This story about sick or disabled teenagers getting the benefit doesn’t make any sense.

The Government wants to cut the dole for teenagers whose parents earn $65k plus - okay.

Their justification? If poor old mum and dad have to cover their living costs, said teenagers will go find a job.

Okay, fine. That’s about 4000-odd 18–19-year-olds.

But here’s where it gets complicated. 

It turns out around half that number are getting the benefit not because they can’t find work, but because they can’t work.

Like physically. Have a look on the WINZ website, it lays out the criteria.

You have to prove the reason with a doctor’s certificate. Basically, you can’t work full-time because you have a disability, injury, or health condition which prevents it. There’s mention of chronic stuff like haemophiliacs and chronic asthma sufferers.

So here’s the rub. 

If Johnny can’t work —and we accept that because a doctor has said so— and the point of cutting Johnny’s benefit is to encourage him to work, then we have an obvious problem.

You can’t encourage somebody to work who can’t work, can you?

This makes no sense.

Either the Government is not believing the health conditions are real, or they are not that serious.

Or they’re saying that parents on $65k plus a year should be financially responsible for their kids until they’re 20, even if those kids can’t work for good reason.

Which is, I think, wrong. 

Johnny’s parents didn’t choose, I’m sure, to have a disabled child or a kid injured in a car crash at home in the prime of their lives.

Ministers need to better explain this announcement or U-turn on this portion of it before the ink dries. 

This story about sick or disabled teenagers getting the benefit doesn’t make any sense.
The Government wants to cut the dole for teenagers whose parents earn $65k plus - okay.
Their justification? If poor old mum and dad have to cover their living costs, said teenagers will go find a job.
Okay, fine. That’s about 4000-odd 18–19-year-olds.
But here’s where it gets complicated.&nbsp;
It turns out around half that number are getting the benefit not because they can’t find work, but because they can’t work.
Like physically. Have a look on the WINZ website, it lays out the criteria.
You have to prove the reason with a doctor’s certificate. Basically, you can’t work full-time because you have a disability, injury, or health condition which prevents it.&nbsp;There’s mention of chronic stuff like haemophiliacs and chronic asthma sufferers.
So here’s the rub.&nbsp;
If Johnny can’t work —and we accept that because a doctor has said so— and the point of cutting Johnny’s benefit is to encourage him to work, then we have an obvious problem.
You can’t encourage somebody to work who can’t work, can you?
This makes no sense.
Either the Government is not believing the health conditions are real, or they are not that serious.
Or they’re saying that parents on $65k plus a year should be financially responsible for their kids until they’re 20, even if those kids can’t work for good reason.
Which is, I think, wrong.&nbsp;
Johnny’s parents didn’t choose, I’m sure, to have a disabled child or a kid injured in a car crash at home in the prime of their lives.
Ministers need to better explain this announcement or U-turn on this portion of it before the ink dries.&nbsp;

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

Early Edition with Ryan Bridge

Ryan Bridge: We need clarity for disabled teenagers on the benefit

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6e19585a-c930-486b-b6bb-b370011c9431/transcript