The Press on National Benefits Policy
The Press says National’s Benefits Policy is a good start.
It is widely accepted now that long-term dependency on welfare benefits should be avoided where possible, writes The Press in an editorial.
Numberless studies have shown that while any benefit system worth the name must provide a safety net for those in genuine need, staying on a benefit for a long time is not good, by many measures, for society or individuals.
Indeed those who move from welfare to work gain the most from it, yet of course some call it beneficiary bashing.
The policy proposed by National this week, which would alter some of the incentives currently in place, has been, perhaps predictably, denounced by Labour as a return to the policies of the 1990s and an attack on beneficiaries. It is hardly either of those things, although how effective some of the proposals would be and how they would work in practice may be open to question.
Labour would label a ham sandwich as a return to the policies of the 1990s, if National made it. It is their focus group tested slogan to be applied to everything.
The proposal that single parents on a benefit should at some point have an obligation to begin to look for work, if implemented, would not be extreme. Indeed, it would put New Zealand more in the mainstream of welfare thinking around the world.
It is Labour who is at the extremes with their policy.
A later OECD study, addressing the notion that allowing single parents to stay out of paid work benefited their children, reiterated the organisation’s belief that it was in the best interests of all, including single-parent families, to engage in paid work as this was the most effective way to reduce the risk of family poverty, enhance child development and give children the best possible start in life.
So why is Labour against reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development and giving children the best possible start in life?
The test of any policy is, of course, how it would work in practice and this policy still needs to be fleshed out. As with the work tests that Labour has introduced for the unemployment benefit, there would be increased administrative costs with National’s proposals and it is unlikely that any large savings would be made. If, however, it is likely the long-term social results would be beneficial, as the OECD suggests they would, then the proposals deserve consideration rather than kneejerk dismissal.
Indeed.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Good to see some of the MSM engaged some rational thinking for themselves… rather than simply being Labour party fed fear mongers.
The welfare issue is one of self vs state determination. If we want our futures dictated to us by the state, then it makes sense to take all the welfare one can today and accept that we can’t influence tomorrow because the state will just do what they want in any case. As abhorrent as that sound to me, I know quite a few people to buy into that line of thinking.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Agree, “The Press”, and DPF. NZ finally comes around, creaking and groaning, to the realities of entrenched welfare dependency, a decade or 2 AFTER the rest of civilisation. No thanks to the prolonged support of the MSM for socialism and social experimentation.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Well that proves it then, if our useless pinko media are all for the changes Key wants to make then ACT are right when they describe Key’s plans as gutless.
Vote Key, Vote Labour lite.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“Fisiani” posted THIS on an earlier thread that wasn’t anywhere near as appropriate as this one. Hope more people see it now:
# Fisiani (47) Add karma Subtract karma +10 Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
>Very cleverly written….
>
>READ TOP TO BOTTOM
>
>*There is an ‘Old Version’ and a ‘Modern Version’ …. Two Different
>Versions! ** **Two Different Morals!
>
>OLD VERSION:
>
>The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
>house and laying up supplies for the winter.
>
>The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
>the summer away.
>Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
>
>The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
>
>MORAL OF THE STORY:
>Be responsible for yourself!
>
>——————————————-
>
>MODERN VERSION:
>
>The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
>house and laying up supplies for the winter.
>
>The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
>the summer away.
>
>Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
>demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed
>while others are cold and starving.
>
>TV1, TV3 and Maori TV show up to provide pictures of the shivering
>grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a
>table filled with food. New Zealand is stunned by the sharp contrast.
>
>How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper
>is allowed to suffer so?
>
>Kermit the Frog appears on Good Morning with the grasshopper, and
>everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’
>
>Sue Bradford stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where
>the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’
>Gordon Copeland then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the
>grasshopper’s sake.
>
>Michael Cullen exclaims in an interview with John Campbell that the ant
>has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an
>immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share as the ant
>is too much of a “Rich Prick.”
>
>Finally, the Labour Party drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper
>Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
>
>The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green
>bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is
>confiscated by the government.
>
>Winston gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
>defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of
>judges that Helen appointed from a list of single-parent welfare
>recipients.
>
>The ant loses the case.
>
>The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of
>the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens
>to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t
>maintain it.
>
>The ant has disappeared in the snow.
>
>The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house,
>now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once
>peaceful neighbourhood.
>
>MORAL OF THE STORY:
>Be VERY careful how you vote in 2008!!
August 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“So why is Labour against reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development and giving children the best possible start in life?”
Because the hidden agenda behind all Liarbore social policy is to gradually step by step move more and more people into a position of greater and greater dependence on the state. It happens so gradually people don’t recognise it.
Never has more damage been done so secretly to so many by so few.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Beneficiaries need to realise that the grants are just that ‘Grants’ and not income or substitution of income as termed by many. They need to stop taking the handouts for granted and realise the need for themselve to plan their future rather than just relying on the state to take care of their needs for the remainder of their lives.
Having to look for work and plan your time to actually work are beneficial to all as it instills a sense of pride and independence to think freely and also forces people to think of planning for the future to not end up in the same situation again.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“So why is Labour against reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development and giving children the best possible start in life?”
Because they want to scare beneficiaries ( a large proportion of their support base?) into believing erroneously that National will take away their benefits to ensure they vote for Labour.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
One thing that interest me is that beneficiaries are viewed with so much opprobrium by the National Party and many of its supporters, but there is never any mention from them of clamping down on child support avoiding deadbeat dads. Could that be because a good proportion of the deadbead dads vote National?
I’ve posted more about this over at g.blog.
[DPF: Wow Toad decides to start smearing with stereotypes. My memories of the 1990s was National got very unpopular with deadbeat Dads]
August 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“One thing that interest me is that beneficiaries are viewed with so much opprobrium by the National Party, but there is never any mention from them of clamping down on child support avoiding deadbeat dads. Could that be because a good proportion of the deadbead dads vote National?”
That might be the case Toad (I do doubt it) but then using your argument the vast majority of baby killers would vote Labour and the Greens.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
And Fisiani and PhilBest,
you have missed out a critical section in the Modern version above and thats :
“the EB’s spending their own money to pubilcise the fact that kermit and labour dont have your good in mind and that you should think how you vote in 2005 because their needs to be more ants around not less – because the more ants there is around -the more foolish grasshoppers can be helped over winter.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
DPF, I do acknowledge that there probably are some deadbeat mums as well. Just that in my experience, the child support avoiders are almost inevitably male. I also acknowledge that the Child Support Act, passed by a National government, did clamp down, at least to some extent, on those who were formerly able to avoid providing for their children. There are still those who successfully do avoid it though.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
My interpretation of looking at the numbers is that while unemployment has dropped over the last few years the number of people who are working part-time but want to work more is going up. This would indicate that apart from some persistent malingerers, most beneficiaries would be happy to work more if they could end up with more in their pocket. I understand that abatement reduction is part of the National party policy.
I hate my taxes being taken and squandered by the socialists as much as the next right wing nutter but I really do think that most people want to work. Perhaps we need tougher procedures for dealing with malingerers but we shouldn’t tar every beneficiary with the same vitiolic brush.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Interesting that the poll on this website, 43% think the policy is beneficiary bashing where as only 10% of Herald on-line readers did.
Does this mean Kiwiblog is hard left socialist website?
August 14th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
toad: my understanding was that the number of “deadbeat dads” was closely correlated to the number of dads who have found that the family court had basically removed all their involvement in their children’s lives. It seems to me that it is far more likely that someone will contribute to the upkeep of their children if they are able to have some sort of emotional relationship with those children. Shared parenting could make a substantial difference to this situation.