We have also included a section from the Trustees of The Jobs Research Trust ... which includes our take on these questions... and where our work as a community group may be heading after The Jobs Letter ...

>

Between June 1999 and June 2006: Unemployment Benefit numbers fell 74%, from 150,000 to 39,700. And overall benefit numbers fell 25%, from 371,000 to 280,300.

These gains have been shared by everyone — Maori, Pacific, Pakeha, other ethnicities, women, and men. There has been a dramatic progress over the past seven years.

360,000 families are getting targeted tax relief through Working for Families. The ‘average family’ (two children, middle income), receives around $70 a week. Working for Families was launched in 2004, and is forecast to reduce child poverty by 30% or 70% by 2007, depending on which measurement we use.

The Social Report 2006 confirmed that New Zealanders have better income, education, employment, health, and life expectancy than they did in the mid-1990s. The Social Report also showed that income inequality increased between 2001 and 2004, because higher incomes increased more than lower. Working for Families is addressing this gap.

Twelve Years On — More of us are working and most of us are better off.

New Zealand’s labour market has undergone dramatic changes since The Jobs Letter was published for the first time 12 years ago. Take the combined population of Dunedin and Oamaru, roughly 127,000 and that is the number of working aged people who have disappeared from the dole queue over that time.

This fantastic progress has been mirrored in other key areas. The unemployment rate for Maori has dropped from 19.8% in June 94 to 8.2% today. Pacific peoples’ unemployment rate is down from 23.4% to 5.9% for the same period.

In the past 12 years, the number of sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit has reduced by more than 5,600, the equivalent of the population of Otaki.

As a result of reducing unemployment, more jobs, rising real wages, and increases in housing assistance for those at the lower end, household incomes have risen in real terms across the whole distribution.

Income poverty levels have fallen from 27% to 19% overall and from 34% to 21% for children since the mid 90s, using the Social Report’s constant value poverty line.

The relative poverty measure used by the OECD is not as positive. Because middle incomes have risen slightly more quickly than lower incomes, relative income poverty has risen from 9% to 11% overall and from 13% to 15% for children. However, there is no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealanders are much better off today than 12 years ago.

1994 was the year of the Employment Taskforce. Unemployment was very high, intergenerational unemployment and poverty were becoming entrenched features of New Zealand life, and young people, tangata whenua and Pacific Island peoples were disproportionately unemployed. National had cut benefits drastically and used work - for - the - dole, lengthy stand down periods and the threat of time limited benefits to further harass beneficiaries.

What has been achieved since then? Some highlights:

Unemployment rates have massively reduced, but there are still hundreds of thousands of people who would like work, or more or better work, but can’t get it. The numbers of people on Sickness and Invalids Benefits has increased proportionately since 1994.

More young people proportionately are in work, education and training, partly a result of the excellent work of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs in partnership with the Labour Government.

Work and Income puts a much greater focus now on helping beneficiaries to get work when they first register, and has extended employment assistance beyond those on the dole.

Forced work - for - the - dole for unemployed people no longer exists, and people on the Domestic Purposes Benefit are no longer work-tested on pain of losing their benefit. Stand down periods have been cut from 26 to 13 weeks.

Some lowlights:

Young people, mature aged people, Maori and Pacific Island peoples, refugees and migrants, and those with long-term illness, injury or impairment are still disproportionately unemployed.

Benefit levels have never been restored to their pre-1991 equivalent levels. Poverty continues to affect beneficiaries and beneficiary families disproportionately and the gap between the well-off and the very poor continues to widen.

The Labour Government has entrenched discrimination against beneficiary families through Working for Families, and has effectively cut benefits through abolishing the Special Benefit. They have created no go zones for the unemployed, further institutionalising some parts of rural and provincial NZ as being economically hopeless cases.

Labour has got rid of the Community Employment Group, the only part of government which — for all its faults — even attempted a conscious community economic development function.

Three huge employment accomplishments stand out for me over the past 12-15 years. The first is the tremendous growth in employment and corresponding reduction in unemployment we have achieved. In June 1994, the unemployment rate was 8.3%, after being 9.5% on average in 1993 and 10.3% on average in 1991 & 1992. It is now 3.6%. Employment has grown by some 520,000 jobs since June 1994. That is almost a third more people employed, with the increased dignity, social involvement and income that results.

The second is achieving large rises in labour force participation, particularly amongst women and those transitioning to retirement. The overall labour force participation rate is at an all time high. Female participation in the labour force is now 8 percentage points higher than it was in June 1994 (62% c.f. 54.9%), while amongst persons aged 60-64 it has risen from 32.5% to 62.7%. For many of these people, their workforce engagement is on a part-time basis, which they balance with other activities. Social trends, economic drivers, and policy levers are all at work here, but together they have supported and enabled a large number of people to engage in some part in the labour market.

