Stuff recaps National’s welfare reform:
Anyone aged 16 or 17 on a benefit – other than the invalid benefit – would be also paid in a different way.
Details were still being worked through, but it was expected that changes would include:
* Essential costs like rent and power being paid directly on behalf of the young person;
* Money for basic living costs like food loaded on to a new payment card that could not be used for things like alcohol or cigarettes;
* A limited amount of money for young people to spend at their discretion.
“We are not going to simply hand over benefit money every fortnight,” Key said.
“Instead, we will have a much more managed system of payment, with the young person’s support provider, or MSD in some cases, paying bills on their behalf and helping them manage within their budget.”
If being a beneficiary is a lifestyle choice, and young people out there are breeding for the DPB and living it up on the dole, and their kids are in poverty because their wastrel parents are spending it all on booze and cigarettes – as the conventional wisdom of talk-back radio would have us believe – then these are really great policies. But if young people are on benefits because we’re in the midst of a global recession and there aren’t any jobs for them, and their children are in poverty because of soaring living costs . . . not so much.
The critical parts of the policy are that young people will be tracked from when they leave school to ensure that they are either in work, gaining further education or are in work based training.
JC
Comment by JC — August 14, 2011 @ 2:00 pm
But if young people are on benefits because we’re in the midst of a global recession and there aren’t any jobs for them, and their children are in poverty because of soaring living costs . . . not so much
Why? The money is still being spent but the channels are restricted.
Or are you suggesting this is how an individual spends the dole is an issue of economic freedom?
Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
“Or are you suggesting that how an individual spends the dole is now an issue of economic freedom?”
Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
It’s like a literal nanny state
Comment by gazzaj — August 14, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
@gazza – I just made the same point on Twitter.
@Gregor – I don’t see it as being an issue of economic freedom. It’s about whether the problems these reforms are addressing are actual problems.
Comment by danylmc — August 14, 2011 @ 2:14 pm
From Key’s speech:
“They need a competent adult to walk alongside them … that is why we are going to fund these support providers to be the competent adults in these young people’s lives – to provide intensive case-management and mentoring support.”
In the universe next door, the leader of the National opposition has called this “throwing money” at “an army of bureaucrats” and “bleeding-heart liberals”.
Good job creation, though.
Comment by sammy — August 14, 2011 @ 2:17 pm
The only possible explanation is that the multi-verse theory of the universe is indeed correct, and National exist in another universe altogether, thus being removed from our ‘real’ world.
Comment by Alan — August 14, 2011 @ 2:18 pm
It’s about whether the problems these reforms are addressing are actual problems.
For National, whether this addresses actual problems is of little significance – what’s important is whether it will appeal to National-friendly voters.
Also: I’m picking we won’t be reading on Kiwiblog about how this is runaway Nanny-State stuff serving only to increase the level of bureaucracy involved.
Comment by Psycho Milt — August 14, 2011 @ 2:23 pm
It’s about whether the problems these reforms are addressing are actual problems.
Ah, fair enough.
But surely the whole point of election year campaigning year is not to address actual tangible problems, but to create new ones that can immediately and painlessly be resolved, while ideally banking some political capital in the process?
Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2011 @ 2:25 pm
Hilariously, assuming a work-for-the-dole requirement (which I understand the WWG supports for adults), this avowedly centre-right government has basically reinvented the 1960s Chinese Communist work unit system in youth-only PPP drag.
All that’s missing now is a few hundred shoddily built communal apartment blocks, but I’m sure there’s scope for the “support provider” (or another private business unit thereof) to oblige us in that regard.
Comment by Sam F — August 14, 2011 @ 2:30 pm
I would really like to see the policy analysis used to inform these proposals… oh wait, thats right, I heard that Paula Bennett doesn’t accept policy advice and instead gets her ideas from the ‘battlers’ of Waitakere…
Comment by DT — August 14, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
@danylmc #5: look really hard for evidence that 16/17 year olds misuse their benefits any more than older beneficiaries. I’m picking that you will find none (indeed, the data may well suggest the opposite).
Comment by DT — August 14, 2011 @ 2:38 pm
“Or are you suggesting that how an individual spends the dole is an issue of economic freedom?”
