Welfare advocates reject renewed push for drug testing trial
9 September 2019 at 11:27 am
Community groups have slammed the Morrison government’s revised push to drug test welfare recipients, warning there was no evidence the “demeaning” proposal would help people with substance abuse issues.
Under legislation set to be introduced next week, a drug testing trial for 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and Youth Allowance would take place in Logan, Queensland, Canterbury-Bankstown in New South Wales and Mandurah in Western Australia.
Jobseekers testing positive for illicit substances will have 80 per cent of their payments quarantined onto a cashless welfare card, while a second positive test would see recipients referred to a rehabilitation program.
Social Services Minister Anne Ruston told The Age that the proposal – originally developed by the Turnbull government in 2017 – was about helping people struggling with substance abuse issues.
“This trial will assess the use of drug testing as a means of identifying job seekers with substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from finding a job, and support them to address these barriers,” Ruston said.
“Taxpayers expect the government to ensure their money is being spent responsibly and that welfare recipients are using it to put food on the table, send the kids to school and pay the bills rather than on drugs.”
But welfare advocates have come out in strong opposition to the $10 million proposal.
Leanne Ho, executive officer of the National Social Security Rights Network (NSSRN), told Pro Bono News she strongly opposed the drug testing trial.
She said it was an expensive measure that would have little positive impact on the communities living within the trial sites.
“It is poorly targeted and will predominantly affect new social security claimants who do not use drugs. It is a punitive measure that will push some people with no substance use issues onto a restrictive income management scheme,” Ho said.
“Experts agree that drug testing welfare recipients is not an effective method to address substance abuse issues and may in fact exacerbate them.”
The Australian Council of Social Service believes the government is trying to deflect from the “overwhelming, broad support” for an increase to Newstart and Youth Allowance.
Director of policy Jacqueline Phillips said the proposal was designed to stigmatise people struggling to get by on low incomes.
“Let’s be clear about what the government is asking people to do – it’s particularly demeaning to have to provide a urine sample just because you’re unfortunate enough to have lost your job, even when you may be in your fifties and have never touched drugs your life,” Phillips said said.
“Not only is this proposal demeaning, there’s no evidence that it would work.”
Anglicare Australia’s executive director Kasy Chambers said its previous research showed there were nearly six jobseekers for every vacancy within the trial communities.
“That’s the real problem – people are competing for jobs that just aren’t there. Forcing people to take drug tests before they can get help won’t achieve anything,” Chambers said.
She added that this approach had failed when taken in other countries.
“The countries that have trialled random drug testing have found that it’s costly and doesn’t achieve anything. In the US, it has cost up to US$1,600 per person,” she said.
“This plan has been rejected in Britain, rejected in Canada. It’s now up to the crossbench to reject these changes here.”
While One Nation is expected to support the proposal, Labor, the Greens and the Centre Alliance have all indicated their opposition to the measure in the past.
Labor’s social services spokesperson Linda Burney said Labor remained opposed to the trials.
“Randomised drug testing could see a 55-year-old being expected to urinate into a cup somewhere to prove that they are not a drug addict. That is inappropriate,” Burney said.
Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said this approach would only serve to entrench disadvantage and poverty rather than addressing underlying barriers to work.
“This is a morally bankrupt government,” Siewert said.
“Trials aren’t needed, the evidence shows this approach won’t work. The Greens will call this out for what it is, an ideological approach that once again demonises those accessing our social safety net.”
are the below statements from this article contradict to each other?
“Jobseekers testing positive for illicit substances will have 80 per cent of their payments quarantined onto a cashless welfare card, while a second positive test would see recipients referred to a rehabilitation program.”
“It is poorly targeted and will predominantly affect new social security claimants who do not use drugs. It is a punitive measure that will push some people with no substance use issues onto a restrictive income management scheme,” Ho said.
According to the first statement, only people who are tested positive with illicit substance will be included onto a restrictive income management scheme. So new social security claimants who do not use drugs will not be affected??
The cost of the program vs. the benefits of its results needs more examination and disclosure. Otherwise – go for it.
Drug testing welfare recipients is a ridiculous idea. As a safety coordinator who helped develop and implement alcohol and other drug (AOD) policy in the workplace, I am fully conversant with the issues, legislation, responsibilities and pitfalls involved.
I often hear the argument that “if employees are tested then those on welfare should be as well”. This is nonsense and based on falsehoods:
1. Most employers are small business’s and more likely to have a fridge full of beer out the back than a AOD policy.
2. AOD testing in the workplace is random. What is being proposed for welfare recipients is not. It is based on profiling. If you did this in the workplace, your AOD policy would be thrown out the window by the nearest court of law and you would probably end up as a defendant in the Fair Work Commission.
3. Proper AOD policy involves helping identified employees (employee assistance program or EAP), not immediately punishing them. If assistance is refused and breaches continue then disciplinary action should follow.
4. You should not label someone an alcoholic or drug user on the basis of just one test. To do so could invite serious litigation.
5. AOD testing is confidential. You do not force employees who fail a test to use a special card that will identify them as a drug user in public.
6. AOD testing for jobseekers already exists in the form of pre-employment medicals. No need to reinvent the wheel. Maybe a new tyre perhaps.
7. The perception that many people on welfare are just lazy drug users is false. The majority (more than 95%) do the right thing and are struggling. If you want evidence of this, you can do your own research using reputable sources (not the tabloids). The last thing that unemployed people need is more stigma and public vilification.
8. Serious drug addicts fund their habit through other means such as selling drugs or committing other crimes. The rate of unemployment benefit is so low that it would barely fund a user’s habit for a couple of days. What will they do for the rest of the fortnight – go cold turkey? Cutting off their payments or shoving them on the welfare card will not help or break the cycle of addiction. It will just make things worse.
9. AOD rehabilitation services are already overloaded and non-existent in many regional areas. Merely using Centrelink as a punishment tool will not solve the problem of drug use.
10. Welfare drug testing is useless and will waste even more of taxpayer’s precious dollars – NZ recently spent millions of dollars testing 112,000 jobseekers on their welfare system and found only 531 or 0.47% positive results. Even the director of the NZ Drug Foundation that was responsible for overseeing these tests said that “it was an expensive waste of time”.
Finally, while I accept that this horrible idea has a lot of public support, the majority of medical practitioners and specialists who are directly involved in AOD rehabilitation are against it for the main reason that it is not helpful at all and will only make matters worse. It is just a vote winner for the government and another form of dole bludger bashing. This nasty proposal should never see the light of day.