Dom Post on Welfare
November 11th, 2009 at 7:41 pm by David FarrarA good editorial from the Dom Post:
The Social Development Ministry appears to believe that the increases, which mirror international trends, are beyond its control. An investigation by the auditor-general found the ministry paid little more than lip service to changes made by the last government to improve the vetting of beneficiary claims and better prepare sickness and invalid beneficiaries for a return to full or part-time employment.
Extra staff had been hired and the wording of medical certificates changed to provide more information about claimants’ health, but the ministry had not established contact with many long-term beneficiaries, was not actively managing the cases of many of those who might be able to return to work, was not applying sanctions to beneficiaries who refused to co-operate, and was not monitoring the effectiveness of the changes.
And people wonder why so many are sceptical of the increase in numbers.
Perhaps the most damning of the auditor-general’s findings was that 24,000 people had been continuously on the sickness benefit for more than a year, despite it being intended for those with a “short-term medical condition”.
I suspect many of those 24,000 cite drug addiction as their sickness. I’d rather we fund them into treatment, rather than keep paying them the sickness benefit.
The majority of those on both benefits deserve public sympathy. But there is sufficient evidence of people slipping through the cracks in the system to suggest that numbers can be significantly reduced by more active case management. The department’s southern region office reduced the number of beneficiaries on its books by 134 in six weeks when it established a team to interview sickness beneficiaries aged between 25 and 49.
Superb.
For that reason, the recent indications that National ministers are preparing to implement their pre-election promise to make it tougher to sign up for and stay on both the sickness and invalid’s benefit are welcome. Those who are permanently incapacitated deserve all the help the state can offer. So do those taking their first tentative steps back into the workforce. Government plans to increase the amount long-term beneficiaries can earn from part-time work make sense.
However, a short-term medical condition, no matter how debilitating, is not a reason for a life of dependency.
Neither is being a solo parent.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
It would certainly be refreshing to see “active” case management.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
That last comment would cause some issues both with your fan club (Phil U), and your previous guest blogger. I reckon you need a full post on that, not just a throwaway line.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
WINZ only carry out active case management on white middle class, prior-to-being-unemployed highish-income taxpayers.
You should see the hoops you have to go through to even start getting a benefit, let alone stay on it for more than 2 weeks.
Degree qualified people with a 15 year non-stop work history are made to go on Work Track programs where they can learn to write a CV – never mind the fact that WINZ were supplied with a well written comprehensive one.
And this was under a caring sharing Labour government.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
What a profound short little paragraph that says it all
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
This was part of an email I received .. the other part was interesting but so was this.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“eeek eeek wardle ardel oodle shit shit shit”…better dust off the cv phil maaate…
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Doubtless Phillip Ure will be absolutely delighted at the prospect of being “actively case-managed” back into work.
Well, if he’s not, I certainly am
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Social welfare is a sacred cow in NZ and I don’t see that changing.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
A good friend of mine was a long-term ACC recipient. He was genuinely unwell (medical misadventure = a very stuffed back).
In time, he was actively managed off ACC and gradually back into employment. This was physically excruciating for him, and I recall be incensed and a apparent injustice of the whole process.
Over time the work helped my friend become stronger, more mobile, more active and altogether in a better space. He isn’t 100% today, but has a much higher quality of life that he would have had he stayed on ACC.
The lesson for me was that the health benefits from working outweigh the personal ‘cost’ getting back into work.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“I suspect many of those 24,000 cite drug addiction as their sickness. I’d rather we fund them into treatment, rather than keep paying them the sickness benefit.”
I have witnessed first hand the “treatment” these people receive, and there is no way in hell they are going to become productive individuals as a result of this “treatment”.
Read Theodore Dalrymples’s book romancing opiates, it says it all, and all of it is true.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Also most of the junkies are not on sickness, they are on invalids.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Unfortunately social welfare is a sacred cow in NZ, but it should no longer be the case.
Radical reform is needed to rein in DPB abuse and the benefit-lifestyle chosen by some. Bludgers should be forced to look for work or face benefit reduction. Time limit on benefits, with the exception of the elderly and infirm, should be imposed.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Yeh Manolo and like John Key is really going to do that. Tui ad anyone. The man wants to be liked by everyone.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I wouldn’t mind if those on benefits were on a study track that would bring them into employment, that so many aren’t means the scheme isn’t working and should be changed or scrapped.
