Good move

NZ Herald

Good to see the government taking a strong line on drugged up beneficiaries, no doubt John Pagani will disagree with me at 11am:

Beneficiaries who refuse or fail drug tests while applying for jobs will have their welfare cut from mid-2013 under the Government’s next round of welfare reforms.

The National-led Government says there are now no consequences for drug-takers who opted out of job applications when faced with a drug test.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett told the Herald the new Welfare Reform Bill would have new requirements for drug testing, but the finer details were still being finalised.

National’s pre-election policy document said beneficiaries who did not apply for a job because a prospective employer asked them to take a drug test would have their benefit cancelled.

If they took the drug test and failed it, they would also be sanctioned.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Johnbronkhorst

    Under statement Cam…..It’s a GREAT move.

    • Jacob77712

      what about those on meds from their doctors some of these say you should not drive will their benefits be cut ?

  • tarkwin

    What took them so long?

  • gazzaw

    I know that you can’t place too much faith in the Horrid’s daily poll but with only 16% against the proposition labour/greens would be stupid to oppose it. Bring it on Paula!

    Would this be the end of the gravy train for Phil Ure?


    • Jacob77712

      the greens/ labour will form the next government in 2014 and red neck comments like this will be redundant

  • Michael

    why do we have to wait till mid 2013? 

  • Mully

    I heard scum list MP Ardern on the radio this morning bitching about it. “don’t know what it’s supposed to achieve”. Labour are so out of touch, it’s sad.

    • Johnbronkhorst

      Another labour mp that can’t see wahts in frnt of her nose.

      • Phronesis

        her teeth?

      • Johnbronkhorst

        In order to see their teeth (labour mp’s), you would first have to surgically remove their……feet!

      • Scanner

         Shearers cock.

    • thesorrow&thepity

      You watch Ardern on those breakfast shows & you can see she’s had her media training. She spent her early political days as one of the minions in Clarks office & represents the next generation of the sisterhood, another dangerous dogmatic Labour idea log just like that liberal revisionist megan woods!

      • thesorrow&thepity

        mmm f**king auto correct that was supposed to say ‘Labour ideologue”

      • Guest

        idle dog?

      • The Gantt Guy

        Nah, I don’t see Kim Kardshian as the next generation of the sisterhood. Say what you like about the Dear Leader and the 9 Long Years of Darkness, she wasn’t stupid. Evil genius is probably more applicable. Kim Kardashian doesn’t have the brains the good lord gave the average plastic pony. All she can do is giggle like an annoying schoolgirl and toss her mane about.

        She’s basically nothing more than an indoctri-bot. She can mouth the platitudes and party slogans well enough to fool most leftards (not that that’s any achievement) but without someone else giving her the words to say she’s completely lost.

        Which is why she regularly gets her arse handed to her by National’s pollies of similar vintage (notably Simon Bridges).

  • CJA

    See this is where I have a major issue with a number of people on the benefit. I have no problems with helping those that cannot help themselves, that’s why the benefit is there but I do have a major issue with people on the benefit spending their money on drugs and alcohol and then crying poor and there’s no jobs out there. That’s about choices and managing your own money.

  • James Gray

    Great idea. I don’t support WINZ making drug tests a condition for a benefit, but if they can’t work because of drugs, then they need to sort their shit out.

    If, on the other hand, they find someone who’s more than willing to hire them in their drugged up state (DJ on a progressive rock radio station?), then good luck to them.

  • Engineer

    Why do people keep saying “I don’t support WINZ making drug tests a condition for a benefit”?  What are they trying to say?;
    – Is the benifit paying to much such that people can take lots of drugs & booze?
    – Do they actaully support drugs use and still beleive that it harms no one? (in this case it harms the tax payer who get more money stolen)
    – Do they think it is OK for them to take lots of drugs so that they fry theire brains so can no longer work?

    I mean seriously what they are saying is that they are ok with the government to steal citizens money and give it to people who sit around taking illegal drugs.  That sounds like a fair and free society to me, not

    • James Gray

      I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, and I’d prefer that welfare not exist at all. Apart from the part about illegal drugs, it is not the proper role of government to regulate what people can put in to their own bodies. All of the above would be totally remedied if we just scrapped welfare.

      The government should not be prescriptive about anybody’s lifestyle.

      Aside from WINZ performing drug tests themselves costing extra money, these new rules mean the outcomes will be grounded in reality, i.e. Drugs = You can’t work = You get no money, rather than Drugs = You get no money, even if somebody proves to be an exception.

      • JimboBug

        It doesn’t necessarily follow that Drugs = You can’t work. What it says to me is that you aren’t necessarily at your most employable when you are on drugs and so can’t be actively looking for jobs to the same extent as when you are sober (and I include alcohol with the drugs line).

