Pubdate: Tue, 04 Sep 2012
Source: Marlborough Express (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2012 Independent Newspapers Limited
Contact:  http://www.marlboroughexpress.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1139

WHAT ARE THE REAL COSTS?

The Government last month signalled that beneficiaries who refused or 
failed drug tests while applying for jobs would have their payments 
cut, consistent with a National election commitment.

Finance Minister Bill English told TVNZ's Q&A many jobs available to 
younger people in his electorate were in forestry and the 
meat-processing industry. But employers had told him they often 
couldn't hire young local people "because they can't pass a drug 
test", and a Work and Income job seminar found 18 per cent of 74 
job-seekers would fail a drug test.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett last week fleshed out the 
policy, to take effect in April next year.

An unemployment beneficiary who fails a drug test or doesn't apply 
for a drug-tested job will be given an official warning and 30 days 
to clean their systems. A second failure will result in benefits 
being cancelled, to be reinstated only for those who are clean a month later.

Beneficiaries on prescribed medication will be exempted; those who 
are drug-addicted will be given help.

None of this seems unreasonable. The policy does not entail random 
drug testing of all beneficiaries. It will penalise those who shy 
away from work they could do if they were drug-free.

The Council of Trade Unions, brandishing the Official Information 
Act, tried to winkle out all Social Development Ministry advice, 
briefings, papers or reports in the past 12 months dealing with 
employers' complaints about beneficiaries failing drug tests. None 
were to be found. Council president Helen Kelly accused the 
Government of beneficiary bashing "on nothing more than anecdotal 
evidence at best".

Radio New Zealand did obtain a document relevant to the new policy, a 
memo from the Health Ministry. It said the move could have a dubious 
effect on people's health and overall welfare, and noted that 
beneficiaries who used drugs recreationally could overstate their use 
to prevent their benefits being cut. More troubling, it advised that 
cutting benefits for job seekers who failed drug tests might cost up 
to $14 million a year, twice the sum the Government hopes to save.

The Government must reassure us those figures are wrong. Crackdowns 
on welfare spending are sure vote-winners. But they are best 
abandoned if they bring responsible economic management into question.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom