This subject has raised it's head again, but this time there may well be some action.

I say BRARVO, about time, and I hope they also introduce quarantine measures as well to protect our money.

After all, being on unemployment benefits means 'actively seeking work' and, given more and more workplaces have anti drug/alcohol policies, anyone on these benefits should be fit for work, and being on drugs, is hardly what one could describe as fit for work.

Oh FFS.

Oh yes, let's 'protect' 'our' money by forcing anyone who is addicted to drugs and out of work to find alternative sources of income.

Great plan genius, I hope you have good security screens.

rehctub,

Was it you who was in favor of the North Queensland work camp for people on newstart a couple of months back? If so I can see where you are coming from.

Addicted to drugs is a problem, but, being paid benefits, while not being ready and able for work, is just plain wrong.

Remember the definition of unemployment benefits, actively seeking work.

Take drugs if they choose, but don't expect the tax payer to support the habit.

BTW, I seriously doubt the dole would buy sufficient drugs to support an ADDICTIVE habit.

So where do you think the money comes from?

rehctub,

Bugsy is spot on.

What exactly do you think will happen if society tosses these people on the dump?

You seem blind to the fact that our society is relatively prosperous and peaceful "because" it's an inclusive society - a social democracy.

And are we going to be testing for that state-sanctioned drug "alcohol" at the same time?

Rehctub and Bugsy I am a recipient of unemployment benefits and have been since being made redundant on 10 October 2009 apart from 5 weeks work earlier this year when I acquired a new job which lasted 5 weeks then the entire shift was made redundant so I was back on benefits again.
I do not partake in drugs nor do I drink alcohole if I have any vises at all it is legal cigarettes.
I continually apply for positions of employment with little success, most of my applications not even replied to.
There are less jobs now than there was many years ago and a lot more people unemployed with more redundancies happening almost daily.
Throughout my working life I have always been in employment prior to October 2009.
I am now 63 years of age and this is proving to be a handicap in finding employment also my motor car packed it in so I am reliant on public transport and is proving to be another handicap plus I live in a remote area with poor inadicate transport another handicap.
Each week is a struggle just to survive and I have a slogan which is
NO JOB NO CAR AND SOON NO HOME

Well, we could either support them to live by themselves, in which case they will still have access to drugs and will likely choose to take them, at least occasionally.

Or we could drug test them, remove their benefits and send them to jail when they get arrested for selling drugs or stealing, where we can deprive them of their liberty, pay for all their accommodation, meals, electricity etc, as well as people to guard them. They may also choose to take drugs occasionally there as well.

I know what the least expensive option is, in both monetary and social terms. This moralistic sabre-rattling makes me want to puke.

Bugsy,
Don't get your knickers in a twist, Butch would know that there is no hope of his suggestion getting up.

We do not even make life difficult for foreigners who come here illegally, we welcome them give them all sorts of handouts including up to $10,000 to furnish a government supplied house. This has cost us about $5 billion over the last few years.

We also pay women to have kids, called a baby bonus, which just encourages young single girls to get pregnant and then we pay again for all these single mums. I would like to know how girls 'fall' pregnant, the pill was supposed to stop that and we do have the 'morning after' pill as well. They used to say that girls were ignorant about sex and pregnancy, but now there is sex education in schools which seems to be a waste of money if girls are still ignorant.

Nah, druggies are safe to continue their lifestyle, the taxpayer will go on paying for everything. We can't even keep drugs out of jails which are supposed to be a closed society. Nobody questions that.

Take it easy Bugsy, druggies are safe.

Your article should also include Alcoholics, I am not sure if it is still the same but few years ago people only had to have alcohol problems and they were paid unemployment benefits but did not have to look for work.
The cost of drugs is more than the dole payment so you need strong screens and security anyway.

There may be some collecting benefits who partake of drugs and exploit on the welfare system but a vast majority of recipients on welfare are genuine people actively looking for and wanting work.

Jobs just aren't out there for the amount of unemployed people actively looking and applying and it is getting worse every day.

Comments and aspersions that recipients of welfare benefits should all be drug tested is assisting governments to abolish the welfare system as they can see that the world has and is changing.

