Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services (Senator Ryan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the government's proposal to drug-test 5,000 income support recipients.

I asked specifically about whether this was a gross violation of people's civil liberties, and of course he did not adequately answer that question. But his answer to my second question, which was about profiling people, and his subsequent further information in the chamber, were extremely useful in further understanding where the government is going with this. And it is horrifying. It is true to say that people were shocked and are horrified that the government is going so low to vilify vulnerable Australians—to demonise them, to marginalise them, to try to scare them off income support or from even applying in the first place—that they will seek to drug-test 5,000 people and then put them onto the failed cashless welfare card.

No matter how much the government spins it, the cashless welfare card is not proven as a concept. The interim evaluation that was carried out did not prove the concept. However, deeply concerning on this matter is not only the fact that they are seeking to do drug-testing of income support recipients but also—and I quote the government's key facts document handed out last night as part of the budget—the fact that:

Job seekers will be selected for the trial on a random basis, based on a data-driven profiling tool …

The minister went on to say that risk profiling will be used to identify particular characteristics that indicate a higher risk of substance misuse issues.

Just what data is the government going to be using to do this data profiling for income support recipients? So, if you are an income support recipient, from now on the government is going to be putting all your data into some process and then using that data to risk-profile whether you may be taking or abusing substances. But this will be 'random', folks! It will be random, but they will look at the high risk of substance misuse issues—they will be risk-profiling those particular characteristics.

This is deeply concerning and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Not only will all new income support recipients be put through this process; they will be forced to take drug tests, and then, if they prove positive, they will be put onto the cashless welfare card. And only after they are forced to take another drug test and have a positive result will they then be directed to some additional medical professional assessment for their substance abuse issues. This sets a very dangerous precedent in terms of not only how the government intends to treat income support recipients into the future but also other areas they may be using data-driven profiling tools for.

It would be fair to say that researchers in the broader community have been very excited about the use of data and the investment in IT to assist with bringing data together, and about the use of big data for informing evidence based policy—which is a joke when you are talking about this government, because, if we were talking about evidence based policy, we would not be talking about this particular approach; we would not be talking about drug testing that is going to put people further on the margins rather than actually helping them. We would be taking a health based approach instead of one of vilification and of saying: 'Let's try and drum them out of income support so that it makes their situation even more marginal.' We would be actually looking at the real evidence about what works. But I would say to the people who were celebrating the fact that they are now going to be able to use some of that data-rich material to develop research projects and evidence based policy: this is what the government wants to use it for, folks—for risk-profiling particular characteristics. In this instance, it is for those at high risk of substance abuse—but for what next? You are using the data this time for this, but what is next? This is a very dangerous road that this government is embarking on.

Question agreed to.