David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to be speaking on the very important and comprehensive reforms contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. It is a wide-ranging piece of legislation, but what it speaks to most centrally is the importance of reforming welfare to ensure that it works for the people for whom it is designed, to ensure that welfare exists as a support mechanism for people who are going through difficult times, who need that support. I think that this House would widely support the notion that people who find themselves in those difficult moments in life receive some support. But what we on this side of the House say is that that support should be targeted, that it should be focused on getting people back into the workforce and that a lifetime of welfare dependency is not a good thing for the person receiving the welfare, for society and for taxpayers.

It is very important in this policy area that government very sharply focuses its efforts on helping people in genuine need but also on doing everything that it sensibly can to help people get off welfare and into work. Being in a long-term welfare-dependent situation is bad for the recipients and their families and it is not something that any government should encourage. We live in a society of immense opportunity and a society that we should be extraordinarily proud of. In the hundred or so years that the Commonwealth of Australia has been around, we've created, in my view, the best nation in the world. We've done that in many different ways, but the central organising principle that's made it happen has been a belief that individuals can do anything if they set their minds to it. That is something that I strongly believe and it's certainly something that informs the philosophy of this government, because our success is only limited by the intensity of our efforts.

That's why these bills are so important, and we reject the grim and bleak view of those opposite that somehow people's circumstances in life are predetermined by the circumstances of their upbringing. When you think about it, every person in this place and all around Australia has pursued their own path in life, and the overwhelming factor that leads to the success of their life is their own effort. On this side of the House, we embrace that, we celebrate that and we do everything we can to encourage that. But the Leader of the Opposition, in a recent speech, said that there was a sense in Australia that your success in life is predetermined by your parents' income. That is an absurd statement, and it is expressive of a bleak and depressing view that the fix is in, that the game is stacked against people and that people don't have the capacity to affect the outcome of their own lives. That is just wrong, because we all do have that ability. That is why we love this country so much and why it's such a wonderful place. We need to speak very emphatically against that bleak vision of Australia and that notion of a society where we envy a small number of people and say that it's all too hard for everyone else. That just isn't true, and the stories of many people in this place and all around Australia demonstrate the fact that people can do anything if they set their mind to it.

If you're on welfare and you have a drug problem, there are two clear things that follow from that. The first is: you're going to struggle to get a job. If you've got a drug problem, if you are drug dependent, you're probably not going to be able to get a job. That's bad. It's bad for you and it's bad for society. The second thing is: even if you do happen to get a job while you're drug affected, you're not going to hold it for very long, because your employer is going to work out pretty quickly that you are drug affected and you're going to lose that job. We don't want that. Indeed, many employers in Australia—Qantas, WIN, FOX and many other large and small companies—test employees for drug usage. Understandably, those employers want to know whether this person who is employed by their company is affected by drugs. They obviously want to identify that risk in their workplace if it exists. So if you're on drugs you're probably not going to get a job and, even if you do, you're probably going to lose it pretty quickly—so it's not a good thing.

If people who are receiving welfare have a drug problem, then, because their source of income is a taxpayer fund, that means that in a very literal sense the funds of taxpayers are being redistributed to drug dealers. The taxpayer is paying the welfare recipient affected by a drug dependency, who then provides money to drug dealers, which underwrites the lifestyle of drug dealers. I don't think there's a single person in my electorate, and I doubt there are very many in Australia, who would say that that was in any way appropriate. I don't think any of us would want to see the hard earned money of taxpayers used to subsidise and underwrite the lifestyle of drug dealers, so we've got to try and stop that. We've got to take serious policy steps to address these issues. That is what this bill, which was put before the House by the Minister for Social Services, does. It says we want to test if people who are receiving welfare—particularly Newstart payments and some other payments—are affected by drugs. If they are affected, they don't lose their welfare payment. Those opposite say this will be a calamity and it's going to cause financial problems for people who are drug affected. The problem with that argument is that it doesn't make sense, because the people who are receiving welfare will still receive precisely the same amount of income, it's just that 80 per cent of it will be through the means of a card that can't be used to purchase drugs. So whatever amount of money in total the person is receiving now they still receive, but 80 per cent of it is provided in a form that can be used in shops to purchase lawful goods but can't be used on drugs, and surely that's a good thing. So the notion that this somehow affects the income of people who are drug affected is wrong. It is utterly wrong.

If someone tests positive to drugs for a second time, then we say let's get them on a medical management plan to help them with their drug addiction. That is an act of compassion from the taxpayer to say we want to actually provide you with additional support—not less support, more support—to help you get off drugs, because if you don't get off drugs, you're not going to get a job, and if you don't get a job, you're going to be on welfare for the long term and that's not good for you, your family or, frankly, anyone else.