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Yes, we all know there are simply hundreds of jobs out there waiting for all these bludgers once we shift them off the benefit.
I suspect many of those 24,000 cite drug addiction as their sickness. I’d rather we fund them into treatment, rather than keep paying them the sickness benefit.
And thirty years ago, when homosexuality was still on the DSM, you would suggest the same cure, DPF?
Vote:November 11th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
But there are loads of jobs out there Will – just no one willing to do them…
Rufus
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Getting drug addicts into treatment programmes would be a BAD thing, Will? WTF? Don’t poison the well and swerve off-topic by inferring some non-existent homophobia.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 6:19 am
I am safe in the knowledge Manolo and PaulL that what you propose will never happen. Too many votes in it you see power to the people.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am
DPF, the Dom Post is wrong about its assertion that Sickness Benefit is meant to be a short-term benefit.
These are the medical qualifications to receive it:
Note that there is no mention of “short term” or “temporary”.
[DPF: It is implicit, because under Invalids Benefit it says "the expectation that people of working age support themselves directly or indirectly through employment, and that other measures are available for people who are temporarily unable to support themselves."
Also it says the Invalids is for permament incapacity to work, exceeding the period set down in regulations. So again the sickness benefit is clearly expected to be for cases less than that period]
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Toad;
You must undergo a medical exam/have your medical cert signed by your doctor every 3 months in order to continue to qualify for sickness. At least, you did when I was on it. I think by that very definition, it was designed as reasonably temporary assistance.
DPF: I completely agree with funding addicts into treatment rather than paying them a benefit. Though i do believe a component must be some form of welfare when they are back in the community. I have some experience with this, having undergone non-residential treatment for drug addictions some 11-12 years ago. IMO, a funded treatment/welfare/work readiness package would be world class and could, if handled correctly be a very tight and successful model.
MurrayM: I would caution you to step back for a moment and think before you post. There are a large number of people whom have undergone treatment for addiction, and have completely transformed their life. They are in all industries, in all professions. I for one, as did many of my peers become very productive members of society as a direct result of treatment.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 9:46 am
senzafine, i posted from my personal observations. I dished out methadone to 70 “addicts” over a period of seven years. Only five of them were in employment. Some of them had been on the methadone for over twenty years and in that time had never held a job. So don’t tell me to think before I post. You have your experiences, I have mine.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 10:08 am
DPF and senzafine: Invalid’s benefit eligibility requires that a person be both permanently and severely incapacitated for employment. Those who meet one, but not the other, of those criteria but are still incapacitated for employment end up on the sickness benefit.
So you will always get both short-term and long-term sickness beneficiaries – the long-term ones being the ones who would meet the permanency test for invalid’s benefit but not the severity test.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
re: Toad DPF, the Dom Post is wrong about its assertion that Sickness Benefit is meant to be a short-term benefit.
Actually, Toad, you’re wrong in terms of getting the full amount. Those who meet the one test can still do some work. Like the unemployment benefit, the Sickness benefit is supposed to be a short term benefit to top up earnings where work is unable to be done due to sickness etc. It has similar work search requirements, taking into account sickness. It is not the intention that those on the sickness benefit get the full amount for a long time.The planning process is focused on moving sickness beneficiaries into employment as their disability-related or medical condition and individual circumstances allow. Hardly a long term aim.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
So you will always get both short-term and long-term sickness beneficiaries – the long-term ones being the ones who would meet the permanency test for invalid’s benefit but not the severity test
Perhaps you can then explain, toad, why there are thousands and thousands on the sickness benefit for over a year that do not meet that permanency test, then,.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Ah. Methadone. I stand corrected. You need not say anymore.
Vote:November 12th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Two members of my family applied for the dole in recent years. Both, fortunately, very short term. One was told that he could not have the dole but if he went to a doctor and got a medical certificate for depression he could have the sickness benefit. He was depressed about being unemployed so I guess that is fair. The other has a partner who is Maori and was really, really impressed with the service… after the partner went into the WINZ office with him. He said that he was even offered loans to pay off outstanding bills. So, WINZ staff get bonuses for getting folk off the dole but it doesn’t apply to other benefits and it does not pay to be a white motherfucker in the welfare system.
Vote: