The quality of state welfare matters. The conditions attached to it affect the fate of these children. Cash handouts to drug addicts or those who cannot budget may feed the problem.
Welfare dependency is impoverishing and unfulfilling for those now dependent on state handouts. People cannot be expected to feel good about themselves if they are not living meaningful lives that benefit themselves and others.
The rise in working-age welfare under the previous Government is dramatic. The contrast with falling unemployment is disturbing.
The (optimistically-named) Ministry of Social Development’s latest figures show 378,711 people of working age were receiving a main benefit at the end of December 2023.
That total is 35 per cent higher than the 280,177 beneficiaries in December 2017.
At 11.9 per cent of the working-age population, the December 2023 figure is a massive 24 per cent higher than the December 2017 proportion of 9.6 per cent.
What has driven this increase? The rise in those on jobseeker support is a major factor. In December 2023, the number of people on the jobseeker support benefit was, at 189,708, 54 per cent higher than the 123,041 number in December 2017.
For the portion classified as “job-ready”, the rise was 32 per cent, from 83,100 to 109,698.
In contrast, the number of unemployed in September 2023, at 92,400, was 13 per cent lower than the September 2017 figure of 106,600.
Why the difference? It appears that more of the unemployed are now on that benefit and the proportion on that benefit that are not work-ready has risen sharply.
Regardless of the reasons, the increase in working-age beneficiaries adds to the burden on those with jobs.
Sense of entitlement
Those who have jobs could be forgiven for feeling resentful. The greater the sense of entitlement among those on benefits, the greater the potential for growing resentment. The absurdly high cost of housing can only heighten the sense of “being put upon”.
Many contributing factors are reversible, given enough electoral support.
First, the last Government put the interests of those with jobs ahead of those without jobs. It hiked the minimum wage. This helps those who retain work at the expense of those who cannot find an employer to hire them at the new, higher minimum wage.
Expressed differently, it helps those with jobs at the expense of those who are hardest to employ.
Second, the last Government increased burdens on those who have jobs by relating benefit levels to wage increases rather than increases in the cost of living. This is also a problem with national superannuation.
If the purpose of state superannuation and welfare benefits is to help with the cost of living, the focus should be on keeping pace with the cost of living, not wages.
Relating benefits to wages reduces the incentive to work. Why work and lose leisure time if there is little or no gain in standard of living?
Unskilled labour shortage
Indeed, there is evidence of a shortage of people willing to work at the minimum wage. The mainstream media told last season of fruit rotting on the ground for lack of fruit-pickers. The hospitality industry also struggled to find even unskilled labour, particularly when immigration was on hold.
Third, since the early 1990s, governments have failed to increase the age of eligibility for national superannuation with the rise in life expectancy. That failure reduces incentives to save for retirement. It also increases tax burdens on younger members of the labour force.
Fourth, the last Government dropped the ball on how to help people get off welfare and back to leading fulfilling, independent lives.
It kept the public in the dark about long-duration welfare dependency. It did so by preventing the publication of independent actuarial estimates of changes in welfare dependency. Its excuse was that measures of the likely future fiscal cost of welfare dependency demeaned beneficiaries.
To avoid measuring whether current policies are increasing or reducing long-duration welfare dependency is to avoid accountability. A government not assessing whether its policies are working is not taking New Zealanders’ wellbeing seriously.
Fifth, the last Government buried Bill English’s social investment approach. That approach aimed to rigorously assess which state-funded welfare programmes actually help people escape their predicaments as distinct from perpetuating them.
The essence of social investment is to compare outcomes for those in a given programme with those for a similar control group not in the programme. Such assessments require rigour, hard data and statistical expertise.
Those are not qualities that come naturally to a bureaucracy with a budget to defend.
This is a list of things that could be done much better, given the political will.
Add to this the dire need to reduce housing costs by freeing up land supply for housing and improving local authority incentives.
The best welfare policy does not necessarily save taxpayers money in the short term. Done well, it should reduce future spending on benefits. But that is a bonus.
The best welfare policy would focus on helping those it encounters to thrive in life. It is their individual abilities, challenges, aspirations and dreams that should be at the heart of policy efforts.
- Written by the New Zealand Initiative’s Bryce Wilkinson.