The third is to banish the bogus notion that full-employment is unattainable. This change in understanding and optimism about the future is very significant. Twelve years ago it was common in some circles to suppose that we would not see low-unemployment again; that we had to adjust to a world where jobs were scarce and work was a privilege of the fortunate that needed special rules to share it around. Surely that falsity is now gone. With appropriate labour market rules and sustained economic growth, it is now clear that employment growth does result and unemployment need only be a temporary situation.

The Household Labour Force Survey of August 2006, reported an outstanding report card on the state of the jobs market — employment growth stood at an astounding 1% in the three month period, there was also a big lift in hours worked (1.4%) and a new record was achieved in New Zealand’s employment or ‘participation’ rate (68.8%), the highest rate ever recorded.

These are incredible results and the past six years have seen almost unbelievable changes in employment opportunities for Kiwis. In my view, one of this Labour-Progressive’s government’s greatest achievements to date have been reversing the trend of mass unemployment and getting New Zealanders back into work — 2,129,000 of us are now in work, the highest level of employment ever recorded and up 22,000 from the previous quarter. Almost all that increase is driven by full-time, rather than part-time, work.

I have now been in Parliament for 22 years and I can honestly say that most of my rewarding times have been during the period of 1999 – 2005 overseeing the ‘jobs machine’ and initiating economic development as Minister of Economic, Regional and Industry Development.

How has this been achieved?

New Zealand did not get the lowest rate of unemployment in the developed world and enjoy years of solid growth through good luck! In the days of the National government, I use to say there wasn’t an unemployment problem — there was an unemployment policy.

With the election of a new government, there were fundamental changes to the way things were done. Investment in economic and regional development was pioneered and now has become the status quo. We had a partnership model and involved everyone who could help build New Zealand again — with industry, central and local government, tertiary education institutions and others.

We got advantage from our small size in developing networks. We have come a long way since those times but still have problems, many of which are hangovers from the past. For example, our current skills shortage isn’t only caused by our success in getting more people into jobs but is partly a legacy of the ‘hands-off’ governments of the 1980s and 1990s.

Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law at The University of Auckland The upheavals of the early 1990s shocked and dismayed a majority of New Zealanders. Almost everyone in 1991 knew someone who was unemployed who did not fit the negative stereotype. Poverty became an undesirable part of the everyday lexicon. Growing inequalities between rich and poor were seen as problematic. So was the deterioration in quality and accessibility of our health and education services, especially for those most in need. Tax cuts for the rich were seen to bear a large part of the blame. So was the mentality of greed and self-interest that fuelled the excesses of the market. The Treaty of Waitangi was hailed as the constitutional foundation stone of the nation.

On the surface the figures look good with high participation rates. However, income disparities are high compared to OECD. Unemployment rates for Maori are three times higher than for the general population. Child poverty 50% higher than before the economic reforms of the late 1980’s. Deprived households, i.e. those with low-income and low work skills, are disproportionately high particularly for Maori, Pacific families and migrants — and constitute more than a third of households in the Auckland region. Large numbers of young people are still leaving school without qualifications. The Ministry of Social Development reports high levels of churn: i.e. turnover of people in low-income jobs. And large numbers of people that have been recruited from outside New Zealand face major issues integrating into the New Zealand labour market and accessing health services.

On the plus side, there were some great initiatives from community organisations, and some good partnering from government through the Community Employment Group, which demonstrated that empowering people can generate new opportunities for job creation in sectors like resource recovery, Maori land development, community services, cultural and sports projects, small loan funds, enterprise training and rural marketing.

June 1994 marked the last major element in New Zealand’s decade of radical economic reform, with the passing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. The economy had recovered from the lengthy recession associated with the April 1991 benefit cuts, but the unemployment rate was still 8.2% for the country as a whole, and was 14% for Maori and Pacific Island workers. Proponents of the reform agenda were refusing to acknowledge the increase in poverty and despair that had been generated by the reforms, so that one of the great contributions of The Jobs Letter was to provide a place for the cry of the poor to be heard.

Twelve years later, the atmosphere has certainly changed. Unemployment in June 2006 is 3.2%. The government’s policies of regional development have helped all parts of the country to share in the long period of growth after the 1998 downturn. Policy makers and employers are now more worried about skill shortages rather than long-term structural unemployment. The Ministry of Social Development’s Social Report 2006 reveals that most (but not all) indicators of social wellbeing have improved since 1994.

It seems such a long time since unemployment peaked in early 1992 at 11.1% of the labour force, when over 181,000 New Zealanders were jobless and actively seeking work. Others had become so disheartened that they were not even bothering to seek work.

