Ele Ludemann: Soft approach hasn’t worked

A district nurse called on a patient who mentioned he was worried about his teenage son who was spending most of his day in his bedroom.

The nurse went to have a chat with the son and in the ensuing discussion found he’d never had a job.

The nurse had a friend who owned a supermarket, he asked the son if he’d be willing to give work there a try.

The son said yes, the trial worked and turned into a full time job. It also led to the other unemployed teenager in the family looking for, and getting a job, when he saw his brother earning more than he could on a benefit.

A lot of young people on benefits won’t have someone like the nurse to help them get a job. If welfare’s all you know it’s hard to see a better way.

That’s one of the dangers of inter generational welfare dependency and it’s why the government’s determination to get people into work is so important.

Lindsay Mitchell has a suggestion of how it could be done :

. . .It’s laudable to talk about getting 18 year-olds off welfare. Better still though to discourage their entry into the welfare system in the first place.

The focus of reforms must be two-fold. Dealing with 40,000 young people on Jobseeker right now is critical. But so is looking to the future and turning off the tap that feeds inter-generational dependence.

Labour’s soft-on-sole-parents approach has to go. That means ending the nonsense of not naming fathers and reintroducing work obligations for parents who add children to an existing benefit.

But more broadly, the cash-for-kids scheme has to stop. The assistance provided to unemployed parents who refuse jobs should be through ‘money management’ – a system used for youth beneficiaries. The rules are:

–your rent or board and things like your power bill and any debts will be paid straight from your payment. You won’t get this money yourself.

-you will get paid a weekly allowance of up to $50 into your personal bank account.

-any money left over will be put onto your personal payment card. This is like a debit card that you can use to buy your food and groceries at approved stores.

Until cash incentives that equal incomes from work are removed, the inter-generational problem will continue to plague New Zealand. Yes, there will be downsides to money management. But will they be any worse than the devastating social outcomes that come from unconditional welfare?

Leaving people who could work to languish on welfare is too expensive in both financial and social terms. It costs too much directly in the money paid out and indirectly through poorer health and more crime.

The soft approach hasn’t worked and won’t work. The government is right to take a tougher approach.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.