For a Government which champions an urgent need to increase growth, to cut wasteful spending, and for less reliance on Government, they sometimes take a relaxed approach to doing something about it.  

Take the proposed change for 18 and 19-year-olds to no longer be eligible for an unemployment benefit. It sounds like the Government’s taking a decisive stand - until you find out it’s not going to come into practice until July 2027 and that how it’s going to work hasn’t been thought through at this stage.  

I can see the voter appeal of the Government saying they don’t think 18-year olds should have the option the day after their birthday of hitting the couch at home, where they play PlayStation and collect the dole.  

No one wants to see healthy and capable young people taking that approach. So surely Cabinet could come up with the rules for exceptions and get this in place by mid next year? If they’re serious about cost cutting and changing young people’s attitudes, then why are they waiting 2 years?  

This may be one of those ideas which sounds constructive and purposeful to voters, but the Government is aware current economic conditions aren’t right to make it work.  

They will want to be confident young people can get a job, particularly in areas with high rates of youth unemployment. They will want to be confident students studying to be apprentices can get an apprenticeship. With youth unemployment currently at 12.9 percent, is this scheme even workable? The rate for 20-24 year-olds not in employment, education, or training is higher still, 15.7 percent at the end of the March quarter.  

So what does this mean - our teenagers just waiting to the hit twenty before hitting the JobSeeker benefit anyway?  

Putting the emphasis back on parents to support their kids may also be a bit of a non-starter. Sure, taking benefit payments away from teenagers may give parents more sway with their teen, but generally I find teens aren’t always great at doing what they’re told.  

And when it comes to financial support, as much as many parents are encouraging their children’s independence at 18, they’re likely already supporting their kids somehow - free rent, cash for weekly expenses while studying, covering expenses like doctor’s visits or paying car insurance.  

But for many families, supporting their children until that are 20 is unachievable. Yes  there are some parents who can step up, and they should, but no one wants to see parents who are already struggling struggle even more.

So will this policy have a meaningful impact on the 9000 young adults who fall into this category?  

We know people under the age of 25 on Jobseeker support would spend an average of 18 or more years on a benefit over their lifetime. This is a good cycle to break. But doing it this way is also at odds with how we otherwise treat young people. At 18, parents no longer have the rights or responsibilities that come with being a guardian. 18-year-olds can vote, and they are no longer treated as a young person under criminal law. Picking and choosing when we treat young people as adults doesn’t add much clarity or motivation.  

So, the Government’s firm handed approach sounds good, but I’m not confident it’s going to make much of a difference. 

LISTEN ABOVE

For a Government which champions an urgent need to increase growth, to cut wasteful spending, and for less reliance on Government, they sometimes take a relaxed approach to doing something about it. &nbsp;
Take the proposed change for 18 and 19-year-olds to no longer be eligible for an unemployment benefit. It sounds like the Government’s taking a decisive stand - until you find out it’s not going to come into practice until July 2027 and that how it’s going to work hasn’t been thought through at this stage. &nbsp;
I can see the voter appeal of the Government saying they don’t think 18-year olds should have the option the day after their birthday of hitting the couch at home, where they play PlayStation and collect the dole. &nbsp;
No one wants to see healthy and capable young people taking that approach. So surely Cabinet could come up with the rules for exceptions and get this in place by mid next year? If they’re serious about cost cutting and changing young people’s attitudes, then why are they waiting 2 years? &nbsp;
This may be one of those ideas which sounds constructive and purposeful to voters, but the Government is aware current economic conditions aren’t right to make it work. &nbsp;
They will want to be confident young people can get a job, particularly in areas with high rates of youth unemployment. They will want to be confident students studying to be apprentices can get an apprenticeship. With youth unemployment currently at 12.9 percent, is this scheme even workable? The rate for 20-24 year-olds not in employment, education, or training is higher still, 15.7 percent at the end of the March quarter. &nbsp;
So what does this mean - our teenagers just waiting to the hit twenty before hitting the JobSeeker benefit anyway? &nbsp;
Putting the emphasis back on parents to support their kids may also be a bit of a non-starter. Sure, taking benefit payments away from teenagers may give parents more sway with their teen, but generally I find teens aren’t always great at doing what they’re told. &nbsp;
And when it comes to financial support, as much as many parents are encouraging their children’s independence at 18, they’re likely already supporting their kids somehow - free rent, cash for weekly expenses while studying, covering expenses like doctor’s visits or paying car insurance. &nbsp;
But for many families, supporting their children until that are 20 is unachievable. Yes &nbsp;there are some parents who can step up, and they should, but no one wants to see parents who are already struggling struggle even more.
So will this policy have a meaningful impact on the 9000 young adults who fall into this category? &nbsp;
We know people under the age of 25 on Jobseeker support would spend an average of 18 or more years on a benefit over their lifetime. This is a good cycle to break. But doing it this way is also at odds with how we otherwise treat young people. At 18, parents no longer have the rights or responsibilities that come with being a guardian. 18-year-olds can vote, and they are no longer treated as a young person under criminal law. Picking and choosing when we treat young people as adults doesn’t add much clarity or motivation. &nbsp;
So, the Government’s firm handed approach sounds good, but I’m not confident it’s going to make much of a difference.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your Sunday morning listening covered with The Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin on Newstalk ZB.

The Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin

Francesca Rudkin: I'm not confident the Government's firm-handed approach for teenagers will make a difference

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/cfb071e1-65e6-4c64-8b13-b2e701862b50/transcript