Increase in unemployment under National
The Household Labour Force Survey Survey report of the December 2011 Quarter released last week revealed that our unemployment rate slipped slightly to 6.3% from 6.6%. While a rate of 6.3% in itself doesn’t necessarily mean we have reached crisis levels, the focus on the overall unemployment rate does conceal detail about our employment situation that if brought to the surface will shine light on what I believe is an immiment crisis looming in our economic horizon.
Since JohnKey’s National took office in November 2008, 53,000 New Zealanders have joined the unemployment ranks. That’s a 54% increase in the number of people unemployed to a total of 150,000. For these people, National’s promise of a ‘brighter future’ has utterly failed to materialise, especially if you have a mortgage and teenage children you are supporting through school.
While the impact of the recession cannot be ignored, the number of people unemployed has actually increased since the recession officially ended in mid-2009. The official unemployment figures only tell part of the story. Many more people are without work but are not counted as being unemployed. Many are described by the Salvation Army as being “discouraged unemployed”. They would like to work and would accept a job offer if given, but they would not be deemed as actively seeking work because for instance looking for work through a newspaper does not meet the threshold of “actively seeking work”. The number of Kiwis jobless has increased by almost 100,000 under National’s watch to now 261,300 people as of December 2011. In the meantime 59,964 people are receiving the Unemployment Benefit as at December 2011 a fall of 7% from 67,084 as of the December 2010.
So is this it? Is this the brighter future promised to all New Zealanders?
Labour in opposition needs to be credible for 2014. Statements like National Govt=”Imminent crisis” don’t work.
Can you give us a causation analysis on your stats? For example, if Labour had been re-elected (presumably the implication of this post); how would these figures have differed? Why does supporting teenagers through school (7th form/18 yo- mostly free in the state/integrated system) equate to failure of National’s promise of a ‘brighter future’?
Labour simply wouldn’t have stood by and let unemployment raise uncontrolled. We will never know exactly what their policies would have been but they wouldn’t have been a joke ‘cycleway’.
These figures would be an improvement on Labour’s pre-election propaganda wouldnt they – so this adds value how?
KH, perhaps, Labour would not be making cuts to the public sector, they would expand it and fudge an improvement on unemployment rates as a result…
KH – there is reading between the lines, and then there is putting words in The OP’s mouth.
You can bet, however, that Labour would not have put the torch to kiwi saver and national super, nor would it have substantially altered the ERA to promote the casualisation of Labour (and under the banner of the Hobbit too!)
So instead of playing the ‘neener neener you’re not in government so you can’t complain’ card why don’t you stand up for the policies that YOU support (presumably those of the NACT government – yep, thought so).
This is like comparing employment numbers pre-1929 to post-1929 and blaming the subsequent government for decreases in employment.
I see no empirical evidence here of any deep analysis. What we really need is more green policies and support for whaling like the Labour party promised during the last election.
We need to take advantage of more of the mineral wealth that exists. I’m sure there was a time when Labour supported mining – I don’t know what happened. Starting to look like the Green party in drag. Anyway, Labour could take a leaf out of Anna Bligh’s (Labor, Premier of Queensland) book.
She believes the State must expand its mining capability, and her election promise is to use the royalties from mining to invest in funding for education. She called it “Mines to Minds”. According to her, it’s a “Win, win, win” situation. It creates jobs, creates wealth and allows them to invest in the state education sector which will create a high-skilled economy long term.
I could vote for a Labour Party with policies like that. New Zealand does have resources that can be taken advantage of.
“While the impact of the recession cannot be ignored, the number of people unemployed has actually increased since the recession officially ended in mid-2009″
Really?
Feels like a crisis for those of us that are unofficially unemployed and not on a benefit for some reason or the other. My hand is up on that one. Countless turned down applications for jobs. Many of us are made to feel unemployable even though we keep applying for jobs. I thought my masters degree would count for something these days with an employer, but not anymore.
Wow!!! The GFC started to hit in 2008. I had not realised it only lasted a year – Best we let the Greeks and Euro’s in on this secret. So what should the impact of the worst global crises ever have on New Zealands unemployment rates?
@beachbum
There’s a difference between a global financial crisis and a recession. If the recession did finish officially in 2009 as stated then you would expect unemployed numbers to go down or at least remain stagnant since then.
@ beachbum
You’ll note I said the recession was ‘officially’ over mid- 2009. RadioNZ reported in Sept 2009 the recession was officially over http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/42153/nz-officially-out-of-recession. The last quarter of the recession was March 2009 and unemployment was 118,000 then and now 150,000. So 32,000 people have lost their jobs since the recession officially finished. Of course the economic situation is still dire. Well JohnKey claimed NZ would be coming out of the recession “reasonably agressively” in April 2009 but that hasn’t been the case at all.
@Sua and Mike,
I am not trying to defend the National performance with unemployment, but it is hard to accept that 0.1% growth for a quarter ends a recession. it is hardly within any margin of error???
I have not looked at following quarter reports to see if the “growth” continued. Those statistics will not IMO translate immediately into jobs, there will always be some lag. Employers wait (most??) to see if they can hang on before any redundancies and need continued growth before adding employees back in to the business.
Still not a pretty picture though
@ Tim G – I’m not a NACT supporter.
I prefer the left side of the spectrum. I’m not even a Green voter, as -evidenced by the last election- Green votes leach Labour’s ability to form a government but add little else other than catharsis for middle class chardonnay-socialists. My issue is that this site is designed to promote Labour MPs’ views, but often offers no quality analysis of the issues or credible policy. I thought NZLP might have re-grouped after the election, but as yet it appears not.
Sorry, I meant to say you’re a National supporter. I forgot for a second that ACT had undertaken a strategic merger with their friends in National (see also: tea tapes transcript).
Did you read the About section of this blog? Red Alert offers more quality analysis of issues (not policy – read the About section again) than any other party-affiliated blog. Which part of “the individual opinions of MPs” did you miss?
I’m not sure which ‘left side of the spectrum’ you’re living in, but I’ve read many credible policy alternatives and quality analysis on this blogsite, from MP’s and rank and file Labour party supporters alike.
This government is walking a tightrope and looking ever more wobbly by the day.
Paralysed by fear of losing the meagre 5% of public support that would see them thrown out of office is clearly taking it’s toll.
I have no doubt, despite your missives about their regrouping, the Labour party will ready an inclusive battle plan before 2014.
4 jobs advertised at Invercargill Winz office last week,2500 unemployed says National have no idea how to manage.Can someone please make a reliable statement regarding the following;Employer calls me for job interview in 2 weeks(Friday) to possibly start job 2 days later(Monday),Winz call-centre state I must supply a copy of the work contract/can not book me into an interview at Winz,but advise me I may be able to book an emergency interview so long as it’s within 24 hours of employment interview.
I am also advised they (Winz)are not allowed to book emergency interviews outside that time frame?.
Issues raised are,commercial sensitivity of business contracts viewed by unqualified staffers,also the time frame involved does not allow for confirmation of any payments of tickets for transport as the job is in Dunedin,also I have spoken with Bennetts office who are totally blind on this,also can not contact any Winz office in Invercargill.EFFECT,is being locked on the dole because of idiot management.What does the law state in New Zealand on being forced to supply sensitive commercial business info to these (spies),is it a chargable offence or is it legal abuse of information transfer/gathering?.Interesting to see which MP’s are smart enough to pickup on all these leaks.
This Government has failed to live up to its promise and is simply not credible. They said they would have more jobs in place – but as of now, we are still waiting for it to happen, while more and more people are becoming redundant.
And its even worse for the youth, while employers continue to reject our new workers from the workforce, on the basis of work experience – what is not being realised is that they can’t have experience if no one is willing to hire them.
Simply Guttered at this National led Government’s handling on unemployment.
Well Done Labour Team, Keep it Up !