Media Release
DPB SLEIGHT-OF-HAND
Friday, October 27, 2006
Ministry of Social Development, David Benson-Pope, yesterday told National Radio host Mary Wilson, that 10,000 people moved off the DPB last month.
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says, "This has been expected for some time due to the In-Work payment becoming available to single parents who work a minimum of 20 hours per week from April 1."
"Unfortunately the Ministry of Social Development does not record whether the person leaving the DPB went on to receive an In-Work payment, which is administered by Inland Revenue. Neither does Inland Revenue record whether a person applying for an In-Work payment has just left benefit."
"Which begs the question, how does the government track the effect of its policies?"
"In essence people leaving DPB have moved from one form of welfare to another. Instead of being on a partial DPB they are on an In-Work payment. Both are funded by the taxpayer."
"The advantages are the 'former' beneficiary is better off financially and David Benson-Pope can claim a substantial drop in DPB numbers."
"This is no more than political sleight-of-hand."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Gloria, As astonished as I was when I heard it. Of course he is wrong but I double-checked the audio and he said "The DPB came down 10,000 in the last month".
Unless he is talking October and knows something we don't, he can't be right. Sept stats just came out showing in the past five years there hasn't been a drop of 10,000.
I always avoid comparing numbers within the year due to seasonal variation. December is always high.
Not quite sure what you mean in your second paragraph. The pool is quite fluid with around a third staying short-term, a further third moving on and off and the last third there almost permanently. So a group on it now weren't there in 2001 and vice versa.
And yes, good on those who are working part-time at least. I wasn't criticising them - just the govt.
Well, all I can say is that Lindsay's hasty press statement and gloria's comment - especially the second paragrah - are an indictment of our education system!
Of course the "10,000 fall" in DPB numbers must have been an error. If the numbers were falling by that much in just one month, there would be no-one left on DPB within a year!
Lindsay, you have engaged in a bit of sleight-of-hand yourself by neglecting to mention the advantage for "the taxpayer" when a DPB recipient gets a job and receives an In-Work benefit.
I don't know exactly how much the In-Work benefit is, but it must be a great deal less than the DPB. Therefore, for every DPB recipient who goes off benefit and receives the In-Work benefit, the burden on "the taxpayer" is substantially less. And, of course, there is one more taxpayer to share the burden.
Anon, it wasn't hasty. I well knew his claim could be a mistake. Then again, there should be a point at which the DPB numbers drop due to the In-Work payment. The other side of the story needs to be put. Benson-Pope should be exposed for not being on top of his portfolio and posing the question about why the govt isn't monitoring the effect of their policies is entirely justified.
I don't mind if you want to hold me up as an example of state education failure but lay off other commentors.
Anon 2, or whoever, there is no advantage to the taxpayer when someone already on a partial DPB moves to the In-Work payment. The ex-beneficiary gets more so the taxpayer pays more.
If someone can be encouraged to start working part-time because the In-Work payment gives them a better package than a partial DPB then good. But at the same time women in partnerships/marriages are being disincentivised to work part-time because their WFF payment will be abated as they earn.
The WFF policy (which includes the In-Work payment)operating on cash incentives theory, should see the same number of part-time hours worked and no increased productivity.
The In Work Payment is $60.00 a week. Coming of the DPB to recieve an In work payment wil only work if the beneficaries hours were increased or they were abated their benefit so that $60.00 or less was left.
The Minister clearly made a mistake with his 10,000 figure. More like 2000. Perhaps Lindsay, your media release could have been about the minister not being on top of his portfolio.
Gloria, you seen to forget that if a person works their accommodation supplement reduces or goes completely, as does any TAS payments, or disability allowance.
.. and I meant working thenselves off a benefit...
Post a Comment