It is estimated that there are 400,000 homeless Australians throughout the land and the numbers are growing.

Anyone who works in the media and reports on these facts are sacked from their jobs for exposing what is occurring, the latest being Derryn Hinch.

I ask how many people making comments on this forum are unemployed and receive welfare benefits?

If you watch the news and currant affair programs on TV they always show the worst examples of recipients on welfare benefits and by doing it makes people think all recipients are useless bums, drunks, druggies etc. DIVIDE AND CONQUER Strategy.

Why does the government persist with the immigration scheme when there is high unemployment and a lack of affordable housing for the Australian people? This is adding to the unemployment lines and creating more homeless Australians.

I do not have a problem with being drug tested nor tested for booze because I don't partake in either nor do I gamble. But I do have concerns if my inalienable rights and civil liberties are encroached on.

It's time we all started looking at the bigger picture of what is taking place around us and not become a tool of the government to exploit us.

We must look at the actual facts and not innuendo's by the media and government. It is time we all woke up and researched what is the actual true picture.

Banjo Quote "druggies are safe" You are so wrong a druggy with no money needing a fix is extremely dangerous absolutely no regard for others.

Gypsy sorry to hear your plight, please do not take it out on Bugsy, he is on your side.
We should consider drug testing SOME bosses
The idea comes from a minority and we should be grateful.

What we need is a trial scheme for the basis of the concept...

Let's start with a group of people whose job and responsibilities affect us all - politicians.

They can demonstrate the efficacy of the idea if they think it is so valuable.

There would be no shortage of out-of-work constituents willing to administer the tests. The results, of course, being published.

What about a two year trial? And alcohol should be included, along with prescription medications?

Forget the drug tests for pollies, wack them on a polygraph and no pay for any who don't pass some basic checks of suitability for the job.

On the broader topic I do agree tht just stopping payments increases the risk in other areas but it's worth remembering that a lot of workers are now subject to regular drug and alcohol testing in the workplace even in jobs which don't have any safety component.

It often seems that welfar recipients and the welfare lobby expect a higher degree of autonomy and privacy for welfare reciepients than those who are being taxed to provide the majority of that welfare have.

Likewise the suggestion I saw in the media coverage that its 'their' money, they should be able to do as they wish with it does not seem to apply for many on the paying side. Try being a CSA payer on a reasonable income and see how much financial autonomy you retain.

We struggle to find a good balance between compassion for the genuinely needy and flogging those who work and dont have access to tax breaks. A tax system that takes no account of the impact on the payer or how hard they have had to work to make that income.

R0bert

I have one thing to say regarding social benefits of any nature. It is an injection of funds into our domestic economy. Take away social benefits and we further shrink the economy. We give BILLIONS to aliens in other countries but do not require them to take drug tests. We give BILLIONS of dollars to strangers and that money never sees Australia again.

Sure beat up on some poor sod that is out of work with little chance of finding gainful employment because we have nothing left except service industries. Bleed your hearts for strangers in foreign lands and have no compassion for the poor sod next door.

Rehctub, what’s it like to be a perfect human being, let me know so I can be as bright and as good as you my fellow battler.

Every measure that is taken to punish or deny benefits to 'freeloaders' (or 'druggies' or whatever), becomes a permanent burden to EVERYONE within the system, whether they are honestly looking for work or not.

Everyone will have to comply with the tests, honest or not, and people will have to be employed to administer the tests. How many people do you reckon you will 'catch' with your little proposal rechtub? How much money will it save compared to how much it will cost? If benefits were removed, how long for?

What's your cost-benefit analysis for little piece of morality?

Phillip,
Perhaps my last line was not clear enough. I meant that druggies are safe from having their benefits withdrawn, It will never happen.

I don't have much time for druggies but they are portrayed as victims and victims don't lose benefits in our society.

Why not test politicians for drugs? After all there are needles disposal bins in the toilets of Parliament House, or so I am told. Any drug taking politician should be exposed and sacked forthwith. Its bad enough we have to put up with stupid.

It may help to split the issue into three questions.

