One in 10 jobseekers expected to fail drug test: department

Participants in the trial may also be forced to undergo expensive hair testing, despite the standards for measuring drug use through this method being in a "grey area".

Under the proposal, which the Coalition is trying for the third time to push through the Senate, 5000 people applying for Newstart and Youth Allowance at three trial sites across Australia will be randomly selected for drug testing.

If they fail the test, most of their Centrelink payments will be quarantined onto a Basics Card, which cannot be used outside of approved shops.

The government promised to set up a $10 million treatment fund to boost drug rehabilitation and support services at the trial sites in Mandurah in Western Australia, Logan in south-east Queensland and Canterbury-Bankstown in NSW.

Services Australia participation and supplementary payments branch manager Kath Paton told the Senate inquiry between 420 and 450 participants were expected to return a first positive.

"Between 90 and 120 people might return a second positive," Ms Paton said.

That accounts for 9 per cent and 2.4 per cent of people in the trial, respectively.

People who returned a second positive would then be referred onto a medical professional, she said.

But medical professionals slammed the trial as a waste of resources.

University of Tasmania clinical associate professor Adrian Reynolds said the trial was "fatally flawed in its design" and its results would be "unable to scientifically inform any national rollout".

That the government would push on with the trial in the face of strident opposition from people working in the drug and alcohol sector "sends a clear message that our government is not listening to those with relevant expertise", Associate Professor Reynolds said.

"Not only will this policy be a waste of scarce health resources - and we are desperate for more resources - it will reduce our ability to provide good care rather than enhance that good care because it will be wasteful, in our carefully considered opinion, so it could likely only add to the queue of those who are putting up their hand for voluntary drug and alcohol treatment," he said.

Australasian Therapeutic Communities Association board member Mark Ferry said each of their member clinics had waiting lists for residential treatment.

"There's not one that can say I can take someone tomorrow," Mr Ferry said.

"[The Noffs Foundation has] got two rehabs for 13 to 18 year olds, one here in Canberra and one in Sydney, total of 26 beds. We're full and we have a waiting list of people looking to get in so the misnomer that the treatment will be available with this $10 million, it's a bit of a furphy because there's already a massive queue for people seeking treatment."

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones from the Department of Addiction Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne said the trial "fails to recognise the nature of drug addiction, just as it fails to distinguish between individuals who use substances on a recreational basis and those who are truly dependent".

"A central characterisation of addiction includes the continued use of a substance despite severe adverse consequences," Dr Lloyd-Jones said.

"People struggling with addiction to alcohol or other substances often continue to use when they have lost everything - their job, their health, their families and their freedom."

Noffs Foundation chief executive Matt Noffs said his organisation would refuse to have anything to do with the program.

"We won't accept a dollar because ... it is a mechanism of punishment and we, at the Noffs Foundation do not want to be involved with it because of that, for that reason," Mr Noffs said.

Officials from the Department of Social Services and Services Australia also told the inquiry they were open to hair testing, despite concerns about its effectiveness.

Department of Social Services' social security stream deputy secretary Nathan Williamson said it was the government's "intention" to use saliva, urine and hair samples throughout the trial, although that would be "settled" through the procurement process.

But chairman of the Workplace Drug Testing Association, Darron Brien, told the hearing there was no current Australian standard for hair testing.

"Currently, there is an international guideline, however, there is no Australian standard. And accordingly, there's no accepted cutoff levels. So in other words, levels at which you might deem a sample to be positive or negative. So you're in a very grey, grey area there," Mr Brien said.

The Drug Testing Association's John De Mellow also said hair testing was far more expensive than urine or saliva testing, as there was no onsite screening - every sample had to be sent to the lab.

"On average for oral fluids and urine, you're looking at about between $100 and $150 for the full on site service. For the laboratory, you're looking at between $150 and $200 for urine and oral fluid. For the hair testing, it's more like a couple of hundred dollars or more," Mr De Mellow said.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert questioned why the department wanted to try hair testing when experts said it was not as effective.

"This is a trial and one of the reasons for it being a trial is to look at the different techniques in terms of the drug testing," Mr Williamson said.

"What evaluation process will you use? The same one you haven't used on the ice strategy?" Senator Siewert asked.

"I can't comment on the ice strategy senator," Mr Williamson said.

The committee is due to report back by next Thursday.