We've had a pretty busy day thus far, and haven't had the chance to listen to a lot of radio. So we haven't heard much reaction to the Government's proposal to cut the benefits beneficiaries who are refusing drug tests rather than applying for work.
The Herald outlines the policy proposal:
The Prime Minister has defended the latest round of welfare reforms cutting the benefits of people who fail or refuse to take a drug test.The National-led Government says there are now no consequences for drug-takers who opt out of job applications when faced with a drug test.The details on new rules targeting beneficiaries who take drugs were being finalised by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett but could take effect in 2013.National's pre-election policy document said beneficiaries who did not apply for a job because a prospective employer asked them to take a drug test would have their benefit cancelled.Under new rules, a beneficiary that takes a drug test and fails it will also be sanctioned.Prime Minister John Key said on TVNZ's Breakfast today that tax payers should not be supporting drug-users who refuse jobs that involve drug testing."If we're paying you a benefit; your responsibility is to be work ready, and to be work ready means that you can go along and actually pass that drugs test.Otherwise we're sending completely that wrong message - we're actually condoning illegal behaviour.''Mr Key said this morning people would turn down jobs because they knew they would not pass a drug test."The young person will often say there's no point in sending me along. I know they drug test at those organisations; I will fail the test because I smoked marijuana on Saturday night. We're all meant to sit back and say 'well that's fine, we'll just carry on paying your benefit and everything is fine.'"Well I don't think that's acceptable to hard working Kiwis who are paying for that benefit,'' he said."Choosing to take drugs and expecting not to be work tested solely for that reason alone is unacceptable.''
We support this initiative, and it seems as though support will be widespread. The Herald is running a poll on the issue, and here are the current standings after more than 11,000 people have responded:
That's a pretty convincing margin, and we can't say that we're surprised. Whether or not people like it, the use of most "recreational" drugs is illegal in New Zealand. And most reasonable people will agree that spending benefit money on illegal drugs is not the intended purpose of that benefit money.
Parliament may well be in its two-week school holiday recess, but there has been very little adverse comment so far, either from parties within Parliament, or from the usual suspects outside the House. Maybe that is indicative of general approval for a policy direction that most people agree with, but which previous governments (note the use of the plural) have been too timid to even contemplate.
26 comments:
without doubt, it will be called bene bashing.
It is a great place to start in an effort to get the personal responsibilty message out there.
Firstly, this will not disadvantage true drug addicts who are nearly always on sickness benefit and are not work tested. The liberal bleating about putting emphasis on rehab, not punishment, therefore utter nonsense.
Secondly, there is every chance that this move will seriously disadvantage the gangs whose main income is from tinny houses and, of course, the benefit itself. Not only will they have fewer customers but, as most smoke their own Weed, they will fail the work-readiness test and lose the benefit
Frankly, I don't see a downside. It is most unlikely that someone will starve to death or turn to crime because they don't want to stop smoking cannabis.
"We support this initiative"
Really?? A National Party shill agrees wholeheartedly with the National Party! Colour me surprised.
This is just another insipid distraction which will be quietly forgotten, while Steven Joyce goes about doing favours for his chums on the taxpayers' dime. Actually, I wonder if one of his chums owns a drug-testing concern...
Anyway, it'll be expensive and difficult to administer and ineffective at doing whatever it is the government are claiming it will do.
Macdoctor's so wildly optimistic about this it's almost touching.
Read the new rules Judge:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/lighter-blogging-ahead-maybe-and-some.html
It took you less than ten words to start shooting the messenger. Stick to the topic without the abuse/terms of endearment and you will be fine. Wade i n with inflammatory language, and your comment will vanish like magic. It's your call.
Awwwww. That's a wee bit over-sensitive don't you think? Pointing out that you always agree with the National Party on everything hardly constitutes abuse. It's called telling the truth. It's your call on whether you delete comments that tell the truth, but it's hardly a credible position for you to adopt if you wish to maintain a veneer of objectivity.
As much as I find most of the National Party's policy platform insipid and weak, I think this is very good policy. It costs nothing to administer, since the cost of testing will be borne by prospective employers, and will save a few bucks by removing some of the real scumbags from the we,fare rolls.
Combine a "no junkies" rule for welfare with a "one child" DPB policy and the welfare budget ,ought just shrink to the point it doesn't sink the NZ economy!
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven... this blog post is nothing more than copy and paste PR, like 99% of the posts here. No idea whether the author is a top bloke or not, he remains anonymous, but the content is dire~!
Well spotted Euan; that's why the cut-and-pasted bit is indented and in italics; to show that it's a quote from somewhere else. And there's even a link to the source.
