Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

"The House declines to give the bill a second reading and:

(1) notes the overwhelming medical, expert and overseas evidence that this bill will not work to address addiction, decrease unemployment or create jobs; and

(2) calls on the Government to reject the bill and instead pursue evidence-based policy and invest in quality health and social services".

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this bill. The government has tried this twice previously, and both times we opposed them, and both times they were defeated. This continues to be Labor's position. This government is reheating old ideas because this government has run out of ideas when it comes to getting people back to work and when it comes to getting people who are suffering the health condition of addiction the help and support they need. This is what is really going on here.

This proposal is indiscriminate, ineffective and demeaning and will not create a single job. There is no evidentiary basis for the selection of these trial sites whatsoever, and there has been a complete lack of any proper evaluation. Medical experts, experts in the field of addiction and experts in the field of social policy have said that this simply won't work. This should be treated as a health issue, and that is how we will get people out of addiction. Everyone will be caught by this. It doesn't matter if the person is meeting all the requirements. It doesn't matter if they don't have addiction issues. It doesn't matter if they have never used drugs in their life. This will affect single mums looking after their children. This will affect older Australians who have been retrenched. This will affect carers returning to the workforce. This will affect grandparents in their 50s and 60s who have never used drugs. They will be forced to urinate in a cup, have their hair plucked or their mouths swabbed just to keep food on the table. It is demeaning and completely inappropriate.

I remind the government that one in four people on Newstart is over the age of 55, and the number of over-55s trying to re-enter the workforce has surged by a staggering 45 per cent on their watch. We know that older Australians are experiencing particular difficulty in re-entering the workforce due to structural barriers and age discrimination. One of the most observed things about this legislation is that it appears that even people who have a job will be targeted by the drug testing. One in five Newstart recipients—or over 130,000 people—have a job, but they don't earn enough or they don't receive enough hours to get off Newstart. So people who get a job, people who are actually working but struggling to get more hours from work, will be subject to this humiliating and punitive measure.

Australians know that under this government unemployment remains high. Jobs are less secure than ever before and wages are stagnant. In September, the ABS labour force figures revealed that underemployment was at a record high at over a million people. Yet, rather than stimulating our stagnating economy and easing the situation for older Australians who have fallen on hard times, the government is more interested in subjecting them to a humiliating drug test. How is it that the government spends so much time obsessing over and devising ways to humiliate and prod Australians who are trying desperately to re-enter the workforce? There is no plan for jobs. There is no plan to boost an economy that is weak and getting weaker.

This government does not have a plan to address the serious and heartbreaking issue of addiction either. Those of us who have personally witnessed the struggle of addiction know too well that this sort of punitive measure simply will not work. Those of us who have tried to get loved ones to seek help know how difficult it can be to get the help, let alone to have a Centrelink officer direct them for a drug test randomly.

This has been tried overseas in countries like New Zealand and the United States and has been proven a failure. In New Zealand, of the 8,100 recipients tested, only 22 returned a positive result. This is less than one per cent. It is also incredibly expensive. According to the Royal Australian College of Physicians, a single urine test can cost up to $950 and a hair test can cost up to $1,000. This is bad for the community. It will push problems underground, risking increases in homelessness and crime. Between 200,000 and 500,000 Australians a year can't access the addiction services they desperately need, because the services are underfunded and unavailable. If the government were serious, they would be investing more in rehab, not demonising people on social security.

I want to take this opportunity to put on the record how disappointed I was with the comments made by the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston, earlier this month. She said:

Giving [people] more money would do absolutely nothing … probably all it would do is give drug dealers more money and give pubs more money.

These comments about Australians trying to get jobs are disappointing base politics. They fly in the face of evidence. It was particularly disappointing that the minister would make these comments at a single parents forum no less. To make matters worse, instead of apologising, the minister doubled down on the comments in a TV interview on Sky News.

If the government were serious about treating addiction, it would treat it as a health-care issue. If it were serious about this, it would listen to the experts. The experts have said, clearly, with one voice, 'This will not work.' The Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, the Kirby Institute, Windana Drug and Alcohol Recovery, Monash University, cohealth, St Vincent's Health Australia, the NSW Users and AIDS Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Alcohol and Other Drug Peaks Network, the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League are the organisations or the institutes that have made comments and are concerned about this legislation.

