Paying people to have babies

At a business lunch yesterday the finance Minister was "talking down" tax cuts and economic reforms. One attendee was not happy.

Ms Hamilton-Manns, 33, worked in Qatar, Kuwait, Britain, Italy and South Africa for five years as a teacher and then as an event manager. She came home in 2006 and runs her own business staging events in the finance sector, but told Mr English she was thinking of leaving again.

"I don't see opportunities in New Zealand apart from having babies," she told him.

Well-spotted Ms Hamilton-Manns.

Coincidentally I received information earlier this week that illustrates her observation very well.

Most benefit-dependent single parents who go on welfare as teenagers appear first in the dole queue.

Of those welfare-dependent single parents the Ministry has full benefit history for (aged 29 or younger) 33,730 first claimed welfare as a teenager, but surprisingly, only 17 percent began on the DPB. For 61 percent, the first benefit they relied on was an unemployment benefit.

Rather than getting into work or training many unemployed young people are starting families and moving onto the DPB. Failing to acquire any work experience or further education is virtually a guaranteed pathway to long-term dependency, which is bad for both parents and children.

Over half of these young parents are Maori. Many started on welfare during a period of very low unemployment so it is no good blaming the recession or high Maori unemployment. Pacific people experience equally high unemployment rates but they are not over-represented in this group.

In his opening address to parliament John Key talked about moving people off the DPB. But just as important, if not more, is stopping them from going on it in the first place. Especially as teenagers.

As long as the "opportunity" remains, young people will continue to take it.

National standards - further down the road

While we in New Zealand haggle over the introduction of national standards, the Australians are haggling over the veracity of their national standards introduced in 2008.

Brotherly love

This isn't Daisy and her kittens. It's Palangi and his younger brother and sister. Palangi was born in August last year and Cecil, the one he is diligently grooming, was born in December. He does this for prolonged periods.



In steps Daisy and has a desultory lick of her older boy and then she leaves him to it.


Is this unusual behaviour? I ask because Palangi is a most unusual cat. Even if you were not a cat person it would be hard not to warm to him. He behaves more like a faithful puppy than a cat, hasn't a shred of aggression, snuggles up to my face as close as he can and gazes at me. Sleeps with his chin on my shoulder through the night. Sleeps at my feet when I paint during the day. Is a terrible jumper, missing things or falling off things. Won't eat the food the other cats eat, confining himself to tuna and red meat. And when he hears the call of the wild, departs to catch and fetch challenging prey like tissues and bits of wood. Well, there was a lizard the other day but I don't think he caught it. When visiting the vet for his vaccine booster this morning she had difficulty hearing his heartbeat because he wouldn't stop purring. If cats have spirits this one's is special.

Raising one finger

Here's a judge asking a rhetorical question I think;

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the lighter the court should be on her?"

I can think of a few others.

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the more income she receives?"

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the longer she can avoid getting a job?"

"Is it a case of the more kids she has at home the more men she can do a dodgy child support deal with?"

Don't you just love paying taxes to fund this fiasco? It really is a privilege to live in a country where the welfare system ensures everyone can belong and participate. And then some.

Dangerous WINZ clients

Remember the Harris family?

Fairfax newspapers reported Marcia Harris and her husband, former gang leader Darryl Harris, have claimed unemployment and sickness benefits continuously since 1984.

Three of the couple's four children are on benefits. The family got $30,000 in special-needs grants since 2000, including $16,000 in the past two years. Grants went towards car tyres and a pool fence at one of several properties the family owns in Christchurch....the family has been transferred to a special "remote monitoring" unit. The unit deals with Work and Income clients deemed too dangerous for face-to-face meetings with staff.

At the time I made comment that the people managed through this unit would be able to avoid face-to-face intensive management and work-testing. Now I reflect on this, it is really rather silly. Yes. My comment.

I received a letter from MSD saying that these clients "must meet their obligations, including work-testing, just like any other client."

That means that people deemed too dangerous, too aggressive and violent to have direct contact with case managers, are nonetheless expected to find work in other workplaces. Are they sent along for interviews with unsuspecting prospective employers? Somehow I doubt it.

There were 18 clients in 2004, when the unit was established. Now there are 52. Fifty six percent are on an invalid's benefit and 77 percent are male. Two have dependent children. I hope their children are safe.

