Reaction to Benefits Policy
A wide range of reactions to National’s Benefits Policy. Taking them in no particular order.
Bll Ralston displys his outraged liberal roots and agrees with Helen Clark that it is beating up on single parents:
Frankly, less than 4000 adhering to the government breast on a more or less permanent basis is extremely few. In an effort to eradicate these last few bludgers, as it sees them, National will spend many millions of dollars in bureaucratic terms policing its new “back to work” system, counselling the DPB recipients and ensuring they really are making a buck for themselves.
Colin Espiner blogged yesterday and calls it Don-lite – watered down from Don Brash, but still different from Labour. He concludes:
There will be the usual objections from beneficiary advocates but National’s welfare policy won’t lose it any votes and may even pick up a few. It will be interesting to see how Labour responds. My pick is it won’t have too much to say.
Simon Collins has a useful look at the party differences:
It [Labour] believes the welfare state exists to empower those who would be powerless without it. For sole parents, the domestic purposes benefit gives them the power to leave unhappy or abusive relationships, and to balance paid work and unpaid parenting in the ratio that suits them and their children.
In contrast National, as John Key put it yesterday, believes in “a genuine safety net in times of need”. It thinks people should be moved on as quickly as possible.
I don’t think National in beliefs or policy encourages people to stay in abusive relationships. The DPB still exists. The difference is, having once moved out, whether or not one is forced to seek work at some stage, or can you stay on it for a decade without ever seeking a part-time job? But Collins is right the views are seen as “empowerment” vs “safety net”.
As his [Key's] policy pointed out, New Zealand’s refusal to work-test sole parents is now out of line with all Western countries except Australia, Britain and Ireland, all of which have signalled moves to start work-testing.
Yes, as with the 90 day trial period policy, this is standard practice in the developed world.
Collins also has quotes from various advocacy groups:
Family First director Bob McCoskrie, an invited guest at the policy launch, said making parents work part-time made sense, but only if implemented with discretion.
“We’d want to make sure that the work requirements are within school hours and not within the school holidays. Otherwise we are going to have a lot of unsupervised kids.”
Case Managers will need some discretion.
Another guest, Mercy Mission founder Barbara Stone, said she agreed with the work requirement “as long as it’s in school time and there is someone at home for the children for the rest of the time”. She said it was hard to get jobs for sole parents, who often had low self-esteem.
The focus should be on work during school hours only. But a part-time initial job may boost the self-esteem and confidence so that a full or near full-time job is easier to obtain once the kid or kids are older. Having a total break from the workforce for 10 years makes it much harder.
Housing Lobby spokeswoman Sue Henry said she was upset that John Key had “regurgitated” the work requirement policy that National implemented in the 1990s. “Quite frankly, latch-key kids and youth gangs and transience are a direct byproduct of taking the stick to beneficiary families [in the 1990s],” she said.
Yes there were no gangs before the 1990s. What a sensible contribution.
But Parenting Council chairwoman Lesley Max said the requirement for sole parents to work 15 hours a week was “consistent with the norm that exists across society as a whole”.
And who would argue with Lesley?
John Armstrong looks at the policy also:
Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue – a much paler blue in the case of National’s bits-and-pieces patchwork welfare policy.
Heh that could apply to many National policies!
The latest policy is archetypal John Key. It promises things Labour would happily do itself – such as making the annual inflation-related adjustment of benefit rates a legal obligation on governments, rather than just convention.
Yet in forcing part-time work obligations on some sickness beneficiaries the policy has enough to be identifiably National in origin. But not so much that it frightens centre-ground voters.
Labour and the Greens ritually slammed the policy as an attack on beneficiaries. Some in National’s ranks must think “if only”.
As I said, a sensible combination of carrot and stick.
The Herald editorial is reasonably negative on the policy:
It [solo mothers breeding to get the DPB] is probably as much a myth as the Labour Party’s idea of the average employer. That is to say, there are instances of benefit abuse just as there are rogue employers, but to treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work would be as foolish as legislating labour arrangements for all. Nevertheless, that is what National proposes to do with sole parents, invalids and sickness beneficiaries.
It is an interesting analogy, but somewhat flawed. Not all sole parents, invalids or sickness beneficiaries are being work tested. Only those DPB recipients whose children are aged over six, and only that small minority of invalids or sickness beneficiaries who have been medically assessed as capable of part-time work. The editorial concedes this later down, so the rhetoric of “treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work” is somewhat hyperbolic.
