Welfare reform is coming

December 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Colin Espiner reports:

The Government is considering cancelling unemployment benefits after a year and forcing beneficiaries to reapply.

This may be a step in the right direction but I would have thought a time limit on benefits would be more effective.

Other changes under consideration by the Government are understood to include work-testing for domestic purpose beneficiaries whose youngest child has turned six,

This will be known as the Phil U policy on Kiwiblog :-)

compulsory budgeting advice for beneficiaries who claim frequent grants,

Sensible.

and part-time work obligations for some sickness and invalid beneficiaries.

There are very few people who can not work even two hours a day. Kids should not grow up in households where no adults work at all. A work culture is vital to stop inter-generational dependency.

Harris is on a sickness benefit because he has a medical opinion saying he has cannabis addiction. He must get reassessed by a doctor every 13 weeks, but Work and Income said yesterday that it could not force him to undertake drug or alcohol rehabilitation under existing laws.

Rehabilitation programmes exist for sickness beneficiaries addicted to drugs, but the department cannot force them to attend or withhold their benefit if they refuse.

Well that would be a good law change also.

Tags: ,

66 Responses to “Welfare reform is coming”

  1. Ces Pitt (3 comments) says:

    This will be known as the Phil U policy on Kiwiblog

    Phil will probably be able to transfer over to invalid’s benefit on the basis that he is unemployable because of his substance dependency.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. lastmanstanding (1,300 comments) says:

    For years on this and other blogs a number have been calling for all beneficaries to have to reapply after a period and if they dont then the benefit is cancelled.

    Its called stopping the rorts a matter that until now thick pollies and civil servants havent been able to understand.

    Why should taxpayers be bled dry because we have an intectually lazy government whose too scared of the PC and culturally stupid to enforce sensible measures to combat the benefit thieves.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 55 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Another easing out of some reform pointers in the silly season. At least in this case and for tax reform and financial market reform they are signalling things that need to happen. All good signs for new year.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Gulp!!!

    Twice in one day I find myself saying….Well done John Key.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Toad

    I have a better idea.

    All those who CHOOSE to take drugs are on their bloody own.

    You are not reading the mood of the nation Toad, the people have had enough of funding your bludging mates and the parasites your party panders to.

    I look forward to these new measures, as I said yesterday, the fact that people like you will scream blue murder only makes it more enjoyable.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Blue Coast (165 comments) says:

    BB

    My thoughts exactly.

    Toad its my money and I want the Gummitt to treat it with some respect.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,755 comments) says:

    Toad @444pm .
    You mentioned the carrot but neglected the stick. That’s one of the problems of modern welfarism ,it’s carrot and carrot and carrot and carrot………..

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,186 comments) says:

    Welfare cannot insulate people from the consequences of their own poor choices. No, the harder we try to take away the consequences the more people will choose a lifestyle that is funded by others.

    There’s a large mindset change required in my view. We seem regard the quantum of our welfare spending as a indicator of how civilized and noble we are, while the reality is that the more we spend on welfare the more choice-poor and dependent NZers have become.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. reid (16,632 comments) says:

    toad, rehab programmes only work if the person wants to stop. Even then, it’s a case of willpower, nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise they just relapse.

    The only thing that gives an addict the willpower to stop themselves from relapsing is suffering significant pain as a result of their addiction, they will not do it for a reward.

    A person does a lot more to escape pain than they do to move toward pleasure. That’s a fact and you see it playing out in peoples lives all the time. That’s why an addict won’t stop till they’ve hit the bottom. The pain might consist of any combination of family distress, poverty, prison, loss of health. What an addict will never do, is stop because there is some tiny reward. I know you said “significant bonus” but what would you have the taxpayer pay? $1,000? That won’t do it. $10,000? That might do it for some but not others. But firstly, why the hell should we pay that for someone who’ve bought their own problems upon themselves and secondly, what’s to stop them going back to drugs after they get it? What are you going to do then? Ask for the money back (which they’ve already spent)?

