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:

Do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians, which are an already disadvantaged group in the job

market, and affect their compliance.

Move people away from volunteering positions, that will have a detrimental impact on the volunteering sector.

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—

Mr DICK: 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—

Mr DICK: 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—

Mr DICK: 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—

Mr Pasin: They love it!

Mr DICK: 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—

Mr DICK: 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.