Mind who you call dropkicks
SOCIAL WELFARE
IS there an election coming up? Why else would the federal Liberal Party be resorting to their usual tactic of stigmatising a section of our community? If you believe them, you would think that the unemployed are just a bunch of druggie dropkicks who could easily get a job if only they would forgo their moral turpitude and get off the gear.
For all those advocates of mass drug screening, I like to quote an example. In the 1980s some bright spark in the British National Health Service decided to drugscreen all their resident medical officers. Thirty per cent tested positive for marijuana. Guess what? The NHS has never done a mass drug screening since.
Failing addicts
NOT often have I found myself agreeing with Senator Lambie but her position on drug-testing for welfare recipients is spot on. There is no point in identifying people with addictive behaviours unless the resources and programs are in place to support their attempts to break the incredibly destructive cycle. If you test without adequate treatment and support resources, then all you are doing is stigmatising and punishing, neither of which will do anything positive for anybody who is using drugs. There is indeed much to be said for independent politicians making a stand. the unemployed ( Mercury, September 13). It makes no mention of difficulties facing the unemployed, including insecure housing, mental health problems, difficulty with transport, and how those disadvantages may affect jobseekers’ ability to attend appointments. I suggest living on the miserable pittance of the dole for a year or so, with the constant threat of a robo-debt claim, and see if the attitude changes.
Where to next?
DRUG-testing welfare recipients may seem on the surface to have some merit if it encourages people to seek treatment for addiction. However, there are simply not enough drug and alcohol services to assist those suffering from a craving for drugs. The token drug and alcohol services are well over-stretched coping with patients in the mental health system whose illnesses are triggered by drugs and alcohol.
Who will do the testing? Where will those who fail the test go? What type of follow-up will people have? Will a failed test affect welfare payments? Recovery will be a long process requiring state-ofthe-art facilities and trained staff. Placing an under-funded and ineffectual treatment cart before the horse of drug-testing will be counter-productive and only create more distress in those facing hard times. now it is under pressure to write off the housing debts of other states. In striking her deal, Senator Lambie agreed to tax laws that will in the longer term benefit high-income taxpayers. On $200,000, her weekly tax cut will be $220 while the great majority get a cut of $20 or less — and the poorest taxpayers (under $37,000) get a tax cut of $5, a cup of coffee! Ms Lambie refused to support Labor/Green proposals to increase tax cuts to lower and middleincome earners and exclude high-income earners. Tens of billions that will go to the rich will be taken from funding needed by hospitals, aged care, schools and welfare.
The deal neglected welfare recipients such as those struggling on pensions or the unemployed on the grossly inadequate Newstart. Now it seems she is considering support for singling out Newstart recipients for drug-testing and a cashless welfare card. Senator Lambie likes to portray herself as representing the battlers. However, her recent decisions have not been in the best interests of the most needy, in fact, just the opposite.
Hard to swallow
APPARENTLY Scott Morrison told his fellow MPs they won the election because “we believe what Australians believe”. I’ll bet I’m not the only one who can’t swallow that. If it were true, people on Newstart would get a living allowance, very wealthy would not get more handouts, big business would pay its fair share of tax, education, health, and the environment would receive priority and politicians would answer questions. But of course anyone can believe anything if facts count for nothing.
Jim Heys South nipaluna/Hobart
Jacinda’s lesson lost
INTERESTING how Rebecca White goes to New Zealand to seek inspiration from Jacinda Ardern and then on her return announces she won’t work with minor parties, which is exactly what the NZ prime minister is doing. Does anybody else see the irony?
Aboriginal language at risk
TASMANIA’S history goes back thousands of years, to a time when Tasmanian Aborigines traversed this land, interacting with each other in their own language. A language that is being revived today. The Place Names Bill 2019 will empower Minister Guy Barnett to eliminate any semblance of the use of Aboriginal language in this state. A 200-yearold strategy being revisited.
No perks for me
I AM a pensioner. I do not get all the lurks and perks: free car, no registration, insurance, petrol and a chauffeur to drive me when needed. I can’t ask for a rise in pension either but I am grateful for what I have.
If only dump had happened ...
ALAS, it wasn’t meant to be (“Man arrested after bid to dump manure”, Mercury, September 10). Oh, to have heard Speaker Sue Hickey proclaim “The neighs have it, the neighs have it!” GPO Box 334, Hobart, Tas 7001
mercuryedletter@themercury.com.au (03) 6230 0711 Letters should be no more than 200 words. They must be signed and must include name and address for publication and a telephone number for verification. Letters to the Editor are submitted on condition that Davies Brothers Pty Ltd, as publishers of the Mercury, may edit and has the right to licence third parties to reproduce in electronic form and communicate these letters. Emails must be plain text and not contain any formatting or graphics. Quick Views letters should be less than 50 words.
MAIL: EMAIL: FAX: NO ATTACHMENTS.