Sanction reduction extraordinarily inconsistent across country

Nationally, since December 2017, the number of benefit sanctions has reduced by 42 percent. But the reduction is extraordinarily inconsistent across the regions.

For instance, the East Coast region has seen a 70% reduction in sanction application whereas Northland beneficiaries have experienced only a 17% reduction.

These two regions represent the highest and lowest reductions. Yet they are reasonably similar in profile. Which leads to the conclusion that there is a degree of arbitrariness occurring in the decision-making.

There is also speculation that the increased sanctions are leading to an increase in the number of people receiving a Jobseeker benefit.

Is any correlation showing by comparing the regions? No.

Canterbury had the highest growth in Jobseeker numbers but one of the lower reductions in sanctions. Northland and EastCoast have virtually the same increase in JS benefits but the highest and lowest sanction reduction.

This doesn't conclusively disprove that fewer sanctions lead to more Jobseeker dependence simply that other weightier factors are in play.

I come back to the glaring inconsistency between Northland and East Coast. Why has the East Coast taken a much softer line than Northland? 

Whatever your feelings are about welfare, beneficiaries should be entitled to a consistent application of rules.