Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be following the member for Kingsford Smith in this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and I echo the comments and concerns that he and many colleagues on this side have raised in relation to this bill. From the outset, I want to say that there are so many elements of this bill that not only are unfair and cruel but simply will not work. I join all my colleagues from this side who have quite rightly condemned the government for the very harsh measures contained within this bill. And of course this all comes on top of the government's other very harsh and cruel measures, such as their cuts to health care, education and pensions. They're making all those cuts at the same time that they're giving those big tax cuts to big business and multimillionaires.

The impact of the government's harsh cuts are felt very strongly in our regional and rural areas. In some ways those cuts are so much harsher in areas like mine, where we have cuts from the Liberal and National governments at both the state and the federal level. As I've said many times in this place before, in those country areas, in rural and regional areas, the National Party is to blame; I often say that the National Party choices hurt. In terms of this bill and the National Party's support for it, those National Party choices are really going to hurt those people who are living in regional and rural Australia, particularly through the really nasty and mean measures in this bill—specifically, the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. The experts have made it clear that the drug-testing trial will not work, but the government has refused to listen to what those experts have said.

Now to some of the detail of the bill. The bill comprises 18 specific schedules encompassing the multiple portfolios of Social Services, Employment and Human Services, with their designs, of course, arising from the 2017 budget. The fact is that most of the schedules and most of this bill, just like the government that's putting it forward, are very much cruel and out of touch. Schedules 1 to 8 implement the working-age payment reforms. This change will seek to consolidate seven working-age assistance payments into one standard payment; the new payment being known as 'JobSeeker Payment'. That new payment will include those in receipt of Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, widow B pension, wife pension, widow allowance, partner allowance and bereavement allowance.

We on this side strongly oppose schedule 4 of this bill, which relates to the bereavement allowance. The schedule as it currently stands will replace the bereavement allowance with the lower payment rate of the jobseeker allowance. Essentially, this is a cut to those who, indeed, need it most. It will also come with harsher means testing. Labor cannot and will not support a cut such as this to people grieving after the loss of a loved one. It is in fact quite a heartless move designed for the savings that it will bring. The recent Senate inquiry heard details that the Turnbull government's cuts to the bereavement allowance for low-income households will leave some as much as $1,300 worse off. Of course, as we know, the bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died and is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks. Make no mistake, this very cruel cut to vulnerable Australians receiving short-term income support following the loss of a loved one will really hurt them very harshly. There really is no policy justification for such a harsh cut. There really is none at all, other than the savings that they will get. It beggars belief that this government can be so mean and nasty. Indeed, Charmaine Crowe from ACOSS said:

Someone in that circumstance … it's very difficult to cover the cost of a funeral and other associated expenses. So cutting the bereavement allowance will just place those people into further hardship and make even more difficult the period of time after bereavement.

All of the measures the government keeps taking continue to make it harder for those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised. Every day, every year and at every budget we see harsher and harsher measures from the government. Rest assured, we will keep fighting for those who are being disadvantaged and further marginalised by the government.

I particularly want to highlight schedules 12 and 13 of the bill because I believe these are perhaps some of the worst examples of some of the harshest actions we've seen from this government. These elements of the bill seek to establish a drug-testing trial and remove exemptions for drug and alcohol dependency as a mitigating circumstance for non-compliance with the activity test for payments. From 1 January 2018, the schedule will establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three locations. We see that the government's target with this is our younger people and those looking for work—again, often the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable and the most in need of our help. If we're talking about regional and rural Australia, they are even more disadvantaged, even more marginalised and in need of assistance from government, and those are the people they are targeting. It also really demonstrates the government's very deliberate ignorance when it comes to looking at surrounding drug, alcohol and substance abuse issues and factors.

The legislation also fails the people who are very much aware they have a problem but can't solve it on their own and need assistance from services that the government funds and provides. The fact is that they need our help, not punishment and further marginalisation. This is a very serious and complex health issue, and it needs to be addressed in such a serious manner, not by demonising those people or cutting the funding. It's not that simple; it's not that easy. It is actually very complex.

I come to this debate in this place to speak about it from the perspective of a former police officer. I know that just cutting off government benefits doesn't stop the drug use, doesn't stop it happening and it doesn't fix the problem. It is complex and it does require all of the services and agencies to work together from all perspectives—yes, from the health perspective; yes, involving law enforcement as well—not just one action such as cutting the payments. That's not going to fix it. It will, in fact, make it a lot worse, because demonising addiction doesn't fix anything. People will tell you that across a whole range of agencies. It doesn't fix the problem. In fact, it actually causes more problems. It even makes it worse—it doesn't even fix it; it creates more problems—because one of the major effects of this legislation will, no doubt, be an increase in crime. There is no doubt about that. That's a real concern that many locals have raised with me. They know that will be the result of this particular legislation. Many addiction medical specialists have raised serious concerns about the legislation as well. We're waiting for the government to confirm exactly what sorts of tests they're going to be using for that. We know there are often some false positives in those tests. For example, if a person is taking antidepressants, they could test positive for amphetamines. There are a lot of issues around the actual testing regime. We haven't seen too much detail about that.

As I have said, this is primarily an attack on the most vulnerable in our community when it should be considered primarily a health issue. This isn't just what I or Labor believe. In fact, an open letter from 109 addiction specialists, 330 doctors and 208 registered nurses was sent to the Prime Minister calling on him to drop the drug-testing trial. That whole range of specialists were very clearly calling on him to do that. Indeed, very importantly, many service providers on the ground are also saying that this trial will not work.