Labor is, and always has been, led by the evidence and by the experts. The Ted Noffs Foundation expressed concern about the program's interaction with the treatment system. Here is what they have had to say:

The Explanatory Memorandum states that "Where treatment is not immediately available, recipients [who return a positive drug test] will be required to take appropriate action such as being on a waiting list [for treatment]". Current waiting lists for public treatment facilities can be up to six months long. Placing recipients onto these lists will only add to the burden on the sector. Rather than facilitate access, as the Minister claims, this trial will further complicate pathways to treatment.

The Australian Medical Association said:

Substance dependence or addiction is primarily a health problem, and that those affected must be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions

…   …   …

Referring individuals who test positive to treatment will increase demand on these services, resulting in less capacity to assist those individuals who are actively seeking treatment (independent of the trial).

The Royal Australian College of Physicians said:

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said:

… the proposed drug testing program lacks an evidential basis …

…   …   …

… punitive or coercive addiction treatment methods, such the proposed program, are less successful in meeting treatment goals than rewards … the proposed program is ill-founded and lacks evidence and on that basis should not proceed in the event that it causes further harm to an already vulnerable population of Australians.

The Queensland Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies are concerned this could push people into crime. They said:

An expert review of a Canadian Government drug testing trial proposal in Ontario published in the International Journal of Drug Policy found that such a program could increase crime, health problems and be legally challenged as a violation of human rights.

The Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies said:

… the New Zealand government's drug testing trial among welfare recipients as a pre-employment condition returned a detection rate in that population much lower than the proportion of the population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand as a whole.

Dr Kate Seear, Professor Suzanne Fraser, Professor David Moore and Associate Professor Kylie Valentine said:

… a recent analysis of submissions to the Committees exploring the 2017 and 2018 bills, Professor Alison Ritter (Director of the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the University of New South Wales) observed that 98% of submissions by organisations and individuals opposed the bills. The remaining submissions were from the Department itself.

Why on earth is the government persisting with this when almost all the submissions to the committee exploring this very issue, except for the one from the department, said it was a bad idea?

Of course, it is not just the health and medical experts who have strongly expressed their opposition; it's been welfare and employment organisations too. The Australian Council of Social Services says that there is no evidence 'to show drug testing of income support recipients helps to address addiction or employment outcomes'. Jobs Australia said:

This policy, which is deaf to international experience where similar policies have consumed significant resources and failed, is subject to a consensus of criticism from a range of experts across the alcohol and other drug (AOD) and employment services sectors, It should be disbanded.

Even the Human Rights Commission has urged the Senate not to pass the bill.

It is apt that we are having this discussion about income support. The reality is this government isn't genuinely or sincerely interested in assisting vulnerable Australians to get back on their feet, as this bill absolutely demonstrates.

This week is Anti-Poverty Week, and these are the facts: three million, or 13.2 per cent of Australians, live below the poverty line, when defined as 50 per cent of median income; 739,000 children, or more than one in six Australian children, live below the poverty line; those on Newstart and Youth Allowance, the people that will be subject to this drug testing, experience poverty at the highest rates; and as many as one in five Australians have experienced food insecurity in the last year. Poverty directly affects over one in 10 Australians but, indirectly, it affects us all. If a child goes hungry or has no roof over their head, they cannot do their homework or complete their education to reach their potential. When a person cannot afford clothes for a job interview or transport costs to get there, they cannot re-enter the workforce and contribute to the economy. When a person skips meals or medication, they cannot participate economically or socially in our society. When people cannot afford the basics and essentials, our local businesses have less to spend on wages and jobs.

All Australians, whether they live below or above the poverty line, will in some form or another feel the struggle of poverty. They feel it in their stagnant wages. They feel it in their lack of job security. This vicious cycle will continue unless we as a country choose to do something about it. We can break the cycle of poverty and boost the economy. It is time for the Prime Minister to lead, beginning with an increase to Newstart, not subject people to these ill-founded ideas of drug testing so people can be job ready. It is a complete nonsense.

We have heard so many voices in the community outline the need for an increase to Newstart. This month KPMG released its submission to the Senate inquiry into Newstart which said that the inadequacy of Newstart was preventing people from attending job interviews and that it is insufficient for the unemployed to actively conduct a job search. This follows a similar report from Deloitte Access Economics in 2018 which found, as did the KPMG report, that an increase in Newstart would boost the economy and employment, in particular in the regions. This follows the suite of calls from the business sector for an increase to Newstart, including from the Business Council of Australia, Ai Group and the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia—the very businesses the member for Bowman said were talking complete rubbish and were just after a cheap headline.

