Kelly writes:

As a General Practitioner working in Newcastle, I have treated hundreds of people with drug and alcohol problems.

They often come from very difficult backgrounds; have a history of trauma including sexual abuse and domestic violence. Many have grown up in homes where drug and alcohol abuse and violence has been the norm. They miss out on education due to their difficult circumstances, leave home early to escape the hardship and experimenting with drugs leads to a drug and alcohol addiction problem.

With time, support, effort, empathy and access to resources, I have seen many get through their problem and break the poverty/drug and alcohol/violence generational cycle. Unfortunately due to lack of resources, it is difficult to get the right help at the right time for many of them.

I also see the children and extended families of people affected with drug and alcohol problems. They are ready to get help/support, but can't do it alone.

If drug and alcohol addicted people are prevented from receiving their Centrelink payments they will be forced into crime. People may be wanting to stop their addiction, but may not be able to do it alone.

If we stop their income, crime will increase, and seeking help will be even more difficult.

The funds used to police such a program would be much better spent in drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and for services to help the children and families of drug and alcohol affected people. Leave the punitive activities to our police force and fund adequately the services to help people.

That's the message from doctors in my electorate of Newcastle. These are doctors and medical experts who deal with the problem of drug and alcohol addiction every day. They are lining up to denounce this cruel and misguided policy proposal.

Nobody doubts that we face significant problems with drug addiction in our community, but there is simply no evidence that this trial will work. The problem of drug addiction requires a medical response. A punitive approach where the government is pursuing people on welfare who may or may not have a drug issue is not a reasonable way to deal with this important matter of public health. There is not a single extra cent in the health budget for any of the proposed drug trial sites. Precious taxpayer dollars would be better spent investing in support and rehabilitation services for those living with drug and alcohol addictions and their families. Without extra funding for treatment this trial will likely put pressure on an already overstretched and under-resourced system with long waiting lists, displacing people seeking help and further exacerbating the problem.

If this government had done even the smallest amount of research, they would have seen that drug testing of income support recipients has been trialled many times in many other countries, with no evidence to suggest that it is an effective measure to treat drug use in any of them. I take just one example—from New Zealand, our closest neighbour. The New Zealand government introduced a drug-testing program amongst welfare recipients in 2015. Only 22 of the 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. Just 22; that is just 0.2 per cent, a very small minority.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this flawed policy is not new. It has been tried before, and each time the result has been the same: it has not detected many positive results, and it has been very costly to deliver, which goes some way to explain why this government is refusing to give an estimate of the program's cost. However, regardless of the as yet unknown costs of this program, it is very difficult to see from any of the international evidence that this is an effective use of precious taxpayers' dollars. What we see here is just a cheap, populist and lazy policy from a government that is so worried about its own jobs that it has given up on trying to help vulnerable Australians. The idea that you would test tens of thousands of people and a few people may be found to have a positive test for the use of illicit drugs is not an effective use of those taxpayers' dollars, and it certainly will not help those few people who have genuine substance abuse problems—the very people that we should be seeking to reach out to.

The government should be focusing its resources on helping vulnerable people seek treatment for drug addiction, not making tokenistic gestures to appear tough. Drug and alcohol addictions are complex public health problems, and they require a public health policy response. I wish to close with a quote from Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, because I think it perfectly sums up just why this is such a bad policy. She says:

At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services—

this proposal means—

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.

I agree with Dr Jauncey. She is absolutely right.

Labor have listened to the expert advice from health professionals, and we oppose this drug-testing trial of social security recipients. It's time that the Turnbull government dumped this expensive trial that everyone says simply will not work. I stand with my Labor colleagues condemning this legislation, and I stand in support of the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This so-called welfare reform bill, as we've just heard from the member for Kingston, is really about the government trying to play politics. It's really about the government trying to pick on vulnerable people. You would have thought that they'd had enough of that, because they have tried much of this before.

