Bear with me while I go back in time. The relevance will become apparent.
In 2011 work was undertaken on behalf of the
Department of Labour (now the
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment or
MBIE) which involved matching data from the
Household Labour Force Survey or
HLFS (the official source of our unemployment rate) and
Ministry of Social Development benefit data.
If individuals on the
HLFS also receiving a benefit were providing accurate information to both departments -
Statistics New Zealand and
MSD - the data should provide no surprises, right?
Wrong.
The major finding of the paper was that,
"About 40% of people on work-tested benefits may not be meeting their labour market obligations, as they appear to be either working too much or searching too little."
Despite being expected to maintain an
"unrelenting focus" on getting work - as prescribed by law - 1 in 3 unemployment beneficiaries reported to the
HLFS no job search activity in the past 4 weeks; 1 in 5 reported
no job search activity and
no intention to seek work in the next year.
At the other end of the spectrum,
"1 in 10 people being paid an unemployment benefit report to the HLFS that they are working more than 30 hours per week."
"The inter-temporal pattern suggests that as the unemployment benefit numbers decline in good times, the overall stock of unemployment beneficiaries contains a larger proportion of people who are not really seeking work. When unemployment numbers rise in bad times, there are a higher proportion of genuine job seekers among the stock of unemployment beneficiaries."
So 10 percent of people claiming an unemployment benefit were working full-time (a further check against PAYE records showed 4% earned in excess of $2,000 in the reference month); a third hadn't fulfilled their obligations to look for a job in the past month; and a fifth had no intention of looking for a job. That's what the beneficiaries told the interviewer from
Statistics New Zealand anyway. What motivation would they have to lie? None that occurs to me. Though they could be motivated to lie to
MSD in order to continue to receive benefit money.
Now here's the odd thing. The findings were never released.
The existence of the research only became known to me when the author referenced* it in a later publication. He did so because he believed the paper had been published. He left the
Department of Labour after completion understanding that the paper merely required a ministerial briefing then would be made public. For that reason (and because the taxpayer had funded the work, he said) the author supported my application to the Ombudsman to compel
MBIE to release the paper after their initial refusal to do so. That process took over one year.
So why weren't the findings made public, and why the resistance to release the paper to me? I can only speculate as to why.
But here goes.
The findings were politically sensitive. They would be a bad look for a National government claiming to have tightened up on welfare, and powerful ammunition in the hands of the opposition. Possibly. But the data matching exercise extended back into the Labour years and the abuse levels then were, proportionately, even higher!
It is more likely that the government didn't want media broadcasting their data matching exercises far and wide. No, law-abiding Joe Public wouldn't particularly object. The 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' attitude is rife in this relatively corruption-free country (rightly or wrongly).
But imagine a beneficiary reads or hears about how a survey they are being forced to participate in is being checked against their
Work and Income records. For the welfare abuser, that would merely tip them off to lie more consistently to government departments.
Data-matching is being used increasingly but its effectiveness lies in keeping the public in the dark. There's an irony at work. Non-transparency is required to improve integrity of systems.
So ultimately that's where I find the most convincing rationale. But that leaves me with a dilemma.
As a long-time critic of the welfare system, the findings vindicate or illustrate my concerns about the rampant misuse of the system (which hurts genuine beneficiaries and the taxpayers funding it). Do I want to make a song and dance about these findings though, if the information acts to assist those with the worst motivations?
Because of the time lapse is the issue even newsworthy? I ran it past a couple of wiser heads than mine and they thought it was, but the two parliamentary journalists I ran it past didn't.
You will form your own opinion.
There is no doubt that the National government has been more vigorous about detecting and stopping fraud but against the above revelations the numbers still look inadequate. From parliamentary oral questions in March last year ( note Jo Goodhew's description of the numbers as "a small minority"):
Benefits—Savings 6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: How much has the Government saved as a result of its benefit fraud initiative?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development): Since benefit fraud reform initiatives began 2 years ago we have saved the taxpayer over $60 million in future benefit payments. Only a small minority of beneficiaries take money they are not entitled to, but those who do cost tens of millions of dollars each year. These changes make it difficult to defraud the welfare system and hold people accountable for their actions.
Hon Judith Collins: How is the Government encouraging beneficiaries to comply with the welfare system?
Hon JO GOODHEW: Over the past 2½ years around 9,500 benefits have been cancelled after fraud was discovered. We expect to see fewer cases of benefit fraud as our case officers continue working closely with clients to ensure they declare their income and any changes to their relationship status. We have also identified 3,000 clients who have previously committed fraud. By managing these clients more closely, we can help to ensure that they do not reoffend.
If the 2011 findings held true for current Jobseeker beneficiaries, as many as 48,000 people may be either failing to meet work-search obligations, or already working full-time and continuing to claim a benefit.
*The reference also stated,
"... about 10 per cent of people whose welfare records showed that they were receiving a DPB reported being partnered or living as married." That data, however, was not included in the paper released to me.
