(June 09 benefit data is used because the most recent HLFS data available is June 09.)
This is what I found;
No bloody correlation whatsoever.
So what is this chart telling me?
On the face of it, one would expect that where the unemployment rate is low, reliance on the Unemployment Benefit would also be low.
For example Nelson has low unemployment and a low ratio of dependency on Unemployment Benefit.
Northland, on the other hand, has a high rate of unemployment and a low ratio of dependency on Unemployment Benefit.
Or, expressed another way;
Nelson has low unemployment and a high ratio of dependency on other benefits.
Northland has a high rate of unemployment and a high ratio of dependency on other benefits.
Is it safe to conclude then, that people will rely on other benefits (SB, IB and DPB) regardless of the unemployment rate?
That is, anyway, what recent history tells us. We hit the lowest level of unemployment in the OECD at one point but reliance on other benefits was largely unchanged or growing.
The implication of this is very important. It seems obvious that people are on other benefits for other reasons. Granted. But when it comes to trying to tackle their dependency we are told, but there are no jobs so we can't do anything.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is committed to helping sole parents into work. We intend to change the work-testing rules to incentivise those parents to get a part-time job when their youngest child turns 6. However, I am committed to setting up domestic purposes beneficiaries to succeed, so we will hold off on making the changes until the economic conditions change and there are jobs for those people to be getting those sorts of opportunities.
But for many unemployment didn't cause their dependency and employment won't necessarily solve it. Many of these people are going to continue on benefits long term regardless.
BUT, Bennett is so hung up on what to do about existing beneficiaries that she is too distracted to think about how changing the rules would effect potential beneficiaries. Can't change the rules because there are no jobs for us to enforce new rules. Doesn't matter. Change the damn rules as a deterrent if nothing else. Change the rules in anticipation of an economic upturn. Get on with it or dependency will be allowed to just keep on growing.
3 comments:
Time to add a few other variables to your statistics Lindsay. How about some demographic data for instance? Or something about crime rates, child abuse, outstanding fines, substance dependency, use of methadon programs etc.
We know the outcome of course, but are not allowed to say it..
From a letter I received yesterday (been away) from Paula Bennett, dated 15 Oct in response to mine dated 3 Sep critical of state welfare:
"I think we all agree that children should be provided for, whatever their family situation. If we penalise the caregivers for moral reasons, I can only see this impacting upon the ability of the state to help the children of these caregivers.
The benefit system, including the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB), is designed to supply a level of income support to enable parents to provide for their children. Benefit entitlement is based upon a person's individual situation. I could not agree to withholding money from people looking after children. It is the children that would suffer from that type of decision.
You might be interested to know that the vast majority of DPB recipients are in fact sole parents who have been married or in a relationship and who have lost the support of their husbands or partners for a variety of reasons.
As the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I will be looking into solutions that assist people into getting off the DPB and into work. Our policies will support parents while also recognising the value of paid work."
Plenty there to pick up on. Personally, I believe it speaks volumes of Paula & the Nats, but little else.
@Sus: One can simply look to marriage and divorce statistics to debunk the last argument. Although there is no exact information on how not previously married separations, there are comparable numbers to work out how many DPB recipients actually come out of a relationship. This can of course be effectively doctored by the definition of "relationship" or "partner". If a one night-stand or some rolling in bike shed or behind the pub counts as 'relationship' I trust Bennett is correct.
Post a Comment