For sickness beneficiaries the policy seems fair enough. As the economy has strengthened and the unemployed have faced more stringent job-seeking requirements, the numbers on sickness and invalids benefits have risen suspiciously high. They have needed only a doctor’s note, and even if the doctor assesses them to be capable of part-time work, they have been under no obligation to seek it. National intends to change that.
Some praise amongst the grumpiness.
But there will be cases where the time and cost of taking a low-paid job put added stress on a sole-parent family for little if any financial gain. It is doubtful that society gains from that stress, or that it is worth the trouble the ministry might take to enforce it.
Single mothers with good earning capacity are normally anxious to return to paid work as soon as child care allows. National’s efforts will be felt mainly by those with few skills and poor earning capacity and, frankly, Mr Key ought to have more important things to do. This policy does more to stroke the shibboleths of party supporters than meet any pressing social need. He should return to topics that count.
The policy is pretty standard in the developed world. And having an extra 30,000 or so people in the workforce will help close the gap with Australia.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am
“But Parenting Council chairwoman Lesley Max said the requirement for sole parents to work 15 hours a week was “consistent with the norm that exists across society as a whole”.”
15 hours a week seems a fairly light load given that many working couples with children will be working 40 hours plus each.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:58 am
The usual snore-a-thon comments from the ’senior’ journo’s in NZ, displaying their usual grasp of reality.
i.e. the chatter in the tea room was that making access to bene’s (long term) harder was bad.
There has to be an incentive for bene’s to get off their arse and back into the workforce – social welfare was developed by the Labour party as a SAFETY NET of LAST RESORT to allow those down on their luck to GET BACK ON THEIR FEET, same for State Housing.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I think that it is a great balance.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Some find it easy to feel sympathy for those don’t (rather than can’t) work but forget about the people who do work so hard, and for not a lot more money, who are helping to support them.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:13 am
homepaddock – agree, a social welfare payment should be short term unless absolutely necessary.
Its not fair to all who pay taxes and struggle to make ends meet to NOT encourage less reliance on welfare where appropriate.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:14 am
A question for Barbara Stone, do Solo Mums have difficulty finding a job because of low self esteem, or does the fact that they don’t have a job cause low self esteem?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am
At last a difference between them
National= A hand up
Labour= A hand out.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:34 am
The left seem to think we are on the edge of civilisation’s decay, and that National will push us over. You have to have a heart of stone to hear their lamentations without smiling. (To paraphrase Oscar W.) This is about the kind of leadership we want from government.
National is educating the electorate that alternatives can be discussed and even implemented. One of the central weaknesses of Labour’s policy is that it appears keen to rest on the status quo, and rely on peoples’ fear of change as their justification for doing so. This is not leadership, it is arrogance.
National on the other hand are content to chip away at the herd-like paranoia which so benefits Labour, and propose (here’s an idea!) that running the country can be achieved with an accountable set of ideas at the helm.
The knee-jerk response is typified by the phrase ‘taking the stick’ to benficiaries, redolent of a mind-set that dogwhistles the idea of dawn raids on sleeping mothers, tearing them from the arms of their loved ones, and putting them on a chain gang, or something.
The reality of this kind of policy is that it will see a widening of the tertiary education provison as providers step into the gap provided, and parents are referred to literacy and in-work training to make them ready to join the workforce.
Like the ninety-day probationary period, which as DPF rightly points out, is common in developed nations, and is not, as the left would have us believe, an attempt to ’steal workers rights’ from under them, this welfare policy will not be about ‘chain-gangs’. Or, ‘forcing people off the benefit’. Rather it will enable WINZ to effectively refer people into the workplace and into education, with the blessing of a leadership which is guided by an ethical principle, rather than a leadership which is guided by a desire to keep people frightened and suppressed in a low-espectation, low-ambition form of state-tyranny.
So, which kind of leadership would you prefer?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:39 am
As a married mother of two, I believe 15 hrs work or training is a very reasonable responsibilty for someone with a 6 year old child on the DPB.
Most of my married friends can no longer afford to be full time mothers, even to their very young children, and are forced back into the workforce, often in menial jobs because their husband’s taxes are paying for these benefits.