    This pain needs to be really significant, I might add. Look at Holmes’ daughter. Despite the potential of prison, she continues her behaviour. She has a long way to go. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Holmes has already offered her significantly more than $10k to stop and she still hasn’t.

    You’ve demonstrated BTW one of the reasons why I find the Greens policies quite pathetic. They’re based on a complete misunderstanding of how people work.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Talk and kites are cheap.

    Don’t tell us what you’re thinking about. That counts for nothing. Tell us what you’re going to do. And when. And hurry up about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    You’re either entitled to a benefit or you’re not.

    You may become unentitled after six months… so we’re going to pay you double your entitlement before we kick you off?

    Or you may be lawfully entitled for eighteen months… so we’re going to treat you like you have something to be ashamed of and force you to reapply for your entitlement.

    And toad rasies another issue. Cut off benefits for someone with a dependency problem and it’s almost inevitable they will turn to crime. Why not force them to undergo rehabilitation as the “price” of a benefit (and tie it to progress too, not just attendance)?

    Under Bennett’s proposal we’d subsidise their lifestyle for a year, then kick them off to fund their habit through thieving from and / or mugging the rest of us.

    I well remember traipsing to DSW (as it was then) with my carefully filed stack of application and response letters, only to be told “we’re not interested” because I’d only been unemployed a short time but that I’d get kicked off if I didn’t go on a “course” which told me how to write a CV (I had one) and to make sure I showered before an interview (I did, even if I didn’t have one).

    There isn’t a “one size fits all” solution for the unemployed because they are individuals. They need to be closely monitored and made to meet a set of expectations appropriate to them as an indvidual. Yet we swing between harsh and ineffective (National) and soft and ineffective (Labour) so that narrow minded and dimwitted Ministers of Employment can pander to their respective bases.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 55 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. simpleton (232 comments) says:

    toad (1790) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Carrot:- funding drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes.
    Carrot:- families gain as money (From welfare) not spent on drugs and alcohol ! !
    Carrot:- family will be doing much better, as harsh reality of life will be less, having more money to spend on necessities
    Carrot:- as harsh reality of life is less, alcohol and drugs use will cease.
    Carrot:- will become more suitable for training and employment. or more useful for family, garden cleaning etc
    Carrot:- self worth will increase.
    Carrot:- income may go up.
    Carrot:- Taxes will now be paid to slowly pay for his families education, health and to pay off all the welfare that he collected and of course the available drug and rehabilition scheme

    Surely, more than enough carrots to see in the dark that a bonus will just become another rort, when they fall off the wagon.! ! !

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Elijah Lineberry (306 comments) says:

    Welfare reform is coming….

    ….until anyone starts protesting about it and claiming it will mean Dickensian images of widows cast into the snow.

    Then the National party will abandon its plans quicker than you can say ‘feeble'; anybody who seriously thinks the Harris’ of the world, or any other bludgers, are going to have welfare money stopped by the National Government are sadly mistaken.

    Those most opposed to welfare spending voted National; in return the National party will spend more money on welfare than at any time in our history and make no attempt to reform the system; those anti-welfare/pro reformers will eagerly skip down to the nearest polling booth to re-elect National (and complain about welfare spending their Government claimed it intended to reduce…)

    http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    I don’t give a shit about the mood of the nation, bruv. What I do care about is the evidence. And the evidence strongly suggests that punitive measures against people with drug dependency problems does not solve their problems, and often worsens it.

    And giving them handouts has shown to be a stunning success hasnt it!

    You are forgetting Toad, most drug users take drugs BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    compulsory budgeting advice for beneficiaries who claim frequent grants

    Why “frequent”? That a need exists for the first one means that this should be used.

    [DPF: I think that would be overkill. You suddenly need dental surgery costing $400 for example]

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Toad

    Of course there are more druggies and alkies than ever, that is the inevitable result of nine years of a socialist government.