I would like to speak briefly about my electorate. I was recently contacted by Mr John Lee, the founder and president of the homeless outreach provider You Have A Friend. He emailed me specifically about this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to commend John Lee and to tell the parliament what a remarkable difference John has made and continues to make in our community. He has a deep commitment to helping those people who are homeless and who have been through difficult times. The organisation he founded, You Have A Friend, supports more than 300 people in my electorate who are homeless, facing homelessness or marginalised. They are helped with food, housing, transport and general support. The organisation relies purely on donations or funds raised from their op shop to finance the organisation. There is a lot of community support for John and for You Have A Friend as an organisation.

John is a man I greatly admire and respect, so when he contacted me about his concerns about the legislation I took those concerns very seriously. I would like to read from the email that John sent to me. He said:

Dear Justine,

I am alarmed and shocked at the latest proposal by our Federal Government.

That is mandatory testing of drug and alcoholic persons and cutting their social benefits if they fail such tests.

…   …   …

If those on social benefits fail the test, their social benefits will be immediately cancelled!

Besides that, those incapacitated by sickness or an accident caused by alcohol or other drug issues will also have their support cancelled!

I find this absurd and totally inhumane.

He goes on to say:

Justine, in the 15 years I have worked with the homeless, I can cite many occasions of mothers and people coming off drugs or alcohol.

Without benefits during that very trying time, I know many would not have survived.

Besides that, it appears the government wants to force those persons who are "caught" to undertake mandatory rehabilitation.

I wonder if the government realises that there would not be enough facilities to cater for all those they establish are taking drugs.

He goes further to say:

The consequences are massive.

Increase in crime or simply left to die in the parks!

Once addicted, I know it can be a very serious problem for many.

This addiction not only affects the lower end of the social scale, but also many from all walks of life.

Let's face it, without condoning the disease, what do many homeless and marginalised have left after our government refuses to help them with housing, or adequate social funding …

He finishes by saying:

Justine, I am requesting that you and as many of your colleagues please vote against this inhumane Bill.

I can say to John that I and my Labor colleagues will do that, because we believe it is inhumane and we believe it is very cruel. Can there be a clearer message to the Turnbull Liberal-National government that this bill and the presumptions they base it on are just plain wrong?

The recent Senate inquiry heard overwhelming evidence from medical professionals, addiction specialists and community organisations against the Turnbull government's proposed drug-testing trial of social security recipients. Again, experts made it clear that the trial just will not work. Also, the experts warned that the trial will increase crime in the community. The Senate inquiry also heard the trial could adversely impact the medical treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering from drug and alcohol addiction.

As I've said, no-one doubts that we face significant problems—we absolutely do. I saw that when I was a police officer. I speak to police now and I hear that. I hear it from people right across the community. We have serious and significant problems. We have to work together in a complex manner to solve that. We know that drug addiction, particularly in some of those regional areas, is very serious, but there is no evidence to say that this trial will work. We should be focusing on methods that do work and working together to get better results. Indeed, those opposite don't have any evidence to say that it will work.

Let's again look at what some of the experts say. Matt Noffs, from the Ted Noffs Foundation, said:

This bill is not only going to fail, it will increase crime in the community and that should be a major concern for all Australians.

Dr Marianne Jauncey from the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs says:

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 …

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.

Also, Dr Adrian Reynolds from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says:

Existing evidence shows drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective way of identifying those who use drugs and it will not bring about behaviour change. It is an expensive, unreliable and potentially harmful testing regime to find this group of people.

Listening to all that evidence from the experts, I call on the government to listen to them. Listen to the service providers. Listen to those within the medical fields as well. Listen to the people on the front line, like those I've quoted—John Lee, someone who's worked with the homeless and the marginalised for 15 years. I call on the government to drop this cruel and out-of-touch legislation.

There are many other elements of this bill that are equally harsh. We look to the part of the bill that seeks to remove the ability to fulfil the required activity test with the 30 hours of volunteer work for 55- to 59-year-old recipients of Newstart and some special benefits. Elements of that are indeed quite cruel in taking away the capacity for volunteering. These measures will actually be quite harsh because they will do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians, who are already disadvantaged. It will actually take people out of volunteering when they can't volunteer as much to qualify, and that's going to have a very detrimental effect upon society generally when we look at the large number of people in that age group who do volunteer. In a sense, by forcing them out to meet other activity tests, it's going to have a flow-on effect on the great work that volunteers do within our community. Again, it is overly harsh, overly punitive and overly cruel to a group that does often have difficulty sourcing employment—the people who engage in volunteering. There is a whole range of issues right throughout this bill that I think will have a very detrimental effect on those people throughout our community.

As I've said, we oppose many of those elements and we on this side will continue to fight for those people in our community who need our assistance most—the people who are going to be most impacted by this government's cuts. We'll fight the harsh measurements that the government continues to pursue. I, and the people in regional areas too, will always stand up and fight the National Party who, time and time again, walk away from people in country Australia—walk away from people in the regions—by continuing to come into this House and vote for harsh measures, whether it's cuts to education, health, pensions or family payments. Here they are now, attacking the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised, and people in rural and regional Australia will remember what the National Party have done to them.

See this speech in context