What should happen to people like this? In the past they were probably institutionalised. When the benefit system was introduced there was a strong and accepted ethos that people had to be of good moral character and sober habits. Sounds archaic but we have since travelled to the other extreme, where the benefit system is the place where people with acute anti-social behavioural problems are parked.

The courts must be hellish busy

The Sallies research centre released a report into the social health of the nation last week and it just got buried under the GST palaver. It contains a lot of useful statistical information which I might blog over the next few days. Little commentary is needed. (Although this particular table reminds me of my question about why Paul Quinn's disenfranchisement bill is confined to people in prison. If it was targeted at anyone convicted of a crime and sentenced, the polling gain to National would be more significant. Because that's what it's about isn't it? If it isn't and it is actually about loss of rights for criminals then, again, why stop at supervised sentencees?)



Part of the reason the courts are so busy is growing recidivism. Nearly 2 out of 3 Maori are reconvicted within two years of release. More are going through the 'revolving door'.



(Any spelling pedants notice the error above?)

God, I hope this turns out OK

All of us with daughters and sons have our hearts in our mouths waiting for the outcome of this episode. If I was religious I would be praying for her and her family. Please just let it be an unhappy tantrum of sorts and let her be found safe and well. And sorry, Mum, for the times I put you through the mill.

Women's magazine junkies

I make no secret of my contempt for women's magazines. What are they really? Grown-up picture books that depict good and evil; good being tight bellies and bad being dimply thighs. Or maybe they are like national standards for supposedly mature females. A chance to check out how their looks and lives rate. That's why the bad pictures are actually more titillating than the good.

What fills the pages of Women's magazines occasionally permeates my consciousness when once in a blue moon I forget to take some worthwhile reading matter on a visit to the dentist or WOF centre. These trashy tomes ooze superficiality. They speak to people whose own lives are all façade. They make women dissatisfied and depressed by publishing fabulous fairy tales of wealth and beauty. Then they cheer them up by publishing sorry stories about loss and separation and tragedy. But the release of endorphins is a temporary state of affairs. The readers become addicted. They are magazine junkies.

Alison Mau is being used to lace the latest dose. And she is not happy. She launched an attack on Women's Day on Breakfast TV today culminating in providing the editor's e-mail address, no doubt expecting an avalanche of complaints to follow.

Silly, silly. That is exactly the publicity Women's Day is courting. Mau supporters might forgo this week's WD hit but they won't go cold turkey. They'll simply score a dose of whatever other drivel is available from the news-stands.

Key needs better advice

According to Mr Key, if 5 percent of people on the DPB moved into work that would save the government $200 million over 10 years.

This was reported yesterday on NewstalkZB. It is also an excerpt from Key's statement to Parliament last week.

This is interesting.

In the financial year to June 2008 14,754 people moved off the DPB and into work. That's 15 percent.

In addition to that a further 17 percent moved off for other reasons.

So why isn't the government saving millions already? Why is it spending more each year on the DPB?

Because more people come on than go off. Around one in three leavers will be back within the year. And around two thousand teenagers will be granted the DPB each year.

What National needs to grasp is that stopping people going onto benefits will reduce numbers and save millions. Prevention is just as important, if not more important.

But to talk about a goal of moving 5 percent off and into work shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is driving the numbers.

VAT rise to 20 percent

With a mooted rise in GST to 15 percent are we comparatively lucky? Or do we just have prevaricating leadership attempting to have its cake and eat it too?

Reported in The Times;

A rise in VAT is looming whichever party wins the general election, as Labour and the Conservatives draw up plans to balance Britain’s books.

Alistair Darling and George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, are both considering raising VAT to as high as 20 per cent — the European average — from the current rate of 17.5 per cent, The Times has learnt.

Doing so would raise an extra £13 billion a year at a time when financial markets are searching for signs that whoever takes power is serious about tackling Britain’s £178 billion deficit.

Though Labour and the Tories have denied having any current plans to increase VAT, neither will rule it out and The Times understands a rise in the tax is being considered by both parties.

No talk of compensation either.

Of course our rise in GST is supposedly about making the tax system more efficient and less penalising. Not raising revenue.

Whose stupid idea was this?