Isn’t it? Assuming that the total amount of money going to these children doesn’t change, what this means is the government dictating the proportion of income people are permitted to spend on rent – which is to say, where you’re allowed to live – and power – i.e. whether or not you’re allowed to heat your house. Charming. (Particularly weird is direct rent & power payment; people who don’t pay rent and power themselves run out of places to live in short order. All this policy is going to do is teach children that someone else will take care of the bills. Very odd.)
Comment by Tui — August 14, 2011 @ 2:53 pm
“Very odd”.
Evidently the best way to teach people to be responsible for their own spending is to, er, take responsibility for their spending.
Comment by The PC Avenger — August 14, 2011 @ 3:02 pm
I’m all ears to hear which private institutions currently lobbying the government are going to be administering the payment card system. And how much it’s going to cost us.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
I don’t think, Tui, that the plan was to dictate their rent, but rather to pay it directly. Same with the power, and so on. And frankly, a lot of people don’t know how to budget, and it makes sense to try to catch those at a younger age, because once they are set into a pattern, it is hard to break. Just human nature. I suspect most of the general populace could do with such guidance.
I think the motivation is that some stats somewhere, at least I hope so, suggest that young people on benefits at 16 and 17, end up continuing on the benefit past 18 as well. They leave school, have no training, have no hope. I would really like to see any stats that may be part of this underlying assumption. What I like about it is that along with the benefits are training places. There _is_ a carrot in there, and some sort of encouragement for the future.
I think the proof will be in the pudding a few years from now.
Comment by David in Chch — August 14, 2011 @ 3:11 pm
The socialist’s stock in trade. Talk every idea to death. Make sure NOTHING ever changes.
The poor buggers don’t have a show because, as Matt MacCarten put it so well today, National is going to win in November so, whatever the margin, they will be able to claim a mandate to do just what the hell ever they please.
And there’s not a damned thing the socialist rabble can do about it except suck it up squeal like stuck pigs.
Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — August 14, 2011 @ 3:19 pm
What does a stuck pig sound like when it squeals, Adolf? Enlighten me – I don’t want to have to get close to your anus in order to find out.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 3:22 pm
Reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear that “support providers” will be found in Whanau Ora-type private organisations. This enables National to deflect the “Ministry of Snoopers” objections, and allows them to use buzz-words like community and holistic.
Given their track record so far (e.g. PEDA) it looks like an easy source for news stories about taxpayers’ money gone bad.
Or it would be if they actually followed through on all this post-election, which I seriously doubt.
Comment by sammy — August 14, 2011 @ 3:29 pm
Make sure NOTHING ever changes.
I thought Klark was evil because she changed everything (including the National party). Make up your mind.
Comment by sammy — August 14, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
Everything stayed the same because Clark changed everything. It’s the kind of dialectic only a historical materialist could be proud of.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 3:39 pm
Yes it would be nice to see the stats behind the policy, but as a teacher I know of at least one 16 yr old on an independent youth benefit who sleeps rough in some public toilets (recently arrested for lighting a fire there to keep warm) just so his entire benefit can buy him the alcohol and drugs he wants. Sorry if it doesn’t fit with your universe, but the status quo sure ain’t working out for this kid.
I can’t think of too many people this age (we are talking 16 and 17 yr olds) who wouldn’t view a regular infusion of no-strings-attached state cash in the same way younger kids see an open jar of lollies. Look what happened to the early incarnations of Student Loans – new cars, stereos, lavish parties, trips to Oz etc. It wasn’t until it dawned on the policy wonks exactly what was going on that they required loans to bypass the student and go straight into fees, course expenses and other boring stuff like that.
Comment by Neil — August 14, 2011 @ 4:01 pm
“The socialist’s stock in trade. Talk every idea to death. Make sure NOTHING ever changes.”
You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that this is something other than the comments section of a blog.
Comment by The PC Avenger — August 14, 2011 @ 4:04 pm
So Neil – do you agree with the general thrust behind this policy then? Given your direct experience?
Comment by David in Chch — August 14, 2011 @ 4:31 pm
This is clearly a trial for all benefits.
Comment by SPC — August 14, 2011 @ 4:39 pm
Much of what is being proposed is an expansion of current pilot schemes that have had some success dealing with some of the most troubled and difficult to deal with young people.
It’s something that requires time – more than a year or two – and a lot of hard work to see some significant levels of success, and an acceptance that some young people are just about impossible to succeed with. Some are pretty much unemployable.
