Do the job properly Mr Key

Just listening to the Radio Live news reporting that John Key is focussing on young people at the National Conference today. There was a snippet of him speaking about how their lives could be damaged by the recessional environment of few jobs.

Now this catches my interest because it is closely linked to what I said when launching my paper, Maori and Welfare, a few days back; that I feared we were going repeat the mistake of the early 90s when too many young people were admitted onto benefits and subsequently stayed there for years. (In fact their children are now repeating the parent's behaviour.)

In the paper I concluded that the sort of change needed could only happen when there was a consensus that individuals are first and foremost responsible for themselves and their children. To quote it directly;

"As part of achieving that consensus, an agreed priority must be established. For Maori that priority must be to stop the inflow of young people into the benefit system. Many, including exisiting beneficiaries, can be persuaded of the sense and humanity in this. That aim is even more important than dealing with present caseloads."

NewstalkZB is also reporting; He is expected to launch a new youth opportunities package tomorrow.

Key will have to make sure that those opportunities are more attractive than going on a benefit - especially for young females. Or restrict the access of young people to welfare.

He might want to consider the experience of British Colombia;

Teens more successful in school when welfare access is tight, researcher finds

Randy Shore
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, June 05, 2008

Teens as young as 13 are more likely to stay in school and proceed to the next grade when access to welfare is restricted, says a University of B.C. researcher. Bill Warburton had observed that the dropout rate for children at risk of receiving income assistance rose with B.C.'s welfare caseload through the early 1990s and fell when a substantial package of welfare reforms was introduced Jan. 1, 1996, which removed about 100,000 people from the welfare rolls.

"We wondered if that was a coincidence," wrote Warburton, executive director of the Child and Youth Development Trajectories Research Unit at UBC.

Using data from the B.C. ministries of education and employment and income assistance, Warburton found that when the New Democrats began a program of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, high school dropout rates began to fall and continued to fall for several years. Dropout rates had been rising through the early 1990s as access to welfare expanded and was liberally extended to minors, but the change in policy quickly reversed that trend, he explained in an interview and a written response to a query from The Vancouver Sun.

The effect was stronger the older the student and the closer the student was to being eligible for welfare, he said. But it was also significant in students as young as 13.

"I was surprised at how young the kids were that responded [to the change]," said Warburton. "We found strong evidence that it wasn't a coincidence."

Warburton worked for the B.C. income security renewal secretariat in the mid-1990s and for the research branch of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance through 2004. He was aware that some regions of the province were "more on board" with welfare reform during the late 1990s.

By comparing data between regions, he was able to determine that the effect was strongest -- that is, kids tended to do better in school -- in areas that put the tightest controls on income assistance for people under 25. The teens' expectations about the availability of welfare is at the heart of the effect, according to Warburton.

"I would have guessed that their decisions would be influenced more subliminally than consciously," he said. But the data showed that teens who left school and went on to collect welfare tended to come from the same schools, suggesting that localized welfare cultures had developed.

The kids talk to each other about how to apply, they see their older friends getting welfare. The data suggests that kids are communicating with each other about the system and how it works, he said.

More on perks

No wonder they need so many parliamentary holiday breaks!

Context;

I haven't been overseas for 8 years, and that was a trip across the ditch. Don't even have a current passport and neither do my children. I wear-out clothes and shoes. Last week I changed my car because it was 14 years-old, had done over 200,000 km and failed its warrant ...seriously. We traded it for a 7 year-old car (which I am in love with). Yesterday I got a tax refund of $143 which is a third of the donations I made to charity last year. I was really chuffed. That's a tidy sum of money to me. When I use my car for volunteer work I don't claim mileage.

My home is large by necessity (we both work from home and painting takes up a lot of space) and comfortable but we haven't turned on the underfloor heating in years because its too expensive. We have takeaways on Friday but eating out is a treat. My husband has inherited land but I have always made it clear to him that is his - not mine. Both of our children go to state schools. One has singing lessons and the other has piano lessons. Like me, they also wear-out their clothes and shoes.

What I am trying to convey here is a modest lifestyle (bar consumption of wine).

So reading about MPs perks, which for some reason I hitherto had not given much thought to, leaves me feeling rather underwhelmed. I am not sure which is more deflating. Discovering a perfectly able beneficiary is getting $715 a week or that we are paying for 90 percent of MPs overseas holidays.