And while no-one begrudges a mother being given a hand up in life, it should not be a lifestyle.
I would also go further and say that anyone already on the DPB who has another child, should then receive food parcels etc rather than money, as a disincentive for those group of women who see their children as a meal ticket
August 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
democracymum, thanks for the chuckle in your last line. Read it again and see if you can see the faux pax.
Here’s a clue:-
food parcels = meal
Yeah, yeah yeah. I know what you mean, though.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:56 am
It’s funny you mention that. I know in Upper Hutt of a few women who have kids just for the DPB. I don’t know much it pays, but it must be good for them to keep having them.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:02 am
It was annoying this morning to hear Radio New Zealand National pulling “the latest policy from National” to pieces, but (in another item) saying: “He has barely any detail and a lack of policy like his leader John Key”.
They can’t have it both ways.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:04 am
DPF said: And having an extra 30,000 or so people in the workforce will help close the gap with Australia.
Which gap, DPF? If we’re talking about the income gap, economic logic would predict that having an extra 30,000 people enter the labour market, many of whom have not had paid employment for some considerable time, many of whom have a limited range of employment skills, and many of whom have physical or psychological impediments to their productivity, would drive wages down, rather than up.
Or is lowering wages what National still actually wants, as it did in the 90s? Guess the 90 day “fire at will” policy will help in achieving that objective too.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am
A not very exciting policy that seems to have struck a positive chord with many NZders. The “secret agenda” situation of the last few days has been completely extinguished and the new focus has people talking about National and, more surprisingly, talking positively about National. Labour, already in retreat, have been completely smoothered with this policy release. I don’t know whether that was planned or just luck, but it suggests the beginning of a change of attitude in the media toward National and a horrifying landslide defeat for labour in the polls.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Toad
“Which gap, DPF? If we’re talking about the income gap, economic logic would predict that having an extra 30,000 people enter the labour market, many of whom have not had paid employment for some considerable time, many of whom have a limited range of employment skills, and many of whom have physical or psychological impediments to their productivity, would drive wages down, rather than up”
So the Green policy is to keep giving these people money to sit at home and produce the next generation of criminals and beneficiaries?.
It may take a generation to make the change and if that is the case then so be it, most of these long term bludgers are never going to be bothered trying to improve themselves and as such they have no right to expect to be in high paid employment but unless we make the change NOW things will never improve.
People like Bradford only make things worse, I suspect she knows that the survival of the left depends on retaining the underclass and as such she has no real desire to improve things other than to raise their benefits.
The social welfare system we have now is simply not sustainable Toad, the economic and social costs are only going to increase to the detriment of us all.
How about you tell us what YOU would do for a change?
August 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
ummm why is everyone focussed on the “making people work” aspect?
what about the training?
lets be honest, those on the DPB after their child turns 6 arent the most highly skilled in our society. 15 hours a week training could be the eye opener these people need.
at worst, they start with something like a computer course, they learn to use Word, Excel etc – thats a bad thing? maybe they will be able to assist their childs learning. afterall, according to the left they are all model parents.
there are a lot of basic skills that could be learned.
im sure the 15 hours a week will be govt funded.
people could do all sorts of courses.. i think its a great policy.
its actually not a bad scam.. get paid to stay at home.. take your time, pick and choose what you want to learn.. sweet!
hell, 15 hours a week could be spent learning about freakin make up!
August 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
expat, I’m not so sure of that: the DPB replaced the widows benefit, which was not a safety net but a stipend to pay a widow after the loss of her spouse. This was especially relevant after the war. John Key’s mother went on the Widow’s benefit in about 1969, when her husband died. I have no idea how long she stayed on it before getting work or if she ever did, but I would assume she did.
The social reality is that, even in 1974, when the DPB came in, women were not expected to work in the workforce for money, but were expected to bring up the children and keep the house tidy, duties which in themselves involve work. The DPB, as is widely acknowledged, meant that women in abusive relationships could leave their spouse and not be destitute. Different cultures have different ways of dealing with husbandless children: In Arab countries polygamy enables women to come under the care of rich men. In many parts of India, a husbandless woman is an outcast, any children are claimed by the ex-husband’s family and the woman seeks asylum in a monastery.