Depriving prisoners of the right to vote is a pointless waste of time. I'd like to know whose idea it was. Paul Quinn's? Or is he being used to front the bill because he is Maori and it will be predominantly Maori who are affected? Being a Hutt South candidate I attended every meeting Quinn spoke at and can't remember him ever raising this issue (but it is entirely possible that is just a failure of my memory.)

Why make a distinction of 'in prison' anyway? What about people serving home detention or community sentences? They have also committed a crime. Having said that the current criteria of disenfranchisement if the sentence being served is longer than three years is also completely arbitrary.

And who is going to be politically disadvantaged by losing 5 ot 6 thousand votes? Perhaps the Aoteoroa Legalise Cannabis Party might take a hit:-) But seriously, spending bucketloads of parliamentary time and taxpayer money on this bill is just absurd.

UK - 200,000 would-be sickness beneficiaries put on dole

I have been getting pilloried at the Frogblog for suggesting that invalid and sickness benefits are, in many cases, de facto unemployment benefits.

So it is with interest that I read about the new testing regime being applied in the UK.

Anyone claiming incapacity benefits, now called Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), must undergo a thorough medical examination within 13 weeks.

The Work Capability Assessment grades them in categories such as walking, sitting, standing, memory and concentration.

Those with 15 points or more are classed as "Support Group" and are allowed full benefits.

A second classification, the "Work Related Activity Group", means the person does have health issues but will be given work-focused interviews with a personal advisor to help them get a job.

The third classification, "Fit for Work", get no incapacity benefits and have to sign on for Jobseeker's allowance.

Every benefit claimant will have taken the test by 2013.

So what are the results so far?

I am relying here on a report from The People because it would appear they obtained an exclusive release of information. But it looks genuine enough as the reporter has included quotes from officialdom. (Further DWP info is here.)

...[of] almost 300,000 people who applied for sick benefits, 200,000 failed the test and were told to get a job.

And just 24,800 of those who passed, less than ten per cent, were told by medical experts they could do no work at all...

....68 per cent of people trying to go on the sick were fit enough to get a job.

They were put on Jobseeker's Allowance and paid a lower rate than the disability benefit of up to £95 a week.

A different welfare reform idea

Here's a different idea. Canada has also been ahead of the game when it comes to welfare reform. In British Columbia however, time-limits failed due to massive opposition from a variety of quarters.

According to this 2008 article however another measure aided a reduction of rolls by 30 percent.

The government's target of a 30 per cent reduction in the welfare budget and caseloads was achieved through other methods, particularly the new rule that required two years of financial independence in order to be eligible for welfare, and a new required wait of three weeks before a person could apply for benefits.

Requiring two year's prior financial independence would certainly close the door on thousands of young incomers who subsequently can't get off welfare.

It is an idea that might be politically feasible here. And if ideas aren't politically feasible, unfortunately, no matter their merits, they are dead in the water.

Prime Minister - right and wrong

I talked to the Prime Minister today. He was doing his regular question and answer session on NewstalkZB . The host, Justin du Fresne, tackled him about work-testing the DPB and the problem of people adding to their families to get around it. Mr Key said if we can just park that for a moment, went onto a related issue and didn't return to it. So I rang in and asked him not to park it. And while he was busy getting people off the DPB and into work at one end, what was he going to do about the couple of thousand of teenagers going on it every year?

Here is his answer.

NewstalkZB at 52:59

I was particularly interested in the last thing he said. That the US time limits were "in states" which gave the advantage of simply being able to pack up and move to another state. That is exactly the objection I used to hear from the Left.

If this was the case, that people could move to another state where there wasn't a time limit (wrong), or one could start one's entitlement over (wrong) one would expect to see reduction in some states and growth in others. That wasn't the case. Not in the early days, when the rolls plummeted, and not from Jan 2004 - Jan 2008 when only four states showed slight growth - Maine 12%, Massachusetts 6%, Oregon 8% and South Dakota 2% - and that was probably due to the recession beginning. I was unable to challenge him on it having been disconnected after putting the question. But that's OK. It's a great opportunity anyway.



To his credit he acknowledged that some people were having children to either get on or stay on a benefit but, reading between the lines, there is little appetite to change because of the "what will happen to the child?" argument.

As I have said before, that is exactly what some beneficiaries bank on. Children are meal tickets and hostages to their own desired lifestyle.