Look, consumerism and consumption make the world go around but to the politicians, for pity's sake, use the money you earn. You are hardly underpaid.

Perks are privilege

Roger Douglas spent his political career opposing privilege - that is the practice of the state forcing one individual or sector to pay for or subsidise the activities of another individual or a sector. In that I fully support him.

The other ex MPs he is now testily pointing to as enjoying the same right and entitlement as him to travel the world on the taxpayer, did not make a holy grail out of attacking privilege. That is why it just doesn't wash as an excuse, recession or not.

What the future holds

These graphs are from a sustainability report released yesterday by Statistics NZ.

The first shows that currently, for every 100 people aged 15-64 there are around 50 younger or older. That allows a rough measurement of dependency notwithstanding that people older than 15 are often still dependent and people over 65 are not.

By 2061, when my children will be in their 60s, there will be around 73-74 dependants for every 100 15-64 year-olds. If nothing changes about the extent of government involvement in health, education and welfare that's a truckload more tax to be paid.




This one simply depicts the increasing diversity of the population. Note that it only projects out to 2026 - not 2061. Not that we didn't know it, but the graph highlights that the Asian population is growing faster than the Maori population. Not something I have a problem with but it is going to bring political tensions and friction.




Finally it has to be said these are projections - they are not written in stone.

$50m to embark on motherhood unsupported

Media Release

$50M TO EMBARK ON MOTHERHOOD UNSUPPORTED
Thursday, 30 July, 2009

Thousands of young women are using the welfare system to embark on motherhood with no partner or financial support.

The claim comes from welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell who says that figures show that during 2008 2,300 females aged 18-24 years-old transferred from a pregnancy-related sickness benefit to the domestic purposes benefit. "These are young women who had no partner or financial support before or after birth."

"In one year alone the cost of supporting these women would be around $50 million. But that is just a start. Typically those who begin on welfare young, stay dependent for many years, often having more children. Because being long-term dependent on welfare has been shown to produce poor educational and health outcomes for both mothers and their children, the downstream costs to society are ongoing. And females born to young single mothers are far more likely to become single mothers themselves repeating the cycle."

At a time when the government is cutting back on funding for severely disabled children and training allowances it is enormously surprising and disappointing that they are determined to ignore this huge problem. Last week, when the NZ Business Roundtable released a paper suggesting the DPB be replaced with time-limited assistance, the Prime Minister described the proposal as 'draconian'. Yet President Clinton and his democratic government did exactly that in the United States during the 1990s.

"The National Party needs to start paying some real attention to how welfare is being used. The public response to this week's revelations of surprisingly high DPB payments and entitlement attitudes should be taken as a strong indication that many want to see significant change."

Tables released under the Official Information Act attached.

Graceless carping

There has been a lot of reaction today to the Minister of Social Development releasing information about the incomes of two beneficiaries to the media. The story in the NZ Herald is light on facts but the two net weekly incomes given - $715 and $554 - are no doubt correct. It appears the Minister is attempting to expose the culture of moaning that typically emanates from middle-class Pakeha women on the DPB. Here's a comment from another blog which is more of the same;

Also for peoples information those benefits have multiple layers to it.. your core benefit is only about 460, IRD give ALL parents between one to two hundred per week depending on numbers of children and the rest is accomodation that ALL low income earners are entitled too. My benefit is 620 (including ird) with two kids and my rent in Auckland is a cheap (??) 360 per week.. i cant have flatmates, i dont have a partners pay packet and i tell you its fricken hard work.. try feeding two growing kids and the rest in whats left. Im at uni and claim another 80 for transport and pay all my own fees and books.. its all for you to see and if you'd like to walk a few days in my shoes your more than welcome.

That's another receiving $700 a week and resenting it. Someone put a pertinent question to me this morning. How are people like this ever going to get off a benefit because, even armed with a degree, no entry level job in the private sector is going to pay that much? Is that what the public service is for?

So much for a welfare safety net. This isn't somebody experiencing a crisis. It's somebody who has gotten the pieces of her life in the wrong order ie got kids before qualifications, and gracelessly expects the taxpayer to sort it for her. I wonder how those workers who are being made redundant only to find they have no unemployment entitlement would view this outburst?

About the release of the information, Sue Bradford says;

"This form of silencing opposition is simply not acceptable in a democratic society and I hope the Government will urgently reconsider its intimidating tactics," Ms Bradford said.

Nobody is being silenced. They are simply being encouraged to tell the truth. If the full facts are used to protest there is nothing further the government can add.

Criticism from an academic

At last. Some criticism about the content of my paper. It comes from feminist writer, Dr Anne Else, BA Hons, PhD, NZ Order of Merit.

Business Roundtable discovers new contraceptive

I see the Business Roundtable is at it again. They've commissioned a report from one Lindsay Mitchell, who is well known for being a virulent opponent of 'welfare' in general and the DPB in particular. The best way to stop young women - especially young Maori women - getting pregnant is to axe the DPB, she says.

Now I just happen to have been looking up teenage pregnancy statistics recently. Births to teenage women (aged under 20) climbed from 5,315 in 1962 to a high of 9,150 in 1972. That's an increase of 72 percent.

The DPB wasn't introduced until 1973. That was the year teenage births started to fall. By 1982, they had more than halved, to less than 4,500 - well below the 1962 number.

Of course, the number of births is related to the number of teenagers. So let's look at this another way. In the early 1970s, before the DPB, 70 out of every 1,000 female teenagers were having a child. By the mid-1980s, this was down to 30 per 1,000. It stayed between 30 and 35 until the late 1990s, then it trended down again. By 2002, the rate was at its lowest in our recorded history, at 25.6 per 1,000 female teenagers.

That's still high compared with all other developed countries except for the USA and UK. But there's no way you can argue that the DPB is responsible - or that axing it would lower the rate.

Business Roundtable members head up major companies. If this report represents what they consider to be inteligent analysis, it's a bit of a worry, eh.

First, Else's statistics are correct although she could have gone further and looked up the latest figures to find out the teenage birth rate is now back up to 32.9 per 1000. She points out that in the early seventies 70 out of every 1000 female teenagers was having a child. Then she describes how the rate trended down to our lowest rate in recorded history at 25.6 per female in 2002.

A majority of teenage births in the early seventies occurred within a marriage albeit many were shotgun marriages. There were 9,150 teenage births in 1971, 55 percent within marriage. Many ex-nuptial teenage births resulted in adoption which peaked at around this time.

The contraceptive pill became available in the 1960s and abortion in the 70s. Thereafter teenagers with an interest in controlling their fertility were better able to do so. There was every likelihood the teenage birthrate would decrease, as did the general fertility rate, dramatically. This doesn't mean the DPB availability wasn't having any influence.

Looking at the general teenage birth rate alone obscures a great deal. It doesn't tell us about the tenfold likelihood that teenage births will be in the poorest communities when compared to the richest. For unqualified and unskilled girls in poor communities the DPB is an incentive because it pays more than any wage they could hope to command. MSD figures show the average all-up benefit for a sole parent in 2006 was $21,580. It's incentive appeal obviously lessens through the rising deciles as young women's alternatives to the DPB improve. In 2006;

* 65.8 girls per 1000 aged 15-19 gave birth in the most economically deprived areas, classified as decile 10.

* 6.92 per 1000 gave birth in the most affluent areas, or decile one.

Looking at the general teenage birth rate tells us nothing about ethnic differences. In 2000-02 the Maori rate was still up at 70 per 1000 - the same as the general rate in the early 70s. The Pacific rate was 48 and the European rate 22.

As demonstrated, teenage births in the early seventies frequently occurred inside a marriage. Being a feminist Else is opposed to shot-gun marriages. She would prefer the state intervened. Many other teenage births ended up in adoption. Something Else is also strongly opposed to (at least the 'closed' variety). Perhaps she would prefer children stayed with their biological mothers at any cost.

When one considers the indicators for a range of social problems, for example, landing in the Youth Court, coming from an adoptive home is not up there with other factors like being fatherless (top of Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft's list), being born to an adolescent mother, or being moved from one foster home to the next as a result.

I cannot know if stopping lifestyle welfare (what we have now) will reduce the teenage birthrate, particularly that of Maori. The US experience was a decline in African American and Hispanic teenage birth rates from 1990 until 2006 with rises since.

But even if the rate didn't drop, taking babies into the wider family, adoption or whangai, or channelling young mothers into jobs or training where they can combine their parenting responsibilities with work, would be preferable to what we do now.

When welfare becomes a lifestyle

I used to write to Steve Maharey when he was Minister of Social Development trying to persuade him that welfare was no longer a safety net.