Despite all the efforts of the feminist movement (in which women rebelled by throwing off skirts, wearing trousers and having careers), our society remains staunchly patriarchal. Definitely our workforce makes few allowances for the needs of people who wish to juggle work with child rearing. I know of one woman who, after she started having children, was able to negotiate maternal leave and following that, reduced hours so that she could do both jobs equally well (child rearing and work). However she is a highly paid professional, whose skills are quite unique and needed by her particular employer. Most people are not in the same position and at present, the first barrier that DPB job seekers have to deal with at WINZ, when looking for employment is the prospect of putting their child in after school care, simply because the kinds of jobs that provide support for the role of parent do not exist in any substantial quantities. The day that WINZ case managers can point to half a dozen 9 to 3 jobs that a prospective DPB employee can apply for instead of having to fall on the immediate assumption that after school care is required, will be the day that a policy like what Key proposes would work.
The main reason that so many people remain on the DPB is that the workforce is not configured to provide equal support for the role of parent and the role of employee.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Beat me to it Dime.
I like the continued omission by both the media and interest groups that this policy is offering the option of 15 hrs per week of training. If this was given a little more consideration, then the argument that this policy forces people into low paid menial jobs, might ring hollow.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I think John Key is using his head brilliantly.
We have had such hand outs from the Labour Government in the last decade that the right leaning people such as myself want to over-react and ’slash and burn’ because it is basically the opposite of what has happened.
John Key knows that to win the election he has to grab as many voters who voted Labour last time that lean towards the middle. If he came out with a ‘Let’s do away with the DPB after 5 years’ approach right away it would scare the hell out of these voters and give grist to the Labour mill.
We have watched Labour quietly erode our social and family values over the past 10 years. John Key will take us in the right direction but has to get elected first.
Baby steps, but steps all the same
August 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
siobhan, if politics were about facts socialists would never be elected.
Dock- John Key won’t abolish the DPB- he knows from personal experience how it can be needed.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Toad: your suggestion that National and/or Key wants wages to fall is beneath your usual standard. You know quite well that this was a misspeak if not an outright misquotation, and that it is completely implausible that John Key wants wages to fall. Obviously the support for this policy announcement has you rattled. I suggest you rethink your comment above.
I thought Simon Collins’ quote was the interesting one:
Motherhood and apple pie there – I would agree that the welfare state is a safety net for those who would be unable to live without it, which I guess is the same thing.
Again, not much to complain about – if you’re stuck in an abusive relationship you should be able to leave – no questions.
And this one is the really big difference between National and Labour, and to my mind between most NZers and the handful who are currently running the place. It is not an entitlement of being a NZer that you can choose to not work and have everyone else in the country pay for you. It is OK if you cannot work and need the support of others. It is not OK to choose not to work – our society simply cannot function if we permit people to choose not to work.
Banging away on this point should be central to National’s marketing of this policy. If everyone chooses not to work, nobody can choose not to work. It isn’t a real choice, since only a small percentage of the population can reasonably choose not to work. The way at present we seem to stop this is to make the benefit level low and difficult to live on, so that few people will make that choice. But if we accept that is how we control the numbers on a benefit, then it is completely irrational to talk about increasing benefits. If, however, we can contain benefits only to those who need them, not to those who choose them, then it is possible to increase the benefit levels. This is something the left seem to be entirely missing in their picture of how the welfare safety net works.
Labour have done well be demonising the National party, which has allowed them to operate policies that most NZers don’t agree with when you get to the detail, but that people are accepting as the status quo. As National continue to issue policy like this that is logical and, once you look at the detail, makes perfect sense, it is harder for Labour to demonise the alternatives to their policies. I think National will be a much harder party to beat this time around.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
The point about 15 hours training is very significant.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Nice one Grant.
At least this appears to have taken secret tapes and agenda off the radar.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Overheard at a 21st last year, two teenage girls talking about what theyre going to do after leaving school, “I don’t know, I think I’ll get pregnant and go on the DPB”
August 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Grant
I agree John Key would never abolish the DPB as it is too draconian.
However he has to take steps along the road of personal responsibility and self reliance which means a scare for a lot of Kiwis who are used to the state telling them and giving to them.
The fact that this policy seems mild by some standards will at least tell right wingers that at last there is a difference between Labour and National, and signal to some of the people who are deliberatley lounging on welfare that perhaps the game is up and the simple days are over.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:09 am
National Party policy on beneficiaries is plain immature.
