Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Welfare reforms a re-hash

WELFARE REFORMS A RE-HASH
Tuesday, 23 March, 2010

The National Government's welfare reforms aimed at reducing the cycle of welfare dependency and branded as Future Focus, have either been tried before or are a continuation of current practice dressed up as a new approach, according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"For instance, the Minister is promising a redesigned medical certificate for sickness and invalid beneficiaries but the current certificate was only redesigned in September 2007 as part of the Working New Zealand: Work-Focused Support Programme. Additionally we are told that applicants for the invalid's benefit who are expected to be able to work part-time in the next two years will instead receive a sickness benefit. That is the existing criteria for eligibility."

"Work-testing the DPB when the youngest child turns 6 has been tried before and resulted in a mere 2.7 percent drop in numbers on the DPB over the period it was in force. According to the Ministry a single parent with two children living in Auckland receives 14 percent more per week than someone on the minimum wage working full-time. That provides a significant incentive to avoid work-testing by ensuring the youngest child is never older than 5. So if the birth rate of welfare dependent mothers increases this policy is more likely to increase the cycle of welfare dependence. That is because children raised on a benefit are more likely to become beneficiaries themselves."

"Finally making people reapply for the dole after 1 year is not a bad idea by any means. But 84 percent of unemployment beneficiaries don't even reach a year. The unemployment benefit is not the problem when it comes to intergenerational welfare dependence."

"Where people are capable of working - and a majority are - the government should be making welfare strictly temporary assistance. That was what the original architects of welfare intended."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Seems harsh to me, just like in the 90's, from National. Lindsay, there are stuff all jobs out there, and loads of applicants. Do we want to have people in abject poverty?

Lindsay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lindsay said...

The only way someone will be left without any support is if they turn down work. In the case of a DPB beneficiary that entails 3 hours a day while the children are at school. What's harsh about that?

There are the chronic and growing shortages of labour in the aged, disability and pre-school care sector while 43,000 parents on the DPB whose youngest children go to school during the day still being paid to provide full-time care for them. Makes no sense.

And it's not like the 90s, when National cut benefit levels (which I wouldn't support). They haven't done that. They are allowing people to earn more before abatement and enshrining cost of living increases in legislation.

Anonymous said...

I asked a twelve year old boy if he wanted to earn some cash mowing my postage stamp size lawn (mower supplied) for ten bucks. "Twenty" he replied suggesting to me he wouldnt get out of bed for ten bucks.

Did it myself and spent the bucks on cold beer.

Dirk

Anonymous said...

tell your boss roger douglas to pay back his travel allowance and stop bludging on my taxes which i resent paying for any act member of parliament

Lindsay said...

He isn't my boss anon. And I resent the perks too - across the board.