David Benson-Pope says, "Smart jobs, not smart cards," and promises to release "milestone" figures tomorrow showing what a great job Labour are doing getting beneficiaries into work.
These will be the June 2006 quarter benefit figures. There may be a substantial drop in DPB numbers because single parents who were working part-time but still getting a partial benefit will have moved onto the Working For families In Work payment. Smoke and mirrors really. The In Work payment comes from the IRD whereas the partial DPB came from WINZ.
I asked the Ministry of Social Development how many would fall into this category as of April 1, 2006. Here's what the CE said;
"When a client exits benefit, Work and Income does not record whether that person went on to receive an In-Work payment. I am also advised that when a person applies for the In-Work payment, Inland revenue does not record whether the person has just left benefit."
So if the government is trumpeting a drop in DPB numbers numbers tomorrow bear this in mind.
Apart from which, National's proposal about smart cards was aimed at a completely different group of beneficiaries from those amenable to working. People on the DPB trying to find a balance or transition between child-minding and work aren't the problem. Benson-Pope is simply trying to take the heat off an underclass festering away under his governance. It's disgusting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Lindsay, I totally disagree with the WFF payment system, but one positive I do see is that some full-time DPB mums are now tempted to get a job because they will be so much better off financially than if they stay on the DPB. It must be better for their life and their kids if Mum is working at SOMETHING rather than nothing. The problem is that, of course, they are then earning way above market rates and may be tempted to pop another kid out when their youngest hits 16.
18 actually! And then they can transfer to "DPB Woman Alone" if over 50.
Now there's a thought. If the single parent had been a man what equivalent benefit could he go on? When John Mulgan wrote Man Alone I don't think he had state dependency in mind. Not on a benefit anyway!
18 is it? Well, that's worse than I thought. Anyway, once the kid goes, so do the WFF payments, I assume. Tax cuts, on the other hand, would offer a big incentive to up-skill and increase their income.
One unintended (I assume) consequence is that employers can avoid giving pay rises as there is no need to if the extra money effectively just goes back to the government. There is no pressure from an employee for increased income if they don't get to keep it. The employer then reaps the benefit of the WFF payment.
Bet H. Clark didn't see that one coming!
Sure enough Lindsay you were right that DBP would trumpet the DPB decreases as the biggest positive out of yesterday.
To the point that as he was questioned on other aspects of the figures including the fact that the *World* has seen decreases in beneficiaries over the past few years the DPB decreases were his main defence. Just a pity the interviewer hadn't read your column earlier...
Post a Comment