More goodness from Australian Labor
Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:
In Sydney it was lead-up to Budget week, with speculation aplenty about tax cuts, means-testing for wealthy baby-boomers and – something New Zealand could pinch – grocery credits instead of welfare handouts for beneficiaries with a record of abusing and neglecting their children.
Somehow I can’t see Ruth Dyson introducing a similar policy. If Judith Collins is Minister of Social Welfare after the election she might give it a go, but I fear the feisty Collins will be held in check by the National Party apparatchiks as Ruth Richardson was.
Personally I wouldn’t want to be the person trying to hold Judith in check 
It does show again how much more moderate Australian Labor is. They’re introduced policies which are unthinkable for NZ Labour, and if National introduced would be savaged as bashing beneficiaries. Never mind it would be in fact designed to help children at risk.
What I like about the Australian policy is it does not impose the grocery credits on all beneficiaries, just those with a record of neglect. That way it does not interfere with the vast majority of families receiving a benefit, who are caring for their kids.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
But imagine the handwringing in NZ – you would be ‘discriminating’ against somone therefore making them a minority, and we cannot have a minority discriminated against.
What about getting rid of LAQC’s Mikhael? Surely that would send a signal to ‘rich prick’ tax dodgers? What? Your cabinet all have LAQC’s? Bugger..
May 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
A few points here.
1. It is (or perhaps was) a requirement that welfare vouchers were available for purchase of groceries, but not tobacco, alcohol or confectionary. It is presumably an offence for a shopkeeper or employee to supply these items. In the 1990′s a supermarket came in for flak because a bright young girl on the checkout enforced this. Although her identity was not revealed she came in for criticism as probably being from a ‘middle class’ family etc. There was no indication (as far as I remember) where management stood on this, nor any discussion of legal obligations under criminal law, so she was effectively hung out to dry. I say ‘bright’ since she was aware of the law, perhaps from law school studies or diligent study of staff training materials put out by the likes of Foodstuffs. Perhaps she expressed her disgust at being asked to supply this sort of stuff and confided in her family who acquainted her with the law. Anyway there was much discussion at the time on the ‘morality’ of this with the view that the Department and shopkeepers should turn a blind eye to the law.
2. Another little thing I came across the other day. A teenager goes away from home (solo parent with day to day care of the teenager) to undertake tertiary studies. Parent (if teenager below a ‘limiting’ age) can claim ‘Child Support’ via Inland Revenue from the other parent for the teenager. There is no fiduciary obligation of the ‘day to day care’ parent to apply the money received to the teenager’s welfare and advancement – the parent is quite at liberty to stick this money in the pokies. This must be utterly galling for both the teenager and ‘liable parent’. A teenager in such a situation tried without success to get the Family Court to divert the money straight to the teenager, but the Court did not have that power. Presumably this is not too common or there would be a big ‘stink’ about it. I cannot see Labour doing anything about this as it may upset the feminist movement.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Re cards or credits that can only be used for certain items. It only takes one or two store-owners who are prepared to swipe the card for ‘goods’ but return a lesser amount in cash and your scheme is shot to pieces. All these damage control ideas avoid the real problem. The welfare lifestyle and how it impacts on children.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am
What stops the voucher holder selling it for cash so she can buy fags or drugs or whatever?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“What stops the voucher holder selling it for cash so she can buy fags or drugs or whatever?”
Only actionable by ID? Feeble I know, but that’s what the regulators will say. Those who through their ever expanding insistence upon such things have reduced the worth of a passport to little more than a playing card.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
On a related topic. In a Herald article from the last few days a senior union official was lamenting about the increased living costs for their members and said it was very difficult for some of the families to get by with the rising costs of rent/mortgage, power, petrol, food, cigarettes and booze.
Since when did cigarettes and booze become part of the basic requirements to survive?
May 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Yes, technically all someone needs to survive is a sticky paste made from peanut butter, milk and a few supplements. Frankly, we could pile a few more families into those houses they’re renting, too, without too drastic a drop in productivity.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Yes, technically all someone needs to survive is a sticky paste made from peanut butter,”
That’s not at all what SR said. Why do you commies always have to alter the truth? Why can’t you argue honestly?