Even that figure is misleading as to the size of the trauma. In the 57 months between October 1988 to June 1993, 754,312 had enrolled on the New Zealand Employment Service register. To give some idea of this magnitude, the average size of the labour force was about 1,612,000 people, so the enrolled unemployed represented about 47% of that total. Because people were entering the labour market (from school leavers, those returning to work and immigrants) this over-estimates the proportion. But because not everyone who was unemployed registered the actual numbers involved were considerably higher. Whatever the true and meaningful figure there is no question that 15 years ago New Zealand was going through its worse period of unemployment since the Great Depression.

The official rate of unemployment is now 3.6%, which under estimates the change, since there has also been a reduction of those not-in-the-labour force.

Paul Callister, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University

We have created a flexible and dynamic labour market which is able to generate a high level of employment. We have also greatly increased participation in education so through this have, hopefully, lifted the skill levels and the productivity of the workforce. However, we still have a long way to go in term of reducing poverty, especially child poverty. Connected with this, we have also seen an increase in income inequality.

Susan St John, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland Business School

The quantity of employment has increased, but the quality of employment for people on low-incomes has diminished. Curing poverty is not always a question of getting a job. By using the focus on work as the only way out of poverty we have lost sight of the poorest children who can’t wait that long. It is outrageous that the percentage of children in hardship in 2004 is 38% compared to those over the age of 65 where it is only 8%. We have a very long way to go in achieving for the young what we have achieved for the old. Working for Families is not the answer even if it does cure poverty for some low-income working families.

We are still very much feeling the effects of the free market assault 1980s and 1990s — the harsh employment legislation, economic deregulation and privatisation, high unemployment and benefit cuts. As a result, the gap between the rich and the poor grew markedly.

In the last six years some steps have been made to address this gap, with a more active state and unions as social partners. The minimum wage has risen from $7 to $10.25 without any significant effect on employment levels, major increases in skills and industry training funding, much improved parental leave provisions and health and safety laws that involve and empower workers. And unions have campaigned hard to lift wages, in particular for low-income and minimum wage workers.

Working for Families will have an effect on many low-income families, however as this year’s Social Report showed us there remains significant numbers of people facing severe hardship, and we must do much better to increase assistance to beneficiary families, in particular those with children.

Parekura Horomia, Minister of Maori Affairs; Associate Minister for Social Development

For Maori there have been dramatic changes. In the 1990s we had Maori on the Unemployment Benefit at 44,000, we are now down to 13,500. What that means is the vast majority of Maori are in mahi. And that focus is quality mahi with the re-introduction of apprenticeships and industry training. Working for Families has been huge, for Mum and Dad working hard to bring up their tamariki.

Over the last 20 years, the strongest achievement has been the increase, (until 2006) in average real growth. This, as concluded by two separate and comprehensive studies by the OECD and Treasury, is due to the economic reforms of the 80s and 90s. From this economic growth has come more jobs, and an associated increase in average living standards.

In my view the word ‘poverty’ is an emotive and subjective label, and is not in international comparisons strongly applicable to New Zealand. In terms of the significant ‘hardship’ faced by a number in our society, gains have been made on the back of stronger growth and more jobs. Reductions in beneficiary numbers, where most hardship is experienced, have been greatly enhanced by a greater focus on reducing benefit duration and the WINZ One Stop Shop service, which in particular has made job assistance more accessible to sole parents.

On a separate level, there has been a positive devolution in relation to employment policy, with a moving on from employment policy being the exclusive domain of Head Office Officials in Wellington, with today far greater ability for regions to initiate, create and influence.

New Zealand has emerged from the depressing depths of free-market dominated politics. This had allowed humanitarian and socially concerned people across society to make concrete efforts on employment and poverty issues … and to make some progress. The current government had made some decent steps in both areas.

However the achievements have been limited and undermined by a lack of courage or will. Many people who, politically are products of the free-market years, are still in positions of authority in the public service, science, business, parliament and elsewhere. They are the people who went along with the free-market policies and so were promoted during that period. As a result, although mostly the public has moved on, New Zealand is, by many measures, still one of the most deregulated, free-market countries in the world. Even the Labour Government has been unwilling to rethink most of the free-market ‘fundamentals’. Consequently we witness the division between rich and poor still growing, housing becoming unaffordable in cities for ordinary people (especially those under about 35-40 years old), companies becoming branch offices of their foreign owners and local industries being ground down by competition from low-wage countries.

Both the Labour Governments of 1984-90 and the National Governments of 1990-1999 dismantled what had until then been accepted as the default responsibilities of a New Zealand Government: universal welfare, progressive taxation with high marginal rates at the top end, protection (Labour) or tolerance (National) of organised labour, and a strong civil service.

