Incapacity benefit growth and refusing to answer questions

There is some discussion at Kiwiblog regarding the reasons why the number of people on incapacity benefits is growing.

One commentor says Judith Collins should know what the breakdown of incapacity according to age etc is, due to the written questions she has asked. How glib. Questions are NOT ANSWERED.

For example;

11954 (2007). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (06 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to question for written answer 8800 (2007) what is the age breakdown, by year, of all recipients of the Sickness Benefit who have received that benefit for more than 12 months, listed by incapacity?

Hon David Benson-Pope (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I refer the Member to the quarterly benefit factsheets, which are publicly available on the Ministry’s website, www.msd.govt.nz.


The factsheets DO NOT provide this information.

I am unaware of any age specific breakdown but the tables below (left click to enlarge) clearly show where the growth areas are overall.

For both benefits the largest increases are for psychological or psychiatric conditions.

Separatism has no future

Why do some people persist with separatism as a principle for policy formation?

Why do we have a party based on race?

Isn't the above the best news about race relations in New Zealand?

Indefensible response

Good on National MP Judith Collins for pointing out that the number of young people on sickness and invalid's benefits has substantially increased under Labour.

To add weight to her argument, that this is a new trend under Labour, the number of Invalid Benefits paid to 15-19 year-olds in 1990 was 1,923 - just 11 fewer than in 2000.

In 1990 there were 1,889 15-19 year-olds receiving a sickness benefit. The number had dropped to 1,077 by 2000.

Conclusion: National has a better record than Labour in respect to the number of young people on incapacity benefits.

I am appalled by Ruth Dyson's reaction;

Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson was not concerned about the figures, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".

How can she justify that?

In 2001 there were 265,281 15-19 year-olds - by 2006 300,198 15-19 year-olds (Census counts).

That's a 13 percent rise over roughly the same period. Yet the growth in 15-19 year-olds on either a sickness or invalid benefit is 65 percent.

Can anybody else have a shot at explaining her response?

Bill Ralston on benefit debt

I read Bill Ralston's column today with a sense of bemusement. He chose the two things I had used to highlight how National are fiddling, to highlight where money could be saved for taxcuts. The $45,000 on TVs for prisoners and the $761 million of beneficiary debt.

This is the same Bill Ralston that used to host radio talkback. I well remember one day trying to start a conversation about how a welfare culture leads to crime. He made a sarcastic rejoinder that perhaps beneficiaries were committing crime because they weren't paid enough, and cut me off.

In today's column he writes;

Another fact that should make Helen Clark think twice about her handout strategy is the debt mountain in the Ministry of Social Development. More than 500 people are now employed by the MSD to try to control the $761 million of beneficiary debt. While it must be hard, at times, to get blood out of a stone, you do have to wonder about the competence of the MSD in failing so abysmally to manage its own affairs.

Here's a thought - that $761 million, if recovered, would make a nice start in tax cuts for people who work for a living.

Now there's a change in tune.

Apart from which, I am unsure how the $761 million, which is mostly being repaid through further benefit reductions, can be used for tax cuts. But then I am not an economist.

Attacking symptoms

National welfare spokesperson Judith Collins is worried about the amount of debt beneficiaries are getting into and the rising number of staff tasked to manage the problem.

Under National the problem wouldn't improve, it would get worse. Why do I say that?

One of the biggest contributors to debt accrual is sanctions. Under National policies more sanctions were imposed. For example benefit payments were reduced for non-compliance with work tests. Under Labour sanctions still apply but with full backdated reinstatement on compliance. This was done specifically to reduce indebtedness.

Work and Income operates like a bank. When clients need something extraordinary they apply for a grant or benefit advance. When their benefit won't cover costs they apply for extra hardship assistance. Some grants have to be repaid, others do not. Some debts arise out of overpayment. Some from fraud. The system drives the debt.

The debt problem has become this large because SO many people rely on Work and Income. But again, like spending $45,000 for TVs for prisoners, this is just a peripheral issue. It's a symptom of the problem. Again this is National attacking symptoms, not the condition.

Media Release
THIRD OF DPB PARENTS "NOT INTERESTED IN LOOKING FOR WORK"
Thursday, January 3, 2008

According to a recently published Ministry of Social Development report, one third of surveyed sole parents receiving the DPB expressed no interest in looking for work. The report, The 2002 Domestic Purposes and Widow's Benefit Reform: Evaluation Report also found that since the controversial removal of work testing in 2003, the 'exit rate' for recipients whose youngest child is 14 or older has dropped.