    Nine years of being told “it’s not your fault”, “you are not to blame”, “the system is out to get you”.

    People make a bloody choice to take drugs, people make a choice to drink booze to excess, I and many others are sick and fucking tired of paying for their piss poor lifestyle choices.

    Booze and drugs are recreational Toad, if you have kids or food and rent to pay then recreational stuff comes second, the trouble with these low life is that they place their recreational drugs and booze before their kids and their everyday living expenses.

    Fuck them, if the kids are at risk them remove them, but let the druggies and piss heads work it out for themselves, I am sick of funding the lifestyle choice of parasites like Phil U.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,562 comments) says:

    The goal is laudable but the implementation will cause more problems than it solves. We have a 6.6% unemployment rate, God knows how many not employed but unable to access a benefit who would like a job and dumb politicians are going to force people into crime. Now before BB et al start their usual yelling from the background, I would like ot say that I think the no on benefits should be chopped and I also think that we need to toughen up on who gets a benefit and why.
    How ever, before any of that can happen without a major crime wave and far more desperate families than we currently have there are some basic things Govt. needs to do.
    The most important being the development of new wok and new jobs. This after all was one of their election pledges and so far we have a bit of money into roads and a minor amount into a cycleway.
    Neither of these will develop the jobs needed for the future and for our growing population.
    The only people that are going to develop and grow those jobs are companies and scientists. We are still waiting for the tax cuts that promised to unleash the effort of companies and individuals and the science funding was cut and replaced with a dopey science advisor and the pathetic efforts to piggy bank on the global warming bullshit.

    Good leadership unleashes peoples energies and we are a long way from that while its easier to coast along rather than pay 39% taxation.
    Their is way too much control freak mentality in Govt and in the Public Service and the Local Bodies.

    I have blogged previously on the lack of new patents and its also clear that anyone in need of research or development money goes overseas because the money is available there.
    We have One and only one world marketable drug that is wholly patented in NZ but dozens of others that have been flogged off to higher bidders. We have world leading cancer drugs and others that just cannot get development money here and no one wants to know, especially the Govt. The NZX is too busy trying to make its own money to be bothered with this.
    So all in all we have a crappy situation when it comes to future job prospects.

    One always needs to return to basics to solve any problem and the basic here is that even if we cut every single benefit to every single beneficiary we would still have the same problem but turned into crime.
    Remember Richardson and Shipley tried this and they killed stone dead business for a number of years.

    There is little point in telling the unemployed to get a job when there are none to be had. Certainly not many around the BOP. Its insulting and demoralizing and doesn’t feed the family. Not every person is brilliant at everything, not every person has a wide range of skills and many people will only be able to work in routine jobs. Lots of Uni graduates don’t have jobs and they are supposed to be our future. Ask a uni graduate how they feel after spending 6 months trying for jobs how they feel or a 50 something manger who has had the same experience.

    Its the devlopment of the jobs that matter and so far this Govt. scores very low.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,186 comments) says:

    The war on drugs approach hasn’t worked. Admit it bruv! There are more druggies and alkies than ever.

    As far as I can see the extent of the state’s ‘war’ on Darryl Harris’s drug abuse is to give him plenty of taxpayers’ dollars each week, to fix his car and swimming pool, and to help him out when disgruntled ‘customers’ raise his house.

    Harris is not only insulated from the consequences of his choice (addiction and crime lifestyle starts by choice, finishes by choice), he is rewarded for it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Sean (301 comments) says:

    “toad (1791) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    I don’t give a shit about the mood of the nation, bruv.”

    With that attitude, guess you lot will be sitting on Lockwood’s left for quite some time…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    The Government is considering cancelling unemployment benefits after a year and forcing beneficiaries to reapply.

    Fair enough, it’s not like they’re busy working.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Elijah Lineberry (306 comments) says:

    What I have always thought would be good for welfare recipients, and poor people in general, is for NZ to copy South Africa and set up a ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ commission.

