Just announced:
“Sole Parents spend on average 14 years on a benefit, but we know that tertiary education can significantly reduce the average time they spend on welfare so we’re making it as easy as possible for them to transition to study.
We knew a decrease in accommodation assistance was a disincentive for sole parents to move off a benefit and into study. This policy removes that barrier to higher education, encouraging more parents to take steps towards sustainable and rewarding employment.
“On average beneficiaries with a tertiary qualification spend six and a half years less on a benefit compared to those without, so supporting them into full time study is a good investment in their futures, and their children’s future,” Mrs Tolley says.
Using 14 years dependent on welfare as the bench mark makes it possible to sell this move as an 'investment'. But why not use NO time on a benefit as the ideal rather than seven and a half years? Why not set policy that encourages people to complete their education before having children?
Paula Bennett made reforms to the Training Incentive Allowance (slammed by the opposition) based on evidence from the Welfare Working Group:
For DPB clients, most Work and Income interventions used appear to have little effect; training interventions are a particular weakness. Fifty-one percent of DPB recipients participating in an intervention took the Training Incentive Allowance, which MSD found to have no effect on the time a beneficiary was likely to spend off benefit – in fact the study found there was a chance TIA slightly increased the average time spent on benefit. MSD did note there was a chance that TIA may have an unobserved long-term impact (after seven years) on time spent off benefit.
Essentially policy creates single parents then more policy is required to ensure they stay dependent for only seven and a half years. We're going backwards.
4 comments:
Until politicians embrace that quaint idea that individuals should be accountable for their actions then nothing will change.
The National Party is completely adrift from its founding principles and ideology.
Its only intent today, as emphasized by Paula Bennet's rhetoric and actions, is to manage socialism better than Labour.
I doubt there is one person in the party who actually gets it. Least of all the poll driven Textor sycophant John Key.
Where's NZ's Nigel Farage?
Its a pity Winston isn't up to it, there's never been a better opportunity for some time.
Winston? Winston is as much a bludger as the rest: what's National Party Super if not just yet more bludging --- and Winston's entire party exists simply to defend welfare for 50-80 year old codgers, just as the Labour party exists to defend welfare for kids, solo "mums" and DPB and dole bludgers and "intellectuals", Green for twenty-somethings and enviro-terrorists, and yeah, National for 30- and 40-something "Kiwi Battlers" in Auckland grotty sprawling suburbs?
Gee every demography of NZ's budgherdom has their own political party.
Who represents that 1/20 to 1/100 nett lifetime taxpayers --- the people who pay for everything for everyone else --- if we had a Constitution or a Republic, with "NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION" would be the only people who got to vote!
For a while in the late 80s and early 90s - in both Labour and National -- there were pollies who couplet least read a spreadsheet, who could at least do basic arithmetic (when I was a kid, taught at primary school, now I guess NCEA level 3).
There were politicians who understood that every cent of government spending did far more damage that if the money was simply thrown on a fire and burned!
How hard is it to understand that: 25 Billion Dole + 25 Billion Super + 25 Billion on government doctors + 25 Billion on government teachers = Misery + Communism?
How hard it is to understand that the only democratic, mathematical, logical, response to any government welfare spending whatsoever is immediate and irrevocable termination?
How hard is it to remember that these straightforward economic facts --- not options, not opinions, not policy settings, not choices, not policies, but facts --- were within living memory accepted by every political party who got more than 5% of the vote?
And now no one - not even ACT - has the guts to argue for political facts that should be taught in primary school.
I imagine the outcomes for the children of sole parents who achieve a tertiary qualification would be better than the outcomes of children of sole parents who don't.
Post a Comment