He would reply with assertions like,

"...I do not support the view that the DPB is a lifestyle choice." 19 October 2001

"The domestic purposes benefit is necessary to ensure that children are not thrown into poverty when relationships fail." 13 September 2002

Maharey was among the many people who refuse to accept that the DPB is frequently used by single women having babies. But the following statistic proves it. Over 2,300 females aged 18-24 moved off a sickness benefit for pregnancy-related reasons onto the DPB in 2008.

These are women who (officially) have no financial support - no partner or job - before or after the birth.

These females are a subset of the 6,000 plus that are granted a DPB for the first time each year with one child only aged 12 months or younger and in addition to the 5,000 who add a child under one year old to an existing benefit each year.

So 17-18 percent of children are starting out life on welfare. If there was a 'relationship' between the mother and father it was short-lived.

Around half of the total are Maori so around 1 in 3 Maori children start life on a benefit.

Most of the births will be congregated in low decile areas. The problem with that is the 'normalisation' of the behaviour. That's a lifestyle. That's just the way it is.

But it wasn't the way welfare was intended to operate.

My estimate, by the way, ties in with earlier MSD research;

Analysis of longitudinal benefit administration data for New Zealand has shown that by the time children born in 1993 turned seven, half had been supported by one of New Zealand’s main social assistance benefits at least once. While this was a transitory experience for many, approximately one in five children in the 1993 birth cohort spent at least five of their first seven years of life supported by a main benefit (Ball and Wilson 2002).

Pregnancy is hard work

Daisy-up-the-duff does little but eat and sleep as she balloons. The other two went out in sympathy.

Swede "shocked" at NZ violence

Sorry for the repetition but we keep getting Sweden shoved down our throats as a shining example of a peaceful country thanks to the banning of corporal punishment in the home.

Swedish Expert Shocked By NZ's Tradition of Violence

When Swedish psychology student My Wilkstedt arrived at Otago University a decade ago, it wasn't only the fact that her friends had been smacked that upset her. "I was actually quite shocked," she says.

But rugby upset her too.

"I really couldn't watch it," she says from Malmo, near Stockholm, where she now works for the Swedish Corrections Service. "Let's face it, it's a violent game."

I am equally shocked when a finger is pointed at NZ's violence from a country with violent crime statistics that pretty much mirror ours. And she works in Corrections so can't plead ignorance.

Mixed reaction to Maori and Welfare

The launch of Maori and Welfare resulted in quite a few interviews (with more to come), and a great deal of discussion on talkback, most of which seemed positive when I was able to monitor it. Disappointingly, but probably not surprisingly, John Key and Paula Bennett ran for the hills.

But how did Maori respond?

At the launch of Maori and Welfare last Monday, a number of Maori leaders were present and asked questions after I had spoken. I don't believe I offended anyone present; some agreed with my description of the problem privately but there is also a sense off weariness and wariness about what to do. John Tamihere was on the list of expected attendees and I was sorry he couldn't make it. We have talked briefly on radio before and he apparently gave the paper positive publicity on his Radio Live programme the next day.

Although we had hoped to have the Minister of Maori Affairs attending, Pita Sharples, another commitment prevented that happening. It now appears the Maori Party, or Tariana Turia at least, has decided to ignore me according to the closing sentence in the following report from the Wanganui Chronicle which says Tupoho find my paper insulting. This is my response sent to the editor, and copied to the Maori Party MPs adding that I was sorry on both of our behalfs', theirs and mine, that the paper has been misinterpreted. But it sadder still for young Maori because the status quo is not a happy prospect;

Tupoho say that my paper, Maori and Welfare, is insulting to Maori (Wanganui Chronicle, 22nd July.) It certainly wasn't intended to be.

Statistics show that at least half of Maori single parents currently on welfare started on a benefit as a teenager. My opinion is that many young women default to welfare because their alternatives are not bright, having failed to acquire qualifications or skills. The same could be said of the non-Maori population. The Maori teenage birthrate however, is more than three times that of non-Maori and the teenage birthrate in the poorest decile areas is ten times higher than in the wealthiest. A majority of teenage mothers go on welfare and many stay there for years. Long term dependence on welfare has been shown to produce poor outcomes for both mothers and children in terms of education and health.

My paper explores the historical discrimination and separatism Maori experienced as a reason why welfare has had a disproportionate effect on that ethnicity. Maori were more vulnerable to the damaging aspects of welfare because they have been historically economically disadvantaged. Welfare incomes can equate to an unskilled wage but they create a false economy. Although money flows into a poor community there is no commensurate economic productivity. People are not engaged in producing goods or services. Communities stagnate.

Each year the inflow of young Maori people into the benefit system continues unabated. Stopping that must be a priority for Maori. Hence my suggestion that the DPB be replaced with strictly temporary assistance signalling a strong message that welfare can no longer be viewed as a lifestyle. The paper does not recommend cutting off assistance to those already in the welfare system. It also discusses ways in which Maori could find their own solutions via organisations like Urban Maori authorities if that is what Maori want. There are 6 or 7 suggestions put up for debate. Loans instead of benefits was part of a separate proposal, 'opting-out', which although canvassed, I specifically stated may not best suit most Maori at this time.

Even in a recession there are opportunities. For instance NZ has a chronic shortage of childcare yet 50,000 single parents on the DPB have just one child. They could be employed in community or workplace crèches caring for 3 or 4 other children. Before the DPB Karitane hospitals routinely employed young single mums as staff who could combine their child care responsibilities with work. We just aren't being creative enough when we approach the problem of welfare.

In my work with beneficiaries as a community volunteer I have seen lives transformed by moving off a benefit and into work. It isn't just about financial independence. People gain a great deal from the purpose and friendships that working brings to their lives.

Finally, the paper was extracted from a larger body of work about welfare and the general population. It would be a mistake to give the impression that I consider welfare a problem only for Maori. It is a problem for anybody that gets trapped early and finds getting out nigh on impossible. I cannot accept that anybody believes we do young people a favour by letting this happen.

'The Triumph of Progressive Public Policy'

Busy morning so I'll let someone else do the writing today. This is a succinct piece from the NCPA speculating about the effect of unions and government running the show. (Of course there is also the not insignificant matter of the bottom dropping out of the US auto market);

DETROIT: THE TRIUMPH OF PROGRESSIVE PUBLIC POLICY

Imagine a city where all the major economic planks of the statist or "progressive" platform have been enacted:

* A "living wage" ordinance, far above the federal minimum wage, for all public employees and private contractors.
* A school system that spends significantly more per pupil than the national average.
* A powerful school employee union that militantly defends the exceptional pay, benefits and job security it has won for its members.
* A powerful government employee union that does the same for its members.
* A tax system that aggressively redistributes income from businesses and the wealthy to the poor and to government bureaucracies.

Would this be a shining city on a hill, exciting the admiration of all? We don't have to guess, because there is such a city: Detroit, says Jarrett Skorup, a research intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

* In 1950, Detroit was the wealthiest city in America on a per capita income basis.
* Today, the Census Bureau reports that it is the nation's second poorest major city, just "edging out" Cleveland.

Could it be pure coincidence that the decline occurred over the same period in which union power, the city government bureaucracy, taxes and business regulations all multiplied? While correlation is not causation, it is striking that the decline in per capita income is exactly what classical economists predict would occur when wage controls are imposed and taxes are increased, says Skorup.

Specifically, "price theory" predicts that artificially high business costs caused by excessive regulation and above-market labor compensation rates imposed by so-called "living wages" will lead to an increase in unemployment, explains Skorup:

* Detroit's minimum wage is a whopping $7.40 an hour, more than $2 above the federal minimum wage when it was enacted; and pressure groups are pushing for more.
* Additionally, any company contracting with the city must pay its employees $8.23 an hour if they offer benefits or $10.28 an hour if they do not offer benefits.
* The city has the highest unemployment rate among all large U.S. cities.

Source: Jarrett Skorup, "Detroit: The Triumph of Progressive Public Policy," Mackinac Center, July 6, 2009.

Foetal alcohol syndrome - questions

Yesterday a group submitted to the parliamentary health select committee about FASD, foetal alcohol syndrome disorder. The first thing that caught my eye in the report about their submission was their targeting of Glen Innes and East Tamaki for education action. That tells us a lot. They have chosen areas where they know drinking during pregnancy is a problem. Suburbs that feature a high welfare population and high teenage birth rate.

The second thing I noticed was their costing to New Zealand of FASD as "more than $1 billion each year."

By coincidence yesterday I was reading this report;

4.4.1 Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

This study uses recent estimates that 2.0 per 1,000 live births have FAS and that it cost an estimated $1.9 billion in 1992 to treat infants, children, and surviving adults for FAS and its sequelae.

4.4.1.1 Synopsis

FAS is estimated to occur in 2.0 per 1,000 live births in the United States each year (Bloss 1995, personal communication). It is estimated that during 1992, the cost of treating FAS-affected infants, children, and adults was $1,944 million. Most of the cost associated with FAS treatment is incurred while developmentally disabled persons are either institutionalized or receiving intensive home-based services during their adult years. This estimate does not include other effects that result from fetal alcohol exposure that has not been diagnosed as FAS.

So in NZ it is estimated that over 1 percent of babies are born with FAS yet the US estimates the incidence at 2 per 1,000 births or 0.2 percent. These figures are wildly divergent. Which results in correspondingly divergent costings.

Yet I can believe that 1 percent (and much more) of mothers drank considerable amounts of alcohol during pregnancy. The US is probably employing a much higher diagnostic threshold ie they are documenting the most severe cases.

Getting back to where the problem is concentrated as indicated by where the group is focussing their efforts, "teenage girls and their families" in the poorest areas of Auckland. Around 4,500 females were granted a sickness benefit for pregnancy related reasons in 2008. Two thirds transfer to a DPB. 80 percent were aged 18-24 (an unknown number were younger). I wonder how much of their sickness benefit was spent on alcohol?

If society really wants to promote responsible parenting, pre- and post-birth, is putting up cash incentives to anyone with reproductive equipment the best idea we can come up with?

Taxpayer funded trips

Not what you are expecting.

Research from the Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation shows that from a sample of 1046 frequent drug users, of those injecting drugs in 2008, 77 percent had used an unemployment or social welfare benefit to pay for the drugs; for methamphetamine users the percentage was 43 and for ecstasy users 18. For injecting drug users this was the main way they paid for their drugs.



(Left click to enlarge image)

Work and Income cannot compel people on benefits who abuse drugs to accept treatment. Not even if drug and substance abuse is their primary incapacity for being in receipt of a sickness or invalid benefit.

The taxpayer, on the other hand, is compelled to fund their benefits.

No degree - no debate

At MJ's request I have removed the original post. She says it has personally identifying details despite my having removed her name before publishing it. Initially she emailed me on Tuesday asking for my qualifications. I responded that I was not University educated. Not satisfied with that response she then asked the same question via my blog creating a strong impression that she was keen to expose what she views as my inadequacy publicly.

I have never pretended to have letters after my name. Similarly I have no art qualifications - not even a pass in school certificate art - but because I receive commissions, exhibit and sell my work I describe myself as an artist. This is also, according to one commentor yesterday, unacceptable.

I am still waiting for a substantive argument about the content of my paper rather than attacks on my suitability to produce it.

MJ, if you do not want your emails to me made public, don't send any.

'Maori and Welfare'

The NZ Business Roundtable today published a paper I penned as part of their Te Oranga o te Iwi Maori project. The media attention has been high and I have gone from one interview to the next and then the official launch. On Breakfast TV tomorrow 6:50.

I will link to the paper when it is on-line. Here's the release.

Report calls for major welfare shake-up

20/07/2009 17:44:35

A report has been released which recommends the Domestic Purposes Benefit be scrapped and replaced by a shorter-term support package.

Researcher Lindsay Mitchell has made the recommendation in her study of welfare policy and social problems among Maori, which was commissioned by the Business Roundtable.

Citing the high rates of Maori women receiving the DPB, she says steps should be taken to discourage them from getting pregnant in the first place.

Ms Mitchell says to that end, the DPB should be abolished and the Government should only provide support for one year. She says beyond that period financial support should be provided by the child's mother, father and extended family.

The report also recommends looking at the introduction of contributory unemployment insurance for workers and a restriction on current universal welfare entitlements.

It advises tighter eligibility criteria for sickness and invalid benefits and suggests panels of doctors be used to approve applications as opposed to individual practitioners.

Mrs Mitchell believes steps will have to be taken by the Government at some stage - not because it wants to, but because it has to. She says there is a lot of public concern about welfare dependency becoming a lifestyle among both Maori and Pakeha.

Mrs Mitchell says the state should provide welfare support only as a last resort safety net.

Squawking when their own chickens come home to roost

There is little easier than writing policy in opposition.