In reality, what organisation demands 100 % attendance – and how many get it?
Very few, I’d suggest. Schools? Doubt it, some kids get sick. Business? It’s been a few decades since employers were allowed to sack employees for being sick. And yet there seems to be a Pavlovian reaction every time the word beneficiary is used in politics. Even suggesting there is 30,000 people waiting to contribute to the economy betrays detachment from reality.
The only places that ever get 100 % attendance are slave and death camps.
John Key’s comments about Domestic Purpose Beneficiaries “breeding for business” reveals racism and misogyny beats strong, still, in the heart of the National Party.
National = a hand up?
More like kicking dog-tired mothers when they’re down. Have you, Sir, no decency?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
so because we cant achieve “100% attenddance” we shouldnt try?
just continue to cater to the lowest common denominator???
you and youre kind are the reason our country is going down the proverbial
August 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Good! Here is a policy area where “old journalism” can make all its usual Leftwing noises, and the voters will just snort at them. Net result: gain for Nats, loss for Labour, loss of credibility for the MSM. Good.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
avaiki
You have got it all wrong.
You can not have self respect when you are able bodied and on the dole.
If this policy was around when I was on the dole it would have drastically reduced the time it took for me to set up my business and start employing people (including other beneficary’s).
“John Key’s comments about Domestic Purpose Beneficiaries “breeding for business” reveals racism and misogyny beats strong, still, in the heart of the National Party. ”
Come on, are buzz words all the left have to combat this policy?
National hates brown people
National hates women
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!
August 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Oh, and on income levels. Sure, getting all the beneficiaries into work will probably reduce the average wage – because those people are paid less than the current average wage. But it will increase the average income, because their benefit already counts as part of the average income. And it will substantially increase the GDP per head, because instead of their income coming entirely from charity/govt, it comes from productive use of their time. So it depends on your measure.
Leaving the impact on the countries financial position alone, it is right to get those beneficiaries into work because it is the right thing to do. It improves their lot in life, it improves their self esteem, it improves their life options. They are net better off, as demonstrated by reputable studies.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
By Toad’s logic we should fire everybody except for the most well paid person in the country then we would be the country with the highest average wage in the world. That’s greenie economics for you.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I think I am going to enjoy the next nine years even if it is under Labour lite.
The Nat’s are not even in power yet and the pinkos and those who think they have a god given right to my money are moaning.
It’s going to be so much fun.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Here’s a suggestion for you.
Why don’t the IRD create a new tax code (ok two new tax codes) and whenever you start a new job you can just tick a box indicating whether you would like to opt in or opt out of the social welfare system?
Easy fucking peasy. Two different tax rates and two sets of ideology. You wanna help lazy parasites? Sure, sign up here. You have some pride and no matter what you’d scrub toilets 12 hours a day should you need to in order to support your family? Sign here my good man and be aware that you are waiving your right to social welfare should the need arise!
I just wonder how many of the bleeding hearts would put their money where their flapping mouths are?
August 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I heard someone on Labour Radio’s Moaning Report say “It’s not worth all the bother because there are only 38,000 dpb beneficiaries with children over 6. Well given the range of benefits that represents about 300 million dollars a year.
That seems worth worrying about to me.
But who cares about 300 million dollars – when it is other people’s money?
Also National should draw attention to the training opportunity by linking it to broadband. if these people got training in computer skills as well as work skills many could work at home and telecommute and hence solve all the problems with sick kids and so on that the poverty action group etc talk about. Telecommuting is proving a boon to working mothers in the US who have the highest uptake.
Go to: http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/index.php/media-releases/35-media-releases/90-high-speed-broadband-reduces-congestion-on-urban-road-networks
The left don’t seem to see the connection at all. Cullen says broadband has nothing to do with productivity!!
All I know is that when my connection fails my productivity drops about 90%. This must embarrass the young Labour supporters.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
A relative in Melbourne is a few years off retirement age and finds it hard to get work other than short term. He goes on the dole when not working but is required to work or volunteer 15 hours a week. He volunteers, mostly at a council run plant nursery. He is one of quite a number of on-the-dole volunteers there, and the nursery is set up to take these people on although not all year round. He started out pricking out seedlings – easy to learn – and has since moved on to slightly more skilled work. This seems like a good plan, though here I expect the unions would not allow it to happen.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
One of the reasons beneficiaries will not want to work is that they are working already and would find it too difficult to fit in another 15 hours. Not that WINZ knows anything about it of course. Hopefully National’s plan will also have the added fiscal effect of moving workers out of the black market and into paying taxes.
Virtually all beneficiaries of my acquaintance, including close family members, rort the system in some way. Either through living with a partner while on the DPB, working under the table, setting up temporary small businesses with a substantial financial input from WINZ (thousands of dollars), going to uni for years on the taxpayer. I know of several people who collected small business grants and supplementary income while getting started. None of the businesses lasted long, even though they did all the right courses – LOL. One relative had two such grants 2 or 3 years apart, and is still on the dole. I guess the small amount of time off the dole (a few months last time) means that the clock is reset and this person no longer appears on the long term unemployed stats.
One friend did an undergraduate then a post grad degree while on the DPB. She did finally get a job, but by then her two children were almost ready to leave college. She was also working part time for a few hours a week for cash, some of which was for me. I rest my case.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Why is the media so far out of touch with the public (especially on this issue)?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
15 hours/week is 3 hours per day, 5 days per week. Not a hell of a lot. You’d think most parents could fit that into their day provided the child was going to Kindergarten or school. (My father worked full time and my mother did a good 20-25 hours a week while my brother and I were at school.)
What I think is not so obvious is where all of these employers are, who are *supposedly* going to offer ’solo-mum-friendly’ 11am-2pm Monday-Friday jobs.
I also have reservations about the parents of (especially very young pre-kindergarten) children dropping them off at day-care every day so they can both go to work, and only ‘playing families’ at the weekends. You only have to look at the behaviour of the brats in upscale 2-income-mortgage areas like Remmers and Takapuna to see what the consequences of that are.
In short: Even primates manage to organise for themselves the sort of society where mum can have a reasonable bit of time to look after her young, while those who can work more (hunt/forage) do. If we as taxpayers are too F**KING MEAN AND STINGY to grant parents of very young children the same, then we probably have quite a bit to learn from the primates…
August 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Nah, that’s too logical and real world for the National Welfare Policy at this stage. Maybe after a few months when Key has been invited to visit a few halfway houses and down-and-outer suburbs he might have a different perspective on this topic and any financial or social benefits that might ensue from the policy as written, without preparing the ground and changing workplace culture and the attitudes of people first.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
It seems to me that many solos will get pregnant again when their first child is five so that they can continue their lifestyle which may mean greater handouts if they continue the practise throughout their breedable years. The benefit should be restricted to the first or second child thereafter a free hysterectomy plus a cash incentive should be offered to stop the wrought.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
artemisia said: One of the reasons beneficiaries will not want to work is that they are working already and would find it too difficult to fit in another 15 hours. Not that WINZ knows anything about it of course. Hopefully National’s plan will also have the added fiscal effect of moving workers out of the black market and into paying taxes. Virtually all beneficiaries of my acquaintance, including close family members, rort the system in some way.
Now, why do you think that would be artemesia? Perhaps because benefit levels are so low that people can’t actually survive long-term on them. Perhaps also because the abatement regime applied to benefits is so severe that you’re no better off for any extra work you do if you work more than 4 or 5 hours a week.
I’m not condoning people on benefits working “under the table” and don’t declare their income, but I think I can understand why some do – it is because they don’t perceive the benefit system itself as being fair and adequate.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Kent Parker, take a look first at the employers who cannot get staff at all. Some of them may well be prepared to take someone on for 15 or so hours a week, especially if they can get rid of them if they don’t perform under the proposed 90 day arrangement. Then, there is nothing to say that the hours have to be 11 – 2, or that the hours need to be limited to 15. 15 hours a week could be worked over 2 or 3 days for example. Plus not all those covered by the proposed policy have children, or the children may be old enough to be on their own after school (eg college age), or there is child minding readily available. Remeber that many employers operate 7 days a week these days.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
baxter said: It seems to me that many solos will get pregnant again when their first child is five so that they can continue their lifestyle
Now, baxter, the single parent DPB pays $263.78 per week. Now there will be $82 a week (for one child aged under 13) Working for Families Tax Credit, so a single parent with one child gets $345.78 a week in the hand – not counting assistance targeted to particular expenses such as accommodation supplement and disability allowance.