There are three measures in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 that I am particularly concerned about and that I want to talk about today. Similarly to the previous member, I am particularly concerned about the change in the activity test for 55- to 59-year olds. People would know that at the moment people over the age of 55 who are out of work and are receiving Newstart can go and volunteer for 30 hours per week. That's 30 hours per week in which they are going out in their own time—paying for it themselves, often with transport—to get to their volunteer posts out and about in the community, to do good things supporting other vulnerable people, and this government wants to penalise them. It is just astounding. You would think it would be a sensible measure if, indeed, there were jobs out there for over-55-year-olds but there aren't. We have heard from many on this side the concerns around that and age discrimination.

I've been holding forums around the country with older Australians as part of my shadow portfolio duties, and one of the things that are raised with me every single time is the discrimination that older Australians face when trying to get work. The report Willing to Work, put out by the former Age and Disability Discrimination Commissioner Susan Ryan, says:

The right to work, free from discrimination on any basis, is a fundamental human right. Too many older Australians … are denied this right and as a result are prevented from enjoying the independence, dignity and sense of purpose that work brings.

Sadly, in Australia today this is still true. The report is only a year and a half old. It clearly shows the discrimination that older Australians face when trying to seek work. Many of these older Australians have been employed for most of their life. Indeed, many of them have been made redundant after years and years of work in the same job and then need to reskill. First, those reskilling programs are not available for most people and, second, it is so hard for these people to re-enter the workforce, yet when they're out there volunteering, trying to support other members in the community, the government is trying to penalise them. I do not understand where the government is coming from on this. The age discrimination commissioner's report says their survey found:

… 27% of people over the age of 50 had recently experienced discrimination in the workplace. One third of the most recent episodes of discrimination reported occurred when applying for a job.

They go in, they put in their resumes and their CVs and they get knocked back. They continually get knocked back on the basis of their age, even though that is not what they are told. Many of them, as you heard from the member for Kingston, don't even put their age on their CVs or resumes anymore, because they know that they will be discriminated against because of their age. And this government wants to penalise them even further. So I am really concerned about this aspect of the bill.

The other part of the bill that I am concerned about is in regard to the demerit provisions for Newstart jobseekers and the way in which they will work. I am particularly concerned that the government has removed the ability of employment service providers and, indeed, Centrelink to use their discretion and to waive demerits when there are exceptional circumstances.

I have seen this government try to move this bill two or three times before, and we've had to knock it off two or three times before because, of course, we know that doing things like that only leads to more homelessness. It only leads to more issues in the community because the people that the government is talking about penalising are already extremely vulnerable. And the government has no evidence that cutting more people off welfare or Newstart payments is actually going to improve their ability to find a job. What it actually wants to do is disengage people and not use its discretion for waivers when people are really vulnerable. I'm really concerned that this will actually have adverse impacts on those vulnerable members of our community.

The third part of the bill that I wanted to talk about today is of course the one that has been raised so many times in this place, and that is about the drug testing of welfare recipients in those trial sites. We've heard from so many experts, from the AMA to ACOSS, that this will not work. We've got no evidence from the government that this will work and, indeed, all the evidence from overseas would suggest that it won't work. We've also heard, unfortunately, that the government yet again hasn't done its homework. The government hasn't done its homework in terms of what services are available for those people whose tests do come up positive to say that, yes, there is alcohol or drug addiction. Indeed, has this government actually put in more support services in those trial sites? What are the waiting lists already for those people in those trial sites when it comes to seeking support for their addictions today?