May 18th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
That’s not at all what SR said.
Correct, it’s what I said. Well spotted.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“Correct, it’s what I said. Well spotted.”
Another lie. You didn’t say it. By your use of the word “yes”, its what you implied SR said.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Red, do you really want me to explain my point?
May 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The point is Ryan why the hell should we have to support people living in “poverty” that can still afford to buy luxuries like cigs, booze and Sky TV?
Have you ever driven through Glen Innes and counted the number of Sky TV satellite dishes?
May 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Red, do you really want me to explain my point?”
I really don’t need you to explain anything. As for your point, I well understand the one you’re trying to make- you’re a compassionate and generous person who cares for and wants to help other people in less fortunate circumstances, and SR is a heartless capitalist pig who only cares for himself and would without an iota of concern, let poor people die in agony filth and disease before offering them a dime. Same old tiresome leftist bullshit.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Raider,
I understand, but the things you call luxuries – whether they’re booze, cigs and Sky or they’re a backyard, a vacation or a computer…
They’re luxuries in the sense that a family can technically live without them. They can get shelter, sustenance, a degree of healthcare, etc. Their hearts and lungs will continue to function. But life has to be more than survival.
Who’s the “we” in your question? And how do “luxuries” in the sense of “things people don’t technically need for survival” compare to the kind of luxuries enjoyed by the wealthiest fifth of our little island community here?
We could do a lot better for each other, but we’ll never get there if our attitude is that no one has a complaint until the biological requirements for life aren’t being met.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I really don’t need you to explain anything. As for your point, I well understand the one you’re trying to make- you’re a compassionate and generous person who cares for and wants to help other people in less fortunate circumstances, and SR is a heartless capitalist pig who only cares for himself and would without an iota of concern, let poor people die in agony filth and disease before offering them a dime. Same old tiresome leftist bullshit.
Red, I have yet to meet a capitalist who cared only for himself or herself.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Red you almost have it correct, except I would prefer to “let poor people die in agony filth and disease before offering them a dime” and without them having the luxury of having a cigarette or a beer
Stephen the problem with you left wing wankers is the removal of incentives. You would prefer the country to be a welfare state without any individuality or personal ambition. I have no problem with people smoking or drinking as long as the bills are paid and the kids feed first. If you can’t afford this then give up until you can. Its called sacrifices and most of us here have had to make them to get ahead.
I can remember being a student and living off just potatoes for lunch when I was strapped for cash. And yes if I had no cash I didn’t go to the pub.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Ryan you don’t need these things just to survive. There are plenty of things you can do that are free. Take the kids to the park etc.
The problem is people can have all the things others have, but don’t have to work to get them.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The problem is people can have all the things others have, but don’t have to work to get them.
I’m assuming the union official is speaking for workers, rather than for voluntarily unemployed bums. And the workers feeling the pinch from rising prices for the most part work very hard in very long hours – longer hours and harder work than most of the well-paid or wealth people I know. I’m in favour of people working for what they get – because I’m also in favour of workers getting what they deserve.
If you can’t afford this then give up until you can. Its called sacrifices and most of us here have had to make them to get ahead.
People who have to make the sacrifice of Sky TV ($13 a week) in order to feed their kids are not going to get ahead by doing so.
You can remember being a student and living off just potatoes for lunch. Presumably you got a degree, and that helped you secure work later, which kind of made up for the sacrifices you made back then. How does that translate across to the lives of families working on close to minimum wage? What’s your advice to them, based on your personal model of sacrifice, hard work and success?
May 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hmmm. I’d suggest to them that entrenched reliance on state support is like a drug which saps motivation, enhances a victim mentality, dulls motivation and removes choice. Find a way to improve their lot. Make sacrifices, work hard. Get good advice. And help others overcome the same issues that they’ve overcome.
Disagree. People who make this choice make 100′s of other similar choices – bigger and smaller – all of which combine to deliver higher levels of self-determination and independence.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
getstaffed,
I agree that entrenched reliance on state support is all kinds of bad. What about, rather than wealth being redistributed via welfare, those workers getting paid more for the work they’re doing?
