As I understand the proposal, if you fail the drug test, you get put onto the card. Even if you keep failing. It’s only if you refuse the test that you get cut off benefits.
So, why would anyone refuse. If you test positive you don’t lose your benefits, only go into the card. If you fail a second time, you get referred to Drug and Alcohol service providers.
And like Joe, I would have no objection to having my pension put on the card. I also rarely use cash, just a few dollars for grandkids school outings. Even the swimming pool takes eftpos these days. As do many of the market stall holders here. And the 20% cash component is certainly enough to use at farmers markets and to buy second hand goods if needed.

What puzzles me is why the government regards the cashless card trials as a success?
From what I heard, the running cost was high, and the card was causing the recipients huge inconvenience as not all shops accepted it - it couldn't even be used at Bunnings.

Did those issues get fixed as the trials progressed?

Aidan, from what I have heard from people living in the trial towns, specifically Kununurra, the card is a success. Far less public violence, far less hospital visits due to alcohol, far fewer domestics, more kids in school and more food bought at shops.
And even the recent article from the Drug and Alcohol service in Ceduna who claim that the card isn’t working because they still have the same number of clients, admit in that article that the level of intoxication in their clients is greatly reduced.
And it’s false to say Bunnings won’t accept the card. They even accept the Basic Card, which is far more restrictive. And I know that because Bunnings have a sign up saying they accept the Basic Card.
The cards can be used anywhere that has eftpos, unless they sell alcohol, and can be used like any other bank card. You can even do on line shopping from many stores, except eBay because alcohol is sold there. The debit card allows you to do Bpay as well.
The biggest complaints come from people who say their landlord won’t accept cash, which tells me that landlord is trying to avoid the ATO knowing how much money they get

SR,

Incredibly, I find myself agreeing with your first post.

Stop it!!

I see nothing wrong with making a drug test part of the qualification for being given the dole, but I do think it strange that refusers are not put on the same conditions as the druggies. Druggies should have their welfare reduced as they obviously can live on less than the full dole money. They should also be put on a police watch system, as they are probably getting money from some illegal system to pay for their habit.

I would find a lack of cash an inconvenience, as I use it as my budgeting system. I put an amount, with a little more into a separate account each month to pay by f post all my regular costs, rates electricity, insurances registrations etc. I then give myself a certain amount of cash for daily expenses. This is fixed, & if I run out I stop spending. The rest stays in my main account for serious expenses like that new Ferrari I need to buy.

I find it relaxing to know my major expenses are covered, & I can fritter anything in my wallet.

Dear Steelie,

I watched Scott Morrison being interviewed by Leigh Sales
on the "7.30 Report" the other evening over this.
She asked if this was an attempt on the government's
part (money grab) of saving money at the expense
and health issues of people with addictions?
And the suggestion was that there must be a better way to
handle this matter instead of being so punitive.

It was also pointed out that this is not the first time
such a proposal has been brought forward by a Coalition
Government - with the idea first tabled in the 2017
budget.

This proposal has been soundly criticised by both doctors,
the medical profession, and social service groups who
have made it quite clear that this proposal would NOT
help people with addictions.

These warnings were again aired with Prof. Nadine Ezard,
clinical director of St. Vincent's Sydney's Alcohol and
Drug Unit, describing it as a "dead-end strategy".

"We're against it because our expertise and experience tells
us this is not the way to help people into treatment,"
Ezard said.

"In the face of such overwhelming and universal opposition
why is the government persisting? It's hard not to conclude
that this trial is not about helping people at all but
about making a political point".