you're reading...
Australian Politics, Civil Liberties, Families, Tony Abbott, Trish Corry, Welfare

The LNP’s agenda for welfare. A clarification of what drug testing really means.

drugs lnp

This is a follow on from my previous blog post Drug Testing and the LNP’s ongoing stigmatization of the poor. After quite a large ongoing debate on Twitter and in comments yesterday, I wanted to clarify some points.

Here is the link to the news story relating to the previous blog post. Now we have mandatory drug testing being flagged for people in receipt of unemployment benefits. For those who haven’t caught up yet.

There were many comments following my last blog post, including quite a debate on Twitter. I am writing to clarify some comments and also the reason I have concerns with this move by the Government.

To answer some of the questions – Have I been drug tested? Who cares? No one’s business. What is my personal experience with drugs? Who cares? No one’s business.  Why are you “Pro-Drugs?” Um… I’m not.

I have found these Questions on twitter and in comments a bit weird. I’ve copped some odd questions in the past 24 hours, from those who support the drug testing of recipients of unemployment benefits.

Amongst other reasons, my passion for writing this story comes from two incidents when I worked in recruitment years ago. As we know many sites do pre-employment drug testing. There were a few times where people failed and they gave heads up prior to the test. When you do work in recruitment, you learn not to judge people as the most unlikely stereotypes have come back with a negative screen. This is what the Government is trying to do. Maintain a discourse and public perception of stereotypes – negative stereotypes.

Two incidents remain with me. One was a young lad who was on injections for a psych disability. He was well managed and was already working and was looking for a better job. He was a suitable applicant and the employer liked him and asked for the pre-employment testing to be done. He said he had trouble before with tests and had a letter from the hospital. He came back positive for three drugs (one was not THC, which is the most common negative screen). I remember one was amphetamines. The employer refused to take him (although he did have a letter) and the biggest one of all was the tester at the lab (the head tester, as I’d asked to go to the top) specified there was no way of knowing if he was on illicit drugs as well as injections and medications for psych illness. So no support from the lab to give to the employer. The employer said, even if he could, it would never get through head office. He was not hired. He left dejected, but understood as he was already used to misconceptions about who he was and had already experienced this before.

The other incident was another person who returned positive for THC (marijuana) . He and his wife were in tears insisting they were good people and had never ever taken any drugs. They were visibly shocked. He said that the night before he had gone to a club and his friends were smoking in the toilets. He said he was not. He said he didn’t even have a drink as he was designated driver (there was a lot of anxiety going on at this time – as I said he was nearly in tears, his wife was in tears). Once again the employer wouldn’t take him. Once again, I approached the tester and once again the head tester and they said passive intake is like a million to one. Highly unlikely. I approached my manager. She told me not to be so naive and had a laugh. I had a gut feeling this man was telling the truth, but my hands were tied. I convinced the employer to allow him to take a follow up test. I think it was the next day or the day after, he come back with a negative screen and got the job. He was there for longer than I was at the recruitment company and feedback was always good. (I also followed up and asked my own doctor about this and my doctor did not agree with the lab tester and said that passive inhalation for a positive screen can occur.)

The reason why I am passionate about this, as I have worked across all types of recruitment, private labour hire, Government Job Search and disability employment. I have worked with all different types of employers and all different types of job seekers, and I have seen inequity and unfairness in recruitment & selection, including drug testing.  As you can see in both examples given, the testers only look at the screen and don’t support any other reasoning for why. It doesn’t measure frequency. THC can show up for up to two weeks to a month for regular user of marijuana.  People will have their income revoked if the same thing happens to them. People will have their income revoked, even if they didn’t purchase said drug, but participated in a ‘recreational’ or ‘experimental’ activity for the first time. They will have a record as a ‘drug addict’

My previous blog post isn’t about drugs. My blog post is about the Government setting down rules that are ideal to them of what is good behaviour and deviant behaviour from their viewpoint.

For those that missed the message of my previous blog post, let me clarify:

      • It is about shaping society to believe that people on welfare are the most prominent group of drug users (deviant behaviour).
      • It is about the Government convincing the public that people on welfare are indeed deviants who waste tax payer dollars.
      • It is about shaping public opinion of ‘deviates’ to further attack the welfare system, payments and social supports. (How well has this worked for the the Government, in opposition and now on Asylum seekers).
      • It is about the Government’s outlook to attack minority groups and disadvantaged groups and not support them.
      • It is about the Government’s focus on punitive measures rather than preventative or support measures.
      • It is about reducing welfare, but implementing a costly measure to target certain groups, to change public perception.
      • It is about the insincere approach to the problem, as it is about cutting benefits and not referral for treatment.
      • It is about the Government knowing that some people will not have the self-efficacy to fight against unfair treatment.
      • It is about implementing a measure that has the potential to be ‘private’ so the LNP will not ‘discuss ‘on-drugs’ matters” They will merely say “it is working”
      • It is about the further stigmatization of people with a disability, as Australian statistics show a high number of illicit drug users have a co-morbidity of mental illness.
      • It is about the Government’s attempt to permeate our country with neo-liberalist ideology. The main aim is to be hands off, to privatise, deregulate, remove Government supports and set an agenda that people are equal and free to form their own relationships and pave their own way. We know in society this is not true for all people. We know in society, there are those that need support and assistance.

