Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

It is my pleasure to conclude my remarks on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill. In reflection on my earlier comments, the important thing about this bill is that it's designed to assist those who are living in hardship and to help them ultimately break free of the cycle of welfare dependency. It recognises that these people are living in very difficult circumstances and that these people are crying out for assistance.

Income management is already in place in Logan. There are some 360 BasicsCard merchants in Logan and a further 2,100 in the greater Brisbane area that accept the BasicsCard, including the major supermarkets. This is important because it gives those who end up on a BasicsCard as a result of a positive drug test the capacity to carry on their lives as usual. They will have access to the merchants and services they require on a day-to-day basis.

You'd think from the contributions of those opposite that if a person has a positive drug test their name will be splashed all over the media and everybody in the community will know—you'd almost think they'll be put in a pink jumpsuit and stuffed in the back of a truck! That's not the case at all. Of course, the drug-testing results will be kept private and, importantly, the positive drug test will not be shared with anybody. This is not about punishment; this is about seeking a new way to assist people at a very difficult time in their lives.

There have been calls, in particular from the mayor of Logan City, for the drug trial to be suspended. Well, I have news for the mayor. In a poll in the local newspaper as a result of his comments earlier in the week, 78 per cent of the people that responded to that poll support this particular measure. So he's on the wrong side of the fence. It's very important that this trial goes ahead. We will work constructively with the community organisations that are already in place in Logan to ensure this trial is a success. This trial is not about seeking to shame people or demean them, or about stigmatising Logan. As I said in my earlier remarks, we have to acknowledge that we have a problem. It is about developing a proactive strategy that deals with drug addiction and the issues that flow from that, and works to improve the lives of those in need.

Ultimately, these are the key facts. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016 National Drugs Strategy Household Survey showed those who were unemployed were 2.4 times more likely to use ice and other amphetamines than those who were employed. In 2016, there were 22,000 temporary incapacity exemptions given to 16,000 jobseekers because of drug and/or alcohol dependence issues. Australia's expenditure on alcohol and other drug treatment services in 2012-13 was some $1.2 billion, with about a third of this coming from the Australian government.

As a community and as a nation, we have an obligation to provide extra support to help people deal with drug addiction and alcohol issues. The trial is one of five measures announced in the 2017-18 federal budget that aim to better support people into work and ensure this country's welfare system continues to be a viable and secure safety net for those who need it most. This trial has the potential to change the lives of people who, because of drugs, are not able to focus on getting off welfare and becoming active members of our community through work and social participation. I believe that helping jobseekers overcome their substance addiction problems will improve their chances of finding a job and reduce the risk of ongoing welfare dependency. It will also significantly help their families. It will reduce incidents of domestic violence. It will put families in a much stronger financial position. All of those things go to creating a stronger economy where we have strong families that are supported through a difficult period in their lives. This is why I fully support this trial and this bill. This will benefit not only the jobseekers but also their families. Importantly, as I have outlined before, it is consistent with community expectations for the receipt of taxpayer-funded income support. I commend this bill to the House.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the measures in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. The complexities and detail involved in this bill are unsurprising, given the high importance of its subject matter and, indeed, the impact any changes to Australian welfare will have on those Australians most in need. As a result of this, the bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for review—a review which I believe was completed yesterday and will be tabled later today in the Senate. I look forward to reading the committee's report, and I thank the lawyers involved for the work they've done on it.

In the meantime, it is important to note that this bill includes several measures from the 2017 budget that overlap and intersect across the portfolios of social services, employment and human services. Some of these measures have merit and are integral to the task of the ongoing development of the welfare system—that it ensures payments are sufficient and are going to targeted areas of need in order to maximise the limited resources of the Commonwealth. However, there are a number of other measures in this bill that are concerning for a number of reasons and which will exert undue and unreasonable pressure on some of Australia's most vulnerable people. While these measures are included in this bill in its present form, I cannot and will not provide my support for it and neither will my colleagues. Again, I stress the importance of the Senate inquiry into this bill and look forward to the recommendations that may see some of the measures drawn out and looked at individually.

I'd like to take time to outline some of the more aggressive measures in this bill that are specifically my reasons for opposing it, and how some of these measures will impact constituents in my electorate of Brand. Firstly, schedule 4, the cessation of bereavement allowance: this is a short-term payment available for a maximum of 14 weeks for individuals whose partner has died. Paid at the rate of the aged pension and subject to the same income and assets test, this payment has been used as a means of relieving the initial financial impact of the loss of shared income as well assistance for the initial stages of grief. Schedule 4 replaces the bereavement allowance in its current form with some short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, which is paid at the lower rate and is tied to a means test. This lower rate, $535 per fortnight, is the same as the Newstart allowance and means that future recipients will receive $1,300 less over the 14-week period than under existing arrangements. This is no small amount for the most vulnerable in our community. Subjecting people in a vulnerable position to further financial hardship is an awful thing to do, and it doesn't help in the naturally fragile emotional environment which any bereaved person finds themselves in.

My electorate is home to a large number of elderly couples—as all of our communities are—and I cannot imagine voting for a bill that doesn't provide the utmost support for these fine people when they need it most. I call on the government to remove this schedule and to provide stability and certainty to those who have suffered the loss of their life partner. If ever we've seen this government choose to make budget repair off the back of the vulnerable, we see it here—taking the allowance off elderly pensioners as they deal with moving to living alone for the first time in decades. This government is taking the bereavement allowance off those needing a social safety net while giving out a $65 billion tax cut to big business. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: what are the priorities of this government? It clearly isn't elderly couples on the pension facing loss. They're not the on government's priority list.

I turn to schedule 10, which deals with a start date for some participation payments. This schedule changes the start date at which those participating in the RapidConnect program are able to receive income support. This measure changes the start date and pushes it back to when the person had their first interview with their job service provider as opposed to the current arrangements whereby a person can receive a payment from the day they claim. It increases waiting times for a payment even if the person complies with the RapidConnect requirements.

At the start of 2016 unemployment was nine per cent in Kwinana and 10 per cent in Rockingham, both well above the national average. How on earth, then, does this latest idea ease the pressure on people by making them wait longer for welfare payments to make ends meet? Even if people have been fully compliant, they still have to wait for their payments. It's a cruel and mean-spirited move by a government who clearly have no notion what it is like to walk in the shoes of some of these people that need help the most.

This takes me to schedule 11, the removal of intent-to-claim provisions. This removes the provisions that allow people making a claim to, effectively, have their claims backdated to the time of first contact with the Department of Human Services. This will have a devastating effect on a group of people who do not have the capacity to collate the required information in the time required by the department. These circumstances could be due to homelessness, separation, hospitalisation, health issues, mental health issues or access to technology, all of which—particularly access to technology—are issues that affect my electorate. How is it possible for residents in the suburb of Baldivis to log on to myGov or Centrelink when they can't even get a reliable fixed-line connection, let alone a decent mobile connection? And the NBN remains far away in the never-never for many people in my electorate. It's just another instance where the Prime Minister's version of the NBN is failing the community.

The extension of one week to the waiting period is a long time for young people and pensioners in my electorate who live from payment to payment and tread water trying to keep their heads above the poverty line. Many of them, sadly, are unsuccessful, and this in itself then leads in many cases to homelessness and on to drug dependency.

I now come to the most controversial measure in this bill, the one that has generated significant attention in the national media and an issue that I have received a large volume of correspondence on. That is the proposal of drug testing for welfare recipients and the establishment of a drug-testing trial, which is included in schedule 12. This will seek to establish a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of the youth and Newstart allowances in three locations, one of which is proposed to be in the suburb of Mandurah in the electorate of Canning, which is to the immediate south of my electorate of Brand. New claimants of both payments will be included in the trial and will be forced to acknowledge that they may be required to participate in the drug-testing trials. This will be a condition of receiving the payment.

There has been a lot of talk on this issue, and make no mistake: we face significant problems with drug addiction in the wider community across Australia and particularly in Western Australia. However, Labor has met with a range of experts in the health industry, including doctors, addiction medicine specialists and many community organisations, and confirmed what we already knew: it is a murky proposal. They have made it clear that they do not support the trial and have said that it may lead to a rise in crime. We cannot support it, and I and the rest of the Labor opposition call on the government to halt this proposal.'

There has been a lot of talk of financial cost and social implications in the community, but what about the simple right of human dignity? Imagine the sea of hopelessness that many will face while they continue to comply with the rules and try to support themselves and their families. Imagine for a moment what it would be like to have to go and do a urine test to try to put food on the table. It's shameful, it's wrong and it's degrading. I'd even go so far as to say it's inhumane. This is from a government that does not understand the idea of a social safety net that catches and supports those in need, instead choosing to stigmatise and demonise a group of people who rely on welfare payments just to get through the week.

If the government wants to talk about financial costs, we can go there, too. Maybe talking about the cost of these tests will make some sense, but maybe not; they've just dropped $122 million on an absurd non-compulsory survey to change legislation we here in this place could vote on right now. When those opposite are done with accusations of collusion and conspiracy, they might like instead to take a leaf from the book of our friends across the Ditch and learn the lessons they have already learned over there. New Zealand has tried this already. They already had a trial and they also have their results. In 2015 only 22 of 8,001 New Zealand participants returned a positive result. That is less than 0.3 per cent. This cost New Zealand taxpayers around NZ$1 million. In America, in the state of Utah's 2014 testing program, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare recipients were screened, and 29 returned a positive result. Effectively, they were both a waste of money and a waste of time—and an exercise in humiliation for the vulnerable. And that's what's going to happen here as well. Those opposite seem more interested in a headline and an image that makes them look tough on drug related crime and feeds their voter base.

Instead of wasting $122 million on that postal survey, imagine what we could put that towards in the community. It could be put towards drug rehabilitation programs that actually address some of the issues that vulnerable people face. This government should be focusing on real policies to combat drug dependency—policies of education and rehabilitation. I hope such proposals will come forward. While I wait for this to happen, I remain astounded, as do my colleagues, at some of the measures proposed in this schedule, such as measures that state recipients who fail to attend an appointment will have their payment suspended or that jobseekers who refuse to take a test will have their payment cancelled and a penalty of four weeks will be imposed until they can apply again. It gets worse. In a proposal that is yet to be determined, should a positive result be detected, jobseekers will be put on income management. Recipients will then be subject to a second drug test, and, if it is positive once again, they will need to repay the cost of the tests. As we know, the details of this test are still murky and there is the risk of lower cost tests producing inaccurate results—that is, false positives. This can take the form of a recipient on antidepressants testing positive for amphetamines. For a reliable test to be undertaken, there are significant cost factors involved, with proper urine tests costing between $550 and $950 to administer. If the federal government think these people are going to be able to pay for these tests, I would ask them to have another think about that. Clearly, they can't.

Health and welfare groups have lined up to raise their concerns about this proposal, including St Vincent's Health, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, ACOSS and UnitingCare. There has been no flurry from any health or welfare group to support this—none at all. I want to ask members to think about the possibility that this will force users onto less traceable drugs such as alcohol or synthetic cannabis. What about the fact that a long-term cannabis user will test positive six weeks after they have last used the drug? What about the risk this might pose to Centrelink staff, who will deal with the threat of increased violence and aggression? That's something no-one wants to see.

I can only imagine how hard the member for Canning lobbied the member for Pearce to get this degrading trial happening in Mandurah. I think I have spent more time playing hockey in Halls Head and swimming and surfing at Florida beach than the member for Canning has spent in Mandurah. I doubt he cares for the people of Mandurah. If he cared for them, the member for Canning might have applied his efforts to programs that help people beat drug addiction rather than stigmatised and humiliated them. This is a man that talked on television about his version of what marriage is and didn't even mention love. That speaks volume about the priorities of the member for Canning.

In the short time remaining, I'd like to urge my colleagues opposite to think about striking up some empathy for the people on welfare in these very difficult positions. There seems to be a misconception floating around that people like to be on welfare and that they think it's fun to be on the dole and to be dependent on the government and the Commonwealth and living off the taxpayer. It is not fun being on welfare. In no way is it fun. It is no fun when you have to scrimp and save to make ends meet and go into Centrelink and sit on the phone for hours when there's a problem.

There is a drug problem in this country; we all admit that. There's a drug problem around the world. We could make people on welfare have no interaction with drugs whatsoever and go and do urine testing so they can receive welfare payments to feed their families, but put yourself in their shoes. How are they going to feel when we treat them in this manner? Are we just going to presume that everyone who isn't able to work is in some way acting incorrectly or not doing the right thing and not trying their best? My greatest objection to this is that it's not really dealing with the drug problem in society; it's just seeking to wrap up a whole lot of mean-spirited, misguided and ill-conceived conceptions about who the people on welfare in this country are and what they want to achieve for their families—and it's not to stay on welfare, and it certainly isn't to go through the ritual humiliation of having to do some kind of drug test so they can feed their families and put food on the table at night. It's a very depressing bill. It has depressed me a lot. I hope the government may reconsider it.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is simplistic, patronising and demonising and shows a complete lack of insight on the part of the government and the social services minister. For the benefit of those just tuning into the debate, let me recap. The bill will rename the Newstart allowance and combine it with six ancillary unemployment related benefits to, as the government says, simplify the working-age payment system. The bill also aims to streamline a number of the government's own administrative processes. It is, in part, a tidying-up exercise—that's fine. The bill, though, falls well short of being a systematic realignment of welfare payments. Vast areas of administrative complexity remain, and those in need of help won't find it noticeably easier or any less daunting to gain access to their rightful entitlements. You read this bill and you wonder just how many will continue to struggle or miss out simply because they don't understand the system or know their rights.

But there are multiple stings in the tail as well—there always are with this government. The bill significantly raises the bar on those with medical problems who need to access the social security system because they cannot find a permanent or semi-permanent place in the world of work. It's merely the latest instalment in this government's crusade against the disadvantaged. It's already the case that a jobseeker who fails to attend an appointment without reasonable excuse with their employment services provider will have their jobseeker payment suspended. When a jobseeker fails to attend a further employment appointment, they incur what is eloquently dubbed 'a reconnection failure', and their benefits are suspended until they comply with the relevant statutory requirements.

The overwhelming majority of jobseekers comply with the law, and, on the government's own admission, there are only a small number of jobseekers who repeatedly miss appointments or try to game the system. Nonetheless, compliance measures are to be further tightened from 20 September 2018. Jobseekers aged 30 to 49 will have activity requirements of 50 hours per fortnight, up from 30 hours. Jobseekers aged 55 to 59 will no longer be able to meet their mutual obligation requirements solely by undertaking voluntary work. Jobseekers aged over 60 will be required to participate in defined mutual obligation activities of at least 10 hours per fortnight. It would seem the government has discovered a solution to the age discrimination in the labour market but just hasn't bothered to tell us about it. Sometimes older people must have the feeling that someone is out to get them.

In addition, the bill introduces an entirely new element—the proposed trial drug-testing regime for all persons seeking access to Newstart and what will become jobseeker payments. The sharp end of the government's approach is best captured in the minister's second reading speech where he boasted that these reforms will make access to unemployment benefits even more conditional than they are and will target those who run foul of the government's burgeoning compliance framework.

Labor's starting point is that we don't see welfare recipients as targets or lab rats. Labor recognises that the existing arrangements are robust and subject to the laws of increasing costs and diminishing returns. That is exactly the case with these measures. They will cost a lot and they are not likely to give any meaningful return. We recognise that the Australian welfare system—and both sides of politics can take credit for this—is very efficient at reducing inequality and is amongst the most highly focused and lowest cost in the world. It's also the case that lifelong welfare dependency rates in Australia are comparatively low, and the vast majority of those in need of support tend not to stay on support for lengthy periods. As a result, the great majority of beneficiaries are, for the bulk of their lives, also taxpayers. They pay their share of income tax and, even if they are on benefits, they have to stump up for their share of the GST.

Labor's starting position is that the bill should be considered on its merits, and where verifiable improvements can be demonstrated we will support them. Part of that verification process is a clause-by-clause examination of the bill by not one but two parliamentary committees. Unfortunately, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its report on 9 August, expressed concerns about the diminution of individual rights and a lack of clarity in core provisions in the bill. As one would expect, given the far-reaching and contentious nature of the measures involved, the substance of the bill went to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry on 22 June. It hasn't been reported until recently. We certainly have not had time to scrutinise its findings.

The parliament should deal expeditiously with this, but proper care and diligence with these matters are very important. We've been denied this. The current debate in this chamber has been called on without allowing members adequate time to consider the Senate committee's findings. It's not just a matter of allowing enough time to read the community affairs committee's report, but it's about hearing feedback from those affected by the government's proposals. Again, there has been nothing. It is frequently said that parliamentary and political processes lack community respect. How, one might ask, can we expect to engender such much-needed respect if we don't respect those processes ourselves? Labor has, from the outset, recognised that there is good and bad—and some very big dollops of ugly!—in these proposals. Two Senate reports have raised similar concerns, but we haven't been allowed time enough to scrutinise them.

Importantly, it's also beyond doubt that a number of the practical matters require further elaboration by the government. The treatment of medical complaints should not be interfered with by excessive moralising or by the promotion of social engineering. As a doctor, you don't deny help to a patient on the basis that it's your own bloody fault. By contrast, this bill is rife with value judgements and is, seemingly, intent on making an art form out of compliance arrangements. They don't recognise the disadvantage that they're dealing with and don't allow the human rights of welfare recipients to be respected. It smacks of regulatory overkill and a complete lack of understanding of the complex nature of addiction and drug dependence. In his rather simplistic announcement of the drug-trial sites, Minister Porter failed to justify any support at all for this part of the bill.

There's ample evidence, too, that coerced medical treatments produce high-cost outcomes and very poor results. Researchers, such as the respected Professor Peter Whiteford of the ANU, have pointed to overseas research that suggest there's only a very limited link between substance abuse and continued reliance on income. If you're going to resort to compulsion, you need to be certain that you don't put lives at risk, that you treat people with respect, that you get the right connection between cause and effect, that you ensure that whatever you do is effective and that you don't waste money or resources that could be better deployed elsewhere. You also set yourself proper standards and proper benchmarks. The proposed drug trial, for instance, fails on all of these criteria. You can add that to the fact that similar trials have failed or yielded unimpressive results, or have been curtailed, in New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the USA, where they have been attempted.

Allow me to quote my Royal Australasian College of Physicians colleague Associate Professor Adrian Reynolds on why the proposed drug trial is poor policy, practically un-implementable and a wasteful distraction from the very real needs of Australians suffering from addiction.

As doctors we value evidence and we don't accept that this trial will create a meaningful evidence base. History shows that drug testing people is an unreliable and ineffective way of identifying those who are suffering from substance abuse issues, particularly when used indiscriminately.

These are not isolated or novel comments from a senior member of the medical community. Go to the evidence presented to the Senate community affairs inquiry and read on if you need more convincing. The AMA, St Vincent's Health, Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Harm Reduction Australia, the Penington Institute, the Australian Drug Foundation, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre all see the drug-testing trial as an expensive and ineffective dud. It's hard to find someone in the know who doesn't see this government's strategy as seriously flawed, ill-judged and, to my point of view, just plain nasty. I note, too, that even those such as Senator Lambie, who are happy to support the increasing use of a cashless welfare card, are less than enthusiastic about the government's drug-trial proposal.

For a political party allegedly deeply committed to controlling the excesses of governmental power, this bill is literally bursting at the seams with authoritarian fervour and populist excess. Governments that are free and easy with terms like 'mutual obligation' should be doubly sure to have met their own obligations before they set about preaching to others. Quite understandably, the government's announcement that it wanted to run drug-testing trials and further tighten the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits was greeted by calls for politicians to be subjected to similar testing. That's not solely because, as a group, politicians are particularly on the nose—even if we are. The reaction in the community may stem from many in the community rightly thinking that high levels of unemployment represent a failure on the part of government to discharge its primary obligation to the community: creating the preconditions in which all those who want to find a job can find one.

Whole industries have been allowed to go to the wall. Macroeconomic policies have been geared to fighting inflation by allowing unemployment to rise or by leaving unemployment at levels designed to fight inflation first. If you are one of the 800,000 unemployed people, the chances are it's a lot less to do with you and a lot more to do with policy failure, forces beyond the control of the government, global economic difficulties, technological change, predatory business conduct or just plain bad luck. Those who want to blame the victim and deny access to unemployment benefits and the like are often hard-pressed to explain how that sits with the six or seven people frantically chasing every job vacancy and a record number of Australians, over a million, wanting more hours of work than they can get. It makes no sense either to worry about the $10 billion annual spend on jobseeker payments but care little about an annual government IT spend of $10 billion and be faced with multiple IT failures, which we've already seen.

Those opposite might—although they would be ill-advised to do so—look to the lift in the Australian labour market in recent months. Yes, that is welcome, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the sorts of measures we have before us today. Before we all get too excited, let's not forget that the current rate of unemployment is no lower now than it was when this government came to office four years ago and the rate of underemployment has actually risen in the last four years.

The government has given no indication at all that it will lift existing benefits. For singles without children, Newstart provides the princely sum of $267.80 a week—not enough to live on—so they rely on family support and the support of others. The value of the Newstart allowance has declined in real terms over the last decade. The bill fails to address any of those issues. Presumably, the available options for those who will be forced to the wall will be living rough, seeking help from friends, family and others, and charities or turning to crime. If turning to family and friends is the government's plan B, perhaps it needs to think again. The most recent household income and labour dynamics survey shows household incomes have also stagnated.

I want to conclude with two particular aspects of the bill that also give concern. The appeal rights are atrocious. The bill allows for the imposition of financial penalties by the department. It does provide for those decisions to be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, jobseekers will no longer be paid, pending the outcome of any appeal, and will only be back-paid if their appeal is successful. We know that appeals to the AAT can take many months to complete. For welfare recipients, who are often from families that are themselves on limited incomes, the practical operation of these items appears to diminish the effectiveness of the right to seek review. Also, there is no entitlement to practical or financial support in pursuing appeal rights, and even successful appellants can't claim the legitimate cost of exercising those rights. To me, that seems like stacking the deck against the individual, who is often disadvantaged, in favour of what those opposite might be minded to call 'Big Brother'.

The bereavement allowance has already been dealt with on multiple levels by multiple speakers and is absolutely appalling. The government is proposing to cut government allowances for those in bereavement situations by over $1,200 per claimant. It will affect about 1,000 people annually. The government's saving is minuscule. It really is just mean-spirited and atrocious.

In conclusion, this bill demonstrates to me that the government really does not understand addiction at all. People have addictions because they have medical problems. Addiction is a longstanding medical issue in Australia. I went through the time when we had a high incidence of narcotic addictions. We're now seeing amphetamines and ice addictions. We are dealing with people who often have multifactorial medical and social problems. They will not be fixed by this bill. It's an atrocious infliction on people's human rights. It fails to take on any of the advice from the experts who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. It fails to understand how people will be impacted. It fails to acknowledge that people will move from the trial testing sites to other areas. They'll probably walk away from social security because they're so threatened by it. They will certainly turn to crime. And it is likely to save the government very little money at all. This is an atrocious bill. It is a signal to me that the government is out of step with what a humane government should be. I feel that it is really at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to social security benefits.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is a comprehensive reform of Australia's working-age welfare payments. The system will be simpler and focused on getting people off welfare and into work. A new framework will better identify and support vulnerable people, like those with drug and alcohol abuse issues, and support them to get treatment.

It's likely that your position on these important reforms will depend on how you see the purpose of welfare in our society. Is working-age welfare compensation for the situation someone finds themselves in? Or is it an investment in their future? Is working-age welfare a socialist redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to non-taxpayers? Or it is a safety net designed to help people when they need it?

For me, working-age welfare is an investment in the future. It's about making lives better. I am a compassionate conservative and one who's very proud that Australia has a safety net to support those in need. But, sadly, our welfare system fails many. The concept of mutual obligation does, and must always, underpin our welfare system. We require welfare recipients to look for work or attend training, but, if you're as high as a kite or bombed out of your brain on drugs, there's no point in attending interviews for jobs you'll never be able to get. This cycle of failure is dangerous and real.

This bill will introduce a two-year drug-testing trial across three locations and will test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and the youth allowance for illicit substances like ice, ecstasy and marijuana. This drug-testing trial is compassionate in making sure people with drug problems can get the help they need to beat their addiction. The bill also introduces a new single jobseeker payment called the JobSeeker payment, because that's exactly what it is. This one payment replaces seven existing payments and streamlines administrative processes. Non-compliant jobseekers will also face real and real-time penalties. This bill benefits jobseekers, their families, the community, and our economy.

On the matter of the new JobSeeker payment, multiple working-age payments are a product of many years of ad hoc changes that have created a welfare system that is hard to understand and administer. This new JobSeeker payment is simple, combining seven current payments and supplements. From 20 March 2020, Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension and bereavement allowance will cease, and most recipients of these payments will transition to the JobSeeker payment, aged pension or carer payment, depending on their circumstances. Widow allowance and partner allowance will cease from 1 January 2022, and all remaining recipients will transition to the aged pension. Just one JobSeeker payment will ensure that all people of working age who can work will have a clear understanding of the purpose of their payment. This safety-net funding is there to do what the name says—it's a jobseeker payment for jobseekers. It's there to help people find work and to accept jobs where they are available. Replacing seven existing payments with one working-age payment is a critical step in reforming our welfare system. It will make long-term employment the goal of all Australians receiving working-age welfare.

So perhaps the most important part of this legislation relates to jobseekers with substance abuse problems. For the first time, people on a JobSeeker payment who are undertaking treatment for drug and alcohol problems can have the treatment count as part of their job preparation plan. Why? Because being drug-free is an essential step towards employment. The federal government will also introduce a two-year drug-testing trial across three locations and will test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance for illicit substances like ice, ecstasy and marijuana. Testing new jobseekers for drugs is not about stigmatising people. Those opposite want you to believe that when you're detected with drugs in your system, you'll lose your payments. That is not the case. It's about making sure that those people with drug problems can get the help they need to beat their addiction and to get on the right path towards securing a job and building a better future for them and their family. Drug testing will help; it can be the intervention that people need to make a positive change in their lives.

The community is very supportive of these measures. Millions of Australians are used to accepting drug testing for jobs in mining, construction, transport and many of our large corporations. Common sense says that, as hardworking Australians, we can also rightly expect taxpayers' money to be invested in helping people find work and not be wasted on life-destroying drugs. Jobseekers who test positive to a drug test will have their payments placed on income management for 24 months. There will be no cut in income, but there will be assistance to spend their funds wisely. This is designed to limit the use of payments to fund further harmful drug use. Jobseekers who test positive will also be subject to a second drug test within 25 working days. If they test positive to more than one drug test, they'll be referred to a medical professional with experience in drug and alcohol treatment, who will assess their individual circumstances and may put in place a treatment plan.