Tough?

Tough? That's what The NZ Herald headline says.

TOUGH NEW WELFARE LAWS LOOM THIS YEAR.

OK. Let me read this from the viewpoint of a beneficiary.

I'm on the DPB but my kids are only aged 2 and 3. So this isn't going to affect me for four years yet. And even then, the change is being phased in over several years. So that might push it out for another 2 or 3. Mr Key was talking about what getting 5 percent of parents with children aged 6 or older would save the country, so obviously their expectations that I am going to go to work aren't that high. And even if they do tell me I have to do something in 2017 say, it's only 15 hours a week. 3 hours a day. I can do some sort of course at home while I ease my way back into the workforce. Anyway, might have another kid by then, in which case none of this matters.

I'm a 16 year-old girl who has grown up on welfare but I really want my own space, I really want to get away from my pain in the arse mother. If I got pregnant, like Mum did, it wouldn't really matter. I can still get the DPB (and a place of my own) for six years at least. That's an age. Oh, and I can fast-track it all by getting on the sickness benefit first.

I'm on a sickness benefit because I have alcohol-related depression. What does all this mean? I have to jump through some more hoops? Big deal. They've already been making me do that anyway. I've already been signed off by that 'designated doctor' WINZ sent me to.

Nobody should be under any illusion that National is getting tough on welfare. They should be red-faced over these window-dressing gestures. Really. It's nothing more than 'been there, done that'.

(Rider; Not all beneficiaries think like this. But those who do not, are not the problem.)

PM admits welfare rolls are out of control

Media Release

PM ADMITS WELFARE ROLLS OUT OF CONTROL
Tuesday, February 9, 2010

In his statement to parliament Prime Minister John Key today said that New Zealand needs to bring welfare rolls "back under control".

"Mr Key's assessment of the situation is correct but his prescription for bringing the rolls back under control is not," said Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator.

"Work-testing the DPB when the youngest child is six will simply encourage some people to ensure their youngest child is never older than six. In other words they will add children to their benefit. It is already the case that around 5,000 babies are added to existing benefits every year. At the very least a cap on the number of children needs to be applied."

"He talked about stricter criteria and testing for those on the sickness and invalid benefits yet mentioned nothing about, for instance, compulsory treatment for drug and alcohol addicts. He said the reforms would 'squarely focus on helping people get back to work as soon as possible'. But Labour had already implemented extensive reforms aimed at achieving exactly this and made no impression on the numbers, which continue to grow. Last year, under the new National government, the number on the sickness benefit grew by 16 percent, the biggest growth in any year ever."

"But the main problem with Mr Key's prescription is that beneficiaries, and potential beneficiaries, have heard it all before. Welfare is business as usual. Any government serious about reducing dependence would be spelling out time limits, and strict conditions of receipt which would manifestly change expectations. He has missed the opportunity again."

Promises, promises

Key is tipped to announce welfare reform plans in his speech today. This will no doubt involve a reiteration of their 2008 campaign promises. While manifesto promises are not implemented there remains an opportunity to keep rolling them out as 'new' announcements.

For instance, in the manifesto National said,

"Within twelve months of a new National Government, every person who has been on the UB for more than a year will be required to re-apply for their benefit and undergo a comprehensive work assessment."

That was re-announced just before Xmas and it wouldn't surprise to see it re-re-announced today.

An earlier post covered each manifesto promise and the failure thus far to implement even one of them.

Still, putting aside rational judgement, I am ever the optimist. But a reader over my shoulder has just walked away saying the prospect of those Tories doing anything isn't great. In fact, he has just returned to tell me that John Key is not a powerhouse of ideas; he is not an ardent reformer or we would have heard about him long before now; he isn't a Mike Moore or a Roger Douglas; or even a Helen Clark.

Or a Bill Clinton, who said the following in his State of the Union address of 1996;

I say to those who are on welfare, and especially to those who have been trapped on welfare for a long time: For too long our welfare system has undermined the values of family and work, instead of supporting them. The Congress and I are near agreement on sweeping welfare reform. We agree on time limits, tough work requirements, and the toughest possible child support enforcement. But I believe we must also provide child care so that mothers who are required to go to work can do so without worrying about what is happening to their children.