Comment by Pete George — August 14, 2011 @ 4:56 pm
So Neil – do you agree with the general thrust behind this policy then? Given your direct experience?
Given its specific applications to 16 and 17 yr olds, yes I do. To me, it’s a no-brainer.
Comment by Neil — August 14, 2011 @ 4:56 pm
@David in CHCH, yes, but presumably there will be a cap on the amount you are allowed to spend on your rent/power, and the amount of discretionary spending money you get will not be dependent on how much you spend on rent and power. Which amounts to dictating how much you can spend and therefore where you can live. If there isn’t a cap, I’d be happy to take this back and consider this aspect of the policy reasonable insofar as it applies only to 16-17 year olds, except that I suspect it is a trial for benefits for adults and I just don’t think that’s OK.
@Neil, if the problem is alcohol/drugs – which it’s already illegal for 16-17 year olds to buy, so they’re clearly already OK with going outside of the law to obtain – deal with those problems directly. Dealing with substance abuse problems by targeting the freedom of people on benefits is pretty much like saying “who gives a fuck about substance abuse in rich kids? Poor people are the problem!” It’s not the government’s purview to control what specific individuals can and can’t spend their money on and I think policies which do are destructive and dehumanising.
Comment by Tui — August 14, 2011 @ 5:14 pm
(re my last sentence: okay, drinking ages. but still.)
Comment by Tui — August 14, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
Kiwiblog quotes the full speech, in which Key promises free childcare for teenage parents, and free education (polytech/apprenticeship) for all 16/17 year old beneficiaries. Could be an interesting plan if he follows through with that.
My question, though — how many beneficiaries does the country have aged 16 and 17? It seems like a lot of bureaucracy required to target what must surely be only a very small slice of the population…?
Comment by repton — August 14, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
According to the Herald:
“Between 8500 and 13,500 16 and 17-year-olds are not in education, training, or work at any one time; 90 per cent of these people will go onto a benefit once they turn 18, and around 1600 are already on a special benefit for 16 and 17 year olds.”
Comment by Pete George — August 14, 2011 @ 5:29 pm
Fuck the Herald. It’s done by journalists whose only experience with numbers is “what page is my story on”.
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/msd3056-statistical-report-2010-v7.pdf
1640 receiving an Independent Youth Benefit. 1.3% of 16 and 17 year olds.
Please also note other pertinent facts from MSD – under Labour, number of benefit recipients reduced in the years to 2008, while they increased under national to pre-2007 levels.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 5:38 pm
Dizzy – hasn’t their been a worldwide economic meltdown since 2008 or something?
C’mon, dude.
Fair point re Granny’s ‘reporters’ though.
Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2011 @ 5:46 pm
@repton: Not many. There are about 900 non parent 16-17 year olds on benefit, and about 3300 16/17 year old parents (figures approximate). I don’t know how many 18 year old parent beneficiaries there are.
Comment by DT — August 14, 2011 @ 5:52 pm
Dizzy – hasn’t their been a worldwide economic meltdown since 2008 or something?
C’mon, dude.
Fair point re Granny’s ‘reporters’ though.
Comment by Gregor W
Yep, but you’d probably think that would account for increases in only employment related benefits. But the increases are across the board, including DPB, which went down under Labour.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 5:53 pm
Obviously that is excluding the relatively large amount of 16/17 year old people on invalid’s benefit, which isn’t being targetted here, and which makes the numbers quoted in terms of totals on benefit, and amount who go on to be benefit at 18 (which most 16/17′s in invalid’s benefit do) quite misleading.
Comment by DT — August 14, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
Oh, also, it gives little credence to the assertions that the numbers on benefit under Labour was out of control. Trufax.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 5:59 pm
“Hilariously, assuming a work-for-the-dole requirement (which I understand the WWG supports for adults), this avowedly centre-right government has basically reinvented the 1960s Chinese Communist work unit system in youth-only PPP drag.”
If you check the 1960s and 70s you’ll find National ran work for the dole schemes for many thousands throughout the country, ie, there’s nothing new or even remotely controversial about this to offend either National or Labour supporters.. its the same pragmatic response that has been done successfully in the past.
The more interesting questions are why Labour didn’t come up with this when in power (and youth unemployment ran up to 16.9%), and now, will Labour heads collectively explode as they contemplate what this will do to their own support base.