Substance abuse is a significant problem for many people on welfare and is directly impacting on the ability of many jobseekers to find work. As part of the drug-testing trial the government will provide a dedicated treatment fund of up to $10 million. It is not just the testing that is being trialled; the support services are being trialled as well. If it turns out that the support services and the additional support services are insufficient, that is a lesson that will be learnt in this trial. This funding is in addition to the Australian government's commitment of almost $685 million over four years to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol misuse on individuals, families and communities. Drug-testing new recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance will help make lives better by supporting people to beat their habit, to get off drugs and into work, and to become active members of our community.

I have seen firsthand how drugs can burn even the closest of bonds, and I've seen the intersection of welfare and drugs in our community. Through my high school years my parents took full-time care of my nieces, who were aged around five and six. My nieces were living in a drug-fuelled, welfare-funded, abusive environment with their mother. My nieces' mother and her friends would laugh at my parents as if they were mugs. Their attitude was, 'Why would you work for money when the government gives it out for free?' My nieces' mother and her friends are not representative of the vast majority of people on welfare. My parents were no mugs. They were decent, hardworking Australians. They expected their taxes to be invested in making Australia even better, not simply redistributed to those who will not apply their own effort to improve their own lives.

I don't believe for a second that the life—if you can call it that—being lived by my nieces' mother today is one she would choose, a life that resulted last year in her being critically ill in a hospital ICU. Hate is a very hard word, but the hatred that I had for my nieces' mother because of the environment she put my nieces in was something that I'm not proud of. And there is the resentment that I have for my brother for not fulfilling his obligations and commitment to his children. But when I've reflected on this bill I've considered that, albeit that my nieces' mother chose to take drugs, she certainly didn't choose the life that she has today. Back in her day there was no drug testing. There was no intervention to provide the help that she needed. It was simply set and forget. I'm absolutely of the view that the intervention and support we are hoping to test could have made a big difference to my nieces' mother and to my family.

This bill also includes greater compliance measures that will create a simpler, fairer and certainly more effective system that ensures jobseekers, firstly, understand and, secondly, meet their mutual obligation requirements. Multiple working-age payments are a product of many years of ad hoc changes, which have created a welfare system that's hard to understand. The complexity leaves many areas of our welfare system open to exploitation. Two-thirds of jobseekers attend all appointments or miss only one every so often. At the other extreme there are a small core of jobseekers who are gaming the system by attending appointments only to reactivate suspended payments. Those jobseekers are otherwise healthy, able individuals who have no underlying reason for persistent noncompliance, other than the enjoyable lifestyle provided care of the taxpayer.

Jobseekers who wilfully and repeatedly fail to comply with their agreed job plan will face real and real-time penalties. There are two simple-to-understand phases of compliance—a demerit point phase and then a three-strike phase. Jobseekers will accrue a demerit point if they do not have a valid reason for failing to meet a requirement. Job providers will assess the situation after a third demerit point is accrued, and the Department of Human Services will also do so after a fourth. At either point, if a jobseeker is found to be unable to meet their requirements because of some underlying issue, those requirements will be adjusted. It's about helping people.

If a jobseeker accrues four demerit points within six months, they will enter the three-strike phase. The first strike is a loss of half of their fortnightly payment if they miss a requirement without a reasonable excuse. They will lose all of their fortnightly payment if they do not meet a requirement a second time. After a third failure, they will face payment cancellation for four weeks. Once a jobseeker is in the three-strike phase, they can avoid penalties by simply meeting their mutual obligation requirements. Those who remain fully compliant for three months will reset their demerits points and strikes. This is a very strong incentive to change behaviour.

Jobseekers in either phase who refuse an offer of suitable work or fail to start in a suitable job without a reasonable excuse will have their payment cancelled and will face a four-week non-payment period before they can receive a payment again. This penalty recognises the seriousness of refusing to work and the importance of reducing reliance on welfare whenever reasonably possible. The new compliance measures are considerably simpler than the current system. It will be easy for jobseekers to, first, understand and, second, meet their mutual obligation requirements

I'm in this place to back hardworking, aspirational Australians who want to apply their effort to get ahead. I believe that if you are a young person on welfare you can be a hardworking, aspirational Australian who wants to apply your effort to get ahead. I also believe that, if you've chosen to take drugs, you may not necessarily have chosen the life that will lead to, and that we need to be there as a government to intervene to give that person the opportunity to direct their life in a more positive direction. For me, working-age welfare is an investment in the future. It's about making lives better. Working-age welfare is not a socialist redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. It is not compensation for where someone has found themselves in life. A failure to identify and assist people with drug dependency leads them to rot in the cycle of lifelong welfare dependency. We should not be blinded by ideology in this chamber. We should give a chance to trial drug testing and the important intervention that this will create to identify and help those people that need help.

This bill will deliver a simpler system for people receiving working-age payments, providing greater incentive for people transitioning to work and enforcing stricter compliance. This bill will better support people on welfare with substance-abuse issues. Labor and the Greens must reconsider their opposition to this trial—for goodness sake, this is a trial! It might work. It might fail in some respects, but let's give it a go and learn. Let's not close our minds to an opportunity to provide someone with the support they need and to also provide someone with the intervention they don't know they need. I call on Labor, the Greens and the crossbench members of parliament to support members on this side and pass all parts of this bill.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. This bill absolutely reaffirms to me that the Turnbull government is more interested in the name of so-called welfare reform and putting down and demeaning the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community, instead of providing our unemployed and our underemployed with the means to improve their circumstances—indeed, more interested in labelling those who suffer from addiction than supplying a real social support for people to find work which sustains individuals, families and communities, or supplying medical treatment for addiction or mental health issues.

This bill, like so many bills since the horror 2014 budget introduced this reform, aims to target Australians already struggling to make ends meet. Let us not forget that this government's predecessor sought to defend the denial of income and supports to people under the age of 30 for six months in each year. There are aspects of this bill which are deeply concerning to many who are providing services, including health and social services, to those affected. Labor has referred this bill to a Senate inquiry, which is due to report its findings today. Yet here I stand, speaking on the legislation ahead of the conclusion of the Senate inquiry. Once again, this shambolic government is attempting to avoid scrutiny—for yet another of their poorly-written pieces of legislation, which has the effect of demonising welfare recipients. It is not coincidental that certain news outlets have run what I can only describe as dole-bludger stories recently, highlighting those who—they say—are rorting the system.

Labor takes the issue of social welfare very seriously. With careful study, there are some elements of this bill that Labor could potentially support, if they were separated from other measures in this bill. But, as presently drawn, this bill is fundamentally flawed. Overwhelmingly, these are measures that Labor cannot and will not support, as the government has not made out any case in favour of the reforms sought to be advanced. In particular, this includes the establishment of a trial of drug-testing of people looking for work—and yes, we do understand that this is a trial, but it's a trial without purpose and without the necessary supports.

From 1 January 2018, the government is seeking to trial the drug-testing of 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance. This is a solution for a problem which lacks any evidentiary support. What is the reason for this policy? Is the government seeking to begin a program of rehabilitation for people found as a result of drug-testing to be drug-dependent? Is there funding for treatment of addiction? Is the welfare of people found to be taking drugs really at the heart of this decision? The answer to these questions is a resounding no. This government is simply not interested in allocating sufficient funding for programs aimed at assisting people who return a positive drug test.

In my electorate of Bass, there are waiting lists to use the limited facilities available for serious issues of addiction, let alone mental health treatment. Medical professionals in the drug and alcohol treatment sector have raised significant concerns about the measures in this bill. And of course, all we get from this government is criticism of the 'leftie' medical professionals who are opposing this. The main concerns, including those I've raised here, are that the program won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem, nor will it be able to provide them with the treatment that they require. At this stage, the government has not explained what the costs involved in the program will be, nor do they know what type of test will be conducted.

There is little evidence to support how a program like this will be effective. It's not the case that these programs haven't been tried elsewhere. Our neighbours in New Zealand began a drug-testing program in 2013 among their welfare recipients. Despite the program running for a number of years, in 2015 only 22 of 8,000 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. I say again: 22 out of 8,000. In 2014, in the US state of Missouri, 446 welfare recipients were tested, with only 48 testing positive.

Testing for drugs is an expensive exercise that doesn't address the issue of a person's addiction—unless, of course, there are also treatment options available or the testing is part of, for example, a court-sanctioned program. Unlike drug testing in connection with a person's work for occupational health and safety reasons, there is no proper rationale for linking the receipt of Centrelink benefits with drug testing. Community groups that are at the coalface of addiction, dealing directly with people who struggle day to day, have publicly raised concerns about these measures and what the consequences might be. Again, all they receive from this government is criticism. The government is showing its usual disdain for listening to community concern and is recklessly placing mentally vulnerable people under ever-increasing pressure. Despite the government asking the House to vote on this bill today, they have yet to fully disclose the detail. Addiction specialists have voiced their concerns about technical aspects of the trial. There are a number of ways that drugs can be tested for, with some testing being more reliable than others. With cheaper tests comes the risk of false positives—for example, if a person is taking antidepressants, my information is they can test positive for amphetamines.