"There is no surprise that other factors associated with the fall in this group's exit rate (the rate at which people leave the benefit) included being a teenager when the oldest child was born, having already spent a large proportion of their time in the benefit system and being Maori or Pacific. What should worry the Ministry, " said welfare commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, "is the number of very young newcomers has not decreased. In September 1999 there were 2,687 18-19 year-olds on the DPB. By September 2007 the number had increased by 15 percent to 3,093. Additionally there are typically six or seven hundred 16 and 17 year-old teenage parents receiving the Emergency Maintenance Allowance at any given time."

"Most of the Work and Income's resources have been focussed on getting more amenable cases into work or training, Meanwhile nothing has been done to discourage the inflow of those mothers who will stay the longest in the system."

"Some case managers reported that the Personal Employment and Development Plans, which replaced work-testing, have made little impression on women who have been on the benefit for six to twelve years who use the new system 'to their advantage'. Others said that their clients showed no interest in keeping a copy of their plan or binned it on the way out. The report states, 'There was a general feeling among case managers that for many people, having a copy of their PDEP was not something they valued highly.' "

"While the number of sole parents on the DPB has dropped, the reasons are complex and may have little to do with the reforms. This is acknowledged by the authors of the report. The drop may be an effect of low unemployment, the Working for Families incentives and the ageing population. Certainly the removal of full-time work-testing for those with children aged fourteen or older has had a negative impact."

What next?

It just gets worse, this cacophonic clamouring for an accident-free utopia. Now we need courses in using ladders.

"What do you do for a living? I teach people how to climb ladders. Really. Does it take long? Oh you'd be surprised how long it can take when I am paid by the hour."

Accident Compensation is accident insurance. We pay our premiums, we have no choice. Pay out and spare us the lectures.

Petty politicking

Wouldn't it be refreshing if we got some serious analysis from National about the reasons why the prison toll continues to climb, our imprisonment rate is well above the average for the developed world and Maori are grossly over-represented.

It is hard to get excited about $45,000 being spent on TVs and Play Stations. This is just typical petty politicking.

If you study overseas research of the kind New Zealand has never undertaken, it is quite clear there are risk factors for becoming delinquent and ending up in prison. Once acknowledged, efforts to reduce them can begin. If similar research was conducted here I have no doubts the results would be similar.

I wonder about why NZ hasn't emulated international studies and can only conclude that those capable of conducting such research, those who could gain access to the information required, namely academics, are not inclined to. The conclusions would inevitably result in a focus on Maori and that would never do.

What we are sorely lacking is some Maori leadership brave enough to take it on themselves to try and understand the causes of crime beyond 'dislocation' and 'poverty'. Where is it?

Mr Status Quo

Well I may as well start the new year the way I intend to continue. I began the morning with a groan reading the DomPost. I even used the 'g' word which I always reprimand my children for. Say golly or gosh or goodness. But I had an excuse. The subject being John Key and his proclamations for New Zealand. How bad a prime minister is he going to be?

On maintaining the welfare state;

"It's not only the provision of welfare for people in need, it is a statement about who we are. That we don't have overt signs of poverty. That for all the frustrations we may have about the odd individual who might rip the system off we are prepared to back it because we look at New Zealand as a better country than those who don't have it."

"The vast bulk of core services will be delivered by the state and while we do want to introduce choice it is equally important that we deliver really well. So rather than a view that we say there is no role for the public health sector or we want to diminish that in some way, our view is to say we are frustrated by the fact that it is not delivering performance for what's being spent - so how do we fix it?"

It's all more of the same political claptrap we have heard from both Labour and National for donkeys. The problem isn't the state, it's just the way the state's doing things. A position not unlike that taken by those who maintain communism wasn't a problem, it was just the way it was implemented.

If National doesn't want to diminish the role of the public health sector then it doesn't want to boost the role of the private health sector. Status quo.

If National is prepared to tolerate the welfare state being ripped off and still back it then they are not interested in reform. Status quo.

There will be no fundamental change under National. The intergenerational welfare comatose, the crime it creates, the gap between poor Maori and the rest of society, the wretchedness of having to build more prisons to accommodate our high levels of violent crime, extraordinarily high rates of depression, addiction, and teenage pregnancy - do they matter?

I guess they don't because there are, according to Mr Key, no "overt signs of poverty". Perhaps he really does believe this is as good as it gets. I think that is the most charitable interpretation I can put on his words. In which case he really is Mr Status Quo.