    This is where beneficiaries can go along and confess their sins, so to speak; confess to being ignorant, indolent and a bludger; tell some shocking horror stories about rorting the system, not turning up for job interviews, being too lazy to get out of bed before 11am, the need to sleep off the 8 jugs of beer from the previous night, the lack of vision or ambition in life, the expectation the rest of the population owes them a living.

    In the same way ex- South African policemen were able to confess to their evil behaviour so too the poor people in NZ can admit to their wrongdoing at the expense of decent folk.

    http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    reid said: But firstly, why the hell should we pay that for someone who’ve bought their own problems upon themselves and secondly, what’s to stop them going back to drugs after they get it?

    1) They often haven’t brought their own problems upon themselves – they have grown up in a subculture where drug and alcohol abuse is the norm, so they know nothing else. And we should as taxpayers pay to attempt to reform them because failure to do so will be a greater cost to the taxpayer, through the continued payment of benefits, through their medical costs, and through the cost of maintaining them through their imprisonment for the various offences they are likely to be convicted of.

    2) Make it recoverable if they go back onto benefit due to drug dependency.

    big bruv said: Booze and drugs are recreational Toad, if you have kids or food and rent to pay then recreational stuff comes second…

    I agree. But when you are dealing with people whose lives are so damaged that booze and drugs come first, something needs to be done about it. Denying people the money they need to feed their kids will just compound the problem, and likely result in the kids repeating the cycle when they become teenagers.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    big bruv says:

    People make a bloody choice to take drugs, people make a choice to drink booze to excess… Booze and drugs are recreational Toad

    I started working with addicts in the mid 80s and have done so off and on since then. I’m working with many at present, through the prison system.

    Thing is, you’re dead right about some of them and dead wromg about others.

    There are some people who’ve started drugs and boozing as part of a planned lifestyle. They want to get high for the fun of it, and it gradually takes up so much of their time and income that they become dysfunctional and we’re expected to subsidise their lifestyle. Many long term, heavy cannabis users fit this pattern: their habit isn’t destructive of anything but their braincells and they’re simply too stoned to get up and get a job. Similarly those who get up and breakfast on beer before grabbing the surfboard.

    A tougher regime may well work with such people. Certainly there may be some benefit from forcing them into treatment, cleaning them up, and then making sure they work.

    Then there’s the other group who take drugs or excessive drink because of underlying problems. This can be anything from being the victim of a rape, molestation, going through a traumatic divorce (especially if children are involved), triggered by the death of a partner, a symptom of a raft of mental illnesses, and a plethora of psychological factors including depression (and by that I don’t mean some piss weak “I can’t get motivated, man” nonsense).

    They start with small amounts, usually, to cope with their pain and by the time addiction has taken hold they’re trapped in a cycle of dependency they don’t want to be in but can’t escape.

    A tougher regime of the sort Bennett proposes won’t help them at all. So National will either have to back off altogether (and thus let the real bludgers go on bludging) or further victimise people who are already victims.

    Again it comes down to what I said above – treating people as individuals so as to be able to confidently put the screws on the genuine bludgers whilst supporting those in need.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Sean 5:40 pm

    The Greens don’t compromise evidence-based decision-making for the sake of political expediency. Sure, if they had, they could possibly have had 20 MPs in Parliament instead of 9 this term.

    But that would have made them just like National and Labour – populist parties that will compromise anything for political power (witness Phil Goff’s racist “Nationhood” speech, or Don’s Brash’s one of the same title 5 years before).

    The Greens proudly stand by their principles, while acknowledging the electoral disadvantages of doing so.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. lastmanstanding (1,300 comments) says:

    Unless and until you change the top 2 inches you will get more of the same. So that means sitting down with the problems and telling them they have a choice. Either they decide to join the mainstream of humanity and get to enjoy all the benefits that comes from being a good solid citizen or they take the alternative route.

