“Benefit Dependence”

Unemployment

The Welfare Working Group is worried about benefit dependence and quotes statistics trying to scare the public into fearing people on benefits and how much it will cost the Government (and tax-payers money). However, it seems to be concentrating on one side of things and potential costs if all these people stayed on the benefit, rather than concentrating on actual facts. In 2009 the figures show that 84% of those on Unemployment Benefit had received the benefit continuously for less than one year. No cycle of dependency there!

The Welfare Working Group (WWG) said “Our assessment was that the current system was insufficiently focused on helping people into paid work …”

“I agree with that part” says Rebecca Occleston, speaker for the Beneficiary Advisory Service (BAS), “but I think that the Official Welfare Working Group are looking at this all wrong. Increasing sanctions on people who do not find work, especially in a recession, is definitely not the way to go!”

“There seems to be overwhelming evidence that when there are jobs, there are less people on benefits. In a recession, benefit numbers rise. You cannot magic this away by threatening people. The government should be doing what they can to get the country to come out of this and create jobs. From what I can tell, recessions happen and society recovers, but this process generally takes years.

The Alternative Welfare Working Group (AWWG) released a report on 26th November which provides a counter view to the perception that many beneficiaries deliberately choose a life of poverty and exclusion. The report points out: “Many people who spoke or wrote to us were at pains to explain that they had not chosen to be supported by a social security benefit, but that this was a consequence of something horrible happening to their life.” This group is listening to actual beneficiaries as to what it is like on a benefit and who can know better than them. They also point out that the direction the Official WWG is going will only lead to more poverty, which cannot help the statistic of 1 in 5 NZ children living in poverty!

Welfare Justice also points out that when the media are portraying unemployment beneficiaries as lazy or fraudulent, this causes them anxiety and feelings of vulnerability, which is a far stretch from empowering people and giving them the confidence they need to find work.

“The major issue being ignored by the WWG of course, is poverty. They think threatening people on benefits will help matters, but unless there is a RADICAL increase in the number of jobs, there will still be thousands of people on benefits so no problems are solved. When someone cannot afford to live, they spend too much of their time worried about money and trying to fix the problems that arise from their poverty. I submit that a higher rate of benefit will lead to a quicker return to paid work.”
Domestic Purposes Benefit

We notice that the WWG is also suggesting that people with young children look for work. “I personally find that rather insulting,” says Rebecca, who has 2 children of her own. “Parenting is a full time job; equivalent to at least 2 full-time jobs, actually when you look at how much work is involved. A great many people with young children like to work part time and this should be given all the support and encouragement they need to do this. It is very difficult to hold down work, even part time, with young children (whether they be preschoolers or school age children). Many children (thankfully not all of them) get too sick for pre/school quite often, with tummy bugs, flu, normal childhood complaints like chicken pox, fevers and other viral issues, conjunctivitis, lice, … and the list goes on. When you are an only parent, you have to care for your child/ren every time they are too sick to attend pre/school (we do not want to risk other children getting unwell). Add to this school holidays and there are a lot of days we can’t work. I myself am lucky enough to have work I can do from home on days I am free. Most people are not lucky enough to find such flexible work.”

Others choose to be full-time caregivers to their young children. “This is a valid choice” says Rebecca, “and should be encouraged.” The Families Commission are valiantly trying to let society know that parenting is the most important job you will ever do. “But Work and Income and the WWG are undermining all that by suggesting parents choosing to be there for their kids are lazy and bludging off the system. What a load of bull!”

“I have also been wondering how receiving a child disability allowance for one or more of your children will affect Work and Income thinking you are 'work ready.' In one of the other articles I have read recently a woman lost her job when she tried to work because her 12 yr old son had problems at school etc. I would think WINZ should be taking all these things into account and in theory they do, but what happens in practice can be vastly different. If a child of any age requires extra care and attention, this can seriously affect people's ability to work (I know from personal experience) and I understand that is why it is paid (regardless of the client's income).

“I would also assume ‘suitable work’ included being during school hours for most given it is for parents whose children are in school, but this is not always the case, it seems. Indeed, it will be interesting (and possibly horrible) to see what does happen and what WINZ actually expect people to do.”