JC
Comment by JC — August 14, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
And frankly, a lot of people don’t know how to budget, and it makes sense to try to catch those at a younger age
That goes beyond the welfare state, to be fair. I think there’s long been a missing part of the education system around ensuring young people have good financial skills for entering the real world, certainly going anecdotally by the number of people I’ve known who’ve been happy to live day-to-day on credit card debt and the interest-free overdrafts that banks were too happy to give them. I’d be happy to be disproved with actual evidence if it exists.
Comment by MikeM — August 14, 2011 @ 6:33 pm
Much of this has been long signalled, the idea of teenagers being in education, training or work was around under the last government. The accountability side of it is just to placate the anti-government right who don’t much like investing money.
The real focus of this policy (for now) is teen parents of age 16-18. An increase in age to 19 (under 20) is to be expected during the next 3 years.
The idea of a card system is being trialled on them rather than the separated partners of professionals with young children.
One can expect an extension on the UB (under 20) as well, when they work out how to differentiate between students on holiday and others on the UB (this government won’t apply it on the sons of farmers at uni etc) and when the numbers fall with economic recovery – then it will be seen as managing the underclass cost problem solving. For the same reason they won’t return to youth rates – even middle class students are working part-time to afford study. They’ll use unemployed youth as a reason not to increase the minimum wage more than the CPI and try and push proponents of an increase to restrict it to older workers, to restore a dual rate without any cut.
Picking off youth under 20 in way that both caters to authoritarianism and a desire to play smart politics at the same time.
Comment by SPC — August 14, 2011 @ 6:41 pm
@ Dizzy – Labour shifted all the yoof unemployed onto makework training such as the discredited Wananga model.
Comment by abel the amish — August 14, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
So, what if a young person lives with Mum and Dad and they get a benefit (are they even eligible?) Can Mum and Dad charge them board and get paid for that? What if Mum and Dad are also on a benefit and want the young person to help out with expenses? Who will stop Mum and Dad from spending the extra cash on booze and fags and drugs and gambling, because we know that that’s what beneficiaries do with cash?
(Can’t be arsed reading the speech or research benefit eligibility, perhaps someone here can tell me.)
Comment by MeToo — August 14, 2011 @ 8:23 pm
I’d be interested to see how much is allocated for food. Do the bureaucrats designing this know how much teenage boys* REALLY eat? And that they eat NON-STOP?
Comment by MeToo — August 14, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
*I only know teenage boys, can’t testify for the eating habits of teenage girls.
Comment by MeToo — August 14, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
@ Dizzy – Labour shifted all the yoof unemployed onto makework training such as the discredited Wananga model.
Comment by abel the amish
Discredited by whom? NZQA? The TEC? Or MinEdu? Or Kiwiblog comments and the monkey that lives in your head working the controls?
Although that doesn’t matter what you think is discredited, because – and here’s the FUNNY thing – MED also administer the student allowance, and in the same report, it shows that the numbers of people getting SA didn’t increase as fast as the drops in the other benefits. Attending a Wānanga would have meant these students qualified for SA – so either they didn’t claim it and supported themselves, or, and this is more than likely what’s happened, you’ve decided to make some shit up based on a half-formed prejudice in your head.
But here’s the hilarious, comedy gold part – the expenditure on SA increased 27% in National’s first year in government!
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 9:32 pm
angry lad aren’t you.
Comment by will — August 14, 2011 @ 9:45 pm
Don’t project, will.
Comment by Dizzy — August 14, 2011 @ 9:52 pm
But the increases are across the board, including DPB, which went down under Labour.
Easily explained, Dizzy. People do more rooting during a depression.
Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2011 @ 9:53 pm
Oh and also, marginal/underemployed temp or part time labour (like people who might historically be on the DPB but are attempting to re-enter the workforce), tend to be the first to get shoved when recession bites.
NB – I miss James. Where is our little chum?
Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2011 @ 9:57 pm
NB – I miss James. Where is our little chum?
Oh gawd, don’t
Comment by Progger — August 14, 2011 @ 10:24 pm
I hear NACT caused the recession so they would have an excuse to persucute the working class and beneficiaries, also to spite Labour and their legion of PS policy analysts who had caused the boom.
Comment by will — August 14, 2011 @ 10:28 pm
Easy targets, small numbers. Difference to the real problems in our society? Not much
Comment by Kerry — August 15, 2011 @ 9:44 am