Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

( I will join with my colleague the shadow minister for social services in rising to speak on this legislation and condemning the actions of the government that we've just heard about from the minister. As the shadow minister for health, I particularly want to focus on one policy that this legislation enables—the drug-testing trial of social security recipients, as outlined in schedule 12. The minister's just tried to point out that this is somehow a health measure, but I don't see the Minister for Health—the person who has carriage of health policy in the government—speaking on this legislation. He's not on the list. I look forward to his staff now scrabbling for him to come and defend why this is good drug and alcohol policy, because it is not. If the government is trying to pretend that this is somehow a good drug and alcohol policy, what a load of rubbish!

We know that the government has made this decision because it is a savings measure. It is a savings measure and a political wedge at the expense of a very vulnerable, addicted group of people. That is what this legislation is about, nothing else. That is why the government is doing it, not because it cares about people who have drug addiction, not because this is good drug and alcohol policy and not because there is any evidence at all that this is what you do in the drug and alcohol space. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Health defend this policy and defend why the government thinks this is what you do in the drug and alcohol space. Frankly, this policy showcases some of the worst excesses of this government. It is an ill-thought-out policy. It is not evidence based when you come to drug and alcohol policy. It is against expert advice and it is in fact missing critical details. It is so ill-considered that experts say it could even make crime and drugs worse in this country. That is what the experts are saying.

Firstly, let's look at what schedule 12 actually proposes. It establishes this two-year trial for drug testing 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance in three locations: Mandurah, Logan and Bankstown. Welfare recipients will be randomly selected and notified of a requirement to attend an appointment with the department. At this appointment, they'll be notified of a requirement to provide a sample of saliva, urine or hair for the purposes of a drug test. Recipients who test positive to the initial drug test will be put on income management for a period of 24 months. Jobseekers will have the option to dispute the result of a positive test and to request a retest. If the retest is also positive, the jobseeker will have to repay the cost of the test. Jobseekers who return a positive test result will be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days. If the jobseeker tests positive to the second test, they will need to repay the cost of the test. These are some of the broad details of what we know, but there is a big list of what we don't know.

At Senate estimates and through the Senate inquiry Labor established to allow for more scrutiny of this legislation, it has been established that the government hasn't consulted and, in fact, doesn't have the necessary detail to actually conduct these trials at all. The department couldn't confirm the drugs that were going to be tested, they couldn't confirm the exact tests that were going to be used and they couldn't confirm how much the trial was going to cost. They can't say how much the drug test would cost the individual if they are required to repay them. They can't say how many addiction specialists are in each trial site for referral. They haven't confirmed what form of income management the trial will take. They cannot give basic details of the trial, because this isn't a thought-out policy developed on evidence. It is another attempt to demonise jobseekers at significant cost to the budget. Jobs Australia CEO David Thompson said he was concerned that this trial would see vulnerable people turned away from welfare assistance because of the demeaning and humiliating nature of the process. He said that people would be more likely to turn to charities for assistance, putting further pressure on their resources, or would, maybe, be forced to turn to crime. If we really want to get people into the help they need, then this policy is not the way to do it.

One of the worst lines the Prime Minister has put forward in defence of this drug testing trial is that it's about 'love'. This is not love. Love is the parent who is desperately trying to get their child into rehab, spending the day calling and calling, and only to be told there are no places available. Love is the drug addiction specialist whose waiting list is so full that they can no longer take names and accepting someone for urgent treatment because they think a life is at risk. Love is the partner who refinances the family property to pay for private rehabilitation because there is nowhere else for them to turn. This government's policy isn't love; it is an insult.

In implementing the policy, the government hasn't allocated any extra funding for public rehabilitation, despite the fact that waiting lists are under immense strain in this country. In my home state of Victoria, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association reports that services have up to a six-month wait for access. Across Australia, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500 publicly funded drug and alcohol rehab beds dealing with more than 32,000 requests. Often, waiting lists become so long that they no longer accept applicants onto the waiting lists. In 2015, St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, one of the nation's leading drug rehabilitation centres, had a waiting list 100 people long.

The drug and alcohol treatment sector has been clear about the impact of this flawed policy. In response to the budget announcement, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association said:

… the Victorian AOD treatment sector is already significantly overburdened and this policy will only increase the burden, through capturing individuals who use drugs but are not experiencing substance dependence. This limits access to those people who are in dire need for treatment and have been waiting, in some cases for months.

The Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies said:

We know that Western Australia's alcohol and other drug treatment services are already struggling to meet demand. Coercing people to attend treatment at the risk of losing their source of income will likely result in the displacement of people who access treatment voluntarily.

