Malcolm Turnbull insists the Coalition's drug test policy for welfare recipients is motivated by "love". Credit:Peter Rae "If you love somebody who is addicted to drugs, then you would do everything you can to get them off drugs," he replied. "This is a policy that is based on love and a commitment to support Australians." Never mind that drug and alcohol, mental health and welfare experts have lined up to argue the policy is unlikely to help anyone overcome addiction. (Surprisingly, forcing people to seek treatment – if treatment is actually available – is not particularly successful.) Or the fact that according to the government's own figures, there is not a huge problem with substance abuse in the welfare system: just 2258 out of more than 700,000 Newstart recipients used drugs or alcohol as an excuse not to look for work last year.

None of that matters in the face of Turnbull's other justification. "Well, I think it's pretty obvious that welfare money should not be used to buy drugs." Indeed, while the drug test trial seems like the most wacky measure in the budget, it is straight out of the Coalition's "catch a bludger" playbook. From trying to get young people to wait six months for the dole (to prove they really need it), casting people as "leaners" (not "lifters"), cashless welfare card trials (to control how welfare is spent) and demerit points for those who don't comply with their job-seeking requirements, the take-home message is: hardworking taxpayers are being swindled by those who would rather sit at home eating Cheezels​ and watching reruns of The Golden Girls than join the rest of us behind a desk, checkout or tractor. Coupled with the frequent "whoa, Nelly!" refrain from government that the social security system is in the grip of a gnarly cost blowout, welfare recipients become the baddies of the budget papers. But the harsh words and the harsh measures – while grabbing headlines and stirring up easy outrage – don't necessarily stack up. At $164 billion, welfare is certainly the most costly thing in the budget. It currently makes up about 35 per cent of government spending and is projected to grow to 36.6 per cent by 2021. So it follows that it does (and should) come under scrutiny from those writing the cheques. But according to the Treasury's analysis, unemployment payments will be relatively stable over the next four years. The overall increase in cost is largely due to the ageing population, the full rollout of the NDIS and growth in childcare support.

And fraud in the system is officially minuscule: the Department of Human Services completed 1354 investigations into social security and welfare fraud in 2015-16, and referred just under 1000 to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. This compares with more than three million claims for payment. Meanwhile, the numbers of people on welfare are actually declining. As Australian National University professor Peter Whiteford​ notes, the proportion of the adult population that receives social security benefits has dropped over the last 20 years, from 34.1 per cent in 1996 to 27.5 per cent in 2016. Whiteford, the director of the ANU's Social Policy Institute, adds that when compared with other OECD (high income) countries, Australia is a low social spender. And is specifically low when it comes to unemployment payments. In 2014, Australia was the sixth lowest out of 35 when it came to welfare spending as a proportion of GDP, just ahead of Mexico and Chile and behind Estonia and Ireland. When it comes to unemployment benefits, we rank 17th. "The idea that we're really generous is a myth," Whiteford said. Alarm about unemployed people scamming from the taxpayer to pay for drugs or avoid an honest job is also at odds with the extremely low level of payment they receive.

Newstart currently sits at just $38 a day for a single person and hasn't been increased in real terms since 1994. There have been (unanswered) calls to raise the dole payment for so long they barely raise an eyebrow. Nevertheless, there is a persistent view among those who lobby the government on these matters that people on unemployment benefits should have enough to money to eat, catch the train to job interviews and have something to wear when they get there. Even the Business Council of Australia (that well known bastion of socialism and handouts) thinks it's too low. Of course there is room to better help people get a job and stay off welfare. But the government's many legitimate maneuverings in this space are totally obscured by smoke/fire policies like the drug test. If the Coalition is really interested in making love-based welfare policy, surely there are better places to start than a pathology lab.