The Prime Minister and the member for Bowman may have their heads buried in the sand on this issue, but everyone knows the rate of Newstart is too low, including former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard; former Nationals Deputy Prime Minister and member for New England Barnaby Joyce; deputy Nationals leader in the Senate Matthew Canavan; Senator Dean Smith; the member for Monash, Russell Broadbent; the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace; Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos; former member for Lindsay Fiona Scott; the Australian Council of Social Service; the Council of the Ageing; National Seniors Australia; St Vincent de Paul; Catholic Social Services Australia; the Brotherhood of St Laurence; the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre; Jobs Australia; community interest groups; and Universities Australia.

The economy is weak and getting weaker, and this type of legislation, this type of demonisation, is not going to help the economy and is certainly not going to help people get back into jobs. We are advocating very strongly that the government have a very close look at this. Look at the evidence. Look at what the experts are saying. Look at what the inquiry said. Listen to what is being put forward in a genuine voice and understand that demonising people on social security is not going to assist anyone. It's certainly not going to assist the economy and it's certainly not going to get people back into employment.

This type of approach to social services, choosing people that happen to be on a social service benefit or a social service payment for randomised drug testing, is an idea that has been proven by this parliament to be a bad idea on two occasions. My prediction: it will happen on three occasions. The government cannot possibly think that it is a good idea to put forward such legislation without investing properly in services that help people with addiction to address that addiction. This is not a social services issue. This is a health issue. People don't choose to be in these situations. I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth the government is persisting with this legislation. The only thing I can surmise is that somehow or other, as I said in the first part of my speech, there is nothing else for this government to do but to reheat old ideas.

This is not only an old idea; this is a bad idea. This is an idea that will further demonise people. This is an idea that will further push the problem underground. This is a dangerous idea. Why does the minister for social services think it's the business of social services to conduct such random trials, when they've been proven across the world to be unsuccessful, when they are expensive and when money has been taken out of treatment by this government? It's reprehensible; it truly is. It's irresponsible. I think people need to look into their hearts, look into their heads and look into the evidence, which is what Labor is doing. We are following the evidence. We are listening to people that know more about this than anyone else in this country and certainly anyone else in this chamber or the other chamber.

We are not experts, but the people that I have quoted today are experts. They know what they're talking about. Politicians and bureaucrats in the Department of Social Services are not experts in treating drug addiction. I understand there's a job to be done and an instruction; I do understand that. But the Prime Minister, the minister and members of the government also need to listen to the experts. They need to understand that this is dangerous. This will not help people. This will harm. And the responsibility of this place is not to cause harm and further distress. The Prime Minister is very good at saying, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go.' What on earth does that mean, honestly? People with drug addiction issues are unwell. This is a health issue. It is not some sort of social experiment, and it shouldn't be about further demonising people that have to rely on the social security system at some points in their life.

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

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019—and I have spoken on the previous versions of this bill as well. I choose to speak on this bill because I am one of those whose constituents will be directly affected if this bill passes this parliament. I think it is important for me to make a contribution to this debate. We heard the contribution from the member for Barton, including some very emotive language that, in reality, isn't supported by the facts relating to what the bill is proposed to do. I think it's important that Australians understand the truth of what we are proposing and that we debunk some of the mistruths that are being perpetuated by those opposite and others.

The proposed trial seeks to identify those jobseekers with substance abuse issues—to be tested and assisted. There is evidence for this. Interestingly, the member for Barton didn't really touch on some of the reasons that this trial has merit. In 2017 there were some 4,800 occasions where a jobseeker gave drug or alcohol dependency as a reason for not meeting their mutual obligation requirements. In addition, around 5,250 people who were temporarily exempt from all mutual obligations had a drug or alcohol condition. This was an 86 per cent increase from 2011. I accept the argument that it is primarily a health issue, and the reality is that the structure of this bill and what we are trying to do will focus on exactly that issue. Under this trial, people who test positive will not lose a single cent of welfare payments, whether it's Newstart or youth allowance. They will not lose a single cent. Sadly, I think that is forgotten or glossed over by those opposite and others in this debate.

Many of the comments that we heard from the member for Barton in her contribution I well remember from the debates that we had in this place about the cashless welfare card. We know from experience with the cashless welfare card that, in the communities where it was initially rolled out as a trial—and now in additional communities—it has been a success. You hear that when you speak to the people in those communities. I know from the discussions I have had with my colleague the member for Grey that the cashless welfare card has been a success in his community in Ceduna or, closer to home—where we would both know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh—in Hinkler.

I do believe that we have a responsibility to trial new ideas and new ways of doing things to assist people who have a drug and alcohol dependency problem. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about. It will cover three locations: Canterbury Bankstown in New South Wales; Mandurah in Western Australia; and Logan, in my electorate. These locations have been chosen based on evidence and consultation carried out by the Department of Social Services with the relevant state government departments, state alcohol and other drug treatment agency networks, state councils of social services, primary health networks and local councils as well as other local stakeholders, including treatment providers, social services organisations and employment services providers. I know that the department did a number of consultations in Logan in relation to previous versions of this legislation.

Sadly, the fact is that Logan has a higher than average flow of entrants onto the two welfare payments included in this trial. This is one of the reasons that Logan was deemed an ideal location to properly examine the merits of this strategy. On top of this, the data from the Department of Human Services also indicates that the proportion of jobseekers with a drug and alcohol vulnerability indicator in Logan is, sadly, above the national average. So we know the need is there and the issue is prevalent in our community. I know from my own experience of dealing with families across my electorate that they are crying out for help and that children and their families are suffering from the scourge of drugs in our community.

Fortunately, there are a great number of drug and alcohol services who do a terrific job each and every day to support those facing drug and alcohol related dependency issues. The real challenge here, however, more often than not, is those who need help but don't access these services. As I said in my opening remarks, this trial will allow us to identify jobseekers with a drug or alcohol addiction—clearly a barrier to employment—and ensure that they are connected with the treatment services appropriate to their individual needs and circumstances. The other important part of this legislation that the member for Barton didn't touch on was the $10 million to provide additional services, and I'll get to that shortly.

Many people in my community are concerned that this trial will take welfare payments away from those who test positive, but this is simply untrue. It is merely a perpetuation of mistruths by people who, for whatever reason, want to tell a different story from what is actually happening. The fact is that welfare recipients who test positive for an illicit drug will be placed on income management for a period of 24 months or the duration of the trial, and 80 per cent of their welfare payment will be quarantined to prevent money being spent on drugs, alcohol and gambling products—and rightly so, I think. It is also our obligation to taxpayers to ensure that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or unable to participate in the workforce.

It's important to reflect on why employment is so important. It's well documented that sustained unemployment imposes significant economic, personal and social costs that include, for example, but are not limited to social exclusion, the loss of freedoms and the loss of skills. In a lot of cases, due to maybe mental health issues because they haven't been able to get work, they also suffer ill health. For some people, there is a loss of motivation to get back into the workforce. There can be an undermining of interpersonal relationships and family life, and the loss of social values and responsibility. That is an extensive list of very good reasons why we need to support people who are unemployed and get them back into the workforce, and that is ultimately the purpose of this trial. If you don't do drugs, then you have nothing to worry about.

It is also interesting to note that, in our economy, testing for drugs in people who are working is also prevalent, but we hear no complaints about that. I know that Logan City Council, for example, one of my local councils, do random drug tests of their employees. So the notion of drug testing and the system of drug testing is well accepted throughout our community and well understood.

As I touched on earlier, as part of this legislation the government will establish a $10 million treatment fund to provide additional treatment support in these trial locations, should the existing state or Commonwealth supports and services not meet the additional related demand as a result of the trial. We are already doing a number of things in that space in my electorate of Forde. We've made an investment of nearly $1 million in additional family rehabilitation units at Logan House at Chambers Flat, through Lives Lived Well. We've provided another $600,000 over three years to Pharmaceutical Rehabilitation Services in Beenleigh, who assist people with a drug addiction to recover from that drug addiction. So this $10 million means additional, real money for real services to treat these real problems. It's in addition to what we're already doing.

I want to again touch on the issue of drug testing and its relevance across the community. The fact of the matter is that jobseekers should be held to the same standards as those who have a job. Employees in many industries are regularly subjected to drug testing—industries such as mining, construction, advanced manufacturing, food processing and transport. Even elite sports men and women are drug tested. In any number of areas people are drug tested as part of their day-to-day occupational requirements. The member for Barton used emotive language in her contribution. Do the emotive terms that she used apply equally to how businesses are treating their employees? I think not. I didn't hear the member for Barton reference that in her contribution.

