Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019—and I have spoken on the previous versions of this bill as well. I choose to speak on this bill because I am one of those whose constituents will be directly affected if this bill passes this parliament. I think it is important for me to make a contribution to this debate. We heard the contribution from the member for Barton, including some very emotive language that, in reality, isn't supported by the facts relating to what the bill is proposed to do. I think it's important that Australians understand the truth of what we are proposing and that we debunk some of the mistruths that are being perpetuated by those opposite and others.

The proposed trial seeks to identify those jobseekers with substance abuse issues—to be tested and assisted. There is evidence for this. Interestingly, the member for Barton didn't really touch on some of the reasons that this trial has merit. In 2017 there were some 4,800 occasions where a jobseeker gave drug or alcohol dependency as a reason for not meeting their mutual obligation requirements. In addition, around 5,250 people who were temporarily exempt from all mutual obligations had a drug or alcohol condition. This was an 86 per cent increase from 2011. I accept the argument that it is primarily a health issue, and the reality is that the structure of this bill and what we are trying to do will focus on exactly that issue. Under this trial, people who test positive will not lose a single cent of welfare payments, whether it's Newstart or youth allowance. They will not lose a single cent. Sadly, I think that is forgotten or glossed over by those opposite and others in this debate.

Many of the comments that we heard from the member for Barton in her contribution I well remember from the debates that we had in this place about the cashless welfare card. We know from experience with the cashless welfare card that, in the communities where it was initially rolled out as a trial—and now in additional communities—it has been a success. You hear that when you speak to the people in those communities. I know from the discussions I have had with my colleague the member for Grey that the cashless welfare card has been a success in his community in Ceduna or, closer to home—where we would both know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh—in Hinkler.

I do believe that we have a responsibility to trial new ideas and new ways of doing things to assist people who have a drug and alcohol dependency problem. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about. It will cover three locations: Canterbury Bankstown in New South Wales; Mandurah in Western Australia; and Logan, in my electorate. These locations have been chosen based on evidence and consultation carried out by the Department of Social Services with the relevant state government departments, state alcohol and other drug treatment agency networks, state councils of social services, primary health networks and local councils as well as other local stakeholders, including treatment providers, social services organisations and employment services providers. I know that the department did a number of consultations in Logan in relation to previous versions of this legislation.

Sadly, the fact is that Logan has a higher than average flow of entrants onto the two welfare payments included in this trial. This is one of the reasons that Logan was deemed an ideal location to properly examine the merits of this strategy. On top of this, the data from the Department of Human Services also indicates that the proportion of jobseekers with a drug and alcohol vulnerability indicator in Logan is, sadly, above the national average. So we know the need is there and the issue is prevalent in our community. I know from my own experience of dealing with families across my electorate that they are crying out for help and that children and their families are suffering from the scourge of drugs in our community.

Fortunately, there are a great number of drug and alcohol services who do a terrific job each and every day to support those facing drug and alcohol related dependency issues. The real challenge here, however, more often than not, is those who need help but don't access these services. As I said in my opening remarks, this trial will allow us to identify jobseekers with a drug or alcohol addiction—clearly a barrier to employment—and ensure that they are connected with the treatment services appropriate to their individual needs and circumstances. The other important part of this legislation that the member for Barton didn't touch on was the $10 million to provide additional services, and I'll get to that shortly.

Many people in my community are concerned that this trial will take welfare payments away from those who test positive, but this is simply untrue. It is merely a perpetuation of mistruths by people who, for whatever reason, want to tell a different story from what is actually happening. The fact is that welfare recipients who test positive for an illicit drug will be placed on income management for a period of 24 months or the duration of the trial, and 80 per cent of their welfare payment will be quarantined to prevent money being spent on drugs, alcohol and gambling products—and rightly so, I think. It is also our obligation to taxpayers to ensure that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or unable to participate in the workforce.

It's important to reflect on why employment is so important. It's well documented that sustained unemployment imposes significant economic, personal and social costs that include, for example, but are not limited to social exclusion, the loss of freedoms and the loss of skills. In a lot of cases, due to maybe mental health issues because they haven't been able to get work, they also suffer ill health. For some people, there is a loss of motivation to get back into the workforce. There can be an undermining of interpersonal relationships and family life, and the loss of social values and responsibility. That is an extensive list of very good reasons why we need to support people who are unemployed and get them back into the workforce, and that is ultimately the purpose of this trial. If you don't do drugs, then you have nothing to worry about.

It is also interesting to note that, in our economy, testing for drugs in people who are working is also prevalent, but we hear no complaints about that. I know that Logan City Council, for example, one of my local councils, do random drug tests of their employees. So the notion of drug testing and the system of drug testing is well accepted throughout our community and well understood.

As I touched on earlier, as part of this legislation the government will establish a $10 million treatment fund to provide additional treatment support in these trial locations, should the existing state or Commonwealth supports and services not meet the additional related demand as a result of the trial. We are already doing a number of things in that space in my electorate of Forde. We've made an investment of nearly $1 million in additional family rehabilitation units at Logan House at Chambers Flat, through Lives Lived Well. We've provided another $600,000 over three years to Pharmaceutical Rehabilitation Services in Beenleigh, who assist people with a drug addiction to recover from that drug addiction. So this $10 million means additional, real money for real services to treat these real problems. It's in addition to what we're already doing.

I want to again touch on the issue of drug testing and its relevance across the community. The fact of the matter is that jobseekers should be held to the same standards as those who have a job. Employees in many industries are regularly subjected to drug testing—industries such as mining, construction, advanced manufacturing, food processing and transport. Even elite sports men and women are drug tested. In any number of areas people are drug tested as part of their day-to-day occupational requirements. The member for Barton used emotive language in her contribution. Do the emotive terms that she used apply equally to how businesses are treating their employees? I think not. I didn't hear the member for Barton reference that in her contribution.

We are not treating people receiving Newstart or youth allowance under this proposed trial any differently to the way any number of other people already get treated in our society in terms of drug testing. Through this process we are seeking to provide these people with support and encouragement to get through a very difficult stage of their lives—and we recognise that—and get back into the workforce. We are doing this for the very reasons that I outlined earlier as to why it's important that people have good, stable work.

I commend the bill in its original form to the House. I ask that the House does support this legislation to bring these trials to fruition, because I do believe that these trials have the potential to help many people in my community and people across Australia in the communities where these trials are occurring. It will support them to recover from their drug and alcohol addiction. I quite readily agree with the member for Barton. I believe it is a health issue, and we should treat it as such. We are doing that. I have already outlined examples of what we are doing in my electorate of Forde. We are already treating it as a health issue. This is about providing additional support and identifying those people who need additional help and who may not be engaging presently with the services that are available. We are investing the additional funds necessary to provide those additional services. I commend this bill in its original form to the House.

See this speech in context