Quite unusually for the government, they of course are making a hash of this just like they do everything else. They cannot implement any policy without mucking it up. We see it time and time again. We see it with this welfare reform bill; we saw it with the NBN; we saw it with the census; and we're going to see it, no doubt, with the household survey. They cannot organise anything. We've had minister after minister come in here and try to do more and more welfare reform that just leaves more and more people vulnerable. Quite frankly, I've had enough of it and my constituents have enough of it. It's about time the government stopped picking on vulnerable people and actually got on and did their job properly, because people out there in our communities know that there are not enough jobs for every jobseeker. They've got to stop picking on vulnerable jobseekers, go out there and create more jobs with less underemployment and less casualisation of the labour force. They need to improve wages growth. Indeed, they've got a lot of work to do, and this welfare reform bill doesn't do any of that. All it does is continually pick on vulnerable people.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members, including those opposite, for their contributions to the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. By way of summing up the second reading debate, I note that the bill simplifies the welfare system. It strengthens conditionality for jobseekers, particularly those with drug and alcohol issues, and it introduces a new targeted and workable compliance framework. The point of the simplification—and I do note that the member for Jagajaga is here, thank her for her presence and also note that in her Growing Together manifesto it was said by Labor that consideration should be given to simplifying the working-age payment system. Of course, that wasn't done under the period of the previous government, but now we have before parliament a plan which is to simplify the welfare system in a very substantive way. I might deal with those three issues—complexity, mutual obligation and the compliance framework—separately.

With respect to complexity, we know we have a very complex welfare system. This bill seeks to turn seven payments into one to create a new jobseeker payment, so from 20 March 2020 the bill would introduce a new single jobseeker payment which would replace the seven existing payments as the main payment for people of working age. These changes would ensure a single set of rules and rates for people of working age with the capacity to work and aim to firmly entrench employment as the desired outcome for Australians who seek the jobseeker payment. That is a very significant simplification reform. In fact, given its scale, it's interesting that only two issues really have been raised with respect to consolidating seven payments into one. Those relate to two payments: bereavement allowance and the wife pension.

I'd like to thank the member for Mayo. In her speech on the second reading she did raise a genuine issue with respect to the potential for pregnant women receiving bereavement allowance to spend longer than 14 weeks on the payment and therefore be financially worse off under the proposed arrangements. Again I thank her for raising that issue and speaking to me separately about it. We realise that that's a special category and will continue to work with her and the Nick Xenophon Team on that particular issue.

The second issue relates to what are effectively 200 wife pensioners who reside overseas and would no longer be eligible for the wife pension from a future point in time. Those individuals are presently aged between 45 and 62. Where they don't reside in a country with an international agreement, like every single other person in the welfare system that is able to work they would not be eligible to be continually funded by the taxpayer while they're overseas. That payment as it presently exists simply does not reflect community values, and it shouldn't be continued after 22 years so that we support able Australians to live overseas and never look for work even though they are of working age. That would maintain a range of existing inequities in the social security system. It reinforces outdated social norms and it would do a huge disservice to the taxpayer.

With respect to the issue of mutual obligations, again this is very significant reform. Most complaints from members opposite related to the changes to the activity test for persons aged between 55 and 59. The bill will also strengthen the employment focus of mutual obligations and better target mature-aged jobseekers with the labour market. Labor's criticism of the measure to increase the activity requirements for those aged between 55 and 59 is twofold. There are two criticisms: first, somehow this change is unfair or not in the best interests of those people aged between 55 and 59, and, second, it could affect rates of volunteering.

The truth of the situation is that neither of those criticisms is correct. There is a central question of principle here. As a government, we take the view that jobseekers aged between 55 and 59 are not going to benefit from being totally excused from any effort to prepare for or search for work. In fact, the contrary idea—that it is actually in a person's interest to be in a system that requires some effort to search for work—is supported by many sources. The Department of Employment's data shows that, in the year ending December 2016, over all age groups, 32.4 per cent of jobseekers who participated in voluntary work were in employment three months later. Comparatively, 48.5 per cent of jobseekers who participated in jobactive were in employment three months later. Reputable data also exists to show that mature-aged people are 13 times more likely to find work when actively looking for it. Critically, alongside this reform is the fact that the government is investing over $110 million in mature-aged re-skilling packages to help older Australians retain and find work.