May 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Ryan, Sure pay more to those who perform well, and pay less to the slackers. This isn’t wealth redistribution though. It’s encouraging wealth creation and rewarding those who invest personal risk, effort and skill.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ryan, Sure pay more to those who perform well, and pay less to the slackers. This isn’t wealth redistribution though. It’s encouraging wealth creation and rewarding those who invest personal risk, effort and skill.
Depends on how the pay is determined. Minimum-wage legislation could be seen as wealth redistribution, couldn’t it?
May 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Welfare can be sorted out far simpler than all this. Have a maximum 6 months on the unemployment benefit in any one stretch, and maximum 2 years total out of every 10 (or some similar figures). After this date, if you haven’t got a job, you can make a personal choice to:
1) voluntarily go into a WINZ provided work placement (i.e. work for the dole scheme),
2) be referred by a doctor to get a sickness benefit if you genuinely cannot work,
3) start tertiary study and switch to a student allowance,
4) or voluntarily choose to have your benefit cut.
Very simple to administer. It means the unemployment benefit is there for people who genuinely need it (temporarily out of work), but you cannot live on it forever without getting a job.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I think things are very different now and our standard of living has changed since I was studying and bought a cigarette rolling machine so that I got eleven cigarettes out of a pack of ten and 111 out of 100 bought by rolling stubs … Christ knows what it did to my health. So I can see the benefit of the family paying $13 for a Sky sub in that it keeps them out of mischief such as painting graffitti, knocking over pizza delivery lads, and other things which do nothing for progress and society.
Short of having supermarket queues policed, perhaps one counter for benificiaries, to investigate any breaches there are so many ways the cunning and intelligent beni will get around the restriction of the scheme we shouldn’t worry about … but at least we can try .. perhaps by having school canteens running 365 days a year to provide directly for children without involving the parents. The drawback to that is that some kids would prefer to starve than be seen being fed. So such food has to be provided for all attendees rather than giving families a tax cut. Perhaps only singles and couples with no children to get tax cuts … that would be a new one .. have a child and pay more tax instead of the well meaning system we have lived under for decades of paying families to have children.
Personally I have never bothered at whatever tax rate I was on becuase I was in a good job and rarely went to the pub or even the bottle store so I had money to take my family camping, ski-ing and yachting etc. I also believe that it is my responsiblity as a member of society to help the government look after the less fortunate, be it self-inflicted or not. Improvements in that direction can only come over generational timespans as birth control leads to fewer children. The world simply doesn’t need more children to survive. Though as we currentkly see on our TVs that can lead to tragedy when a family only has one child and perhaps beyond their ability to breed a replacement.
I would add a rider to Mr Dennis’s system … that the benefit continues for at least a fortnight following getting a job to cover the extra costs a working person has on starting to work after a period on the dole.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
The Aussie Labor proposal sounds much like the Americans’ food stamps programme, which has been around for decades. So obviously it’s feasible.
Of course, if the Yanks do it, it’s got to be evil.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
At least the Government in Australia looks like they actually care about their citizenry; when was the last time you ever felt that from Helen and Michael? All they seem to be doing these days is sitting up in their ivory tower plotting how to win the next election; everything they do is calculated – not for the betterment of your average kiwi, but to see what political mileage they can get from it, and people can smell the bullshit from a mile off.
What we need is a government that actually cares. It’s about time decisions were made based on what is best for the people of New Zealand. I wonder if that’s ever been Helen’s aim; to my mind all she’s done while in power is to reshape the country into her own image and wreaked havoc in the process.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Further on that Fletch, what we really need is an alternative that WILL make the hard decisions that will help those who need the most help. Deborah is right, Judith will be held back by caucus meaning there will not be any huge wide ranging changes and only a bit of unpopular tinkering that the left will use an ammunition to attack the Nats at every opportunity.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Lets get Labour to nationalise sky television and give it free to beneficiaries. Ryan, you say “life has to be more than survival”, I hope the next step above survival for you is not getting drunk, smoking cigarettes and watching crap on sky tv.
Back on topic, I think grocery vouchers are an excellent idea. Anything to stop the money going away from the children is a good idea. If the country is subsidising you, then we should get some say.