These are the experts who deal wish issues of addiction every single day, and the government has not listened to them. In fact, the Minister for Social Services cannot name a single alcohol and drug or medical expert that does actually support this trial. The government also cannot point to evidence of where similar trials have worked, because the evidence shows that they do not work. The drug testing of income support recipients has been tried in several countries. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective. The minister's attempt to conflate criminal justice diversion programs that stop people going to jail is frankly an absolute insult.

The New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program among welfare recipients in 2015 and only 22 of the 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. In 2013, the Australian National Council on Drugs, which coincidentally was defunded by the Liberals, published a review of the evidence on this topic. It is noted that a similar trial, which was implemented for four months in Florida in the United States, cost the States more than $118,000 and ran at a net loss of approximately $45,000. The review also found there was evidence from the USA that denying benefits to people who are drug dependent could result in 'increases in poverty, increases in crime, increases in homelessness, and higher health and social costs'. The review also cited a study of people whose welfare benefits were discontinued when their drug dependency was no longer classified as a disability. While this is a different situation, it brings up some interesting conclusions. The group who lost their welfare benefits reported worsened psychiatric comorbidities, and the study found that drug-use levels remained the same among those who had lost their benefits.

One of the biggest concerns is raised by the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association. They say that this trial could simply generate a shift in illicit substance consumption patterns. That is, people will consume and try substances that they think won't be detected by standard drug tests. The association says:

This will likely create unknown harms and further complexities for our treatment services and emergency departments.

In coming to its position, Labor has listened very carefully to the serious concerns of health experts. The health sector have united against this plan because they know it is bad policy and that it simply won't work. Last week, nearly a thousand doctors, nurses and healthcare workers, including 109 addiction specialists, put their names to an open letter against the plan. The letter they signed said:

Making it harder for people struggling with drug and alcohol problems to access income support will push people who need treatment into poverty, undermining their chance of recovery.

They also noted that they were in no way consulted by the government. This has been a common theme, because the government simply doesn't consult anyone.

To make matters worse, in the last few days the Minister for Social Services said that health experts—and he referred to them in quite derogatory terms—including the AMA, didn't support the No Jab, No Pay legislation when it was introduced either and, somehow, that this was evidence that they were wrong. That is, frankly, just another insult to a sector that I would have thought the government would be very careful about, having only just re-established some relationships with the AMA and doctor organisations. The government might want to be a little bit careful about what they actually say and do with these organisations, given the absolutely appalling relationship they had with them following the 2014 budget. But, no, they've decided to jump the shark on this one. The president of the AMA has quite correctly pointed out that they supported the No Jab, No Pay measures from day 1. Our health experts know better than most the importance of boosting vaccination rates. The concerns that some doctors raised about No Jab, No Pay were in relation to making sure that vulnerable and disadvantaged people had a chance to catch up. The minister needs to get the facts right when he's making such outrageous claims. In fact, it shows that they are absolutely desperate to try to win an argument rather than purport the facts. Of course, the government don't care about facts or what experts have to say.

On the other hand, Labor have been listening. We have carefully listened to the serious concerns of health experts and addiction medicine specialists in community organisations: the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, St Vincent's Health Australia, the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Penington Institute, the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the Australian Council of Social Services, UnitingCare Australia, Homelessness Australia, and the St Vincent de Paul Society. Labor have listened to the expert advice of health professionals, and that's why we will oppose the government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. Dr Marianne Jauncey, from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, summarised it well when she said:

At a time when we desperately need money for frontline services, it's being spent in a way all the available evidence tells us won't work ...

If the government really wanted to help people, they would be investing in frontline services instead of putting more strain on the system, and in particular in residential rehab. We note that there are measures we could potentially support, if they are separated from other measures in this bill—and we will be moving amendments, as the shadow minister has indicated, in relation to these in the Senate. In addition to the drug testing of welfare recipients, there are numerous reasons why we cannot support the legislation. Schedule 13 will prevent temporary exemptions from being granted. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses a drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for a participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. But if they refuse treatment and their substance use disorder causes them not to comply with jobseeker requirements a second time, their payments will be suspended. And there are numerous other examples.

The experts say that the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse as a health condition and the doctor's medical opinion in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. The legislation is not in line with expert advice; it goes completely against it. This is not good drug and alcohol policy. This is not a genuine attempt to help people with drug dependency. This legislation, in fact, demonises them and makes the problem worse. It will not help with addiction. It will put pressure on already overstretched alcohol and drug services across the country. It could see people turn to different drugs and it could, in fact, make crime worse.

I also want to briefly talk about the measures to stop over 55-year-olds engaging in voluntary service as part of their participation requirements. I know the government has announced a trial in my own electorate. Frankly, if the trial is what it looks like, which is just an upgrade of IT services, it makes up for nothing in terms of the capacity for older Australians to participate in the voluntary workforce, which is very critical in my electorate, and it certainly does not make up for the fact that this government has cut the car industry and has forced these people into unemployment. (Time expired)

See this speech in context