Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister update the House on the progress of drug trials which involve a system of cashless welfare and compulsory treatment? What evidence is there supporting the benefit of these trials, and how does this compare to alternative approaches?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Durack for her question. I can inform the House that planning is well underway to have drug-testing trials in three locations starting at the beginning of next year. The trials themselves involve three components. The first component, of course, is random drug testing of 5,000 people. There are very good, simple methodologies to do this, which we'll be utilising. The second component is cashless welfare if a person tests positive for the first time. We know from the independent evaluation of the cashless debit card, which operates in the member for Durack's electorate, that this reduces the amount of drugs that a person takes. The third component is compulsory treatment if a person tests positive for a second time. Of course, compulsory treatment is exactly what is used in drug courts around Australia, and studies show that it works. The aim of the trials, of course, is to identify those people who might have a drug problem and assist them to get off drugs and back into the workforce. It's also based on a core principle that welfare should not be used to support a drug habit.

I'm asked, 'Are there any alternatives?' Well, we know that the Labor Party absolutely and directly opposes these drug-testing trials. They say, against each of our three elements, that it's demeaning to test people, that cashless welfare is not appropriate, and that you can't compel people into treatment. But on every single one of those, they've actually supported initiatives which are directly analogous. Let me take you through a couple. First of all, they support random drug testing on construction sites and on our roads. Those who get tested on our roads include, of course, people on unemployment benefits—no problem there. Second, they support using cashless welfare for drug-dependent people. Indeed, the member for Jagajaga set up such a scheme. They set up such a scheme. Thirdly, they actually support compulsory drug treatment programs when it is part of the drug court system. In fact, the drug policy which the member for Jagajaga introduced many years ago explicitly said that the mandatory treatment programs from the drug courts 'literally saves lives'.

Let me just confirm this. They, first of all, support drug testing as a concept. They support cashless welfare as a response, and they have supported compulsory drug treatment programs. But, apparently, if you put those three things together and add $10 million worth of treatment programs, it is a disaster. That's apparently the Labor way. Labor has been captured by the green-left wing of their party. That's what's dictating this policy and what it means, if they get their way, is people who need treatment won't— (Time expired).