Lindsay Mitchell: National's new welfare policies only raise more questions

National has announced a five point welfare plan that applies almost entirely to Jobseeker/Work Ready beneficiaries.

The first is random testing for drugs. According to MSD Minister Louise Upston:

“Under our policy, a first failed test will be recorded and a second failed test will trigger a clinical alcohol and drug assessment. Where someone then fails to meet their obligations, the normal sanctions regime will apply, which could include reductions to their benefit."

There are already thousands of people on benefits other than the Jobseeker/Work Ready benefit whose primary incapacity is substance abuse. These people are medically certified and do not have work obligations.

There isn't enough resource right now to address addiction. The wait time for drug and alcohol services is getting longer. So what happens after the newly proposed "clinical alcohol and drug assessment"? If a Jobseeker beneficiary is assessed with a substance abuse problem, won't he or she simply be moved onto a different benefit to await rehab?

But if drug-testing Jobseekers is a good idea, why not unemployed mothers on Sole Parent Support? Children need protection from the growing meth scourge. According to ESR, between 2015 and 2022 there were 20 infant deaths where meth was found in their system. It is safe to assume at least some - if not most - of those children would have had a parent on welfare.

In any case, why should anyone with a drug habit receive a cash benefit? At the very least they should be on an electronic money management card. Why should the taxpayer fund drug habits?

National has also announced that if a Jobseeker has been dependent for two of the last three years, their benefit rate will be reduced.

Fair enough. To get people off welfare we need to increase the margin between benefit incomes and earned incomes. But it is households with children where the margin is virtually non-existent. There is already a substantial margin between welfare and work for young, single and childless beneficiaries. Again, the policy seems ill-targeted.

Another part of the new plan is that Jobseekers will have their stand-down period extended from 13 to 26 weeks if they repeatedly "leave employment without good and sufficient reason."

If people repeatedly leave jobs for no good reason there should be no entitlement. The jobseeker benefit is a safety net - not an enabler to drop-out as and when it suits.

The last item I want to comment on is extending the residency qualification for a main benefit from two to five years.

This seems fairly pointless because currently, non-residents who don't qualify for main benefits can qualify for emergency benefits, for example, refugees. The consequence of this change will simply be a sharp increase in the number of people on an Emergency Benefit, which pays the same rate as a main benefit.

In conclusion, while sounding good in theory, it's a not a sound plan. It ignores the problem of inter-generational, sole parent driven dependency, and it will move people around in the benefit system rather than out of it.

Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator. This article was sourced HERE