• Written by Alison Ritter, Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy, UNSW
Proponents and critics of drug testing welfare recipients are repeating the same arguments. Here's how to break the deadlock. from www.shutterstock.com

The proposal to drug test welfare recipients keeps on bouncing back. The most recent attempt, announced last week, is now the third proposal since 2017.

But the tenacity with which the government is pursuing this agenda reflects, not necessarily a fixed policy position, but rather a moral stance. And this moral stance conflicts with that of the proposals’ critics.

Are we doomed to countless repeats of the same policy proposal? Or, as the Australian Social Policy Conference heard in Sydney this week, can we use philosophical arguments to help break the deadlock?

Why are we seeing a similar policy proposal again, the third in recent years?.

What’s proposed?

These proposals are examples of welfare conditionality. In other words, welfare participants need to meet certain conditions or behave in certain ways to receive their payments.

Drug testing welfare recipients was originally proposed in 2017, failed to get support, then proposed again in 2018 and stalled in the Senate.

This third attempt has only very minor changes from the original two versions: additional testing for heroin and cocaine, and the removal of the requirement for welfare recipients to pay for positive test results.

These changes are part of the proposal to randomly drug test 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and Youth Allowance at three sites in NSW, Qld and WA. A positive drug test would lead to 24 months of income management.

Another positive test would lead to a medical assessment, and where indicated, rehabilitation, counselling or ongoing drug tests.


Read more: Income management doesn't work, so let's look at what does


The ‘pro testing’ philosophy

Three moral positions sit behind the proposal to drug test welfare recipients: contractualism, paternalism and communitarianism.

Contractualism says the relationship between citizens and the state should be based on reciprocal agreement, with mutual obligations. In other words, people who receive income support should be subject to conditions.

Paternalism enables those conditions to be ones where someone is protected from the consequences of their own poor decision-making (such as taking an illicit drug).


Read more: We don’t need no (moral) education? Five things you should learn about ethics


And this is morally justifiable in the communitarian sense of the importance of community solidarity and social cohesion. In other words, the collective good — however this may be defined but in this particular case the integrity of the social security system — is greater than any individual freedoms or rights to privacy, such as drug-taking. This communitarianism position does seem at odds with the government’s approach to individualism and freedoms in other areas.

This typical example, from the National Party’s Mark Coulton in 2018, reflects policy debate using paternalism, mutual obligation and communitarianism:

The community has the right to expect that taxpayer funded welfare payments are not being used to fund drug addiction.

Combining these three positions appears to give the proposal to drug test welfare recipients an unassailable moral foundation.

What do the critics say?

Critics of the proposals have outlined their concerns about drug testing welfare recipients in Senate submissions, and in the media.

Concerns have included the lack of evidence supporting a relationship between drug use and employment, not enough drug treatment programs, the costs associated with the proposal, and the view that it is punitive and discriminatory.


Read more: Drugs don't affect job seeking, so let's offer users help rather than take away their payments


The critics’ philosophy

While proponents of drug testing welfare recipients argue from the moral positions of contractualism, paternalism and communitarianism, critics come from a different philosophical standpoint.

Their arguments are largely focused on using evidence to argue the potential harms to testing outweigh the benefits. Philosophically speaking, this would be a consequentialist, utilitarian moral position.

Opponents also argue (for example, see submission 28) the proposal infringes human rights, which all Australians have a right to receive. This includes the right to social security, privacy, an adequate standard of living, and the right to equality and non-discrimination.


Read more: Drug testing welfare recipients raises questions about data profiling and discrimination


This can be seen in comments such as the following from the Greens’ Adam Bandt, also from 2018:

You don’t lift people out of poverty by taking away their rights.

And the following from Senate submissions:

There is no evidence drug testing of welfare recipients either improves employment outcomes or reduces harms associated with drug taking.

How could we shift the debate?

The proponents and the opponents effectively slide past each other given these fundamentally different moral positions. For example, no matter how much empirical data shows the harms outweigh the benefits (utilitarianism), the contractualism view does not see this as relevant.

It seems proposals to drug test welfare recipients may be here to stay unless there is a shift in the moral frames.


