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

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. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This story about sick or disabled teenagers getting the doll
just doesn't make any sense to me. Government wants to
cut the doll for teenagers whose parents earn sixty five
thousand plus a year. Okay, their justification. If poor old
mum and dad have to cover their living cost, then
the teenagers might go out and actually find a job motivation. Okay, fine,

(00:20):
that's about four eighteen to nineteen year olds they reckon.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
But here's what gets complicated.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
It turns out that around half that number are getting
the doll not because they can't find work, but because
they can't work like physically. Have a look at the
whim's website. It lays out the criteria for you. You
basically have to prove the reason with a doctor's certificate. Basically,
you can't work full time because you have a disability,
an injury, or a health condition which prevents it. They

(00:46):
mention things like chronic stuff like hemophiliacs asthma sufferers.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Here's the rub.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
If little 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 not that serious, or they're saying that parents on

(01:16):
sixty five thousand dollars a year should be financially responsible
for their kids until they're twenty, even if those kids
can't work for good reason, which I think is a
bit unfair. 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.

Speaker 2 (01:34):
Ministers, I think need to either.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Explain this announcement better or pull a swift U.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
Turn before the ink drives on it. For more from
Early Edition with Ryan Bridge.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Listen live to News Talks it Be from five am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio