Youth beneficiaries – bludgers or bludgeoned?
By Tina Helm, Like Minds, Like Mine Mental Health Promoter
The announcements made last week about the proposed changes to youth benefits came as something of a blow to me, I must say. Not to mention the comments underneath the online news items, from what appears to be the majority of New Zealanders, who seem to believe that there needs to be a “crack-down” on young people receiving welfare and that young people need to get up off the couch and go and get a themselves a job.
Do New Zealanders actually know WHY teenagers under 18 would be receiving a benefit? I don’t believe this was very prevalent in the media around the announcement. There are two reasons and two reasons only. One is if you have dependent(s) that you have to financially support, and one is if it is unsafe for you to live at home. And this is where I fit in.
When I was 16 years old I left home, not because I wanted to or because I felt like I was grown up enough to make it in the big wide world by myself, but because it was the only option I had if I were to be a safe and healthy individual. I won’t go into the details, but it was one of the most frightening things I had had to do.
WINZ didn’t make it easy to receive financial assistance, or any other assistance for that matter –none was offered to me. I was made to go through a psychological assessment – not as a means of offering me psychological support after any trauma I had experienced, but to ensure that I wasn’t lying about my situation and that I should be entitled to my $170 a week (now, 16 years later, despite massive price changes in food, rent and other living costs, the maximum entitlement remains the same).
And I was one of the lucky ones who hadn’t had to go through this process while under CYF (Child Youth and Family) care. These young people, through failures in placements and being moved around – have often long left the education system. This makes the barriers to access to education even wider. With more adequate supports and care these young people would have a better chance of becoming engaged in education and employment.
Are alcohol and cigarettes really a problem here?
The reforms the Government has been talking about will mean that these young people will not be allowed access to the full benefit amount and will, instead, have their rent and bills paid for them, with only a very minimal amount of “real” money. This is a way of “cracking down” on teenagers who spend their benefit on alcohol or cigarettes.
The fact is that, legally, one isn’t allowed to purchase these items until they are 18, so what’s the problem? Is this a case of blaming “dole-bludging” young people for the youth culture of drinking in New Zealand? I’m sorry, but this is simply un-called for and unfair. Neither is there any evidence being supplied that shows that Independent Youth Benefit recipients are spending their weekly allowance on alcohol and cigarettes. This seems to be an absolutely pointless means of restricting youth benefit recipients and vilifies those who have already been failed too many times.
Food stamps will be provided to young beneficiaries, including young mothers on the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB). Anyone who has ever been into a WINZ office will know how demeaning it is just stepping foot in there. Anyone who has ever received an emergency food allowance - because the amount that WINZ offers through weekly benefits just doesn’t reach the required amount to cover bills and living costs - will know how degrading and stigmatising it is to produce a voucher with a big WINZ logo on it.
Placing young people at greater risk of danger
Combined with the risk of instability in living conditions and the potential need to move from one house to another, the limiting of access to individuals’ funds will result in young people needing to wait for bureaucratic processes before they can change homes. This may be placing young people at greater risk of danger.
Another problem with limiting direct access to finances is the further disempowerment of young people who are already considered “at risk”. By limiting individual control over finances we risk young people’s continued dependency on the state because they aren’t given the opportunity to learn how to budget or pay their own bills.
Another alteration in the current system is that 18-year-old DPB recipients will be paid childcare costs for one year after childbirth to force them to go into training or work as soon as possible. Providing childcare for mothers who choose to go into work is a very important step, however, forcing mothers back into work, potentially before they are ready, is not going to be good for either mother or child.
There is a common misconception that the rates of teenage pregnancy are increasing and that this is creating an even bigger burden on taxes. This simply isn’t the case: teenage pregnancies and abortions fell during 2009, which is perhaps welcome news that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. In fact only 3.1% of the makeup of those on the DPB is under 20 years old.
There simply just aren’t enough jobs at the moment – and that goes for the whole population, skilled and un-skilled, educated and un-educated, adults and young people. If the Government spent as much time creating jobs as it did focusing on the scourge of youth beneficiaries, which only make up 1600 people in total, then it might have a better chance of reducing welfare dependency and unemployment rates, and increasing spending - which are, apparently, its aims.