Editorials 16 April 2010
The NZ Herald looks at Canada’s dole:
New Zealand is somewhat unusual among OECD nations in having a non-contributory scheme that pays unemployment benefits directly from general taxation. But it shares a common need to seek ways of reducing unsustainable welfare spending, and to encouraging the jobless to return quickly to the workforce.
For those reasons, it is more than appropriate that the recently established Welfare Working Group will look at alternative means of financing unemployment compensation, including those based on pre-funding some benefits through insurance. Most notably, this will involve the examination of Canada’s employment insurance scheme.
The group’s chairwoman, Paula Rebstock, has already pointed out one obvious benefit of such insurance. “Right now, if you are in a relationship with someone and you become unemployed, the chances are you would not be entitled to a social welfare benefit,” she noted. “But if you are involved in an insurance scheme and you have contributed then you would also be in receipt of an unemployment benefit for a period.”
A very worthwhile point.
In Canada, workers pay premiums of 1.73 per cent of insured earnings for benefits if they lose their jobs, and employers contribute 1.4 times the value of employee premiums. The amount received by an unemployed worker and how long they can stay on the insurance depends on their previous salary, how long they were working and the local unemployment rate. The scheme is operated by Service Canada, a government agency, and sits alongside the welfare system, as would be the case if it were adopted in this country.
Just so long as we don’t get ACC to run it!
The Dom Post warns “celebrity” directors:
News this week that the Securities Commission has filed civil proceedings in the High Court at Wellington against four finance company directors – including two former justice ministers – highlights yet again the risks associated with celebrity endorsements.
They have also filed criminal proceedings.
If mum-and-dad investors need to do more due diligence, not only about the independence of the financial advisers they consult but also about the companies they might invest in, the so-called celebrities who lend their names to the letterheads of those companies need to do so, too.
Reputation is everything to those with integrity. To have one’s name dragged through the courts is unpleasant, undignified, and undoes all that went into creating a reputation in the first place. Sir Douglas and Mr Jeffries will be most unhappy this week. Former deputy prime minister Wyatt Creech and former police minister John Luxton, too, must rue the day they agreed to serve on the Blue Chip board, even though they quit before it went under. Famous one-time All Black Sir Colin Meads surely squirmed when Provincial Finance, about which he said publicly: “Solid as, I’d say”, keeled over.
Due diligence is all important. I’ve been on a panel interviewing prospective company directors and the good ones turn the interview around and do due diligence on the company to make sure it is a company they wish to be on the board of.
The ODT remembers closing the gaps:
In 1999, the Labour Party threw into its election campaign mix the policy objective of diminishing the widening gulf between Pakeha New Zealanders and those of Maori or Pacific Island ethnicity – as evidenced in a variety of well-publicised statistics.
These included prison populations, employment figures, health outcomes, income levels, educational achievement, and intergenerational benefit dependency in all of which areas Maori and Pasifika peoples were shown to fare poorly compared to the rest of the population. It labelled the policy it would devise to address such disadvantage “Closing the Gaps”. …
In practice, it seems funds which would otherwise be distributed through a range of social services will be channelled through centralised Whanau Ora providers in an holistic approach to troubled and vulnerable families’ needs – bulk funding for social betterment.
This may erase some duplication of administration costs, but is equally likely to prove problematic in monitoring and measuring effectiveness. It is also unclear at this point just what the policy will cost.