The government also rejects the argument that the reforms for the 55 to 59 age bracket would see volunteer groups somehow lose volunteers. In claiming a negative impact on volunteering, members opposite continually and conveniently ignore the fact that, of the 40,000 jobseekers aged 55 to 59, only around 7½ thousand presently use volunteering alone to meet their 30 hours of activity. Also, of course, members opposite ignored the fact that our reforms will, for the first time, require that 45,000 jobseekers aged over 60 will have some mutual obligations, where at present there are none, and be required to undertake 10 hours of activity per fortnight, all of which could be met through volunteering. That means a boost to the volunteering sector by providing a net increase of up to 337,000 volunteering hours a fortnight. How can it be considered a disadvantage to volunteering groups when it could provide up to 337,000 hours more volunteering a fortnight?

This bill also contains changes for faster connection to employment services. From 1 January 2018, the bill will encourage jobseekers to connect more quickly with their employment service providers. Some members opposite have raised concerns on how this measure would impact on jobseekers in rural and remote areas. Again, the fact is that, under current arrangements, jobseekers in regional areas are exempt from RapidConnect where transport would not allow attendance at their initial appointment in a timely manner, and that safeguard remains.

Some issues were raised with respect to the removal of intent-to-claim provisions. Under this bill, the social security claimants would receive payments from the date they provide all material necessary to be assessed that is within their control, rather than from the date of first contact with the Department of Human Services expressing an intention to claim. That is opposed by Labor, but the fact is that, at present, an applicant can provide only their name and the payment which they intend to claim and be back paid to the date that they first made contact with the department. This arrangement simply does not align with community expectations and, again, does a massive disservice to the taxpayer. It is simply not an unreasonable request for applicants to provide the very basic required information when lodging a claim. This measure will improve the integrity and administrative complexity of the welfare system, and, again, adequate provisions and exemptions exist for people who do not have the ability to provide all relevant documents, including those who may be disabled or live in remote areas and those who are homeless or affected by domestic violence.

The bill, under the heading of strengthening mutual obligation requirements, deals with a range of substance abuse measures. It introduces three measures to strengthen requirements for jobseekers with substance abuse issues and provides improved pathways for them to pursue appropriate treatment.

Firstly, the bill establishes a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance from 1 January 2018. Members opposite oppose this trial, doing so on the basis that they say there is no evidence that it's guaranteed to work. Of course, the first point is that this position ignores the fact that it is a trial, designed to determine whether the welfare system can be effectively used to compel people into treatment. Further, that is the same argument that has been run against the cashless welfare card and against the No Jab, No Pay immunisation policy to link vaccination to family tax benefit payments, and yet both of those policies have proven very substantial and successful in changing behaviours and improving individual lives.

The exact reason that there is no evidentiary guarantee for a trial like this, or that it will work, is that it has never been done before in the way that we are doing it. Despite multiple false statements by members opposite, this trial will not cut people off from income support if they test positive for drugs. It is very different in that respect to the trials that have been conducted overseas. Instead, after a first test, our trial will limit the amount of income support that is provided in cash and, following a second positive test, it refers the individual to a doctor for an assessment on what treatment may be required.

I think the member for Barton typified the opposition's position in opposing this in her second reading contribution. She said that the trial won't work because, 'this requires a medical response'. Of course, a medical response is exactly what we are proposing. Every decision regarding treatment will be made by a qualified medical professional, paid for and provided by the government. The member for Barton also gave Labor's objection to the trial on the basis that income management was described as not being an effective tool to help people with substance abuse problems. Indeed, what I think was revealed in several contributions from members opposite was an equal opposition to the trial as to the consequences of a positive drug test being income management.

I must say to the member for Jagajaga that I share her views where she noted that income management is a useful and important tool for protecting vulnerable people—particularly for protecting children. It makes sure that welfare payments are spent on the essentials of life—things like food, clothing and rent—and not on alcohol or drugs. The Labor position also conveniently ignores the considerable body of evidence that exists around the effectiveness of compelling people into drug treatment.

The reason for trialling a new approach where there is not an evidentiary guarantee of success is to trial, test and learn. Equally, the fact that there may not be a guarantee of success is distinct from a lack of evidence to suggest that the trial of a new approach could reasonably be considered worthwhile. I worked in drug courts and, in fact, much of what we have done is based on the process there. Drug courts, of course, effectively mandate treatment and they have been very successful in mandating treatment for drug and alcohol problems. The data and evidence shows that this type of compulsion for treatment can be very effective. The Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment Program—the MERIT Program—in New South Wales has resulted in the number of people in employment rising from 20 per cent at program entry to 27.5 per cent at exit. The Victorian Drug Court had a study which showed that 79 per cent of people appearing before it were unemployed. It showed that the benefits of the drug treatment compulsory order program included improved health and wellbeing, reductions in drug and alcohol risk and enhanced employment prospects and overarching life skills.

A 2008 study published by the Crime and Misconduct Commission in Queensland examined the issue of mandatory versus voluntary treatment for drug and alcohol problems. It concluded as follows:

Our findings do not support the current treatment philosophy of waiting for people with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems to get themselves psychologically motivated and prove their readiness to receive treatment. On the contrary, the findings indicate that mandatory treatment seems a promising option to help offenders with drug and alcohol abuse problems.

This trial has been developed to test whether the welfare system can be used in a similar way to drug courts. If it does not work, of course there will be a need to try something else. If it does work, we will have improved the lives of people with those drug problems.

Two other measures in this bill also ensure that jobseekers with substance abuse issues remain actively engaged in appropriate activities, including treatment to address their barriers to work rather than being exempt from all mutual obligation requirements. From 1 January 2018, jobseekers will no longer be exempt from their mutual obligation or participation requirements if the reason they are unable to meet their obligations is predominantly due to drug or alcohol dependency. From 1 January 2018, the government will also tighten the reasonable excuse rules to allow for the closing of a loophole so that alcohol and drug dependency will not be accepted as a reasonable excuse for not meeting obligations when the jobseekers are not also actively engaged in treatment.

Again, Labor sought to characterise these changes as punitive, but what they failed to point out or to mention is that this change is accompanied by, and will run parallel to, one of the most important changes in this reform package—that is that for the first time all jobseekers will be able to have drug and alcohol treatment efforts count towards their mutual obligation requirements.

The fundamental principle the government reforms embody is simply this: citizens who are receiving taxpayer funds in the form of welfare benefits should not be able to claim drug and alcohol abuse as a reason for failing to undertake critical mutual obligations like turning up to job interviews unless they are also making reasonable efforts to undertake treatment or support for the problem. The system as it currently stands fails to detect people with drug problems and simply allows those it does not know about to be exempt from all mutual obligations. The purpose of all these measures is to ensure that, when people have substance abuse issues that are acting as a barrier to their employment, they are compelled into appropriate treatment.

With respect to the compliance framework, from 1 July 2018, a new jobseeker compliance framework will provide more support to those who are genuinely trying to meet their obligations whilst also introducing fairer and more contemporary penalties for the very small number of jobseekers who persistently and deliberately do not meet their requirements. The Labor Party called for the reinstatement of waivers and provider discretion, but that is the exact reason the present system is failing. The failure of the current waiver arrangements and the inconsistency in the use of discretion has made our proposed changes completely necessary. Under the framework, at present, 93 per cent of penalties for serious or persistent noncompliance are waived. This means there is no consequence for the overwhelming majority of jobseekers who repeatedly fail to meet their requirements or who refuse an offer of suitable work. Penalties only apply to those who repeatedly fail, with multiple barrier assessments and warnings before this could occur. Reasonable excuse provisions will of course continue to apply.

With respect to information management, I would also note briefly that the bill eliminates the requirement for the Department of Human Services to obtain information twice. It streamlines prosecution processes and reduces the administrative burden of criminal investigations. These changes do align with the Department of Human Services information-gathering powers and align it with that of other agencies at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels. The changes retain the common-law right to silence, preventing use of information or documents against the person that provided them other than in proceedings for the provision of false information. This exception is consistent with the guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement that states that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply where it is alleged a person has given false or misleading information.

In summary, it is critical to ensure that our welfare system is efficient, effective and sustainable into the future. We simply cannot afford a set-and-forget approach to the welfare system. It is for those reasons that I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.