1/ Does society have the right to impose conditions on those receiving welfare payments and check that those conditions are complied with?
2/ If so what's the most useful way of dealing with those instances where the conditions are not complied with?
3/ - may be part of 2 but is the issue worth the consequences of following up on?

For myself
1/ I think yes however I have serious concerns about the increased intrusion of government into peoples lives and think that drug testing should only ever be undertaken where there is credible suspicion of non-compliance and there is a case to suggest that there is a risk of harm to third parties. That should apply to all people, I'm tested occasionally as part of my desk job and resent the invasion of privacy.

2/ As others have pointed out stopping all welfare payments increases the risks to the rest of us. I agree that welfare payments are unlikely to maintain a drug addiction but stopping all payments to an individual escalates that problem. If that's not a constructive option then what is?

3/ Assuming that we have an answer to 2 then testing where an individuals actions give rise to credible suspicion that they have a substance abuse habit which is impacting on their ability to seek work then it's probably valid.

R0bert

Dear R0bert,

In answer to your questions:

1) It depends: In the general case, societies are not obliged to provide welfare and if they do, then they have every right to impose conditions.

However, the existing welfare system in our particular society should not be looked at as a free gift, but rather as compensation, and should therefore be unconditional. The compensation is for the fact that current society imposes such laws that make it impossible for individuals and groups to live in nature without the use of money. Anyone who tries to live without using money will be harassed and incarcerated for trespassing and breaking many similar laws and by-laws.

As society denies us the freedom to subsist without money, it is only proper that it compensates us with the only means of subsistence which remains legal - money.

This also means that we ALL are entitled to this "welfare" - not just the disabled, aged, unemployed, etc. We all are!

2) The solution is to replace the existing welfare system with a negative income tax. This way, it is nobody's business whether others prefer to work or to be intoxicated. Those who prefer to be intoxicated will only punish themselves: if that's their cup-of-tea, then they will be poor and survive only on the subsistence-level negative-income-tax.

3) As many mentioned here, the price of following up would be a sharp reduction in personal and property safety. Welfare, both in its existing form and in the form of a negative-income-tax, is one of the best investments for our tax-money!

Rehctub here.

In response to the many posts, firstly, it's not my idea, I simply support it.

Of cause one way to at least minimize the problem, would be to stop the cash. But people seem to hate that idea as well.

So I guess we had best just accept that a portion of our taxes will be wasted this way.

Gypsy, I too am sorry to hear of your situation, I wish you well and hope your situation improves.

One has to wonder why our leaders continue to hold their heads in the sand, telling us we are in great shape, with almost full employment, implying that anyone who wants a job, simply has to ask. But we in the real world know that's simply not the case, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story, I say.

Another stat I would like to see is just what jobs are being created. We have 1000's loosing full time work, yet under employment is a real problem.

Finally, I am not perfect, far from it, but I don't have any problems being asked to provide a sample for drug alcohol testing.

While I accept most are honest, it's like RBT, I have no problem gettimg pulled over, as I know the offenders are being removed from the roads.

But I ask those opposed to remember, in return for receiving benefits, the least recipients can do in return is be fit and ready for work.

That means alcohol and drug free, at least 5 days of the week (alcohol that is)

Seriously, is that too much to ask.

Oh FFS.

Oh yes, let's 'protect' 'our' money by forcing anyone who is addicted to drugs and out of work to find alternative sources of income.

Great plan genius, I hope you have good security screens.

Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 29 August 2012 7:17:18 AM

LOL....I couldnt of said it better myself. I only got to Bugsy's post and near fell off my chair. This would have to be the most stupidest hair brained ideas I,ve ever heard.

If Centrelink wants to do all of Australia a great favour, give them more money to quicken up the processes, if you catch my drift:) For the normal people on Centrelink benefits, please give them an increase of $120.00 per week....so I dont have to rub it into the Greedy/Rich/Government faces. The fact that these Australians(your own country people) are 40% below the average wage and the boat people get better treatment WTF!...well talk about backwards and stupid.

Australia is the lucky country?...Yeah right! Lucky for who?....Obviously not for white Australians with arrows on their PJ"s ect.

(and overpopulation in this country wont be a problem, yeah right again)

Yes some Australians are a waste of time conserning DRUGS but so are alot of other races as well.

Here's an idea.....Stop the boats, keep the looser's cashed up and stoned, and we can all sleep at nights with ease.

And you thought solving this problem was going to hard:)

Planet:)

Australia is a signatory to the Human Rights and one of the regulations is no one can be victimized.

As I see it our Governments and Welfare systems create situations whereas people are victimized by different regulations for different recipients.

An example which I relate to is I am a recipient of unemployment benefits and receive $497.50 a fortnight. Most of my benefits are paid to my mortgage and bills being electricity, telephone, council rates and water rates all of which I have to pay off in installments.
I have to make sure that I keep enough money for fares to go to my allocated job search provider and any interviews for positions of employment, to enable this I have to skip buying enough food to last the 2 weeks so towards the end of the fortnight often I don't eat for up to 4 days.

If I was a renter on welfare I would get rental assistance money on top of the unemployment benefits but because I have a mortgage I can't get the extra assistance.

At present I only pay the interest on my mortgage which takes $350 each fortnight and Telstra and Lumo Energy take $50 each a fortnight so as you can see I'm not left with much.

The bank would dearly love to foreclose on my mortgage and take my home evicting me into the street, which they will do if I miss a payment.

I want to work and earn an income again and by the above comment you will notice I have nothing money wise to spend on leisure items.
There would be many other welfare recipients experiencing the same problems as I.
Gyps

Gypsy not sure if you know about them but you could try http://olderworkers.com.au/

Your plight is one that's played on my mind for some time especially with the current cuts in Qld combined with CSA's concept of a capacity to earn.

" one of the regulations is no one can be victimized."

I think it's the very nature of government to victimise by both providi9ng unequal help and by applying unequal responsibility.

Almost every thing the government does (regardless of the political brand) involves unequal treatment of people.

I'm rather tired of that, I seem to have missed most of the special helps along the way yet keep paying for them for others and often others who are far better off financially than I am.

I'm tired of being taxed harder (and paying extra child support) when I take on extra hours because I need more money.

The downside of government trying to help some is that almost invariably comes at the expense of others often without any concern for their circumstances.

R0bert

While I accept much of what most posters say, the underlying issue is that being supported, while unemployed simply means, being actively seeking work and, being effected by illegal drugs does not fit the criteria

Perhaps in order to keep you all happy, we should change the definition of unemployment benefits.

Robert, I hear you loud and clear, the whole child support system, in my view, is run by man hating women, he'll bent on revenge.

Luckily, I don't have that problem, but I have many mates and associates who do.

Anyway, this is not the appropriate thread for this topic, but I hear you.

rechtub:"Perhaps in order to keep you all happy, we should change the definition of unemployment benefits."

Mate, you're the one who seems to be all hung up on definitions, I couldn't give a fig. Don't blame your own moral outrage at people who don't fit a particular definition of eligibility on us.

"Anyway, this is not the appropriate thread for this topic, but I hear you."

rehctub sorry but it's dominating my life so much that the ties don't need to be real strong to make it relevant for me. A bit of desperation to try and get those not impacted by the extremes of the system to understand just how much it hurts.

If you think the bit of your taxes that goes to drug effected people on welfare hurts it's nothing compared to how personal it gets when CSA gets it's teeth into you to hand over large amounts of money to an ex who is already well off and to add insult to injury not seeing any sign that the "child" benefits from that at all.

R0bert

Robert I have seen many friends go through it, and almost separated with my wife over it, as she simply does not agree with me and gets so emotional that she threatens to leave.

While many here on OLO talk about equality, why is it then that a child from a non custodial parent on say 100K, is provided with more than one on far less.

In my view it costs X amount to raise a child, not a percentage of ones income, and that in my view is where the system is failing.

Furthermore, I am a firm believer that all child support should be paid to a government agency, and either the custodian parent can claim their ligit expenses back through the likes of Medicare (with receipts), or, be issued with a special debit card which restricts certain items.

Either way, the system stinks amd makes it near on impossible for many to start again,and as usual, the kids are stuck in the middle.

Gypsy, you are obviously a worthy recipient of welfare and as such should have nothing to worry about, should this system be adopted.

I wish you well.

BTW, what is your profession. The reason I ask it that the mines employ many older folk, as they are generally reliable and very appreciative of their jobs.

Perhaps that's an option.

rechtub:"Gypsy, you are obviously a worthy recipient of welfare and as such should have nothing to worry about, should this system be adopted."

But if you could please make a special trip into our offices and wee into this cup, we would be grateful. Unfortunately we cannot compensate you for your travel at this time. By the way, god help you if your sample gets accidentally mixed up with the person just behind you in the 3 hour queue. Have a nice day :)

Of course you could always work for the mines, which would mean that if you wish to keep your house, you would have to rent it out to strangers while you move yourself to where their offices or worksites that employ older folk are. This won't be an imposition will it? It's just that your benefits state that you should be willing and ready to work. Anywhere.

Whether anyone thinks a welfare recipient "deserves" it or not, what about their kids?

We can't simply say that because you spend too much of this welfare money on alcohol, illicit drugs or cigarettes, you can't have it anymore.

It would be better to use food , clothing and grocery vouchers instead of providing all cash payments. .
Imagine the horrendous planning required for this sort of welfare though?

I really don't know what the answers are...

Gypsy, I won't be dragged into the old 'poor old me ' argument, but the fact is, welfare is a hand up, not a hand out.

BTW, i didnt tell you to head off to the mines, it was merely a suggestion. Furthermore, most mining compainies have huge staff numbers based in CBD's around the country.

Mining is not about the old pick and shovel these days.

Good luck to you though.

Suz, the solution in my view is very simple, as instead of issuing vouchers, a special debit card would do the trick.

Yo see vouchers can be cashed, eg, a $20 voucher can be given to a retailer in return for say $10-15 cash, whereas a debit card can only be used to buy goods and services and, restricted items, such as drugs (legal and illegal) and gambling can't be bought, nor can cash be withdrawn.

Unfortunately it won't happen, as governments know that a fair portion of their welfare payments, come back to them in the form of huge taxes. Gambling, tabacco alcohol

So if you take away the taxes that are redirected back in to welfare, there is a large hole that has to be plugged from somewhere. Like a dog chasing it's tail I am afraid.

But, as with most welfare abuse, it's always the kids who miss out.

With local government elections next week in NSW. I attended a candidates forum last night at the local community center. A Liberal candidate has the solution to unemployment. "THEY (the unemployed) SHOULD BE PUT TO WORK GOING AROUND THE LOCAL AREA CLEANING OUR WHEELIE BINS." The thing is the bloke was serious about it, a young person looking for a career can put it on their CV. WHEELIE BIN CLEANER. I asked what about 'them' being employed at picking up doggie do do's in the local park. I think he is taking that one on board.
What planet is this Liberal from?

Drug testing and treating welfare recipients like children that cannot make 'proper' decisions- do it for the kids.

For those who comply with the proper usage of Centrelink benefits, should be considered for higher payments and those that don't, stay on the basic support level. I think this will show to all customers, that a larger form of commitment shall be rewarded/personal additional income support contracts for approved customers.

The difference of more money or less will be entirely up to the individual.... call it, "THE DO IT RIGHT INCENTIVE SCHEME". and I believe others will follow.

Centrelink customer service personal know who walks through the doors and if the customer wishes to comply with the Drug and Alcohol testing while undergoing all benefit requirment...Finding/activly looking for work, proof of all income transactions, ect should be rewarded a higher payment, hence equally benefiting those that are parents with school and non schooling children.

40% of Australian Centrelink people are below the basic wage/the bread line and with the costs of living, only a small % are spoiling it for all of the greater caring good.

Overall, it gives the Government heads up of whats really going on.

Just a thought.

Planet3

Planet 3 I like that idea. Earlier this year I found casual employment working afternoon shift on a production line but unfortunately after 5 weeks the entire afternoon shift was made redundant.

Whilst working there each fortnight I submitted my Centre Link employment claim form declaring my earnings and rightly was not paid any welfare benefits while I earned an income.