For those who say false positives hardly ever happen. This is why my previous blog post, addresses false positives. They may not happen every time, but there is an abundance of research in this area to support that they do happen. My two examples show that false positives affect real people, affecting real lives. In one town, in Australia, over a period of six months. Imagine this occurring on a wider scale.

We can clearly see from this agenda is that there is a risk of innocent people being taken off income, unfairly. We can see that there will be people stigmatized through this testing. We can see that there will be people who do not have the self efficacy to use the complaints process (example 1) and some that do (example 2). We can see that the person who did not have the self efficacy to use the complaints process had a co-morbidity of mental illness.  There will be people without a co-morbidity of a mental illness, who also will not have the self efficacy to use the complaints process. Especially those who have had negative experiences in the past with raising complaints and some who feel it is too complicated or may be fearful it may hurt them in the future.

For those that say that “most people I know on welfare are on drugs” or “They sell drugs outside centrelink.” There are also many who do not take drugs and need benefits to survive. There may be drug dealers outside your centrelink, but I haven’t heard of that in my town. However, I was approached in the laundromat once. Maybe people who need to wash their king sized doona at the laundromat are all drug users….not!

Australian statistics show that of illicit drug users 24% cite unemployed as their labour force status. 76% of drug users take up the other labour force status groups.  More interesting is the stats on socio economic status, which have for the most recent illicit drug users is 15% average across all groups. This clearly states that the highest socio economic status has exactly the same use experience as those in the lowest and middle socio economic groups.  So for those already convinced that nearly all those on welfare are all on drugs. The facts do not support your delusions.

The biggest frustration I have found in the last 24 hours within this debate, was that ‘people are off Tony’, ‘the Liberals are on the nose’ but so many still do not get what this party is about. They still do not ‘get’ the agenda of this Government.

Things I predict we can look forward to, if this gets through:

        • Further reduction in monetary support for those on welfare
        • Further extension of unpaid labour not supported by the protections of minimum wage and workplace health and safety.
        • An extension to other welfare groups, pensions etc., to drug testing
        • A higher forced take up of the basics card or a shift to food stamps
        • An increase in crime
        • An increase in poverty
        • A move towards removing minimum wage (as so many unemployed could be employed if we removed this red tape)
        • A move towards removing fairness clauses in the fair work act
        • A move back to individual agreements and the abolishment of collective bargaining and awards.

and most importantly

      • It is a move towards pockets of society screaming about the scum of the earth drug addled welfare recipients and how Labor can’t control them and how the Liberals have them ‘under control’

Before you think this is just about controlling drug use for people on welfare, or to stop people on welfare wasting tax payer dollars; please consider the above points as part of a whole agenda.

That is it from me, but feel free to add any more. I hope this clarifies that I am not ‘Pro-Drugs’ I am “Anti-Stigmatization” “Anti-Neo-Liberalism” and “Pro-Fairness” and “Pro-Support”.


About trishcorry

I love to discuss Australian Politics. My key areas of interest are Welfare, Disadvantage, emotions in the workplace, organisational behaviour, stigma, leadership, women, unionism. I am pro-worker and anti-conservativism/Liberalism. You will find my blog posts written from a Laborist / Progressive Slant.


25 thoughts on “The LNP’s agenda for welfare. A clarification of what drug testing really means.

  1. Reblogged this on The Australian Independent Media Network and commented:

    A clarification to my previous post “Drug Testing and the LNP’s ongoing stigmatization of the poor”


    Posted by trishcorry | June 2, 2014, 8:32 am
  2. I don’t agree with this at all, and I think it could be very costly, are they random tests? Do we test everyone every month? Any assistance for people that are addicted to drugs or just cut of their benefits and let them starve?


    Posted by girlseule | June 2, 2014, 8:39 am
    • No parameters yet advised. Yesterday Andrews says not ruling it out, then this morning, he says not likely to go down that track. Basically, the agenda is to give a nominated relative income for one month until they can come ‘clean’ the same as was in NZ. It is also done in the states.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 2, 2014, 8:43 am
  3. Thank you so much for a well thought out article. Hopefully the voice of reason will continue to get louder in this country.


    Posted by Lea Slater | June 2, 2014, 9:46 am
  4. You’re quite right Trish, this is a demonization of those who receive welfare payments and an abuse of basic human rights.

    What’s next? Armbands or badges to be worn with a large P for pensioner or U for unemployed?

    It all so raises the question that if employees can be drug tested, will the same rules apply to employers? I think not.