These should be unobjectionable measures, and certainly in the Bankstown community, which is one of the three trial sites and adjacent to my electorate, this has been very, very warmly welcomed. I have been overwhelmed by the level of support for the proposed trial in my community, because people see it as a commonsense measure that gets to the heart of the fundamental problem of helping to get drug affected welfare recipients off drugs and ensuring that taxpayers' money, to the greatest extent possible, is used for the right things and not the wrong things. What could be wrong with that?

The member for Barton disagrees. She says that this is an attack on South-West Sydney. Helping drug affected people to get off drugs, according to the member for Barton, is an attack on South-West Sydney. It's the exact opposite, in fact. It's about helping drug affected welfare recipients to get off drugs, and it is also about ensuring that the taxpayers of Australia don't underwrite the lifestyle of drug dealers. Why should we underwrite the lifestyle of drug dealers? But the member for Barton says it's an attack on South-West Sydney.

The member for Isaacs says that it's likely to lead to an increase in crime, an increase in inequality and further harsh treatment of welfare recipients. If I break that down, the welfare recipient who is on drugs gets a card of exactly the same value. They don't lose any money; they just lose the capacity to spend their money on drugs. That is all that is happening. They are losing their capacity to spend money on drugs. But the member for Isaacs, in his professorial manner, says that the fact they can no longer spend money on drugs will lead to an increase in crime. I am very interested to hear how we would follow the logic through on that. He says it will somehow increase inequality—but it won't, because the amount of money received by the welfare recipients stays exactly the same. And he says it will lead to further harsh treatment of welfare recipients. But it won't lead to further harsh treatment of welfare recipients, because it will actually ensure that the welfare recipient gets the same amount of money but in a format where they can't spend the money on drugs. That is why this reform, so ably championed by the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services, is such an important one.

The member for Jagajaga often comes out with interesting statements, but on this she said she is worried that vulnerable Australians may be pushed into poverty, homelessness and, potentially, crime as a result of this proposed trial. That is just absolutely absurd. They are getting the same amount of money. They are getting the same amount of money if they test positive to drugs, but they just can't spend it on drugs. That is what is happening, but what those opposite are representing is that it will somehow drive people into poverty, homelessness or crime, and that is absurd. That, frankly, is why the vast majority of the community—certainly in my part of Sydney and, I suspect, around Australia—have so enthusiastically embraced this trial and so comprehensively rejected the ideological and impractical opposition of those opposite. It should be embraced because it's a very, very sensible trial. It will take place in the Canterbury-Bankstown region, not far from my electorate; in the Logan area in Queensland; and, of course, over in Mandurah in Western Australia.

Under schedule 12 of this bill, we will see 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance randomly drug tested in a two-year trial. It's a very big bill, but this is a particularly important feature of it so it is important to focus on this. They will, if they test positive on that first occasion, be placed onto the income-management card. And should they test positive on a second occasion, they will be provided with a comprehensive case-management program to help them to get off drugs.

It is a very sensible program and one that should be commended. The reality is that welfare reform is a very important public policy area. About 41 cents in every dollar the federal government spends is for welfare. As I said before, the vast majority of Australians support the notion of helping those among us who are in very difficult situations. We do support that. The vast majority of Australians support that. But they don't support and shouldn't support—and we on this side of the House certainly don't support—the notion that people should be in permanent reliance on welfare. It's not good for them and it's not good for the community.

Schedule 14 of this bill outlines allied changes to the so-called reasonable excuses provision. This is an important one as well. At the moment, there are rules that say if you don't show up to the various meetings you are required to show up to when you are on welfare payments, there can be penalties. However, if you have a reasonable excuse then that's okay and there's no penalty. The problem at the moment is that if you are affected by drugs, you can say, 'Well, look, I was affected by drugs and that's why I didn't show up to the appointment.' And you still just get the payments. The payments just keep going even if you don't show up to the appointment because you are affected by drugs. Schedule 14 says that if there is an appropriate treatment program for you and you don't avail yourself of it, and you don't show up for your appointment, then there will be a penalty applied—and, frankly, so there should be. If the reason you are not showing up and not fully participating in your mutual obligation is your drug addiction, surely the minimum obligation on that person should be to take proactive steps to help themselves to get off drugs by attending what is a publicly funded program to assist them to get off drugs. At the moment, you can not go to the program and not show up to a meeting and still get paid. In the future, you will be required to attend those meetings, put your best foot forward and try to get off drugs so you can get more heavily involved in society. That's a very good thing. That's a very appropriate welfare reform.

It is a massive public policy area. This is a very substantial and wide-ranging bill, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context