Honesty is always the best policy especially when claiming benefits.

Hi Gypsy.

"Honesty is always the best policy especially when claiming benefits"...yes your quite right and this I believe should be rewarded. When centrelink customers are out in the wider community discussing "how much are you getting" strait way the question will be "how did you get it" however, not all will be happy about doing a urine test once a fortnight, but if one wants the extra income support, I believe the insights/incentives will speak for themselves.

I cant see any negatives, other than the costs of testing, but maybe other members can see more than I can.

Thanks and good luck with all that you do.

Planet3

PLANET3, I'm not opposed to the idea either.
I have always maintained its better to reward good behavior, than to punish bad.

Seriously, there are some real questions that need to be answered by our government.

They sit there on their high horse, spruking, 'how clever are we', full employment, low inflation, bla, bla, bla, yet, as gypsy has rightly pointed out, there are very few jobs out there.

Honestly, how can this be, as low unemployment usually means employees can pick and choose between jobs, as there are more jobs on offer than workers.

Someone is pulling the wool over our eyes if you ask me.

It's Saturday 1/10/2012 and in the last week I applied for a total of 15 job vacancies, 3 by phone and 12 by email.

Each of the jobs applied for by phone sounded positive at first and I thought would lead to an appointment for an interview for the position but on being asked 3 questions being,
1. my age, being 63
2. if I have my own reliable car to get me to work if successful,
3. where I reside, being Grantville, Victoria 3984
My application's were declined, reasons given, I need my own transport to get to work and they are looking to employ a person who resides local to the job.

I have not had any replies to the email applications as yet and doubt if I will as they nearly all state 'only successful applicants will be notified'.

I believe that the main problem employers find is my age being 63 years, but they are not allowed to use that as a reason to decline my application as that would be discrimination so they use transport and where I reside as a reason.

I have a car but it does not operate and will cost approximately $4,000 to get it back up and running.

Trying to exist on welfare benefits is proving to be an impossibility and I need and want to work where I can earn an affordable income again.

I am considering approaching Centre Link and enquire if I can get a loan to either purchase a car or have my vehicle repaired and get it up and running that way it will block the excuse employers use to decline my applications.

Apparently refugees can get up to $10,000 government welfare loan to purchase a motor car so why can't Australian people get the same if they have a relevant reason which I believe I do and possibly many other people on benefits in circumstances like mine.

I realize many people will be against that idea and there would be some which would exploit it if it is available. If that system was or is available and gets the unemployed back into work and off of benefits then it would be good not bad and each case should be decided on a persons individual criteria.

I would be interested to know the views of other people both for or against.

1. Your age, answer 63 reply OUT
2. Do you own a 'reliable' car to get to work? answer No I catch the bus. reply OUT
3. Where do you reside? answer Grantville, reply criminal, OUT, OUT, OUT.

Question 1 Is illegal to ask. The other 2 have noting to do with the job you are applying for.

4. Are you gay? answer Yes reply who let you in, OUT
5. Have you ever voted Labor? answer Yes once in 1963. reply: Oh God a communist, save us Lord from this evil doer. OUT NOW.

Employer "So hard to get good help these days, Hope you are all white out there...
Next."

I don't know what kind of so called employers these people are.

What kind of jobs have you been applying for. Doorman at National Action HQ.

Job adds for august were 160,000 down 7% on previous month. Age is the biggest item for senior cits. There are some employers out there like mcdonalds, bunnings, and check-outs.

Paul 1404, I know that to refuse someone anything in employment due to their age is discrimination and illegal.

Employers have found ways to get around that by asking for your residential address which you must provide, they can also ask your mode of transport to travel to get to work if they give you the position and hire you which you are obliged to answer, if you refuse to answer their questions it is highly unlikely they will hire you.

The final decision rests with the hirer and not the applicant.

I totally agree with what you say that their decision should only be based on if you can perform the job they have advertised as it would be expected if they hired you that you would arrive on time each day and carry out the duties they pay you to do.

Under the present system of today employers are able to hide any discrimination by questions that are not discriminatory and base their refusal to hire a person on other grounds.