I have spent some time talking about the government's flawed drug-testing proposals, but there are other significant difficulties with this legislation. Schedule 9 changes the activity test for persons aged 55 to 59. Under the present regime, Newstart and some special benefit recipients aged 55 to 59 may satisfy the activity test by volunteering for 30 hours per fortnight. This is a positive thing. Our communities benefit from that. But, under the proposal, recipients will need to fulfil 30 hours per fortnight of activity with voluntary work and suitable paid work, with 15 of the hours constituting paid work. There are already significant problems with age discrimination within the workforce. This is, not surprisingly, an issue in areas of high unemployment, particularly in areas with high youth unemployment. The high rates of youth unemployment are mirrored by high rates of unemployment for those aged 55 to 59.

On a number of occasions I have already attended distressed constituents. These constituents completely understand their obligation to undertake paid work, but they have expressed to me their extreme frustration at the absence of any real employment, despite, in many cases, their wishing to work and possessing advantageous life skills and significant workplace skills. I'm concerned that this proposal has been undertaken without proper consideration of the opportunities that this cohort can actually receive in the form of paid work. The overwhelming evidence provided by experts to the Senate inquiry suggests that mature jobseekers face significant adversity, including ageism and age discrimination, and that prevents them from entering the workforce. The policy underpinning this change suggests that these people will obtain work by forcing them to enter the workforce. The government, however, has not provided any additional support to help this cohort overcome the significant barriers which exist to obtaining and retaining employment. This is yet another example of government by decree, as it were, providing a solution, just as it proposed with respect to young persons only receiving benefits for six months in any one year.

In addition, experts in the volunteering sector are very worried—and they should be—that the changes may reduce the number of people volunteering in Australia. I've spoken in this place on a number of occasions about volunteering, in particular in the context of community legal centres. There is no doubt that my local community legal centre receives a significant benefit from the many hours donated to it by its legal literacy volunteers. It's perfectly appropriate that the sector has raised its concerns about the loss of volunteers, who play an important role in providing support in a range of areas to other people within our communities.

Whilst the government has announced a new program targeted at helping people over the age of 50 back into the workforce, the Career Transition Assistance Program, it is not due to be rolled out nationally until 2020, while the changes in this schedule come into effect from September 2018. The plan for a targeted program shows the government is concerned about this cohort's ability to re-enter the workforce, but the government has fallen into significant error by tightening their obligation years before introducing this support.

The final area or aspect of this bill I need to mention is the introduction of the new targeted compliance framework. This schedule, schedule 15, changes the compliance framework for income support recipients subject to mutual obligations and participation payments. A two-phase framework will be introduced. Phase 1 gives demerit points to a jobseeker for failing to comply with obligations. Four demerit points in a six-month period trigger an assessment to see whether support is required or whether the jobseeker needs to enter what's called an intensive phase. The intensive phase includes three escalating penalties, not ironically called 'strikes'.

With further failure, strike 1 is one week of payment lost; strike 2 is two weeks of payment lost, and strike 3 sees the cancellation of payment and a four-week exclusion from reapplication. Demerit points accrued during the first phase will be removed on a rolling six-month basis, something like a driver's licence penalty, so that they are not permanently accrued.

Payment suspensions would also apply for every failure to attend appointments, activities or job interviews; failure to enter or comply with an employment participation plan; failure to show up to a job referral; and/or refusal or failure to commence a suitable job. Misconduct and unreasonable behaviour would also result in suspension. The scheme also imposes the obligation to meet a requirement to end a suspension. Jobseekers who have failed to attend or have committed misconduct will be able to be fully paid back once they have re-engaged by entering an appointment. Jobseekers who are suspended for failure to enter a BPP or complete job search will need to enter the plan or complete job search to end suspension and be back paid. There are other requirements which I will not detail.

The problem is the fact that this compliance reform was produced without employment sector consultation. There is no doubt that this will cut more people from welfare payments in the current system without any apparent improvement to jobseeker employment outcomes. The government claims that the best form of welfare is a job—it has said that time and time again—but where is the evidence regarding the outcomes with respect to this particular proposal? Yet again, they are more interested in imposing a penalty than understanding what will produce the best outcomes. Under the present system, 72,000 or more financial penalties are applied each year. It's estimated that under the proposed system this will rise to 147,000 penalties. Despite introducing a system of suspensions for the first four demerit points to allow some people to reform their behaviour before receiving a financial punishment, this system will see more people losing payments than before because waivers and discretion are currently given to employment service providers and those waivers and discretions will be removed from the present system. This is a system which has been operating reasonably effectively.

The government remains determined to introduce changes without providing any evidence that cutting more people off welfare will improve their ability to obtain a job. It is obtaining jobs by decreeing that you need to be in employment. The stakeholders, the employment industry stakeholders, the National Employment Services Association and Jobs Australia have voiced concern that the government has not consulted with industry about how the proposed system will operate. ACOSS has expressed its concerns, noting that modelling should be completed—it is currently absent, we believe—to determine the impact of the proposed new system of moving people into paid work. They went on to suggest that an independent review of the whole compliance system should be considered as one has not been completed since 2010.

There are obvious negative outcomes for mental and physical health. The experience in the United Kingdom shows that tougher compliance sanctions have a reverse effect and would increase the risk of participants becoming homeless, with obvious negative outcomes for success in seeking employment. Again, there are obvious negative outcomes for mental and physical health. Self-esteem, relationships and engagement with the labour market will be adversely affected. Further—and I think this is something of significant concern—they say that the strict sanction regimes harm psychological wellbeing and affect a person's ability to secure work in unintended ways, such as distracting their attempts to find secure work by concentrating on compliance alone rather than obtaining the best job available. Again, this government fails. It fails by seeking to decree that people should be in employment. It fails in the sense that it hasn't done the work and it hasn't produced the evidence. It needs to be condemned. This legislation should be opposed.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a bill before the House which seeks to discriminate, demonise and deter people from seeking genuine help. Whilst there are measures contained in this bill—some that on this side of the House we would potentially support if they were separated—it's largely a bill that has been thrown together by the government with next to no consultation and zero evidence as to whether any of the measures would actually make a difference to Australian's lives. It's a bill based on a hunch—not on evidence, not on medical advice—just a hunch.

Along with introducing drug testing for vulnerable Australians seeking to enter the workforce, the government also wants to again increase the time a jobseeker has to wait to receive payments—something which it seems hell-bent on doing. It wants to remove the provisions that have previously been put in place to allow people to effectively have their claims backdated to the time of first contact with the Department of Human Services. They want to remove exemptions for drug or alcohol dependence as a reason for not being able to attend jobseeker meetings.

All of this is expected to cost the taxpayer over $100 million, with savings only achieved by forcing desperate people into a life of poverty by ripping out the safety net that currently supports them. This is absolutely clear from the government's planned savings of $200 million by pushing back the start date for some participation payments and forcing people to go hungry whilst they wait. But this is just the tip of the iceberg for a bill which implements a range of complex measures accompanied by very little detail and no evidence.

Currently, as we've heard, Newstart and special benefit recipients between the ages of 55 and 59 can fulfil their activity test by volunteering up to 30 hours per fortnight. Under this proposed legislation by the Turnbull government, those eligible volunteering hours would be slashed in half, having a direct, negative impact on thousands of community and non-profit organisations who rely on volunteers.

It was only last week that I had the privilege of celebrating National Meals on Wheels Day and was able to recognise and support the incredible work of volunteers who serve within national Meals on Wheels organisations in the Oxley electorate. I went out on runs with volunteers from Centenary Meals on Wheels and Woogaroo and District Meals on Wheels. These volunteers, who I acknowledge today in the House of Representatives, are directly affected by the proposed changes and rely on the current legislative provisions to meet their activity test requirements. That includes their essential work with organisations like Meals on Wheels, which delivers nutritious meals to seniors and pensioners throughout the community.

It's absolutely clear from examples such as this that giving older Australians the ability to meet their activity requirements through volunteering benefits not only the organisations they volunteer with but the wider community. The overwhelming evidence provided by experts to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry considering this legislation was that mature jobseekers face significant adversity, such as ageism, when they try to enter the workforce.

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of meeting with Volunteering Australia's CEO, Ms Adrienne Picone, to discuss the importance and work of volunteers, who make an estimated annual economic and social contribution of $290 billion. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, Volunteering Australia stated:

… the tightening of the Activity Requirements will:

This is the peak body representing volunteers in Australia. What the government is doing by passing this legislation will have a direct negative impact—this may be news to those government members in the chamber tonight. I would urge every government member to talk to the volunteer organisations in their electorate. Better still, set up a meeting with Volunteering Australia and hear from them firsthand. This is not the Labor Party. This is not some political motive. This is the direct impact of these changes, from people working in the volunteering sector.

Volunteering can be an effective way to engage in society—such as a pathway back into gainful employment—encourage economic participation, build work skills and keep people healthy and active. However, these punitive measures for older Australians fail to recognise this. Instead, they force people to give up voluntary work to undertake job related activities that fail to improve their job prospects. The government proposal seeks to adjust the obligations of the 55-to-59 cohort by forcing them to enter the workforce, even though the government hasn't provided any additional help to overcome the significant barriers they face.