    You explain carefully in words of one syllabil that they will get a hand up NOT a hand out and that means they have to WORK for their money and take RESPONSIBILITY for their and their childrens actions and behaviour.

    You then take them to a hard labour camp. You explain this is the alternative route.

    Do this and the hard labour camp will have only those inhabitants who dont fit into the mainstream of humanity

    Problem solved See its not that hard JK You just have to grow some BALLS

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. simpleton (232 comments) says:

    Toad found a stick ! !

    toad (1792) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    2) Make it recoverable if they go back onto benefit due to drug dependency.

    That is very punitive !! as your earlier complained

    toad (1790) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    From what I know of people who suffer from drug or alcohol dependency, punitive measures just exacerbate their substance abuse – they use the drugs to escape from the harsh realities of life, and the harsher those realities become, the more drugs they will use.

    Surely, more than enough carrots to see in the dark that a bonus will just become another rort, when they fall off the wagon.! ! !

    Is that an admission that after all the carrots I mentioned that some sticks do have to be around.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    National pandering to its base and displaying its utter hypocrisy in the process.

    All this would mean a lot more if we hadn’t been exposed to Bill English’s rorts and attempted rorts and given he was prepared to suck at the taxpayers teat to pay off his mortgage through manipulating family trust and such and he is still Deputy Prime Minister as far as I am concerned National does not have the moral authority to go after beneficieries – they just look like a bunch of troughers kicking the less fortunate of society for political reasons.

    I’ll say it again HYPOCRISY manifest.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wreck1080 (3,958 comments) says:

    Yep, I can just see the harris gang appreciating all that budget advice .

    The many bludgers who failed school maths but know more about government policy than any lawyer will be laughing their heads off.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @ simpleton 5:28 pm & 6:11 pm

    I never said there should be no stick. Just that the carrot should be offered before the stick is applied.

    Whacking the donkey around the head with the stick while ramming the carrot up its arse isn’t going to get it to go anywhere.

    Public policy re drug dependency is all arsey-boo, which is why it fails to achieve any significant rehabilitation outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @andrei 6:15 pm

    Have to say I agree, possibly for the first time ever, with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    Welfare reform from this government? Please. Getting everybody to reapply for their benefits sounds like a great way to burn another $100 million on administration, piss everybody off, and achieve nothing else.

    Time limits. Now there’s a solution to the welfare problem. But it will never happen in this country. Never. No government in this country is electable if media can point their cameras at even one family forced off the benefit with nowhere to go. Short of public bankruptcy there is no solution to the welfare problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. burt (8,312 comments) says:

    toad

    The Greens proudly stand by their principles

    Careful toad, next year might be an election year – will you be happy putting your full name and residential address up with coments like that – of course you will – the EFA and a party founded on activism wasn’t a compromise of principles to suck up to Labour was it. FAIL.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    They often haven’t brought their own problems upon themselves – they have grown up in a subculture where drug and alcohol abuse is the norm, so they know nothing else.

    They’ll know something else when the hand out stops. Get a fucken job or you starve.

    I know a couple who are substanse abusers, the only thing that got them to stop for even a short amount of time was when they were broke! We helped them out, got them back on their feet, got them clean and sober, we all thought they were genuine this time – the first night on their own they used what money they had to buy their substance of choice and got plastered AGAIN!

    The best thing for them is to take away all of their money.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Threadjack alert!

    Anyway, burt – the EFA, despite its failings which I acknowledge, never applied to blogs.

    Try to do some research before posting comments like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Captain Neurotic (203 comments) says:

    It is pleasing to hear that Rex Widerstrom mentioned ‘individuals’ the core of classical liberalism.

    Rex, now that we have established that everybody is an individual I would like to add, as an individual I DON’T WANT TO PAY A FUCKING CENT TO THESE SCUM BAGS!!!

