KEY POINTS:
Solo mothers have long been a particular worry to the National Party. Few subjects cause more angst in the party and among its supporters than the firm belief that too many unmarried women get pregnant so that they can live on the domestic purposes benefit. National's latest leader, John Key, once called it "breeding for business".
It is probably as much a myth as the Labour Party's idea of the average employer. That is to say, there are instances of benefit abuse just as there are rogue employers, but to treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work would be as foolish as legislating labour arrangements for all. Nevertheless, that is what National proposes to do with sole parents, invalids and sickness beneficiaries.
A benefits policy announced yesterday proposes to put them under work tests as rigorous as those a previous National Government introduced for the unemployment benefit. Sole parents and people on sickness and invalids benefits will be obliged to spend at least 15 hours a week in a paid job or else looking for one or training for one. For single parents the obligation will apply once their youngest child is aged 6. For invalids and sickness beneficiaries it will apply if they are assessed as capable of part-time work.
For sickness beneficiaries the policy seems fair enough. As the economy has strengthened and the unemployed have faced more stringent job-seeking requirements, the numbers on sickness and invalids benefits have risen suspiciously high. They have needed only a doctor's note, and even if the doctor assesses them to be capable of part-time work, they have been under no obligation to seek it. National intends to change that.
It will stipulate that the first two medical certificates issued to sickness beneficiaries may cover no more than two weeks, and subsequent certificates no more than 13 weeks. Once a person has been getting a sickness benefit continuously for a year, a second opinion will be obtained from a doctor designated by Work and Income New Zealand in every case.
At the same time, National would broaden the penalties for failure to comply with job search requirements. At present, the only sanction is the complete withdrawal of the benefit, which case managers are naturally reluctant to do. Mr Key's policy would allow for a benefit reduction as a punitive step.
But writing rules for a whole benefit class is easy; applying them to beneficiaries' different personal circumstances is the hard part. He acknowledges that his sanctions will need some "working through" to ensure they take into account whether, for example, the beneficiary has a partner, or children.
When it comes to custodial parents, circumstances vary just as widely. Mr Key points out that the Shipley Government introduced the same work or training requirement in 1999 and a subsequent Ministry of Social Development study found it had been effective. Most of those who found work said they were eventually better off, and 60 per cent said the effect on their families was positive.
But there will be cases where the time and cost of taking a low-paid job put added stress on a sole-parent family for little if any financial gain. It is doubtful that society gains from that stress, or that it is worth the trouble the ministry might take to enforce it.
Single mothers with good earning capacity are normally anxious to return to paid work as soon as child care allows. National's efforts will be felt mainly by those with few skills and poor earning capacity and, frankly, Mr Key ought to have more important things to do. This policy does more to stroke the shibboleths of party supporters than meet any pressing social need. He should return to topics that count.