When The Jobs Letter began in 1994, all these fundamentals were either diminished or gone. It was a period of rapid change and dislocation for workers, particularly those in government jobs, and the unskilled. Unemployment peaked at around 11% in the early 1990s, and was still running at 9.5% in 1994.

From 1994, The Jobs Letter published regular factual profiles of these matters — even-handed as to its reportage on what the various political parties and the Ministries were doing about it. It promoted the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs with its goal of zero unemployment in the regions. It helped start the Community Employment Group which, at its best, encouraged industries in the smaller centres. The Jobs Letter added to this valuable portfolio by culling ideas and philosophy on the job market from sources around the world.

In the 12 years to 2006 unemployment fell to 3.6%. Some credit should go to the reforms. Some credit should go to commitment by groups such as The Jobs Research Trust, that continued to agitate against any unemployment, and published The Jobs Letter.

Very hard to measure success in ‘employment’ area for a variety of reasons. A recent paper on Top Ten Workforce Forecasts for 2006 was sobering reading in that most issues are the same as we would have published in 1994 and to the ‘market’ they are seen as new issues. Maybe not a surprise as the community sector will always be an early adopter of ideas/trends being closer to the people. We seem to have made little progress on rethinking work — its role in income distribution, its fitting in with the new lifestyles and demands, its productivity through a more holistic lens, and of course the demographics of today’s and the future workforce.

Have we a more employed but less fulfilled population? Has work become a necessary evil? Have we even started to comprehend work possibilities beyond that which has been with us since Henry Ford’s production lines? In Vivian’s words, ‘have we developed new livelihoods?’ Sadly I think not.

Wally Stone, Kaikoura

Those that believe unemployment and poverty is a social cancer that without treatment can cause terminal illness to individuals, families and communities will welcome the reduction in unemployment statistics during the past 12 years. However I am not sure we have achieved anything regarding poverty, maybe just disguised it.

Unemployment is definitely down from the days I remember when you started publishing The Jobs Letter — when it was 90-100% in some communities in the Far North where I lived. Even youth unemployment, which remained disproportionately high for too long, has eased significantly. With the skills shortages we now face, it will need constant, if slightly different attention still.

Poverty is more of a worry. The most recent Ministry of Social Development Social Report placed around one - third of NZ children in homes below the poverty line, with not all being helped by the Working for Families package. In times of apparent plenty and full employment, this is surely unacceptable.

Growth in jobs has not been matched by growth in incomes for low-paid workers and beneficiaries. Many of the jobs created are low-paid, casual service jobs with few benefits or promotion prospects. The poor quality of many jobs can be seen in the increased number of children living in poverty. While many of those in severe and significant hardship are beneficiaries, others are working families. While poverty levels are down from the highs of the mid-90’s, income inequality has continued to grow, and remains well above what it was in the 1980s. In the last 12 years we have achieved a more divided society, and a rising tide of poverty-related social and health problems.

We have achieved very little. Certainly no change in the context from which policy decisions come from. The drivers of both poverty and unemployment remain unchanged. While employment statistics may be up, they are counterbalanced by empty shops in the main street, the massive growth in loan sharks and the dominance of slave labour imports which help people survive. The government is continuing to reduce income support for beneficiaries and increase subsidies for low-wages. Working for Families is the third stage of the latter.

Alister Barry, Documentary maker

What has been achieved is a refinement of the use of poverty and unemployment as instruments to achieve price stability (low inflation).

On paper it’s looking good for the Pakeha majority, with much lower official unemployment. But for Maori, Pacific and groups such as refugees, while there have been major improvements, unemployment remains alarmingly high. And with so many casual, insecure, and above all low-paid ‘jobs’, it’s not surprising that rather than a steady decline in poverty and hardship, we’re seeing a marked escalation even among those who do have paid work, let alone those on benefits.

There have been similarly double-edged developments for women. It’s excellent for women, families and the country that women’s rights — not just to paid employment, but to the full range of occupations and positions — is now widely recognised, and paid parental leave is certainly a major achievement. But it seems grossly unfair that women struggling to cope alone with caring for children and other dependent family members are now clearly being expected to shoulder the full burden of wage-earning as well or else be condemned to barely existing on a manifestly inadequate benefit income. This dilemma is starkly highlighted by the fact that poverty is clustered so markedly among families with children. Paid work can only ever be part of the answer.

Many community groups began in order to address the issue of unemployment and sought to provide training and skill development for those who were displaced by the economic ‘reforms’ of the 80s. The need for such training has now become part of almost every project or progra