We are not treating people receiving Newstart or youth allowance under this proposed trial any differently to the way any number of other people already get treated in our society in terms of drug testing. Through this process we are seeking to provide these people with support and encouragement to get through a very difficult stage of their lives—and we recognise that—and get back into the workforce. We are doing this for the very reasons that I outlined earlier as to why it's important that people have good, stable work.

I commend the bill in its original form to the House. I ask that the House does support this legislation to bring these trials to fruition, because I do believe that these trials have the potential to help many people in my community and people across Australia in the communities where these trials are occurring. It will support them to recover from their drug and alcohol addiction. I quite readily agree with the member for Barton. I believe it is a health issue, and we should treat it as such. We are doing that. I have already outlined examples of what we are doing in my electorate of Forde. We are already treating it as a health issue. This is about providing additional support and identifying those people who need additional help and who may not be engaging presently with the services that are available. We are investing the additional funds necessary to provide those additional services. I commend this bill in its original form to the House.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the member for Forde leaves the House I draw to his attention a few facts. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales has found that between 200,000 and 500,000 Australians a year cannot access addiction services, because they are underfunded and unavailable. I'd like the member for Forde to think carefully what this testing could actually mean in his community. This testing could mean that somebody on Newstart who has had two positive drug tests is referred to a counselling service when they don't want to be referred to a counselling service and they take the place of someone who is ready and willing to engage in that counselling. We absolutely know that places in those counselling services are not available in the numbers that we need them to be available to treat this as a health issue.

That's only a small part of why I don't support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019. I don't support this bill on that first premise. Anyone who has ever dealt with counselling services of any kind should understand that psychologists are not a magic pill taken to cure all ills, that it requires the person to seek support and that a prerequisite for any improvement to occur is willingness on the part of the person who needs the support. So setting up a system where we're going to mandate those referrals is destined, for many, to absolutely fail. Worse than that, they'll have taken the place of someone who was ready and willing and for whom that support might have ended in successful outcomes. So that's my first premise.

My second premise as to why I don't support this bill is that this bill has been brought into this House absolutely evidence-free. The member for Forde suggested that the member for Barton—possibly because she's female—was just being emotional in her objections to this bill. Well, perhaps he needed to read the dissenting report by Labor senators, because, if he had, he would know that the experts asked for this bill not to be supported. They do not want to see this trial occur.

The list of those experts starts with the Network of Alcohol and other Drugs Agencies. They believe that the bill is not supported by current evidence. They say:

… the New Zealand government's drug testing trial among welfare recipients as a pre-employment condition returned a detection rate in that population much lower than the proportion of the population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand as a whole.

That begs the question: why would you therefore target this group in the community for mandatory drug testing? It's built on a non-evidence-based notion that people on Newstart are more likely to be using drugs. The member for Forde also repeatedly referenced drugs and alcohol. There is nothing in this bill that suggests testing for alcohol. So the notion that it's about drugs and alcohol is a furphy—an absolute furphy.

Dr Kate Seear, Professor Suzanne Fraser, Professor David Moore and Associate Professor kylie valentine said:

As senior researchers with longstanding expertise in social policy issues relating to alcohol and other drug use, our assessment is that the bill is poorly conceived and counterproductive …

Another expert body, the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies, said:

Expert consensus, as demonstrated through a multitude of submissions to the previous two inquiries on the topic, indicate significant concern that the trial will:

The list goes on and on.

This is not an evidence based decision. This is an ideological decision. It's an ideological piece of legislation. It is an ideological trial. It has not come from evidence that this trial will give us the outcomes that the member for Forde believes it will. It's that simple. The people of Logan are the ones who are going to be involved in a process that has no evidence base—in fact, if there is evidence, it says that this shouldn't happen. So it's counter to evidence and absolutely counterintuitive.

I do want to go to the crux of the matter for me, and that is: there's the evidence; there are the experts; you've heard and will hear speakers recount those experts' opinions in this debate. But I cannot get past the fact that this is the third time that it has been to this House. Twice it's been rejected, because experts have told us that it's not a good idea, and yet here it is again. It's from the same government who, in their 2014 budget, thought that a six-month waiting period for all new claimants under the age of 30 for Newstart or youth allowance was appropriate. It's the same government who thought that poor people could wait six months before they accessed support. It is the same government that can't put together a crisis in homelessness and a problem in the space around Newstart and youth allowance. They can't figure that out. This six-month wait included a requirement to demonstrate appropriate job search and participation in employment services for up to six months. So they were going to have a mutual obligation for six months as a prerequisite to accessing support.

Debate interrupted.