Media Release
NATIONAL RETURN TO WORK-TESTING - A DUD
Wednesday 26th September 2007
National MP Judith Collins has signalled a return to DPB work-testing under a National government. DPB work-testing was removed by Labour in 2002.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says there are several weaknesses with this policy.
"When last in government National introduced a policy of work-testing DPB recipients. Single parents on the DPB were expected to be in part-time work or training when their youngest child turned six. But there are a number of problems with this policy."
"Firstly, many work-shy women pressured to get a job will simply look to add a new baby to their benefit. Statistics show around 5,000 babies are born onto an exisiting domestic purpose's benefit each year."
"Secondly, teenagers going onto the DPB usually miss out on finishing their education or gaining skills. By the time they face work-testing (never if they continue to grow their families) they have little to offer an employer."
"Thirdly, some women get on a training treadmill doing endless courses but never entering paid employment."
"Finally, the policy reinforces that it is completely legitimate to expect the taxpayer to fund childbearing and rearing indefinitely. Even a cap on funding for additional children will not solve the problem. Growing welfare-dependent families will simply get poorer."
In effect there is little between National's proposal and Labour's current approach, which is to require parents to re-enter the workforce as and when their family responsibilities allow. If National is serious about breaking the destructive cycle of intergenerational dependency it will have to do better than this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Out of interest, what would you do differently (specific to getting people off benefits into work?)
Your perceptive criticism all but suggests there is no solution for those already in the scheme. "The children will suffer" will kill most suggestions. Your postings on welfare give rise to the hope that you will think of something of merit that is workable.
spam said...
Out of interest, what would you do differently ?
Consider the "law of diminishing returns".
Of course the taxpayer should provide a decent level of benefit for the first child but after 5 years that benefit progressively reduces so that it is extinguished in the tenth year of that childs life.
If the father is named AND provides support to the State then the benefit carries on at the full rate until the child leaves school.
In the event of another child (mother still solo) the the same benefit should apply BUT AT HALF THE RATE unless the father pays support then at a full rate.
Should the solo mum have a third child then use ONE QUARTER etc. etc.
Always when the father pays support to the State the solo mum gets full benefit.
The Inland Revenue should process ALL of the benefit decisions.
Let the inevitable errors or injustices be handled by a QUITE SEPARATE government agency.
Post a Comment