        I’m pro-legalisation of all drugs but would agree with this policy even if all drugs were legal – as it isn’t the beneficiary’s money but our money and so we should be able to dictate how it is spent.

  • BW_Lord

    Well the government may be on their own in this, according to stuff the ERA supports use of drugs in the workplace by default. Not just any workplace, but a working at heights construction zone, ridiculous.


    • Richard B.


    • James Gray

      I believe the point here is, sure he is a dumbass, but the degree of his offending (he had a tiny bit of pot mixed in with tobacco) was disproportionate to what he got.

      Of course that should be for the employer who’s paying his wages to decide, and nobody else.

      • Engineer

         Actually it sounds like legal crap, he could have turned up naked and shat on the scafolding whilst having his pot and still won as the company didn’t follow due process.  Another example of crap law.  Don’t get me started on the health and safety stuff.

  • Ford

    so is it ok for politicians and cops etc to go to work hungover..all doped up from the after effects of a night on the turps..what about them drinking a wine at  some posh luncheon/fuction..what excuses do you lot have for that

    • BW_Lord

      Well if they aren’t over the limit while driving then it isn’t illegal. Pretty straightforward.
      If it’s repeated and conflicting with their ability to do their job, then its the responsibility of their manager to sort that shit out. Same as anywhere else.

      Don’t know what you are getting at.

      • Ford

        tax payers pay their wages but its ok for them to indulge yet others have to be tested..i read an article the other week about armed offenders being called out to an event in taranaki?..14 of them had consumed alcohol in the previous 24 hungover..the shooter was said to be completely alcohol free but i dont believe that because it was specifically mentioned.. and who knows hat else they comsumed..but you dont mind that if they are shooting someone you deem a loser..ay?

    • Alloytoo

      To quote the article

      “AOS members are *volunteers* who perform their duties on top of their other police work. ”

      “The issue is when they are not paid an allowance but are expected to be available,” Mr O’Connor said.

      The article also didn’t say how much they had been drinking, note, it didn’t say they were drunk.

      The comparison is clearly spurious.

      Many people have a few toots at the end of the day and then find themselves required to do a little extra before going home.

      The vast majority didn’t show up for the interview, or workday drunk.

      • Ford

        volunteers to do AO work but still cops paid by the taxpayer  and i didnt say they were drunk..i said they had consumed alcohol within the previous 24 point being its ok for some and not others when their incomes come from the same source..the taxpayer

      • Alloytoo

        @Ford:disqus Your point is moot.
        The coppers have sold their labour for their right to enjoy a pint.
        They WORKED for it.

        Your comparison is disingenious at best, insulting at worst.

  • Mr_Blobby

    It should be all beneficiaries. Example one a solo mother who takes drugs is either spending money/time that should be spent on the children or is getting it for free in exchange for “fringe benefits.”In either case she has shown that she is not fit to be a parent, and the children should be taken away. Example 2 a sickness beneficiary like the gang member who can’t work because he is addicted to Dope and because of his violent demeanor has to be handled by a special remote unit. Who is somehow entitled to special grants for things like fencing for a swimming pool, tires for the car, and extra payments to pay off fines etc

    • Ford

      all beneficiaries including people paid by the taxpayer

      • Mr_Blobby

        Yes FORD, well done.There may be hope for you yet.

      • Ford

        including your beloved politicians

      • Karlos

        I see no reason why not, if they are taking illegal substances and they set the laws, there is an issue there.

        Drug test the lot of them.

        It has to help with the ‘war on drugs’, if people are scared to take drugs as they will lose their job and then not have the dole to fall back on, they may think twice before indulging.

      • adybombs

        Ford there is a big difference between working for government money and a beneficiary doing nothing for it 

  • Greg

    Ford, you really are a fucken retard aren’t you? I would argue your point re public servants but it would be wasted on someone as stupid as you. Better get used to taking a piss test to stay on the dole mate,you know, like the tax payer does so they can provide it for you.

    • Ford

      get back to work fuckface..i need my dole money next week so make sure you pay ya fucken taxes..fuckhead

  • Ford

    im guessing most of you lot probably havent even smoked a joint..while one should have experienced the stoned effect to have an inform should try mexican tripping can buy it over the counter in strengths of 15x..20x..25x and i think comes with a warning on the packet and has the words ‘visionary herb’ on the front..hallucinagenic? thats one heavy load of crap that should NOT be on the market

    • Tristanb

      Ahhh..  here’s the answer. I was wondering where all the illogical trolling and hatred of the police was coming from.

      You’re a fucked up druggie.

      The point is that the dole is paid by the taxpayer, to those who can’t work. This is done to help those in need. People receiving the dole need to show some reciprocity, and we don’t ask for much. I don’t mind paying the dole. Hell, if I could impose sensible restrictions I’d even want it to be a little bit more money (never ever as much as a job though, because that’s unfair).

      If you’re on the dole, you owe it to society to:
      1. Honestly and earnestly try to find work that you are capable of.
      2. When are offered a job, take the opportunity and do your best.
      3. Don’t commit crimes.
      4. Spend the money you get wisely. It is money others are giving you to look after yourself with. (Don’t waste it on a staffy-cross puppy, loose-leaf tobacco, lotto tickets, Sky, alcohol or smartphones.)
      5. Try to stay as healthy and well as you can. When you’re on the dole, you have something that many workers would pay a lot for: time. Use that time to stay fit. Don’t drink, or smoke, inject or snort drugs.
      6. Only have children if you can afford to pay for them with your own money.

      This is a social contract that people on the dole should have to agree with. In fact, it is implicit and unstated in anyone with morals who has ever had to temporarily go on a benefit.

      Other civil servants do a job which the government pays them for, then their time is their own. So if Winston wants to have a drink after work, why not – as long as he’s paying for it and the taxis, and it’s not affected work the next day.

      If a politician gets so wasted that they (to take a completely fictitious example) take a much younger teenage boy home to another politician’s house, try to rape him, and then get your mates to bully him into not pressing charges, then that person needs to be punished.

      If an employed graphic artist has a joint in the weekends, good for him. I don’t think that  should be  criminal offence – although cannabis is a dangerous and addictive drug that destroys the minds and spirits of many around our country. But this artist has a job, he pays taxes, so his time and money is his.

      We need to strongly enforce drug testing of beneficiaries – they can smoke all they want if they’re happy to live of their savings – but if they want to get our money, then they have to follow our rules. I’d love to see better options for treatment of cannabis addiction too, failure to comply after going through a cannabis cessation course should see that person lose their benefit.

      • Ronnie Chow

         Very well written . Can’t argue with that , Ford .

      • Ford

        the dole is for people who CAN work but are not currently employed..if one can NOT work they need to be on invalids or sickness..get it right..and you make some good points but i also note you’re ok with  politicians getting wasted all they like and paid by yourself..the taxpayer, but not benificaries but you pay for them as well..all rather hypocritical..and the topic is drugs not child sex

  • Greg

    I rest my case

  • Vlad

    Of course this is a good idea.  Like most of this Government’s initiatives, it is not aimed at punishment, as much as you would like it to be.  It is about helping people to turn around their lives.   If you are on the DPB and you might have more kids, we will offer you free and without compulsion, long-term contraception.  If you are out of work, we will remind you that you must give up the dope.  These are good and kind acts, this is a good and kind government. 

  • Ford

    beneficiary bashing by people who think they are superior to the less fortunate..beneficiaries are easy targets for insecure bullies who pick on other people to make themselves feel better about their own unhappy fucked up existance

    • Vlad

      I think you agree with me.

      • Ford

        welfare reforms do not bother me in the slightest..i know what my responsibilities  and obligations are and i dont need self righteous clowns telling me what i should and shouldnt be doing

    • Tristanb

       You say: “but i also note you’re ok with politicians getting wasted all they like and paid by yourself.”

      No. I’m not paying them to get wasted. I’m paying them to do their job in parliament (and I think we could manage with about 20 fewer of them!) They can do whatever they want in their own time. If they start messing up in parliament because they’re booze heads, then hopefully they get voted out.

      I’ll try to put this a slightly different way:
      – The government should be there to protect our freedoms.
      – Tax is taken from us to help ensure that the government can do this for us.
      – If we’re doing our own thing, not harming anyone else, then the government can fuck off.
      – If we’re harming someone else (burgling, assault, etc) then the government should step in and stop us, and keep others safe from us.

      If I go to the government and say: “Look mate, I’ve had a rough time, I’ve done some stupid things, lost my job, and I need some help.”

      The government should be within its right to reply: “Sure, we understand. It could happen to any of us, people make mistakes. We’ll give you something to tide you over for a while – but if I do this, if we spend money that others have entrusted us to make NZ a better place, I want you to knock off the weed.”

      Sounds fair to me.

      • Tristanb

         Sorry to reply to self, but I feel this is important:

        The government is not only within its right to demand that a beneficiary is not taking drugs, but has an obligation to those whose money they are spending (the taxpayer) to ensure that their money is not being wasted.

      • Phronesis

        Ford simply can’t understand the difference between being paid to do a job and being on a benefit.

  • adybombs

    As much as I like the idea behind this policy I have a fear it will backfire.  Given that those the policy is targeted at don’t give a shit and are probably already engaged in regular crime to support their drug habits they will probably just increase their criminal income to cover their living expenses as well as their drugs.  End result, the workers among us pay the same amount of tax and get more of our stuff nicked and pay higher insurance premiums.

  • James Robins