I challenge this Congress to send me a bipartisan welfare reform bill that will really move people from welfare to work and do the right thing by our children. I will sign it immediately.

Let us be candid about this difficult problem. Passing a law, even the best possible law, is only a first step. The next step is to make it work. I challenge people on welfare to make the most of this opportunity for independence. I challenge American businesses to give people on welfare the chance to move into the work force. I applaud the work of religious groups and others who care for the poor. More than anyone else in our society, they know the true difficulty of the task before us, and they are in a position to help. Every one of us should join them. That is the only way we can make real welfare reform a reality in the lives of the American people.

Where Australia needs to catch up with NZ

It is unfortunate that the current Reserve Bank Governor is a naysayer while the ex is the ambitious one. Bollard may be praised for speaking his mind but should also now have a question mark over his suitability.

Anyway, Goff says.

I'm not fatalistic about New Zealand being unable to close the gap. But based on the evidence so far this Government is taking us in the opposite direction." New Zealand incomes were about one-third lower than those in Australia and unemployment was higher after years of being lower.

By the HLFS calculation, yes Australian unemployment is lower.

But based on benefit dependency it is not.



These figures are Sept 2009.

Let's compare (as best we can).

That's not straightforward because Australia uses a working age population definition of 15-64. Our statistics are 18-64. Australia includes people on a benefit under 18. Our quarterly statistics do not. So maybe if I just multiply our data by a population factor of 5.08 that will allow a rough comparison.

Sept 2009 - Around 560,000 people were claiming the unemployment benefit (Newstart) in Australia compared to 61,000 in NZ. Australia proportionately much higher.

Around 340,000 people were claiming DPB in Australia compared to 108,000 here. NZ much higher. (Part of the reason for this is Australia has rightly started moving these claimants onto the unemployment benefit.)

Around 750,000 people in Australia were claiming a disability pension while in NZ 141,000 people were on a sickness or invalid benefit. Australia slightly higher.

Looks like another 220,000 are on other benefits bringing the total to 1.870 million compared to a total in NZ of around 332,000 (incl 16-17 year-olds).

NZ's dependency rate is lower, or around 90 percent of Australian total.

So there we go. Benefit dependency is a huge cost on government and the economy and Australia needs to catch up with New Zealand's lower rate.

Opinionated Mummy

Opinionated Mummy is going through hard times. WINZ won't help. No, it's not fair when you have paid your taxes, but the assistance is supposedly targeted to the greatest need (of course I have written endlessly about how the very availability of assistance creates the need). It seems to me OM needs to find whatever temp work she can get while a 'real' job is secured. But I know that is easier said than done. I went through a period after returning to NZ of living with my parents and getting less confident and more depressed as I failed interviews and felt guilt ridden about relying on their support. And I only had myself to worry about. Not three children.

I sympathise with OM and I don't think she has brought her problems on herself. So in the ethos of voluntary giving, which I believe strongly in, I would like to have a whip around for her and will start off the kitty with $100. I know its not a huge amount but neither is her current shortfall. Would anyone like to chip in? E-mail me at dandl.mitchell@clear.net.nz

And OM. Don't go all proud on us. You can pay it back one day if you want but I certainly wouldn't expect you to. I like the way you think and I like the way you approach life. So I can help if I wish. Let me know how I can get the money to you.

National Standards 4 - still unpersuaded

John Hattie is "Auckland University professor, student assessment expert and the man top politicians in this country see for advice about education". This is what I have been saying, or attempting to say, about the introduction of National Standards;

If it ain't broke...

Hattie's first point is that, despite sweeping claims of failure by Key and Education Minister Anne Tolley, the New Zealand school system is in good shape, especially compared with the rest of the world.

National standards, he argues, are usually the catchcry of countries where the education system is in serious trouble. They have been introduced in the US, Britain and Australia but none of these countries have been able to show any overall improvement in student achievement.

Hattie believes national standards may lift the performance of a few children at the bottom of the educational heap but says the average will not change because bright children will be neglected. He thinks the policy threatens to destroy one of the great strengths of New Zealand's education system, which recognises that children of the same age have different academic abilities and allows them to learn at the level of their current ability.

There is an indication later in the piece that the Minister is allowing schools to keep "their own testing system, rather than introducing national testing." So now I will try to find out exactly what that means.