“In a related topic, look at working for families and the in work payment. If you are a single parent trying to work 20 hours/week to get working for families so you don’t have to be on a benefit, how many weeks/year are you expected to work these hours? I rang IRD to check on this and the answer was a little vague. The person I asked suggested that if you work at least 3 in every 4 weeks that may be sufficient. But bare in mind that school is only about 40 weeks/year so that would be cutting it a bit fine for many single parents (presumably there would be a limited number of sick days you could take each time you or one of your children are sick). Whilst there is an availability of school holiday programmes, these have limited numbers and may cost. But most importantly, I think especially young kids need a break in the holidays. Children get very tired by the end of term, so this should again be a choice for the parent, not an option forced on them.”

According to the AWWG’s report, “Barriers of employment, included lack of affordable, flexible and quality childcare, the scarcity of family-friendly workplaces, and the lack work opportunities for health impaired people.”

Medical Benefits

“‘He will never be able to work or contribute to society’ was said to me the other day about a boy with dyspraxia and intellectual disabilities and this made me think about how we look at people with physical or mental medical conditions. It is not that these people don’t want to work. Nearly everyone we have come across in my last 11 years working with BAS would rather be working than on a benefit. What we need to look at is what is stopping them from being employed, and I think we need to look at ourselves and our attitudes. We need employers who truly have open employment policies and the resources and environments to back that up. I had a friend who was lucky enough to be sufficiently valued in her employment that not being stressed out or put upon by work was in her employment contract! Unfortunately this society we are creating that is initiating work trials and less rights for workers is not one in which those with any kind of special needs will thrive. How many people are lucky enough to have job where you can not go in for a few days or weeks when your depression worsens and you are trying (with your doctor) to achieve balance in your medication so you can function? I suspect most employers, who have more of a choice of who they can employ right now with so many people out of work, would go for the more low-maintenance worker.”

The OECD did a report on Sickness and Disability recently. It not only stated that NZ was below average for number of people on Medical Benefits, but also that “there wasn't monitoring of sick workers health status and more needed to be done to engage with employers. [Employers] should be given more responsibilities, matched by better financial incentives, to prevent illness and retain jobs. Also employers needed better tools and supports to meet responsibilities.” It went on to say that “employers should share the cost of paying sickness benefits for workers but those that hired people with health problems or disability should receive wage subsidies.” Apparently Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the Government was addressing the issue.

Anne Else summed a lot of this up very accurately in her article in Scoop on 16th August 2010 “What the Welfare Working Group report really says.” She points out that “Around two in three disabled people, with low or medium levels of support needs, are in employment. So are one in three of those with high support needs”.

The AWWG’s report also said a common message was that Work and Income was an intimidating institution, with one beneficiary describing it as increasingly menacing and punitive. Clients feel humiliated having to explain their medical conditions to different people all the time. Again this is not the empowering atmosphere the WWG claim they want to see that will support people with disabilities back to work.

Food for thought: Saving Money on Benefits

There is a lovely pie chart in “Chart of the Day, elephants in the room edition” (http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/chart-of-the-day-elephants-in-the-room-edition/ ), which I will enclose a copy of below. They also make the comments

“I guess if you exclude super and WFF then the DPB really jumps out at you. Holy Cow! We need to lock that down! So we have a discussion about ‘how many solo Mothers really need assistance?’ But we pay super to anyone over the age of 65. Own millions of dollars in property and investments? You’re still eligible for superannuation. Working and earning a good income? You’re still eligible for superannuation. Seems like there might be room for efficiency gains there, don’tcha think?
The other problem with reforming welfare for people like invalids and solo Mothers is that getting them off benefits is contingent on them finding jobs (obvious but still seemingly beyond the keen of the WWG), and thus training them and so on, not to mention the social costs and administrative overheads of such a policy . But if you cut superannuation payments to the wealthiest 1% of super recipients you save $77 million dollars a year overnight with almost no fiscal costs, secure in the knowledge that the people losing their benefits are still far more privileged than everyone else in the country.
But of course there would be dire political consequences which is why we’re talking about invalids and teenage mums instead.”

“I find this a rather interesting concept” says Rebecca, “that cutting the top 1% superannuation would “save” so much money. I would like to stress that I'm not suggesting that is the right thing to do, it is just worth pointing out to people that that would “solve the problem” and I presume the ONLY reason the Government doesn't do it is because superannuitants vote. Also most people plan to be old and on super one day but the majority people don't plan on being on any other kind of benefit. For this reason, the general public feel fine about being down on most beneficiaries, but not on superannuitants”


ENDS

© Scoop Media