The Coalition want to drug test welfare recipients. Here's why experts think it's a bad idea

Extract from The Guardian

Critics have slammed plans to drug test those on Newstart. But what does the scheme involve? And what does the evidence say?

Luke Henriques-Gomes

@lukehgomes

Tue 10 Sep 2019 04.00 AEST Last modified on Tue 10 Sep 2019 04.01 AEST

Coalition plans to drug testing welfare recipients have attracted strong criticism. Photograph: Christinne Muschi/Reuters

Scott Morrison’s government has revived controversial legislation that would force 5,000 Newstart and youth allowance recipients to undergo drug testing to get their welfare payments.
The Coalition has framed the plan as part of the prime minister’s “compassionate conservatism”, but the proposal is reviled by welfare groups and health experts, who point to overseas evidence as proof the idea is ill-conceived and counterproductive.

What’s the proposal?

The drug-testing trial would take place in Logan (Queensland), Canterbury-Bankstown (NSW) and Mandurah (Western Australia). New welfare recipients would be selected for testing at random.
Those who fail a test would have 80% of their welfare benefits quarantined for two years using the controversial cashless debit card. If a person fails a second test in 25 working days, they would be referred to a medical professional for treatment.

The government has scrapped a previous measure that would force those who failed a second test to pay a portion of the costs.
People will be tested for ice (methamphetamine), ecstasy (MDMA), marijuana, cocaine and heroin. The government has also promised $10m to bolster rehab services.
Internal documents suggest the trial will cost $5.6m and the Australian Council of Social Service (Acoss) says the testing is likely to cost between $500-$900 per person.

Has it been tried before?

In New Zealand, about 40,000 welfare recipients undergo drug tests each year.
The tests are only for those referred by the NZ government’s equivalent of Centrelink to employers who request a mandatory drug test for job applicants. If a person fails the test, they can be forced to pay the cost of the test and later have their welfare payments cut.
The policy was introduced in 2013 by the National government, which cited statistics suggesting between 10% and 20% of people on welfare benefits used drugs.
But data from NZ’s Ministry of Social Development shows that of the 47,115 people who were tested in 2017-18, only 170 recorded a positive result for drugs. That equates to 0.3% of those tested. Statistics from previous years tell a similar story: consistently less than 1% of those tested have recorded a positive test.
In 2014-15 there were 29,049 people tested for 159 failures (0.5%) while in 2013-14, 29,800 were tested. Of those people, only 121, or 0.5%, were found with drugs in their system.

Are there other examples?

In the US about a dozen states force welfare recipients to undergo testing when authorities say there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is using drugs.
Data collected by the news website Think Progress shows that of those screened, very few are referred for a test. And of those referred, only a tiny fraction had drugs in their system.
In Missouri, of the 38,970 welfare applicants, 446 were tested and 48 tested positive in the 2014 calendar year. In the 2018 calendar year, 121 were referred to a mandatory test, with 47 testing positive.
The statistics are fairly similar across the states. For example, last year North Carolina authorities drug-tested 321 welfare applicants after 25,808 were screened. Only 17 tested positive.

What do the experts say?

Ross Bell, the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, says the NZ policy saw the government “playing into these stereotypes” that those on welfare are “all losers … sitting around smoking joints all the time”.
“The New Zealand experience shows that that stereotype is one that is not held [up] by the truth,” Bell tells Guardian Australia.
From what Bell’s seen of the Morrison government’s plan, the Australian drug-testing trial would be worse. “[The NZ policy] is all a bit silly, but certainly that process is much better than what the Australian federal government is looking at.”

Among the long list of critics of the drug-testing trial – which spans Acoss, the Australian Unemployed Workers Union, a former police commissioner and drug, health and medical experts – is Jobs Australia, which represents non-profit job service providers. These are the agencies charged with getting job seekers into work.
While the government says drug-use is preventing welfare recipients from getting a job, Jobs Australia tells the Guardian that its members say this is not common.
“There is no research that says an approach like this benefits job seekers,” says the acting chief executive, Nicole Steers.

What about the government?

The government told a Senate inquiry into the legislation there is no “comparable evidence” of the model it has proposed. That is why the “measure is designed as a trial”.
It has also cited the national drug strategy household survey, which found the unemployed were more likely to use methamphetamines and cannabis than wage earners.
Morrison told Nine Newspapers at the weekend: “Being on drugs stops you getting a job. It’s that simple.
“Losing all your money to gambling means you can’t put food on your table for your kids. This is just looking at a real situation and being honest about it.”
The social services minister, Anne Ruston, says the policy is not a “punitive measure” and is aimed at helping people “address their addiction”.
“This is actually a measure that we’re putting in place and offering up to help people who have a problem with drugs, a problem that’s stopping them from being able to get into the workforce,” she told Channel Seven last week.

Guardian Australia put further questions to the Department of Social Services but it did not respond before deadline.