In 2003, then Minister for Social Development Steve Maharey outlined his vision for people on the DPB. Labour was scrapping work-testing (which National says it will soon re-introduce) in favour of 'enhanced case management'. According to the Minister;
Work and Income will be doing more to help sole parents into work with changes to legislation that comes into effect this month, says Social Services and Employment Minister Steve Maharey.
The Social Security (Personal Development and Employment) Amendment Act, which comes into effect on 10 March 2003, delivers on government promises to develop a social security system that responds better to the needs of individuals and their families.
“The legislation abolishes the arbitrary work test on sole parents receiving the Domestic Purposes or Widows Benefits. Currently 19% or 21,924 are subjected to a work test requirement to seek part or full-time work because of the age of their youngest child.
“As a result of the change all people receiving the DPB, Widows or Emergency Maintenance Allowance will receive enhanced case management to help them in training and work planning for their future.
“All 118,098 in the three benefit groups will be required to work with their case manager to develop and implement a Personal Development and Employment Plan. The plan will outline personal development, training and employment goals and the action points required to reach those goals.
I asked MSD how many beneficiaries had a PDEP. By June 2009 the grand total was 35,161. Of those 24,096 were on the DPB. Only 23 percent of all DPB recipients. If you are thinking that the policy had been abandoned because of a change in government, hence the low number, you are wrong. 66 percent had been implemented between June 2007 and June 2008 and the remainder over the next 12 months.
The interesting thing is that only 17 people on the DPB who had a PDEP had had it put in place 3 or more years ago. Which may indicate that 1/ The plans do motivate people to move off a benefit or 2/ The ministry's record keeping is suspect.
If it is the first, no surprise. Around a third of people on the DPB are motivated to get off it. They would probably do so with or without the plan. It is easy for case managers to work with this group.
But what about the rest???
At the time of Maharey's press release there were 108,000 on the DPB.
Now there are .... 108,000 on the DPB.
5 comments:
and with one simple reform we could have zero on the DPB
zero on the Dole
zero on the Sickness
zero on WFF
zero on Super
and the government paying back its debts, rather than racking up billions every month
Anonymous, if you feel so strongly about this why do you not have the courage of your convictions and use you real full name?
There would be a lot more civility on blogs if people used their own names.
Blogs are very useful for exploring ideas. Sometimes one finds there are flaws in one’s theories.
Maybe if you used your name more than 0.05% of the voters would agree with you.
I don't believe Maharey had ever any intention to reform the welfare state.
He, as many other politicians, had only lofty words to say about it; but his inaction spoke louder.
He's now back in academia, looking at the world from an ivory tower and preparing himself to inflict more damage on NZ if the opportunity arises.
Maybe if you used your name more than 0.05% of the voters would agree with you.
Half the voters pay no tax.
Of the other half - 20% of them pay more than half the tax take.
I really don't care what any percentages of voters think. That voters have a veto over policy is the key problem that must be overcome.
“I really don't care what any percentages of voters think. That voters have a veto over policy is the key problem that must be overcome.”
Anonymous, democracy may not be the best system but I have yet to see a better alternative. As I said in my earlier post, if you feel so strongly about this why do you not have the courage of your convictions and use you real full name?
Your post seems very much the same as the anonymous blogger with the first name James. You would not be one and the same would you?
Post a Comment