While the participation rate and unemployment rate for this cohort is similar to the population overall, once out of work, the length of time a person aged 55 to 59 spends looking for work is 73 weeks. This compares to the overall average of between 40 and 50 weeks, according to the Department of Employment during the Senate inquiry hearings. This change in provision also affects schedule 3 in the legislation. When taking into consideration that widowed women will be most affected by halving the number of volunteering hours that people aged 55 to 59 can use, Volunteer Australia said that 80 per cent of volunteers aged 55 to 59 were women and often had lost their husband. The government must reconsider this change that would see huge impacts for the volunteering sector.

However, as we know, perhaps the most disturbing of all these measures is the government's plan to introduce drug testing to welfare recipients. This is a short-sighted, ideological plan that carries a next-to-zero evidence base on its effectiveness. The minister even said so in this place while delivering the second reading speech, when he said:

… there is little comparable evidence available to tell us whether this sort of intervention would be effective in the Australian welfare context.

That's the minister who was introducing this change. What are we doing here when the minister himself admits in this place that there is little evidence available to tell us if this will be effective? In this debate tonight, we've heard lecture after lecture from members opposite. When we look at the speakers' list, we see that they are members in ultra-safe Liberal seats—no marginal members, besides the member for Forde, and I'll come to that.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

I take the interjection from the member for Barker, who wants me to acknowledge that he is a marginal seat holder. He received a 14 per cent swing against him at the last election. That's how popular the member for Barker is. He almost lost his seat.

Mr Pasin interjecting—

I'll take the interjection. He wants to be known as the person that is unpopular in his electorate. Well, I can tell the member for Barker that these changes will make him more unpopular. But I'm not here to give the member for Barker any free advice.

Ms Burney interjecting—

Thank you, member for Barton; I'll take your guidance. When there is so much at stake, when Australians' lives are on the line, what does this government do when it's in trouble? It always attacks the most vulnerable. If it's not migrants or new Australians arriving into this country, it's pensioners and, if it's not pensioners, it's unions standing up for workers. We see this time and time again, and this is the latest of the government's tricks. We won't stand for it and neither will the community. Don't take my word for it. When submissions were called for the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry and report on the bill, the committee was inundated with submissions from groups and organisations who were almost unanimous in their objections to what the bill entails.

We've heard from the minister and eight members of the government who are so proud of this bill's effects. According to the government, groups such as the National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children, People With Disability Australia, the National Council of Women of Australia, the Australian Association of Social Workers, Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Anti-Poverty Network SA and Anti-Poverty Network Victoria, the Law Council of Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Social Policy Research Centre, Community Mental Health Australia, St Vincent's South Australia, Volunteering Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Salvation Army, Uniting Care Australia, the Australian Medical Association, and Care Australia—and the list goes on and on—are wrong. According to the government, all of those people are wrong. All the experts and health professionals in the sector are wrong and we are to take the word of eight government backbenchers that somehow they know better.

I advise the chamber that further to that long list, nearly 1,000 doctors, nurses and healthcare workers from organisations have written an open letter to this parliament calling on federal MPs to reject the proposal. But that evidence is all irrelevant to the government and to the minister. These medical professionals, who have more than 20,000 years of combined practical experience, state in their letter:

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.

But, apparently, all of those health professionals are wrong, all of the experts in the sector are wrong, and the minister has got it right. Well, I can tell you that out in the real world, out in the community, they know—

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They love it!

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the member for Barker that they love it. That's the reason they are doing this—popular politics. That is the only reason the government is giving tonight, because somehow this is a popular measure. Doesn't that, writ large, say exactly what this government's priorities are? All the health professionals are wrong! They think, 'We'll get a good headline out of this!' and that's why they are doing it.

I can tell you that I back the experts in the field 100 per cent. The National Drug Research Institute summed it up best when they said in a submission, 'Based on our expertise in drug policy, and the social conditions—

Mr Pasin interjecting—

And now the member for Barker is an expert in drug policy and health science—great! They said, 'Based on our expertise in drug policy and the social conditions of drug use, schedule 12 of the Welfare Reform bill should be rejected.' The simple truth is that no health or community organisations have come out publicly to support the trial—not one. If they have a list, I will sit down immediately and they can table it. I'm happy to do that.

But it gets worse. Logan City is one of the trial sites in Queensland. The member for Forde, being a marginal member, did defend this tonight. I'm advised that no LNP member in Queensland wanted the trial site, but he boasted to the community sector and to the media and civic leaders that he asked for this. I have talked to the Logan City Council, and the Mayor of Logan was in Canberra this week asking to work alongside the government. Of course, the NGOs, the Queensland Health department or the local government authority weren't consulted. We were also advised that the government wasted nine months in trying to find these trial sites. Did they think to talk to the organisations that were going to be impacted by this before the announcement? No. As we just heard tonight from the member for Barker, they were more interested in the headlines. Remember their focus group test about what words they should use in the budget? They came back with the word 'fairness'—remember the front page of The Daily Telegraph?

The member for Barker's agreeing with me; he knows that's true. So, we know that for nine months they've been negotiating, and not a word to the local council, Queensland Health, the Queensland government or to those people involved.

The irony of all of this is that in the same week that this was announced we heard that the member for Warringah was too smashed to turn up to the parliament to vote on some of the most important economic reforms that this nation's ever seen—boasting about it! That's fine; he can answer for his actions, about how he was too drunk to get off the couch to come down to actually participate and vote on some of the most important economic legislation that this nation has ever dealt with, right? The irony you have this week is that the government, that pack of snobs, just wants to demonise local people who are doing it tough and wants to make it harder for their lives, not easier. The irony of all of this is that there is not one extra dollar in the budget to deal with any of these issues that people may have. Not one extra dollar to deal with this. That says it all.

We know that the minister was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald. He said:

… based on what we know about compelling people into treatment it has a reasonable probability of helping sufficient numbers of people to make it worthwhile.

I would be interested to hear what evidence the minister has, because we've seen nothing about this whatsoever.

We know that this program simply doesn't work. The testing proposal by the government could potentially encourage people to use less-traceable but more harmful drugs, such as synthetic cannabis, or to move to using alcohol, which is not being tested as part of the government's trial—not being tested! I call on the government and the minister to rethink this potentially disastrous policy and to get on with the job of helping people to actually get into work.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to join with my colleagues on this side of the House including the shadow minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, in opposing this legislation. This is not welfare reform. It is anything but. These arbitrary changes seek to create more efficiency at the expense of having any consideration for the personal circumstances of people. I am deeply concerned by many aspects of this bill. In particular, I will address the schedules that I have responsibility for as shadow minister for human services. I will speak about the government's proposal to have claims for Newstart or youth allowance backdated only to the date of initial appointment as opposed to the date of initial contact, in schedule 10. I'll also speak about schedule 11, the government's proposal to make it more difficult for claimants who are unable to collate personal documents and information in a timely fashion. I will also address schedule 12, which is what many people have spoken about—that is, the proposal for the government to drug-test Newstart and youth allowance recipients in a number of electorates, including a very large part of Barton, the electorate that I represent. I'd also like to address schedule 17, the government's proposal to erode the privilege against self-incrimination and the application of natural justice.

In relation to schedule 10, the government's proposed changes to backdating for Newstart and youth allowance are simply punitive and arbitrary. Once again, this government is attacking our young people, those who are doing it tough trying to find a job, and some of our most vulnerable individuals. That is why this is such repugnant legislation. The government is chipping away at their income support at a time when they need income support the most. The purpose of schedule 10 is to change the backdating date of Newstart and youth allowance claimants from the date of initial contact to the date of initial appointment. Currently, a person who claims Newstart or youth allowance and is subject to Rapid Connect is required to attend an initial interview with an employment services provider before their income support is payable. If the person attends the interview as required, the start date for their payment is the day on which the claim is made. But under these proposals, which move the payment start date from initial contact to initial appointment, claimants potentially lose out on much-needed income support at this very uncertain and vulnerable time of their lives, the time when they most need that payment.

These measures do not consider applicants living in rural or remote communities who may have limited access to job providers, or their travel arrangements. These changes will mean applicants need to wait longer to access income support on top of the existing one-week waiting period that applies. Let me be clear, the government is doing what the government does best—that is, chipping away at income support for our young people, jobseekers and those who are down on their luck, at a time of great uncertainty as to how they will meet their daily living expenses. This is arbitrary, it's cruel and it's unnecessary.

I am concerned about the government's proposal in schedule 11 to repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. These sections empower the department to deem a claimant is entitled to a payment or a concession card from the day the department is initially contacted in the following circumstances: if the person lodges a claim for the payment or concession card within 14 days of initially contacting the department; if the person has a medical condition; if the person was caring for or was a partner of someone suffering from a medical condition which impacted on the person's ability to lodge a claim earlier; or if the person was otherwise unable to lodge a claim by reason of special circumstances. It just beggars belief that those considerations can still not be part of the government's way forward. The government has thrown out all common sense by ending backdating in special circumstances. These circumstances could be a result of homelessness, separation, hospitalisation, health issues or difficulties in accessing technology. Repealing sections 13 and 14 would add further hardship to those already facing hardship. Again, the government is attacking the most vulnerable individuals in our society. The government doesn't care if you have a medical issue, if you are caring for someone with a medical issue, or if you have extraordinary circumstances that have prevented you from making a claim. This government boasts about agility and innovation, but there is none being shown here. Where's the agility in throwing out common sense? Where's the ability in ignoring individual circumstances?