    Posted by edward eastwood | June 2, 2014, 9:56 am
  5. If there are drug dealers outside Centrelink then that is a matter for the Police. This conflates unemployment with illicit drug use and they are two different things.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Junie | June 2, 2014, 11:03 am
    • What gets me is everyone thinks that unemployment benefits stretch that far to afford drugs in the first place, we have heard that those on NewStart have to survive on $35 a day, that is to put a roof over their heads, clothes food, medical and prescriptions, schooling and transport. Seeing the medium rental is $350 a week, unless you are sharing a house or flat you are $15 behind the 8 ball already, leaves a lot to buy drugs, those that do would be either selling or growing to support their habits and it isn’t 800,000 like this government would have you believe, a small minority yes, just like all walks of life, drugs are not just for the poor of society, how many sports stars have been caught out, TV personalities, politicians, high rollers, and the list goes on, it is social engineering on a grand scale to force a big divide between the haves and have nots pure and simple.

      Liked by 1 person

      Posted by CompletelyLost | June 2, 2014, 12:39 pm
  6. ” … you learn not to judge people as the most unlikely stereotypes have come back with a negative screen. This is what the Government is trying to do. Maintain a discourse and public perception of stereotypes – negative stereotypes.” Exactly. Just more on painting we pensioners as drains on the public purse – as for everyone else on any kind of ‘welfare’. TROWC are, to put it bluntly, obscene.


    Posted by M-R | June 2, 2014, 12:11 pm
  7. I found your article interesting although I don’t agree with all of it. However, I was disappointed by your writing skill – it reads like you were in a foul mood when you wrote, and you then posted it without proof-reading. For someone who worked in the recruitment industry, it is poorly written.


    Posted by Jan | June 2, 2014, 1:04 pm
    • Thanks Jan. I wrote it about an hour before work, this morning to tell the truth. However, I don’t see anything overwhelmingly horrid about the grammar or spelling. It is my blog and I could, if I wanted to, write as poorly as I like. Not sure if you think I need to meet some ‘media standard’ I do not. Thanks for being such a rude person. Please don’t come again.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 2, 2014, 1:26 pm
  8. Reblogged this on A Whole Lot Older, A Little Bit Wiser … and commented:
    Stigmatisation of the mentally ill – already a major problem in society is now an agenda item of the LNP as is their continuing stigmatisation of the unemployed, the poor and, indeed, any member of society who doesn’t swallow their self interested and materialistic mantra.


    Posted by mikisdad | June 2, 2014, 2:13 pm
  9. Trish, your comments are well on target and particularly that it is not the issue itself that is the major concern – though it is serious enough – but the over-arching or under-pinning agenda to all of the measures being suggested and actioned by this government.

    Their ploy of playing to the fears of the more conservative and mild mannered among the community is extremely obvious and yet easily swallowed.

    We need people such as yourself who are willing to speak out against the injustices perpetrated behind the screen of hypocrisy raised by Abbott and his like. I know how it is to receive the hate mail and even the “duh!” mail but if it is of any help, please know that your contributions are valued by those who are aware, care, and share. So thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Roger Hawcroft | June 2, 2014, 2:39 pm
  10. Word is that exemptions will be made for people who test positive for Penfold’s Grange and Cuban Cigars.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by diannaart | June 2, 2014, 3:54 pm
  11. I love how you write Trish, I think your articles are coherent, I also think you are doing
    A marvellous job helping folk in need in you new grass roots community, “love thy neighbour”
    I think we all need to remember, we are a society made up of people,
    and not just an economy made on money, at the expense of humans,
    and our environment and our living breathing earth, we call our bit Australia
    That suffers like the rest of living beings
    when ignored when it’s unwell, and will eventually die
    I thank you for your contribution to AIMN Trish 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by DanDark | June 3, 2014, 2:06 am
  12. Of course if your the PM’s right hand woman, you can be assured of avoiding a drink driving conviction. The rules and standards are there for “other” people.
    So where does it end? Welfare recipients shall not consume tobacco, alcohol, fast food or buy lotto tickets?
    Attendance of the state sponsored church shall be mandatory every Sunday and 10% of your welfare must be payed in tithe?
    All pregnancy’s whilst on welfare must be put up for adoption?
    Anyone still on welfare after 12 months must accept a job at Gina’s mines for the preferred $2/hour?
    It’s hard to put anything past this mob of ideological nut-bags.


    Posted by JustThink4Once | June 3, 2014, 8:17 am
  13. how about if you are on welfare you are not allowed to work and support your self…that sounds fair to me..

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Lawrence Corry | June 3, 2014, 11:09 pm


  1. Pingback: The LNP’s agenda for welfare. A clarification of what drug testing really means. | OzHouse - June 2, 2014

  2. Pingback: The LNP’s agenda for welfare. A clarification of what drug testing really means. | love2ascend.com - June 2, 2014

  3. Pingback: Let’s stop those welfare bludgers from breeding or Eugenics 101! | polyfeministix - January 1, 2015

  4. Pingback: House Music: Welfare Reform and Drug Testing | The Red Window - July 8, 2017

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trish Corry



I love to discuss Australian Politics. My key areas of interest are Welfare, Disadvantage, emotions in the workplace, organisational behaviour, stigma, leadership, women, unionism. I am pro-worker and anti-conservativism/Liberalism. You will find my blog posts written from a Laborist / Progressive Slant.

Personal Links

View Full Profile →

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,913 other subscribers

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: