Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share 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.

See this speech in context