    However the Government believes that we all need to be treated as a community with collective responsibility, until I am allowed to choose which services I want to pay for and which student association I want to be a member of – Unemployed people should not be treated as individuals, regardless of their circumstances they are all equally worthless…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Oh and Toad, the couple I’m talking about, their parents went alchoholics, and neither are their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Bevan 7:00 pm

    Get a fucken job or you starve.

    More likely they will burgle your house or business Bevan. You don’t seem to get it – people don’t enjoy starving, and will do anything to avoid it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,186 comments) says:

    More likely they will burgle your house or business Bevan. You don’t seem to get it – people don’t enjoy starving, and will do anything to avoid it.

    What… like getting a job?

    Anyone able bodied enough to burgle my house or business is well able to work and earn a living. If that means needing to take on work they don’t really like, or the work being somewhere other than where they choose to live then tough. Going hungry should be the alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. mattyroo (1,030 comments) says:

    toad Says:

    “More likely they will burgle your house or business Bevan. You don’t seem to get it – people don’t enjoy starving, and will do anything to avoid it.”

    Bring it on… I’ve just taken the safety catch off the shotgun. Shoot the cunts and kill two birds with one stone.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Talk about pandering to your base supporters!

    Toad talks like we should all tremble in fear at the prospect of bludgers roaming the street looking for stuff to steal if we take away their (I love the term “their”, it is meant to signify that these parasites have earned what he are forced to pay them every week) benefit.

    Toad attempts to scare us all into handing more of our money to these losers, well Toad, in case it had passed you by the bastards are already doing that in record numbers.

    It is clear that the current system does not work, time for a newer, tougher way of doing things, bring it on!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. dave (988 comments) says:

    The Government is considering cancelling unemployment benefits after a year and forcing beneficiaries to reapply.

    There will be ways around it – many will transfer to another benefit – say the sickness benefit, or a training benefit, after nine months for a few weeks and then transfer back over, thus avoiding the reapplication.

    It would be better to suspend (rather than cancel) the unemployment benefit after a year, pending income and the usual documentation after a meeting with the case manager. But there will be trouble, I think, if a beneficiary is given a weeks notice to reapply, but the usual two week wait to see a case manager to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. simpleton (232 comments) says:

    toad (1790) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    So their families suffer and get further into debt!

    I’d suggest an alternative approach – fund those with drug and alcohol dependencies to attend rehabilitation programmes, with the carrot of a significant bonus payment if they complete the programme and kick the habit.

    From what I know of people who suffer from drug or alcohol dependency, punitive measures just exacerbate their substance abuse – they use the drugs to escape from the harsh realities of life, and the harsher those realities become, the more drugs they will use.

    I said

    Carrot:- funding drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes.
    Carrot:- families gain as money (From welfare) not spent on drugs and alcohol ! !
    Carrot:- family will be doing much better, as harsh reality of life will be less, having more money to spend on necessities
    Carrot:- as harsh reality of life is less, alcohol and drugs use will cease.
    Carrot:- will become more suitable for training and employment.
    Carrot:- self worth will increase. as more useful for family, garden, cleaning, cooking etc
    Carrot:- income may go up.
    Carrot:- Taxes will now be paid to slowly pay for his families education, health and to pay off all the welfare that he collected and of course the available drug and rehabilition scheme.

    Surely, more than enough carrots to see in the dark that a bonus will just become another rort, when they fall off the wagon.! ! !

    toad (1792) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    2), Make it recoverable if they go back onto benefit due to drug dependency.

    I said

    Toad found a stick. That is very punitive !! as your earlier complained.
    Is that an admission that after all the carrots I mentioned that some sticks do have to be around.

    toad (1795) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    I never said there should be no stick. Just that the carrot should be offered before the stick is applied.
    Whacking the donkey around the head with the stick while ramming the carrot up its arse isn’t going to get it to go anywhere.
    Public policy re drug dependency is all arsey-boo, which is why it fails to achieve any significant rehabilitation outcomes.

    That is right, you never said there will be no stick, just, “punitive measures just exacerbate” so just what is 2),” Make it recoverable if they go back onto benefit due to drug dependency.”

    So punishment which you said you were against, as it makes it worse is Ok when you call it a stick? of course technically you would say the stick can not be used first until there is a big juicy bonus carrot so that it will not be “arsey boo” with the donkey. It seems to me there is a lot carrots are in the system already.

    I put it to you that the proverbial “stick”/”punishment” will actually be <b.impossible to recover the bonus if they relapse on the basis of what you say, as ” their families suffer and get further into debt”.
    You have just circular answers and only want to build empirical bureaucracies, that have no purpose to end.

    I do not think there is any easy answer, but accountability, consequences, though difficult, must be consistent so it will be more sure, than appeasement of bribery.

    I do take support Rex Widerstroms, Krazykiwi, bb, bevan, BC, kowtow, lastmanstanding, ben comments

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Have a gander at this guys, Toad thinks that the Harris famliy are ‘enttitled’ to the money they take from us.

    “main benefits are not asset tested. If he were claiming an accommodation supplement or other supplementary assistance, it would be fraud.

    But despite the media beat-up, and even though he is obviously a very unsavoury character, I haven’t seen any evidence that he has received anything he is not entitled to.”

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/12/23/paulas-christmas-bash/#comments

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. deadrightkev (511 comments) says:

    What a gutless lot the Nats are, I knew it was too good to be true, Bennnett panicked after someone sqwawked in the media and added “if you are looking for work we wont ask you to reapply”, sheeesh give us a break. Why didnt you start looking at the no hopers ripping us off a year ago?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. burt (8,312 comments) says:

    toad

    More likely they will burgle your house or business Bevan. You don’t seem to get it

    Well given the chap in question hasn’t worked for decades and he owns a few properties and has a new car and a swimming pool – he’s probably already doing that as well. So – what’s the deal toad – is this what you call fighting for the little guy ?

    (that being the little guy that’s earns more than average wage, has a new car and a swimming pool)

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. deadrightkev (511 comments) says:

    When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fear the people there is liberty. When those that pay the ferryman run out of patience and get pissed off enough look out!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. simpleton (232 comments) says:

    toad (1797) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    More likely they will burgle your house or business Bevan. You don’t seem to get it – people don’t enjoy starving, and will do anything to avoid it.

    Perhaps instead of using “punishment/stick” on Bevan as suggested by Toad, he should figure a nice big carrot of a bonus for Bevan, first. After all Bevan ,and I believe many others have put it out there personally to help others, but Toad just wants to give them the stick, via taxes. Where is your lovely big bonus carrot for them Toad?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. burt (8,312 comments) says:

    toad

    Try to do some research before posting comments like that.

    You are the one who started making stuff up. Besides, the EFA did apply to blogs originally and the Green’s were supporting it then as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. hj (7,063 comments) says:

    toad (1798) Says:
    December 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    big bruv said: You are not reading the mood of the nation Toad

    I don’t give a shit about the mood of the nation, bruv. What I do care about is the evidence. And the evidence strongly suggests that punitive measures against people with drug dependency problems does not solve their problems, and often worsens it.
    =================================

    I recall Le Kuan Yew used to throw addicts in prison and make them go through cold turkey. The experience was so bad they stayed of the drugs. ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Toad, have you ever thought of work as good therapy? It lifts the self esteem when you bring home the pay cheque for the family, don’t you think? I think welfare and the sickness benefit schemes causes more people to go on drugs because it is not healthy mentally not to work. . they have found the brain literally shrinks along with your self esteem, then when you are looking for entertainment just get high, heck, the government will pay for it and while you are high, you can put kids in dryers for your sheer entertainment because you don’t have to go to work that day and support the family.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. MikeMan (173 comments) says:

    So we are paying a dopehead what is effectivility ~$72,500 per annum because he cannot work due to his addiction to dope.