And yes; the author here is a darned fine bloke, who remains anonymous through a combination of choice and circumstance. But he always acknowledges the source of his postings, instead of pretending that they are his own work.
What a wonderful contribution Euan has made to today's discussion.
Perhaps, Euan, you might treat it like the television. Nobody forces you to watch shows you don't like - you can change the channel. In the same way, nobody forces you to read (much less comment on) Keeping Stock's contribution to the blogosphere! I do note you chose to make no comment about the actual topic of conversation.
Inv, do you have some sort of troll-trap in here? You seem to have more than your share.
Gannt Guy - you are correct - no one forces Euan to read this blog. No one forces him to comment on what he sees here. OTOH, no one forces you to read Euan's comment and no one forces you to criticize him for what he says.
You should practise what you preach, Mr Hypocrite.
@ Judge; it has nothing to do with being sensitive, nor is it aimed solely at you. I simply want to encourage people to debate the issue WITHOUT all the personal stuff. You wade in accusing people of being National Party shills; how about couching your approach differently.
And FWIW, I am NOT a member of the National Party. I joined briefly around the time of the 1999 election (like for about three months), but have not been a member of ANY political party otherwise since around 1980. And in fact I was a card-carrying member of the EPMU much more recently than I was a NP member, which I guess technically made me a member of the Labour Party; quelle horreur!
So KS. What personal story sees such biased and unbalanced one eyed love for the government and such personal and emotive dislike of the opposition? Who did something to you? Or was it a case of find god, then pull the ladder up behind you?
I just don't get why lefties such as our pick-a-name-at-random troll here has to ascribe malicious intentions to policies like this.
When I pitched up back at home after Uni, my Dad kicked my arse and made me treat the process of finding a job, as a job in itself. Great lesson it was, and I'll always be grateful for it, although my simpering lefty of a sister took 20 years and a talking to from me to stop bearing a grudge to our step-mother over "my treatment".
Sometimes people need a focused shove in the right direction to put them on track. I have doubts as to how far in that direction this will shove people, but right direction it surely is.
I think the change is actually not about drug testing beneficiaries but more specific: people who claim they can not find job and therefore in unemployment (job seeker) benefit will no longer be able to refuse a job because it requires them to undergo drug testing. If they undergo drug testing and fail, there will be consequence to that too (it is reasonable since the government can not be knowingly allow people to use illegal drugs on tax payer money).
So not everyone will be tested, only when there's a job and that job requires drug testing. If someone on unemployment benefit get a job that doesn't require drug testing, then no drug testing need to be done.
This will not solve the problem with unemployable druggies, but identifying them is a good start!
Well said Anon. Given that yours was a constructive comment, I'll overlook my new rule and let it stand anonymously.
This policy is a smokescreen for how inept this govt is and how dodgy its ministers are.
This sounds simple and logical until you look at individual cases. There appears to be a judgement that all drug addicts deliberately made a lifestyle choice and should be punished. Some questions:
-What research has been done to show what causes drug addiction? Many addicts have become so because of prescribed pain killers or other pathways for which they are only partially responsible.
-Should all smokers be denied benefits because of what they cost our health system?
-What about morbidly obese people, should we have to cover the costs related to their diabetes and heart operations?
-What about retired people who didn't save for their old age and didn't look after their health when they were younger?
-When we demand personal responsibility with drug addicts won't we be hypocritical if we don't apply the same principles to all other situations where people have limited their capacity to work through supposed life choices?
-What kinds or type of drugs are we talking about? Could someone lose their benefit because a trace of marijuana? Is this any different from a trace of alcohol, given that around 75% have tried the drug at some stage?
You make some valid points bsprout. However this policy is not intended to target drug addicts, most of whom would more likely be on sickness or invalid benefits. And the alcohol/tobacco analogy is a straw man; both are legal substances; most recreational drugs are not.
At my last place of employment, drug use was rife. Random drug tests were used, because much of the work involved heavy and dangerous machinery. The prevailing attitude of many staff was that if they got caught in a drug test it wasn't a problem, and they'd just go back on the dole, from which many of them had come.
We do some business with a local forestry contactor. He has a tough job getting staff, especially unskilled labour, even though Wanganui has above average unemployment. Part of the reason for that is that applicants shy away when he mentions drug testing. His business too has an element of danger, and there was recently a fatality in a gang from another contractor in town.
You and I pay the benefits of those who are out of work sprout. I'm assuming that like me, you are a community spirited chap, and that you have no problem in giving a helping hand to those in genuine need. However I am not happy that my taxes go on sanctioning drug use among those who are perfectly capable of getting a job but who place their drug-taking higher on the list of priorities than any sense of responsibility; are you?