Not exactly an opulent “lifestyle” from where I am sitting.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
artemisia said: take a look first at the employers who cannot get staff at all
Isn’t that because they don’t offer to pay enough?
As I posted above, forcing another 30,000 people to look for work will help to keep wages low. Is this what National wants?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I would have thought this would have encouraged employers to create jobs that fit the needs of the largest group of able bodied beneficiaries not currently fully utilized: the parent of school age children. They are not necessarily solo parents on the benefit either, but any mother or father who is dedicated to their child rearing role. There are plenty of women married with children who have foregone work because it reduces their ability to carry out their parenting role effectively.
I think there is need for a culture shift in the workplace, in which it is seen as making a contribution to the welfare of the next generation to create 9 to 3 jobs for the sake of parents of school age children, with 6 weeks holiday a year (3-4 weeks paid as per employment agreement, 2 unpaid or paid for by WINZ if solo parent). These jobs would need to be clearly identified as Parent of School Age positions and to be covered by an accompanying collective employment agreement with the minimum requirements set in law. A certain number can be created by government within govt departments but the majority would come from private business. These jobs would include clerical, supermarket, factory, cleaning, hospitality (lunch) and any kind of job under the sun in which the 9 to 3 hours are feasible. In some cases teenage children could fill in for the parent during the school holidays (this does currently happen).
This would make it easier for parents (solo or otherwise) to find work and be respected for their parental role. Employers would not have to pay any more per hour than for any other employee of similar skill. They would however have to structure things a little differently and in a way that perhaps doesn’t always put the business first.
Meanwhile WINZ case managers would be able to give to DBP beneficiaries a much clearer route to employment and they would have much less excuse for remaining unemployed. Right wing bloggers would have to accept that it is not all the DPB recipients ‘fault’ and that they have a role to play.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Toad
Do the Greens want the tax payer to keep paying 30,000 people to do nothing.
And please explain where the money is going to come from.
The problem here Toad is that we allow people to make a choice, its either “shall I get off my arse and get a job, be a good example to my kids and be a productive part of society” or its “I cannot be fucked working, I will let others do it for me”
August 12th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Parker/RRM: doesn’t the policy explicitly exclude parents of “very young pre-kindergarten” children? Straw man anyone?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
toad said:
“artemisia said: take a look first at the employers who cannot get staff at all
Isn’t that because they don’t offer to pay enough? ”
Maybe, but that will not be an issue for beneficiaries under the proposal as they will be able to earn $100 before their benefit starts to abate. That is an effective wage increase over non beneficiaries doing the same job.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Kent Parker said
“Nah, that’s too logical and real world for the National Welfare Policy at this stage. Maybe after a few months when Key has been invited to visit a few halfway houses and down-and-outer suburbs he might have a different perspective on this topic”
If only that cruel mr Key had been brought up by a solo mum in a state house, then he would understand the plight of these poor people………no…….wait!!!!!
August 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
By all accounts JK was brought up in a very functional household. Most of the households that cause us problems in terms of welfare abuse, prison numbers, teenage pregnancy etc etc are dysfunctional. Because of his upbringing Key is likely to flip flop on this policy just as he did with the WFF policy. You can bet your bottom dollar welfare agencies around the country are lining up to invite this very genial, empathic, all-embracing, centrist to see the reality of the social underbelly which he presumes to fix so easily. No, not ‘cruel’, just at this point a little ‘uninitiated’. Besides, the figures don’t stack up. Someone in the Herald thinks this will save 20 mil a year, but some of the senior managers at Treasury may have a different picture to paint based on past experience.
We’ll see what happens.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Kent said
” By all accounts JK was brought up in a very functional household. Most of the households that cause us problems in terms of welfare abuse, prison numbers, teenage pregnancy etc etc are dysfunctional.”
And why was John Keys up bringing functional?
His family had all the criteria that lefties are using to attack this policy.
Dead beet father, mother left with huge debt and 3 kids, and even a much harder political climate of the day for solo parents.
How on earth did they survive let a lone produce a centre right politician!!!!
one reason.
WORK ETHIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Shunda, I’d be careful what you say. As far as I know the father wasn’t a dead beat. He was dead that is true.
But, finally, you have hit the core of the matter: values. It should be obvious that a simple monetary bureaucratic measure instituted at government level is not going to change the values of a small minority who exist at the lower rungs of society, and who, like an al Qaeda IED, will simply pop up somewhere else unexpectedly. If you really care about fixing the problems manifest in the whole welfare debate then you will achieve a lot more as a social worker or street missionary than as a right wing blogger.
If you’ve ever been in a relationship you will know how difficult it is to change another person’s behaviour, and, if you think you are special and have all the answers, good luck to you.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
No I don’t have all the answers, I just think its a bit rich labour and their socialist friends spend ten years undermining family authority, regard the family unit as antiquated and old fashioned, promote sexual promiscuity, and general moral decline, and now they and their supporters have the nerve to say national is not adressing the reasons behind a lack of “values” in our society.
The reason for the lack of values is our current govt, simply removing them would be a massive turn in the right direction.
Whether National address the wider issues, who knows, but one things for sure, if labour get in again what little moral values left in this country will be gone by lunch time.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I’m confused. I thought the role of family and religion was to supply us with values, while the role of government was to supply laws. While those laws do reflect family and religious values they are representative of the people who exercise their democratic vote, so they are merely a reflection of you and I and the values we have in our families and religions.
I certainly don’t look to the government for guidance in moral values. I do however like the government to reflect my moral values as much as is democratically possible.
But you are right in that values are at the heart of the problem and that whatever values lead people to ‘breed for a living’ or shoplift or commit white collar crime are a burden on us all. Unfortunately these kinds of values are kind of deep seated and hard to shift.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Kent you are quite correct, and there is a simple answer.
You will I expect know the Maori maxim: “What is most important, it is people, it is people, it is people.”
The way to fix this problem and it is a problem, is to recognise what is the root cause here. What is the distinguishing factor in two people who grow up side-by-side in state houses and one is successful and the other isn’t?
The answer is attitude, and specifically, parental attitude.
What is it about parental attitude that is relevant?
The value they place upon education.
I don’t mean just academic learning but obviously that’s part of it. It’s the value they place on everything that education brings.
You can have love, without education. That’s a start. Love will teach a child many things, and love from a parent will entail sacrifice from that parent toward the child. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.
To be successful, parents all over the place need to teach their children in a loving way that education is the key to success in life. It’s the gift parents give to their children.
If we had ads on that instead of/in addition to, those on the family violence theme, we might get somewhere with respect to those parents who don’t know the value of education since they don’t have it themselves.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Kent Parker – August 12th, 2008 at 3:29 pm:
“But, finally, you have hit the core of the matter: values. It should be obvious that a simple monetary bureaucratic measure instituted at government level is not going to change the values of a small minority who exist at the lower rungs of society, and who, like an al Qaeda IED, will simply pop up somewhere else unexpectedly. If you really care about fixing the problems manifest in the whole welfare debate then you will achieve a lot more as a social worker or street missionary than as a right wing blogger. ”
Yes, Kent, you are right – it all comes down to “values”.
But you have missed the salient point – I expect that a lot of people on the DPB already go out and get a job when they can and their child(ren) become “self sufficient”. Yet, there are a bunch who are simply plain lazy fuckers and doing nothing more than “breed for business”. So these few (lazy fuckers) have fucked it up for the rest. Happens in life all the time!
More often than not, it is the lazy fuckers screwing it up for us “rich pricks”. About time the boot is on the other foot me thinks.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Most parents willingly make sacrifices for their children. I don’t think asking mothers on the DPB to work part-time is asking too much; they should be prepared to work part-time to provide for their children. The reality is some solo parents won’t work because they don’t give a damn about their children. At least this policy will show up the solo parents who care about their kids.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Matty, don’t let them, otherwise they win. Just get on with your life and do the best you can and make sure your own kids have good values. Maybe they will outshine those who don’t have values. That’s the best you can do. Trying to institute values through govt bureaucracy is something which has been repeatedly tried and failed. As reid points out, education is the place for values education, not WINZ.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
What about the deadbeat dads who are on benefits, so pay $12 a week in child support – shouldn’t they be forced to work and pay a bit more towards their kids?
Many social problems are caused by young men with too much time on their hands and no purpose. I thought Key had the sense to realise that.