Columns

Alec Dawson argues that they should; Hana Nyhof disagrees.

Alec:
 
Do you want your taxes to go towards someone’s next hit of drugs? Or would you rather it genuinely went towards helping people in need? Currently, welfare in New Zealand broadly works on the basis that if you are unemployed and looking for full-time work, you are eligible for government support from $126.92 a week for an 18-year old at home to $362.62 a week for a couple living together. My case is to make it a compulsory prerequisite for anyone on the unemployment benefit to be tested for regular use of drugs.
 
The first key reason for taking this measure is so that unemployed people cannot spend taxpayers’ money on their own drug use. The purpose of our welfare system is to provide people with the money they need to live. This purpose is hardly being served if the money is used to, firstly, break the law, and secondly, for recreational purposes not in any way necessary for living. This is particularly relevant in the case of people who are also supporting families, as it is crucial the money is spent on providing for children rather than on drugs.
 
Secondly, the unemployment benefit is provided for people as they are trying to look for work. If someone is a frequent drug user, this will most often give him or her a smaller chance of finding or keeping a job. If we can find out who is a regular user of drugs and is therefore struggling to find work, we would be able to direct them toward suitable rehabilitation programs and various methods to help them get out of the cycle of drug abuse, and therefore make it easier for them to hold down a job. If someone is seriously addicted to drugs, it may also qualify them for the sickness benefit.
 
Welfare is about helping people in need. If we force people on the benefit to take drug tests, not only will it help prevent taxpayer money from going towards drug dealers and fuelling addictions, it will also allow us to help people get out of the habit, and into a job.
 
Hana: 
 
We live in a country where our welfare system acts as a much-needed safety net for people in all walks of life and situations. The Invalid’s Benefit, Working for Families, superannuation, student allowances, interest-free student loans and, yes, the unemployment benefit – all welfare. The question of compulsory drug testing then becomes twofold: who do we test, and who are we actually helping?
 
To test everyone involved in a welfare system in New Zealand is, as Alec has realised, ridiculous. The cost in both money and time is too high, so is it OK to test only those on the unemployment benefit? Alec rightly points out that welfare is meant to provide the money people need to live. But are we testing where student allowances and course-related costs are spent? Are we checking that Working for Families money goes to children and not a new TV? We can’t check that everyone we give welfare to is spending it as we would like, so let’s just test the unemployed because they don’t have jobs and may be doing drugs. Right?
 
Wrong. To test only those on the unemployment benefit sends a very clear message: you are unemployed, so you are less able to make good decisions; hence, you’re probably on drugs. Think of everyone who needs help because they were made redundant at work, parents at home to support their children, recent school leavers struggling to find jobs – all of whom would now have an extra barrier of time, bureaucracy, and stigma between them and the help they need. 
 
And for those few who have been using their welfare benefits to support serious drug habits? It seems unlikely that they are simply waiting for someone in WINZ to notice and point them in the right direction. A more likely alternative is that, deprived of the benefit, they would turn to further lawlessness to sustain their lifestyles, which helps … nobody.
 
Welfare is about helping people in need. Compulsory drug testing only creates further barriers to assistance for those who deserve it and does nothing to change those who already value their drugged-up lifestyle over their jobs.