Around the world an expanding array of behavioural conditions are being attached to social security payments. This paper offers empirical evidence of the various moral frames used in the welfare conditionality debate, by its supporters and detractors. We systematically analyse the debates in the Australian federal parliament in 2017 and 2018 on two bills attempting to introduce drug testing of working-age welfare recipients, each of which resulted in stalemate. We find that proponents of welfare conditionality primarily employed consequentialist and paternalist arguments, supplemented by social justice, contractualism and communitarianism whilst opponents primarily employed consequentialist and social justice arguments. We explore how proponents and opponents anticipated and engaged with each other's preferred moral frames. By investigating the normative lenses that underpin arguments made for and against the drug-testing proposal, we shed light on how the debate on drug testing might be moved beyond its current impasse.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚议会关于福利接受者药物检测辩论中的道德框架

在世界各地，越来越多的行为条件被附加到社会保障支付上。本文提供了支持者和反对者在福利条件辩论中使用的各种道德框架的经验证据。我们系统分析了 2017 年和 2018 年澳大利亚联邦议会关于两项试图对工作年龄福利领取者进行药物检测的法案的辩论，每一项法案都导致了僵局。我们发现福利条件的支持者主要使用后果论和家长主义论据，辅以社会正义、契约主义和社群主义，而反对者主要使用后果论和社会正义论据。我们探讨了支持者和反对者如何预期和参与彼此偏好的道德框架。