I'm also deeply concerned by schedule 12, which many people have addressed. This is the schedule that proposes to trial drug testing of income recipients in selected suburbs around Australia. Many people have articulated well why Labor is most concerned about this. The government crows that this is very popular. Perhaps on the surface out there in some parts of the electorates, it does appear to be popular. But when you start to understand in a really deep way what this actually means, that popularity evaporates. The evidence is just not there. In her opening address, the shadow minister for social services named all of the medical organisations, all the addiction experts and all of those community organisations that work with people with addictions on a daily basis who, speaking with one voice, said clearly to the government, 'Do not proceed with this; this is not a good idea, and it will not lead to outcomes that are positive for the people that you are targeting.' They said that with one voice, and that is quite remarkable.

In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted drug testing, which has been spoken about. Of the 8,000 participants tested, 22 showed positive results for illicit drug use. There is this inherent assumption, this prejudice, with this government that if you are on income support then somehow or other you must be a drug addict. That is obviously far from the truth. These are costly initiatives that will drive people into poverty and crime. As I said, more than 982 doctors, nurses, addiction specialists and allied health professionals signed an open letter calling on the government to end its mandatory drug testing for people receiving income support.

I want to say something about the people who work in Centrelink. It should not be their job to randomly select people who should be subjected to these drug tests. They, together with the experts that I have spoken to, know that this is a foolhardy way to deal with what is a very serious issue. This requires a medical response; it does not require the punitive actions that this government is undertaking. The government has confused addiction, a healthcare issue, with income support and welfare.

We know from the evidence and from what the experts have said that this won't stop addiction and dependency. In fact, these initiatives will turn people away from income support, when they are one of the groups in our community who need it the most. The notion that somehow or other controlling someone's income is going to deal with the very serious and complex issue of addiction is just a nonsense. This government and this minister must understand that. They don't understand it, or they don't care—one of those two things. This will drive people into homelessness. It will create more crime and, of course, it will impact heavily in terms of poverty.

I want to tell you a personal story. This is a true story about Family Drug Support Australia. Each year I attend Family Drug Support Australia's Annual International Remembrance Day for families who have lost family members to accidental overdoses, drug-related suicides and other drug-related deaths. I attend with my dear friends Kay and Karli Bellere, who go to remember Malu. I also remember Tina at that service. Family Drug Support Australia fulfils a very important role in the community by providing support to family members of those with an alcohol or drug dependency through education courses and training programs. FDS was founded in 1997 by an amazing man that you would all know, Tony Trimingham. He lost his son to a heroin overdose. It's also attended by Pastor Bill Crews of the Exodus Foundation.

This is the story of Tony, a man who turned personal tragedy, pain and experience into a meaningful and helpful service to others struggling through the pain and isolation of having a loved one with a drug dependency. Tony and the FDS family know the complexities and pain of addiction and of dependency. FDS also advocates for health based approaches to addiction and dependency. If you ask them, they'll tell you that criminalising, stigmatising and otherwise penalising drug use is no meaningful way to address addiction dependency. Healing, touching people's lives and loving is the way in which Tony and Bill, and all of us that attend that annual service, say this should be responded to.

This government has thrown out common sense. It simply refuses to consider the complexities of addiction and dependency. Schedule 13 will prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the reason is wholly or predominantly attributed to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness, injury or special circumstances such as eviction associated with drug and alcohol issues. Currently, jobseekers can be penalised for a range of very common participation failures, including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where a person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses a drug and alcohol dependence as an excuse for participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up that treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements. If they refuse, we know what will happen—they will be suspended. The experts say the changes fail to recognise the complex nature of substance abuse. Ask FDS, AMA and the massive list that the member for Jagajaga read out.

I will just say a few things in conclusion. Schedule 17 is a proposal to affect information obtained by DHS for claims to be used in subsequent investigations or prosecutions of criminal offences—it erodes the privileges against self-incrimination. This is not to be supported. The purpose of schedule 17 is to align coercive information-gathering provisions in the acts governing the new tax system, parental paid leave, social security administration and students' assistance. Currently, the four acts empower the relevant department secretary to seek information about persons subject to these laws. These relate to payments under those laws.

The government says that it's concerned that the administrative focus of these provisions currently inhibits the admissibility of evidence. The government says that it's concerned that the provisions relating to the privileges against self-incrimination are vague. Let me be clear: this is a blatant attempt by the government to roll back the privilege against self-incrimination. These are people on low incomes and with limited access to quality legal representation. This is a blatant attempt by this government to intimidate and frighten the most vulnerable class of individuals, with hints of investigation and prosecution.

In the last minute or so that I have, I will say as the shadow minister for human services that we have seen the blundering, stumbling way in which this government is handling the social security portfolio. In particular, I refer to the robo-debt debacle, which people will not forget, where people were stigmatised and accused by the government of committing offences and crimes that they had not committed, where the government took no responsibility and the onus of proof was left with those being falsely accused. Labor will stand up for those that need a hand up. Labor will stand up against these draconian, dreadful, cruel attempts to undermine the people in this community that most rely on government, that most rely on us to be able to give them that hand up when they need it. People on welfare are not second-class citizens. They are people like any one of us, who could fall on hard times and, from time to time, need the assistance of government to get them through the day and the night. This bill and these reforms and these changes are draconian. They are unnecessary and they are cruel. I oppose this bill.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make my position very clear regarding the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017. I am always open to considering genuine efforts to assist and support people who are struggling with drug dependency to access appropriate treatment and supports. I don't believe that income support is best utilised to support a drug habit; however, vulnerable people's lives are extremely complex. What is very clear to me is that this bill is not a genuine attempt to assist people struggling with drug dependencies. It will do nothing to stop the use of illegal drugs, it will do nothing to prevent ongoing drug use and it will not deliver appropriate treatment or supports.

The changes in this bill will have a severe impact on the lives of people with complex needs, pushing them into serious financial hardship and potentially crime. This bill is full of holes and is based on misunderstandings of data that are so large that you could drive a truck through them. I cannot and will not stand in this place and support legislation that will do absolutely nothing to address this serious and complex problem. I cannot believe that in 2017 this government considers drug testing people on Newstart and youth allowance as a serious solution of any kind.

We have all seen the national footage where former Prime Minister Tony Abbott admits to Annabel Crabb that he was passed out drunk whilst on the job and, by his own admission, missed a very important division. Yet the same person who passed out drunk whilst on the job wants to enforce drug testing on people struggling with drug addiction. Talk about double standards and entitlement! Does former Prime Minister Tony Abbott not realise the hypocrisy? Does the Turnbull government not see the hypocrisy in this situation?

There is also the blanket prejudice and ageism that people on youth allowance and Newstart must be the people on drugs. A study by the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction found that drug use is significantly more prevalent amongst those in the paid workforce than those not in the paid workforce. Furthermore, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the median age of illicit drug users has risen from 32.8 years in 2001 to 36.5 years in 2013 for any illicit drug. Research has also shown that people over 50 years of age are responsible for the largest rise in illicit drug use and were the only group to show a statistically significant increase in use. The most common age for illicit drug use is 36.5 years of age, as I have said, yet the Turnbull government are choosing to test those on youth allowance recipients, which you have to be under 24 years of age to be eligible for. What an ageist approach. This simply does not make any sense.

This bill is clear evidence that the Turnbull government doesn't give a damn about vulnerable jobseekers or young people, nor is it interested in assisting people struggling with drug addiction into treatment and support. If the Turnbull government were in any way genuine or cared one iota about helping people struggling with drug addiction, it would increase funding to prevention and early intervention supports and treatments. In my electorate that would fund the Townsville Salvation Army youth drug and alcohol detox centre. The only political person who has been concerned about this issue in Herbert is me. In both the 2013 and 2016 campaigns it was Labor who committed $5 million to the Salvation Army detox centre to assist our young people.

The government has not been able to provide any evidence that its strategy or measures will actually work, nor has it revealed the actual cost. Medical professionals, along with the drug and alcohol treatment sector, have raised significant concerns about these measures. Not only will they have a negative impact on jobseekers but, importantly, they won't be effective in identifying those with a serious problem or provide them with appropriate treatment options. This is yet another attempt by the Turnbull government to demonise jobseekers without any evidence that their measures will work, and it is likely to be at a very significant cost to the budget. Experts warn that these changes will not help people overcome addiction, because this is not how addiction works. Instead, people will be pushed into crisis, poverty, homelessness and potentially crime.