Read more: History, not harm, dictates why some drugs are legal and others aren't


This may mean the critics need to mount effective arguments against paternalism, contractualism and communitarianism.

For example, for paternalism to be ethical, we need to show it can be justified and can actually help someone. This is highly questionable with the drug testing proposal.

We can also argue whether the conditions for contractualism are met. Contractualism is built on the premise of fair reciprocity by both parties (both parties are entering into the “mutual obligation” contract as equals). Given the structural inequality experienced by people with drug problems (such as unequal access to education or health services) the conditions for fair reciprocity may not be met.

If critics are willing to tackle the moral underpinnings of the recent proposals, we may be able to speak to policy makers in a language (and philosophy) they understand. This is essential if we are to block this unjust and discriminatory policy.

Alison Ritter receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and conducts commissioned research regarding drug treatment for federal and state governments.

Authors: Alison Ritter, Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy, UNSW

Read more http://theconversation.com/how-philosophy-101-could-help-break-the-deadlock-over-drug-testing-job-seekers-123098

No, the extra hygiene precautions we're taking for COVID-19 won't weaken our immune systems

ShutterstockDuring the COVID-19 pandemic we’re constantly being reminded to practise good hygiene by frequently washing our hands and regularly cleaning the spaces where we live and work.These p...

Vasso Apostolopoulos, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research Partnerships, Victoria University - avatar Vasso Apostolopoulos, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research Partnerships, Victoria University

How to keep your contact lenses clean (and what can go wrong if you don't)

ShutterstockYou’re rushing and accidentally drop a contact lens on the bathroom floor. Should you:a) run it under the tap and pop it in?b) spit on it and do the same?c) use the cleaning solution...

Nicole Carnt, Scientia Senior Lecturer,  School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW, Sydney, UNSW - avatar Nicole Carnt, Scientia Senior Lecturer, School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW, Sydney, UNSW

Should all aged-care residents with COVID-19 be moved to hospital? Probably, but there are drawbacks too

COVID-19 is continuing to devastate Victorian aged-care homes, with 1,435 active cases now linked to the sector, and at least 130 residents having died.The question of whether to automatically move re...

Jed Montayre, Senior Lecturer (Nursing), Western Sydney University - avatar Jed Montayre, Senior Lecturer (Nursing), Western Sydney University

how New Zealand got rid of a virus that keeps spreading across the world

On SundaYour heading here, New Zealand will mark 100 days without community transmission of COVID-19.From the first known case imported into New Zealand on February 26 to the last case of community tr...

Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago - avatar Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago

INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT BUILT FOR EFFICIENCY

Delivering project outcomes on time and on budget comes down to two things: efficiency and effectiveness of resources utilised. This could not be more true for the mining & resources sector ...

News Company - avatar News Company

We need to Close the Gap on health. But even official dietary advice disadvantages Indigenous people

ShutterstockRecently announced Closing the Gap targets aim to improve the health and well-being of Indigenous people.But if that’s to happen, we need to provide health advice suitable for First ...

Odette Best, Professor, Nursing, University of Southern Queensland - avatar Odette Best, Professor, Nursing, University of Southern Queensland

How should I clean my cloth mask?

ShutterstockFace coverings, such as cloth masks, are mandatory for all Victorians and are being recommended for public use in some other parts of the country.Wearing a face covering helps prevent the ...

Brett Mitchell, Professor of Nursing, University of Newcastle - avatar Brett Mitchell, Professor of Nursing, University of Newcastle

why are Melbourne's COVID-19 numbers so stubbornly high?

Melburnians have now been wearing mandatory face coverings in public for two weeks. Yet Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday announced another grim milestone in Victoria’s second wave of COVID-19 in...

Erin Smith, Associate Professor in Disaster and Emergency Response, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University - avatar Erin Smith, Associate Professor in Disaster and Emergency Response, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University

Tested positive for COVID-19? Here's what happens next – and why day 5 is crucial

With cases of COVID-19 on the rise, many Australians are asking: what happens if I test positive? With no known cure and no vaccine, what are my treatment options?Finding trusted answers amid the wide...

Julian Elliott, Executive Director, National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, and Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University - avatar Julian Elliott, Executive Director, National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, and Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University



News Company Media Core

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion