This is quite desperate stuff. The number of people on Jobseeker benefits has gone up 10 percent since December 2018. Here's Sepuloni's take:
The December quarter benefit numbers released today show the Government’s plan to get people off the benefit and into work is starting to pay off,” Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni said.When a net figure goes up the only reason is that there have been more grants than cancellations.
“Nearly 19,000 people cancelled their benefit and went into work in the last few months of the year – that’s about the population of Levin – and is the second quarter in a row that the number of people coming off the benefit and into work has increased, year on year.
In December 2014 the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent - not 4.2%. This is feeble stuff.
“The number of people on a main benefit is 314,408, which is 10.5 per cent of the working age population, remaining lower than the 11.2 per cent on a main benefit under National five years ago.
The picture is bad and she really cannot explain it away.
“The Government is committed to helping people to find meaningful and sustainable work while ensuring the welfare system is fairer and more accessible for all New Zealanders. While there’s more to do, we are on the right track,” Carmel Sepuloni said.Unbelievable. I'd don't want to see what the 'wrong' track looks like.
And right now Jacinda Ardern is in Martinborough telling her MPs she wants a "factual election campaign free from misinformation".
Update: Getting worse. Sepuloni told Magic Talk midday news,"The trajectory for the rise started before we got in."
It did not.
6 comments:
I've noticed The Veteran on my blog also peddles the increased number of jobseeker allowance grants as evidence of poor government performance. And yet, unemployment is lower than under the previous government. Those two things appear contradictory.
If the government's performance is to be criticised based on the increased number of grants, that contradiction needs to be accounted for. What would explain a situation of both a lower rate of unemployment and increased number of jobseeker grants?
I'm no social scientist, but a couple of things spring to mind: it could be explained through population increase (ie 4.2% unemployment is a larger number of individuals than it used to be under a smaller population), or it could be that the unemployed are more likely to request jobseeker assistance under this government than under the previous one. Neither of those indicate poor government performance to me, in fact the second one suggests improved performance.
"If the government's performance is to be criticised based on the increased number of grants, that contradiction needs to be accounted for. What would explain a situation of both a lower rate of unemployment and increased number of jobseeker grants?"
A number of things.
1/ As you have identified the population has grown. So look at the % of the working age population on benefits. 10.5 percent at Dec 2019 versus 9.8% in Dec 2017. Up, and mostly accounted for by the jobseeker benefit.
2/ The unemployment rate is a survey measure. It arises from the Household Labourforce Survey. The denominator is the 15-64 year-old population whereas MSD main benefits apply to the 18-64 year-old population. The HLFS could classify an individual as employed when they are working part-time BUT still receiving a benefit due to low hours worked.
3/ Under National's reforms people on the sole parent benefit (ex DPB) were moved to the Jobseeker benefit when their youngest child turns 14. So there is some increase coming from an ageing ex DPB population.
There was a clear indication of a culture change under Labour. WINZ were directed to ensure beneficiaries were provided with every type of assistance they are entitled to. The offices were made visibly more welcoming. It'd be churlish to argue against either of these developments but they have diverted the focus away from employment. The priority must be to get those who can into work and that hasn't been the case. Even Carmel referred yesterday to the "Government’s plan to get people off the benefit and into work..."
The trend is not good. If we were seeing more housing assistance and food grants BUT fewer people on benefits, it would be a pass. BUT every main benefit has increasing numbers and supplementary assistance is through the roof.
The HLFS could classify an individual as employed when they are working part-time BUT still receiving a benefit due to low hours worked.
Yes, that one's allowed both the current and the previous government to trumpet low unemployment figures that are distinctly dubious. Unemployment's always been measured that way, but the rise of zero-hours contracts has made it a less-useful method. More contracts but with fewer hours could easily result in falling unemployment and rising beneficiary numbers.
There was a clear indication of a culture change under Labour. WINZ were directed to ensure beneficiaries were provided with every type of assistance they are entitled to. The offices were made visibly more welcoming.
I think this is the nub of it. From a left-wing perspective, if your approach to clients shifts from an actively hostile one to an accepting one, you can expect to get an increase in clients but that's an improvement in performance, not a decline. From a right-wing perspective, a rise in beneficiary numbers is always a bad thing.
if your approach to clients shifts from an actively hostile one to an accepting one, you can expect to get an increase in clients but that's an improvement in performance.
Here's the problem right here.
Clients pay you for the goods and services you provide. It might be acceptable to refer to tax payers as clients, begrudging clients.
When you're doing the paying for no goods or services then it's either responsibility/obligation, charity or fraud/theft.
I'm all for honouring our society obligations, all for supporting those who cannot through no fault of their own support themselves. However those that can work should work, only then when they are working and contributing can we refer to them as clients.
Thank you alloytoo. The creep in terminology is subtle and almost sinister. I vaguely recall some socialist asserting that he who controls the language controls the debate. Well-meaning intentions to include and respect every individual regardless is starting to turn heads among people who should have them screwed on a little tighter (myself included).
However those that can work should work, only then when they are working and contributing can we refer to them as clients.
You may not like it, but NZ has a public sector, has had for longer than I've been alive and will continue to have long after I'm dead. Turning your dislike of that fact into complaints about words contributes nothing to any debate, unless the debate's a linguistic one - which this one isn't.
All of us who work in the public sector and deliver services we don't charge for have to refer to the people receiving those services as something if we're to do our jobs. In my line of work people may call them "clients," "patrons," or even "customers" if we're trying to emphasise the importance of not treating them as annoying supplicants. You might prefer it if social welfare or state house applicants were referred to as "supplicants," or maybe "bludgers," "cadgers" etc, but most other people assume they should be treating their fellow citizens with respect.
Post a Comment