Phil Goff wants the dole paid to people whose partners are working. What a hypocrite. It is Labour's pursuit of means-testing egalitarianism which has left New Zealanders with a tax-funded unemployment insurance system which rips half of them off when push comes to shove.

Using the recession to do nothing

I feared this would happen. That National would use the recession to do nothing about reforming welfare, the DPB in particular.

According to the DomPost;

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the rise in numbers on the DPB was a reflection of the job market.

Correct in part but not to the exclusion of anything else.

Bennett implies that the 8,000 increase from June 08 to June 09 is primarily about women losing their jobs. Some, yes. But it is more complex than that.

Or is she actually admitting that when jobs are harder to come by women get pregnant to get on welfare? Or that people break up relationships so they can claim both dole and DPB? I don't think she is.

In 2008 over 6,200 first-time mothers with babies under 12 months old were granted the DPB. 55 percent were Maori and Pacific. A third were NZ European.

An important reason why the DPB is growing again is increased fertility rates, especially among the young. Throw in, as well, increasing ex-nuptial births, now approaching half of all births.

If the job market is the most important influence on DPB numbers why, during a period of very low unemployment, did DPB numbers shown relatively little change? The total caseload has averaged around 105,000 for the past decade, with a low of 96,000 and a high of 109,000. It is currently at 104,400. If the job market is the most important influence on DPB numbers then this is as good as it gets.

But she was confident that once the job market had improved, numbers on the DPB would drop again.

Not necessarily. Young mothers entering the system stay the longest. Until National gets a grip on that fact and decides to do something about it, a high DPB toll is here to stay.

I have said it before - the DPB is institutionalised. Numbers on it are affected by more factors than the job market. But if those other factors are not acknowledged, what chance they will ever be addressed?

Finally ask yourself this. If a single mother has been in work and loses her job, why doesn't she receive the unemployment benefit? Why isn't she subject to the same conditions as other unemployed people? There is less pressure to work when on the DPB. That's why. And that is another reason why the Minister's optimism that the numbers will soon drop again is misplaced.

How many genuinely abused children will fall by the wayside?

The following figures just received from MSD show that care and protection notifications to CYF are rising significantly. For the financial year 06/07 there were 71,927 notifications; in 07/08 there were 89,451; and for the first three quarters of 08/09 there have been 82,459. Notifications are therefore on target to rise around 23 percent on the 2007/08 financial year.

This is a result of the social climate produced under the section 59 hysteria. Some will perceive it as welcome.

However, CYF are cutting staff numbers and closing community offices while the workload is rising. Social workers are under increasing pressure trying to manage growing caseloads. What chance the real problems will, to use a hackneyed but useful phrase, 'slip through the cracks'?

Biggest jump in unemployment benefit numbers since late 1980s

Media Release

BIGGEST JUMP IN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT NUMBERS SINCE LATE 1980s

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Latest benefit statistics just released by the Ministry of Social Development reveal the second largest rise in unemployment benefit receipt since records have been kept.

"Not since the financial year 1988/89 has New Zealand seen such a large rise in numbers on the unemployment benefit, " welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said.

Over the year to June 2009 the numbers rose from 18,000 to 51,000 - a rise of 33,000 or 187 percent. "The only other time such a large rise was recorded was over the period between June 1988 and June 1989 when unemployment numbers jumped by 37,000. "

As well, numbers on the sickness benefit have surpassed 50,000 for the first time ever. "There was a 17 percent jump in sickness benefits from 46,000 to 54,000. Receipt of invalid's benefit grew by another 2 percent to reach 85,000 and the numbers drawing the DPB grew by 8 percent climbing to 104,000."

Overall the total number of people receiving a main benefit increased by 20 percent from 258,000 to 310,000.

"While some of the growth is outside of the government's control there are certainly areas in which some reform or rules tightening could make a difference. The OECD has repeatedly warned New Zealand that benefits are too open-ended in comparison with other member countries. There are no treatment requirements on people receiving invalid or sickness benefits for drug or substance abuse problems; no work-testing on the DPB; no benefit time-limits or reducing payments over time. Yet there are still areas of employment that are experiencing shortages. Childcare and care of the aged are two."

"In the past New Zealand maintained almost full employment with government sponsored work schemes whereby local infrastructure projects were subsidised through payments to local government. While it is infinitely preferable for jobs to be created by the private sector, if National is not going to provide the tax relief and incentives to create these jobs, maybe it is time they started looking at options other than simply handing out money for no productive return."