Should Love Conquer Evidence in Policy‐Making? Challenges in Implementing Random Drug‐Testing of Welfare Recipients in Australia

Abstract

The Australian Government announced in its 2017 budget that it would trial random drug‐testing of recipients of the Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance in three locations from January 2018. The Prime Minister described it as a policy ‘based on love’, but that sentiment is hard to find in the policy rhetoric, which situates it in a suite of measures designed to ‘ensure taxpayers’ money is not being used to fund drug addictions which are creating significant barriers to employment'. The policy may make it harder for people to buy drugs with their welfare payments, through income management, but research suggests it will not help them overcome addiction and its costs will exceed any savings it generates in income support. Furthermore, the policy perpetuates ‘medicalisation’ of the problem of long‐term unemployment by suggesting it stems from deficiencies in individuals that can be ‘treated’, despite evidence to the contrary. Finally, the policy claims to close loopholes in enforcement of mutual obligation requirements without addressing structural weaknesses in the welfare‐to‐work model. Each of these issues will pose challenges for those charged with implementing the policy.

Moral framings in the Australian parliamentary debate on drug testing of welfare recipients

“…Despite this policy impasse, the proposal remains ‘on the political horizon’ (Ardill, 2019, p. 800). The tenacity with which the government has pursued this measure, and the unanimity with which drug policy experts contest it (Olney, 2018), makes it a case worth exploring. While other scholars have offered normative analysis of the practice of drug‐testing welfare recipients (Pérez‐Muñoz, 2017; Walker & Franklin, 2018), or offered their assessment of its likely effectiveness (Ardill, 2019; Bauld et al, 2012; Harris, 2010; Olney, 2018), here we instead empirically investigate the moral framings of welfare conditionality using the drug‐testing proposal as a case study.…”