Edited 10 Sep 2017 18:14, 4 years ago, edited by don_dunstan

I support this provided the cost of testing doesn't greatly outweigh the benefit. I'm guessing a large testing programme would be quite expensive. The thing is, our unproductive government bureaucracies are already too big. If the state can recoup or nearly recoup the costs of testing by cutting off payments to those who test positive, fine, but I have my doubts.

It's an incredibly expensive program designed to make it appear that they're "tough on those bludgers" when in reality it will cost a fortune - up to $30,000 per participant) and probably deliver nothing. Sending tens of thousands of welfare recipients for a proper pathology screening will cost hundreds of millions to begin with - I can already hear people like Dorevitch and Clinpath clapping their hands together with glee at the prospect of all that government money flowing into their coffers.

Nobody will lose their benefit if they test positive - they will be forced onto income management card where 80% of their benefit gets paid onto a "Basics Card" which can only be used for things like groceries and rent. Participants are also mandated to go to drug & alcohol counselling and medical services etc. I can tell you now that a Basics Card will be absolutely no deterrent to a lot of drug-addled welfare recipients, they will find ways around it. And it's no good trying to force people into counselling who (on the whole) will not want to stop their drug or alcohol abuse because of their situation - they just won't listen.

Between 2011-2016 the number of people on unemployment benefits in the City of Playford (SA) increased by 2,200 people; it's no good telling those people in the fringe ghettos that if they're clean and sober they'll get jobs. The jobs are simply not there to be had - not in those locations anyway.