"We will delete anonymous comments."
"I'll overlook my new rule and let it stand anonymously."
So it's a 'dynamic environment' at Keeping Stock, that favours those you agree with.
Excellent.
First day of the new rule Damocles. And in the best traditions of Robert Guyton and Judge Holden, you were very selective in your quote, even pretending that the sentence started with "I'll", which of course it didn't.
bsprout has overlooked the immediacy of this proposal to cast a wider net that suits his/her argument. This proposal requires that those on the unemployment benefit be available for work. If such availability requires them to undergo a drugs test, and they refuse or fail the test, then they have consciously not met the criteria for qualifying for the unemployment benefit in the first place.
Twenty or so years ago, the forestry industry in the town that I lived in became highly mechanised , a huge financial commitment for the principal contractors. This effectively removed almost all employees from the "forestry floor", the men with chainsaws and tape measures, chainmen, skidder drivers. The forestry industry would no longer run the risk of being liable for not eliminating a known dangerous practice in the workplace. The use of recreational drugs was too widespread amongst forestry workers for there to be any other viable solution. Hundreds of jobs disappeared, and the town shrank. Those who adopt bsprout's attitude to this proposal to enhance safety in the workplace are probably the same people who constantly ask "where are the jobs"?
All well and good and as politicians are the beneficiaries who receive the largest amount of tax payers money, they won't mind being drug tested too. I have a part time job, receive Income Support, I don't use drugs and I would love to know where are the jobs!
If the purpose of drug testing is provide an incentive to become work ready then it is a flawed concept. When paid work provides not much more than a benefit and in some regions there are few jobs available, all it will do is remove people from any support. If a beneficiary has dependent children then they will suffer too.
If it is a health and safety issue then testing should apply to more than just beneficiaries, like taxi drivers, doctors and lawyers. Recreational drug use isn't just an issue with beneficiaries and to only target that group means that they have fewer rights than other groups.
While a number of beneficiaries may have drug related issues that effect their ability to do a job, not all do and abuses of legal substances can provide greater impairments. This isn't a black and white issue.
Gordon Campbell supports my argument:
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/07/03/gordon-campbell-on-drug-testing-for-those-on-benefits/#more-2237
@bsprout
Does the proposal call for drugs testing for every beneficiary?
Presumably an unemployment beneficiary who may be required to undergo a drugs test to gain employment would need to be "clean" for several days prior to being tested. Assuming they do wish to be in paid employment then that would not seem an undue hardship, would it?
"When paid work provides not much more than a benefit.................. all it will do is remove people from any support."
You appear to be supporting beneficiaries choosing not to work.
" If a beneficiary has dependent children then they will suffer too."
You appear to support beneficiaries with dependent children using illicit substances. Really? Are these children then appearing in your 20% school failures because of poverty?
"If it is a health and safety issue then testing should apply to more than just beneficiaries, like taxi drivers, doctors and lawyers."
You are correct, it does apply to more than just beneficiaries. OSH will prosecute any employer where an accident is caused by an employee who fails a drugs test. This is because the employer has not taken every reasonable step to provide a safe workplace environment.
Taxi drivers, absolutely. Prosecutions apply to taxi drivers now who drive even using licit substances.
Doctors, absolutely.
Lawyers, not so much. OSH has little involvement where physical harm is unlikely. Lawyers are not likely to stay in business long if they are known substance abusers.
"Recreational drug use isn't just an issue with beneficiaries and to only target that group means that they have fewer rights than other groups."
Correct, and they are not, and they don't.
"While a number of beneficiaries may have drug related issues that effect their ability to do a job, not all do and abuses of legal substances can provide greater impairments."
Correct. Are you really trying to approve abuses of legal substances by beneficiaries? Or anybody else for that matter?
"This isn't a black and white issue.'
And yet you appear to be making it so.
If it is a health and safety issue then testing should apply to more than just beneficiaries, like taxi drivers, doctors and lawyers. Recreational drug use isn't just an issue with beneficiaries and to only target that group means that they have fewer rights than other groups.
That;s patently not the case bsprout, and to suggest that it is is disingenious at best. An ever-increasing number of employers now undertake random drug testing of staff, especially those who work in hazardous environments. Why has MUNZ resisted drug-testing of POAL employees who drive straddle cranes, do you think?
And as for citing Gordon Campbell as supporting your stance; he's hardly a neutral commentator now, is he. It would be a bit like me quoting David Farrar.
Post a Comment