From 1 January 2018 the government wants to trial drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance in three locations. Testing will be undertaken by a contracted private provider. The government has not announced what this will cost, nor has it provided any detail regarding the types of tests that will be conducted. Where is the evidence? Where is the detail? Surely, the government should be looking at evidence based practice, especially when large sums of funding are involved, along with people's lives. Overseas examples of drug testing for income support recipients has clearly demonstrated that there is no evidence to support that these measures are effective.

In 2013, the New Zealand government instituted a drug-testing program for welfare recipients. In 2015, only 22 of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. The detection rate was much lower than the proportion of the general New Zealand population estimated to be using illicit drugs. Similar results were found in the United States. In Missouri's 2014 testing program, of the state's 38,970 welfare applicants, 446 were tested, with 48 testing positive. In Utah, 838 of the state's 9,552 welfare applicants were screened, with 29 returning a positive result. These were extremely costly initiatives—costly initiatives that could drive people into poverty, homelessness and crime. Yet the Turnbull government is determined to implement this regime, with no detail on real costs and no evidence based practice.

Concerns have been raised about these measures by health and welfare groups, including St Vincent's Health, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, ACOSS and UnitingCare. No health or community organisations have come out publicly in support of these trials. Addiction medicine specialists are concerned about the technical aspects of the trial. The Turnbull government have no idea what sorts of tests will be used. For example, will they be urine, hair or saliva? With lower-cost tests there is a risk of false positives. For example, if a person is taking antidepressants, they could test positive for amphetamines. Reliable tests can be extremely costly and unlikely to be affordable in this trial. For example, according to the RACP, a gold-standard urine test costs between $550 and $950 to administer. While people taking prescription medicine could be exempted, this would not guarantee that they are not also taking illicit drugs and thus undermining the purpose of the trial.

The testing could potentially encourage people to use less-traceable but more harmful drugs, such as synthetic cannabis. Or it could encourage them to use alcohol, which is not being tested for as part of this trial. A long-term cannabis user who is attempting to address their drug use will still test positive for up to six weeks. How will Centrelink know if they have actually stopped using drugs?

The Turnbull government claims that the availability of treatment will be the criteria for selecting trial sites. But Senate estimates revealed that the Commonwealth does not have access to data on availability and will need to rely on the states to provide this information. Well, how is this going to work? For example, if you were a young person tested in Townsville who returned a positive test, where would you go? We have no youth detox centre and our youth have to travel to Brisbane or Melbourne because North Queensland just doesn't have the facilities. The Turnbull government won't match Labor's commitment to fund the Townsville Salvation Army detox and rehab centre. They won't be able to provide or offer any treatment for people in North Queensland if they choose to run a trial in Townsville. There are very lengthy waiting lists for treatment around the country. These trials will put increased pressure on the health system, and where treatment is unavailable, jobseekers that are identified as having a problem with drugs will have difficulty accessing any necessary treatment or supports. The flaws, gaps and traps in this bill are enormous.

But one thing is evident: the Turnbull government doesn't have a plan to address any real drug issues. But they do have a plan to attack vulnerable jobseekers and to make the poor poorer, whilst appearing to do something—something that delivers nothing but further distress and disadvantage. This government doesn't want to help the sick, as is obvious in their cuts to Medicare. This is a government that doesn't want equal access to quality education, as is obvious by their savage cuts to education. This is a government that doesn't want the poor to become middle-class, as seen through their policy to increase university fees.

This bill will also cut the bereavement payment to those who have lost a loved one, which is just another example of punishing our most vulnerable citizens. The bereavement allowance is a short-term payment for people whose partner has died. It is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension and is subject to the same income and assets tests. For a pregnant woman who has lost her partner the allowance is paid for 14 weeks or the duration of the pregnancy, whichever is longer. Schedule 4 of this bill will replace the bereavement allowance as it currently exists with short-term access to the jobseeker allowance, which is paid at a lower rate and will have a more stringent means test from March 2020. While the schedule provides transitional arrangements that mean bereaved people receiving the allowance on 20 March will be no worse off, further recipients will receive the rate of the jobseeker payment, which is $535 a fortnight. That is the same as Newstart. This means a bereaved person in need of income support will receive $1,300 less over 14 weeks than they currently would. This is a cruel cut without justification to people receiving short-term income support following the loss of a loved partner.

When you are sick, you should always have access to health care. Where you live shouldn't affect your child's access to a quality, needs based education. The size of your wallet or trust fund should not determine whether you can attend a university. When you lose a loved one—someone close to you—you should be allowed time to grieve without the fear of not being able to pay for the simple costs of living. But the Turnbull government is completely out of touch with vulnerable citizens. It is not a government for the people. Rather, it is a government out to make life harder for our most vulnerable. The Turnbull government is a government for the wealthy, not the battler.

I want those people that the Turnbull government is neglecting to know that you do matter to the Labor Party, and you matter to me. I will fight for you every minute of every day in this place. I will continue to fight against the Turnbull government's savage cuts. I will continue to fight for real action on drug related issues and not for useless, unfair bills like this one. I will continue to fight against the government's top-hats approach and for hard hats. I will continue to fight for jobs for Townsville. I will continue to fight this government's neglect of our veterans and ex-service personnel. I will continue to fight for aged care, child care and Medicare. And I will do so because Labor actually cares.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and the amendments moved by Ms Macklin. Where I grew up and where I come from, I am fairly well known as someone who calls a spade a spade. This piece of legislation is a continuation of this government's attacks on the most vulnerable in our communities.

The 2014 budget was like a sledgehammer on Australia. Since the leadership changed from the member for Warringah to the member for Wentworth, all we've seen from this government is a change in the salesperson and a change, through legislation, to find clever, more devious ways to hurt the poor, hurt the vulnerable and unpack the social compact that this country has relied on for decades. This bill is another example of that. There are a few simple, cosmetic changes in this bill that are not controversial, but hidden behind them are some of the most controversial things that we have seen happen in this space in decades. At a time when inequity is at a 75-year high, we are witnessing a government attempting to make people think not once, not twice, but three, four, five or six times before they reach or ask for assistance. That's what's happening here.

There is a building of bureaucracies that is finding small ways to lock people out of welfare and out of the support that they might need to get through the toughest days of their life. Let's build small things that incrementally, one on top of the other, spread like a disease through the community so that people no longer say, 'You should go down to Centrelink. You should be able to get Newstart. You've been unemployed now for a while, and your family could do with that income.' No, what's going to spread through the community is: 'Don't bother trying. Centrelink's an awful place. Centrelink can make you unwell. Centrelink is where you have to deal with uncaring people with no discretion about how they apply the laws. Centrelink is a place that is not friendly to people who are doing it tough.'

This legislation is about kicking people when they are down. It's been dressed up all day as being about love and about the taxpayer not supporting an addict's habit. What a ridiculous thing—to suggest that is contained in this bill. What this bill contains are measures that, if broadly advertised across this country, will mean that young people in my electorate don't apply for Newstart, and that's the aim of this legislation. It's a message to any young person who may indulge on the weekends in what the law determines is an illegal drug. We don't want them to do that—nobody does—but that's not what this bill's about. This bill's about telling them not to apply for Newstart. This bill's about telling them, 'There's a trial going on in your community. You should move electoral boundaries; get yourself out of that community.' So, what's going to happen in Mandurah? Well, a lot of people who may be on Newstart and are worried about a drug test may just move a couple of blocks away and get themselves out of the testing space. Of course, they'll be people who are more likely to be renting than owning, and therefore more likely to move than not.

This legislation has a couple of really key things, some really nasty things. The wife pension cuts—it's being phased out. Only a sadist would put this into a piece of legislation and stop that support. New people cannot apply. We're looking at a cohort of people who are going to be phased out naturally as they go to the age pension—to save what? There are others, like the changes to bereavement support. Speak of kicking people when they're down. Here it is, hidden in there. A group of people on their very worst day, when they've lost their partner, are no longer going to get the kind of support that they came to expect.

The broader picture here is about sending messages. It's about signalling. It's more than a drip. The 2014 budget was a sledgehammer aimed at the poorest. This piece of legislation is part of the Turnbull government's much slicker operation, but the impacts are exactly the same. This is a government that brings on this legislation aimed at actively discouraging people from seeking support not only for their drug addiction but also for their poverty. That's what this bill does, and it comes on the back of the government wanting to give corporate tax cuts worth billions. I don't know how this government can justify putting in the bill what it wants to wrap up as some tinkering-around-the-edges changes but then come in here and say it's a massive reform. It's massive, all right, because it's going to see the number of people being supported by our welfare system drastically reduced.

When I look at the drug testing and the ramifications, the worst part is that if those people who are using drugs don't apply for Newstart, or if those people worried about being caught using drugs go off Newstart, the government will walk into this chamber and they'll say, 'Look at the success rate we've got,' because nobody's testing positive. It's a perfect scenario, really! Luckily, on this side of the chamber, we're onto them. Luckily, on this side of the chamber, we know people doing it hard and we know the number of people who have a relative or someone who lives on their street doing it hard. This is not the Howard era; you can't divide this community so neatly anymore. Equity's at a 70-year high. There are more Australians doing it tough, and wages growth is minimal. There are more Australians not looking over their shoulders, being jealous of one another; they're looking at one another, worried about one another.