    This is just wrong on so many levels.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. burt (8,312 comments) says:

    OK, I’ll try saying it to myself quickly – crime doesn’t pay, slowly this time; crime; doesn’t; pay; .Deep breath, try again breaking it up this time – Crime doesn’t; pay. Nah, I’m still not getting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Will the Nat’s subject DPB bludgers to the same level of scrutiny?

    I know they have made noises about it but given that the co leader of the apartheid party has said that she will not hear of the DPB being touched I doubt that the Nat’s have the balls to tell her to piss off.

    Still, it is a start, one can only hope that the Nat’s do not back track once the usual low life (Bradford and co) start bleating.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Some of you make sound easy to fix, but it’s not. Correctly identifying those in genuine need and those bludging off us is not easy, if it was it would have been done already. Many beneficiaries have become expert at presenting the “right” case.

    If the bludgers could easily be identified and, say, half the beneficiaries were suddenly dropped off the gravy train, where are all the jobs suddenly going to come from? There are already many people genuinely wanting work unable to get it.

    And, who is going to want to employ some of these people? There are quite a few that may be physically capable of work, but that doesn’t mean they are employable. Are there any employers here who would be happy to offer the Harris’ of this world a job for the good of the country?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Inventory2 (10,414 comments) says:

    toad said (early in the piece) “What I do care about is the evidence. And the evidence strongly suggests that punitive measures against people with drug dependency problems does not solve their problems, and often worsens it.

    For too long we have treated drug dependency as a criminal issue. If we were to treat it as a medical and societal issue, we might make some progress.”

    toad – it’s your lot that has tried to tell our youth that using cannabis and other drugs is a perfectly normal and safe form of recreation. Patently, it’s not. Decriminalisation of cannabis and other drugs will be but the thin end of the wedge. As others have noted, it’s high time that those who CHOOSE to use drugs face up to the consequences of their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Manolo (14,044 comments) says:

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

    The Nats have been saying this for many years and have done little. For Key and Bennett, we need action not mere words.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    >>>The Government is considering cancelling unemployment benefits after a year and forcing beneficiaries to reapply.

    This may be a step in the right direction but I would have thought a time limit on benefits would be more effective.<<<

    It is simply idiotic to have a time limit of benefits irrespective becuase if you have no money are you going to starve? No of course not you will take up crime to survive. Measures to ensure the beneficiarys are not wanking well and good.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. southtop (265 comments) says:

    Yes Manolo agreed, just get on with. i would also suggest that while the nats are looking at welfare then corrections also gets a going over. More private prisons should be a plan B; personally i like the idea of outsourcing. I believe malaysia, indonesia, thailand and even fiji have some rather exotic locations for those who seek to continue their benefit habits through crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    All these ‘tough’ measure though will simply increase the depand on social welfare and what an empire building exercise will we see.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Brian Smaller (4,024 comments) says:

    Toad believes in extortion obviously. Pay up or the crims will come for you to take what is rightfully theirs one way or another.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Recognising the reality that extortion exists in varying forms and degrees does not mean you believe in it.

    It is very easy to sit at a computer and type sweeping reforms of welfare and suggesting that all crims be arrested and locked away. In the real world, with real people facing real circumstances that are often bloody difficult, things can be quite different, especially when trying to comply with blanket laws and regulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    “In the real world, with real people facing real circumstances that are often bloody difficult,”

    Yeah, stuff the victims aye Pete.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    We’re all victims, of unrealistic expectations and over simplified solutions. We don’t have to try and draft legislation that covers all possibilities of cheating and working the system. We don’t have to make the decisions face to face with people that know how to put on the right act at the right time.

    Life isn’t easy and it isn’t fair. We should strive for fairness and can hope for easy but shouldn’t be too disappointed if it ain’t always perfect for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. jackp (668 comments) says:

    I don’t believe John Key and National will change the welfare system. I do believe we are going to get more rediculous bills through like the ETS and giving Maori what they want and ignoring of the anti-smacking referendum and higher taxes. National is only patronizing their supporters for a brief moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote