A new years treat for taxpayers
January 5th, 2011 at 2:10 pm by David FarrarThe Press reports:
Former gang leader Darryl Harris will lose the sickness benefit he has claimed for 26 years.
Social Development Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes said Mr Harris, who lives in Christchurch, had been told that his benefit would stop from January 10 because “he no longer meets standard eligibility requirements”. …
Mr Harris, who has three months to appeal against the decision, and his wife, Marcia Robins, made headlines a year ago when it was revealed they had been claiming unemployment and sickness benefits continually since 1984.
They had received $30,000 in special-needs grants since 2000, including payments for new tyres for their 2007 Chrysler saloon and to fence a swimming pool at one of their Christchurch properties.
Efforts to cancel Mr Harris’s sickness benefit failed when he obtained a medical opinion from one of Work and Income’s designated doctors that he was addicted to cannabis.
Oh no, he is sick, so he must get welfare for life. Or not.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said yesterday that the Government believed those who could work should, “and if that is considered hardline, so be it”.
“If someone is receiving the benefit because they are unwell, it is reasonable to expect them to be making every effort to get well so they can return to work.
“That is their responsibility to the taxpayer,” she said.
“It is unreasonable to expect the New Zealand taxpayer to support someone for extended periods on welfare because of a drug habit, unless every effort is being made to kick that habit and get back to work.”
You go Paula.
Related posts:
- ACC as model for welfare?
- $86,000 a year for 15 years on the benefit
- Welfare Reform
- Meet the Bludgers
January 5th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I bet he votes Labour.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Been a few posts on this on today’s GD thread. It’s truly representative of the culture of entitlement that exists in some (not all) of those who continue to exist on the state’s teat while contributing NOTHING except work for crime statisticians.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
One down; only 299,999 to go. And it’s only taken three years.
I feel contrite. I take back everything I’ve said about this National government. They’re not a useless bunch of directionless, visionless wannabes, with no ambition for New Zealand other than to ‘lead’ it. They’re the Messiah and Darryl Harris is a very naughty boy!
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Hallelujah, one less but a few more thousands of bludgers and parasites to get rid of.
Vote:At this frenetic pace Labour-lite will finish welfare reform circa 2150.
January 5th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Allowing the sickness benefit for drug dependency is hardly an incentive to stop taking drugs. Indeed if a girl doesn’t want to get pregnant with a meal ticket bastard in order to get the D.P.B. she should consider becoming addicted to cannabis instead.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
2150? No, National are better than that; I’d say 2140.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
As good as this is, the move is one more of style than substance. I’ll change my mind when we’ve stopped borrowing $350m each and every week
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I don’t believe it possible to become a cannabis addict.
BTW What happened to his wife. The last I heard she was appealing her jail sentence for benefit fraud. Have the locked her away to continue being feed by the tax payer?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Oh please. Somebody pass me the sick bag:
“It is unreasonable to expect the New Zealand taxpayer to support someone for extended periods on welfare because of a drug habit, unless every effort is being made to kick that habit and get back to work.”
It is FAR TOO RICH for a government that is pissing billions and billions and billions of dollars away on wasted welfare, health and education spend that it even pretends to be a guardian of anything by withholding a few thousand from a single individual. It is LUDICROUS to give somebody thousands of dollars of other people’s money – money taken ultimately at the point of a gun – over three decades and then when finally saying no, crow about your responsibility in doing so. Jesus H Christ. What astounding hypocrisy. How many grants for new tyres will be made in this week to other people?
You go Paula.
No. She doesn’t go. She just saved the taxpayer about one minute’s worth of welfare. No reasonable person should thank the head of any agency responsible as much waste, fraud, poverty, and death for such a trivial reduction. I simply can’t believe anybody could in good faith point to a victory this small and leave a tidal wave of waste left unmentioned and untouched. Excuse my french, but this is unadulterated bullshit from the Minister. Shame on her for such trivial and populist nonsense.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Or as it was called in the good all days: pure spin and propaganda.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
What a triumph for the National Party! I mean it took them four terms (1990, 1993, 1996, 2008), but now he’s off the sickness benefit. I guess he’s going to have to go onto the dole, “and if that is considered hardline, so be it”.
Wake me when he’s repaid the cash he defrauded from us over his scummy lifetime. Hardline would be seizing his and his family’s assets which were obtained by fraud and criminal acts, then throwing him and his family into the slammer for the rest of their lives.
Paula, either you and the rest of NZ have significantly differing definitions of hardline, or you’re creating a strawman by pretending anyone would oppose cracking down on the Harrises.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
malcolm suggests:
No, not 299,999 to go. A few thousand perhaps, but no more. Statistics (DPF’s stock in trade, but something he conveniently overlooks when bringing out the dog whistle for posts like this) show that most beneficiaries rely on benefits for relatively short periods.
Many people (myself included) have had to do so, or are doing so now, because their job – or even the entire firm for whom they worked – simply disappeared one day. Some are genuinely sick. Some women have been abandoned with small children to care for.
And every deserving welfare recipient shares your contempt for the likes of Harris and his “cannabis addiction”, malcolm, because he provides an obvious and easy target for people such as yourself and DPF to claim or imply, respectively, that everyone in receipt of a benefit is similarly a conniving bludger. And they’re not.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Went from here straight to my email newsfeed and what do I find?
Ahhhh, that luxurious dole bludging lifestyle we’re all queueing to get onto. Unless, like Harris, you set out to rort the system and are allowed to get away with it by a department that’s obviously dysfunctional under it’s half witted “draw me a picture” Minister.
But let’s not let facts intrude on the venting of ill-informed prejudices.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
How the hell did he wangle that?
He doesn’t look very brown so he can’t have a stack of his cuzzie’s working for WINZ.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Oh please Rex. Quite apart from the questionable method of asking people in work what they’d go without should they be on the dole, the fact is most dole recipients don’t just receive the dole. They get a wider package of payments , grants and discounts on medical, and so on. Lindsay Mitchell explained this recently in response to more whining from Bradford about how low the dole is.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Cannabis is not an addictive drug. This is a well known fact. (In fact neither is P. )
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Of course the tax payer would get a greater saving if white collar crime was targetted. However that doesn’t seem to be of great interest to the government. Much better to kick people when they are down.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Did this word leap out for anyone else?
When I was a poor student, I couldn’t even get help with dental without first selling all my meagre possessions. How did this asshole manage to scam the system for 26 years when he had (plural) properties??
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
ben:
What, they get more than $243 a week (or whatever the pittance is in NZ nowadays)?! Sheer luxury!!
Or you could read further in the passage I’ve quoted, which looks at the situation of actual beneficiaries (including those in receipt of these “generous extras” which you mention). Here, I’ll repeat it again:
23% lacked a decent and secure home
28% were unable to pay utility bills
56% lacked $500 in emergency savings
56% lacked home contents insurance
17% could not afford prescribed medicines
45% could not afford dental treatment when needed
An inadequate home (or no home at all), the power cut off, no money in the bank, no insurance, no medicine and rotten, painful teeth. Wow, where do I sign up for this nirvana?!
People like Harris are not typical beneficiaries. Not even close. Like adze, when I was on the dole I was made to first sell anything of value before getting anything. I even had to fight like hell to retain my broken down, virtually worthless car let alone be given tyres for a model that was only a few years old.
Most people on benefits don’t get enough for the basic essentials. And one of the reasons for that is that the edifice of which Bennett is so proud is ruled by red tape rather than common sense and staffed, in the main, by people who have no idea of what life is like on the other side of the counter (whether as someone who’s genuinely struggling, or some con artist like Harris who’s taking them for a ride), so some get vastly too much while others don’t get nearly enough.
And she thinks that picking off one leech, while the bloodletting continues at thousands of other sites, is something to crow about? Maybe someone should draw her a picture.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Oh dear,
Lets all stand in a circle and wring our hands, how unfair this is.
Get real.
The problem here is the doctor who signed this mongrel off for 26 years
What was in in for him? The ‘doctor’
Was he scared of his patient?
Did the patient pay him?
i understand that if a mongrel has a doctors cert then winz has to pay out.
What an effing joke.
How many other mongrels are on a bene due to ‘addiction’ to dope ?
If we knew who this POS doctor was we could all get on the bene.
Let me guess.. as this is New Zealand the person responsible is NOBODY
This is a systemic problem.
NOBODY has any ability to fix this.
Why not vote for NOBODY next election.
NOBODY is accountable.
NOBODY will fix this.
NOBODY is able to use common sence.
How to solve this ?
Why not name this POS doctor and ask him to justify this.
Oh dear, we couldn’t do that.
What about the privacy act for a start.
NOBODY gives a shit.
This is just the way it goes in NZ
NOBODY has this under control
NOBODY will sort it out.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Another thing
Does the DSM IV or V list, ‘addiction’ to marijuana as a genuine mental / medical problem.
NO
What has happenened to common sence in our country?
NOBODY knows.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
We should all vote for NOBODY
Vote:you know it makes sence
January 5th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
“What has happenened to common sence in our country?”
Gorne the same wey as speeling I suispect.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Rex, the point is not to say that being on welfare is luxury. It is to say that asking people what they’d cut if they only received the dole has little to do with the actual welfare experience for most beneficiaries.
It would appear that for some beneficiaries, the money actually is a sheer luxury when it comes on top of money earned on the black market. I happen to live next to what I suspect is a P lab: the extra $400-$800 the mother is getting from government each week is simply a top up for the drug money her and her son appear to be earning. A luxury, in other words.
I don’t believe any of the stats you’re providing because the method cannot control for inadvertent or deliberate misrepresentation among those asked: neither respondent or researcher is, after all, disinterested in the question.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Dob them in ben.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
i could have meant SENSE
Vote:anyway NOBODY would notice.
Good points Rex above.
January 5th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
correct for once Johnboy
What a confused citizen Ben is.
You are very good at explaining how this can never be solved Ben
Have a go mate, if you were the emperor, what would you do.
C’mon
Oh no idea? Just criticise. PATHETIC.
Vote:Who needs input from a genius like you ?
NOBODY
January 5th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Have another toke bereal it should all become real for you then.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
What a PATHETIC article you are Johnboy.
You scored a good point in your little mind by pointing out a spelling mistake.
You are the yolk mate.
Vote:i wouldn’t say you have small man syndrome, i don’t know how tall you are,
but we can all guess.
January 5th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Its fairly obvious your whole existence has been a succession of guess’s bereal ever since your old man guessed he had pulled out in time.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
ben:
Fair enough, though it’s an interesting exercise to ask people to do… what would you cut from your life if you had to get by on $243 a week? Brings home the reality of a typical beneficiary’s life (as opposed to that of a property-owning gang leader, apparently).
My next door neighbour is a beneficiary. My next door neighbour is a P dealer. Therefore all beneficiaries are… no, I know you can’t be trying that one on, so what are you trying to say? Some beneficiaries are cheats? So are some workers. So are some employers. So are some politicians. We need to get better at catching them, not making sweeping generalisations about them based on the behaviour of a few (and yes, I’m guilty of that when it comes to politicians).
You could make a similar claim about any research that relies on something other than empirical observation. The Household Labour Force Survey might get lied to as well. Let’s do away with that. And those drug trials… people might be fooled into thinking they feel better by the placebo effect. So they’re out too…
The full research on deprivation in Australia is here if you care to do your own analysis. I don’t imagine the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is going to be a party to publishing a study that could damage its academic reputation, but I could be wrong I suppose.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
@Rex,
I would give up:
1. Cigarettes
2. Booze
3. Sky TV
4. Pokies
5. TAB
6. Drugs (assuming I was a user)
7. Takeaway food
That’s a start at least. Any beneficiary doing the same and struggling deserves assistance.
Please don’t try to claim that most or some majority do all. You have your experiences. I grew up in a lower sociology-economic community and my observations are somewhat different.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
bereal suggests:
Although anything other than a correctly filled out ballot paper is simple classed as “spoiled” in NZ, a campaign to have people write “none of the above” on their papers which then saw the “spoiled” percentage rocket well above the usual level might be the last way we have of sending a message. Because you’re right – “nobody” is better choice than that faced by all but a handful of voters in a handful of seats; and by any voter with their party vote.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
A) The doctor should be thoroughly investigated to see if there were any kickbacks/intimidation.
Vote:B) This issue has only taken 26 years to solve. How can you be sick if you are not too sick to participate in a gang?
C) Article implies more than one property. How was this financed on a benefit? Lets get SFO in there and seize some assets.
January 5th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Hey johnboy
did you forget what this thread was about?
or has your natural nastiness taken over ?
Forget the subject, attack the messenger.
Typical.
Bye the way, how short are you ?
Also,
are you bald ?
Now we know you are.
Every pathetic post you dig your hole deeper.
Vote:LOL
Don’t embarrass yourself any more mate.
You’r just not up to competing.
Happy New Year.
January 5th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
The best way to review benefit need and currency is to make them all finite and have alternate review to the last deliverer, ie rotate the case managers. It was claimed when ‘The Press’ broke the tyres and pool fence rubbish that DSW staff were intimidated and the nice Harris extended family had a “special arrangement” for their case management, ie it was done by phone. Why wont the limps at DSW have rules of engagement that place pricks like this at a disadvantage instead of bending over for them.
Vote:That long unable to earn, FFS” Harris himself would be best described as self employed.
January 5th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Not a bad rant bereal. Bit slow though. Just like your dad.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
bhudson:
I agree completely. That’s one of the reasons I think beneficiaries’ rent should be paid direct by WINZ before they receve any money (but their actual rent, not something ridiculous like the $80 for accommodation I got back when I was paying $270 a week to house my family).
Then a portion of their assistance in supermarket vouchers (not to be used for cigarettes or alcohol). That would have the added advantage of instantly creating an enormous market – the government could then contract with the supermarket chain willing to offer that market the best discounts, both helping beneficiaries further and saving the taxpayer.
The same with utility bills – paid direct, up to a set (and realistic) amount per person per household.
Realistic funding for medical and dental expenses available from WINZ (and paid direct to the provider) upon presentation of an estimate.
And the smallest possible amount of cash for everything else. Result: beneficiaries who are secure in their homes, the cupboards full of food, no worries about medical expenses, their essential bills paid. The taxpayer not paying for Sky TV and KFC and the pokies.
From my experience living amongst beneficiaries I’d say the prevalence of use of the things you’ve listed would be:
1. Cigarettes
2. Takeaway food
3. Sky TV
4. Pokies (and scratchies)
5. Booze
6. TAB
7. Drugs
Many of those are due to boredom (cigarettes, though obviously there’s addiction as well; Sky TV; pokies and TAB, though again the dream of the life-changing win also plays a part; drugs) etc. So a sensible government would find ways to mobilise this resource, and I don’t mean cutting scrub or making fatuous cycleways. And so on…
And crime would plummet. There are common sense solutions to most of our problems and the astounding thing is that while you come at it with a more cynical view than me, and probably with a tougher outlook, we can agree on the fundamentals as we have here.
So why do the succession of dropkicks we elect either hand out more to everyone on a benefit regardless of whether they deserve it or treat everyone on it like they’re blood sucking leeches?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Send him some sheep johnboy, they guy has not had a root for 5 years
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Shorn or unshorn Steve?
Should I dress them as French maids do you think?
I mean Bereal, sounds a bit Froggie.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
When a weak or money hungry doctor signs a sickness bene every 3 months for 26 years due to
‘marijuana addiction’ which is
not a recognised medical or mental problem anywhere, certainly not in the DSM
Who is responsible ?
NOBODY.
Its so simple.
Make somebody responsible.
Oh dear, we cant, thats not the P.C. way.
This mongrel will no doubt appeal, on legal aid, and have his bene reinstated.
When will our Daniel come to justice ?
It’s not going to be Paula Bennet,
It’s not going to be John Key.
It will not be any Labour member.
It’s going to be
NOBODY.
Get used to it.
This is New Zealand the way you want it.
Vote for Nobody,
you know it makes sence.
or
Vote:sense for pinpricker tossers like johnboy.
January 5th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Rex,
Vote:If John Key had a vote between you and Hone Harawira, he would vote for John Hatfield.
Why?
Coz you don’t control the reins
January 5th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Hey Steve,
have you got a point mate ?
What is it ?
Is that your best shot ?
You embarrass yourself as much as your mentor johnboy.
Correct my spelling.
It’s the only way you have of scoring a point.
Even in your own mind.
You must know you’r just a joke.
What is your point ?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Rex,
It is simply a case of appealing to core voting blocs, with a ‘healthy’ dose of shying away from complex solutions to deal with complex problems – our politicians are no different to the populace when it comes to looking for simplistic, ‘one size fits all’ solutions which then fail to address the real problems, because they simply cannot. Just as all beneficiaries are not Harrises, neither will treating them all with the largess shown Harris help the situation (for all of society.)
Your suggestions as to payment management by WINZ would be something of a start (and my personal view is that the cost to administer would be worth it.) The system would need some strict controls to prevent rorting – one I recall from my youth was beneficiaries taking coupons for furniture and using them to by TVs or steep systems. (the retailers where o lived went slog with it because they needed the sales and payment was guaranteed.)
I completely support realistic support to address genuine need. I think that most of NZ would agree. The proble
(for the non-beneficiaries) would seem to be that the current system cannot guarantee to deliver that without the perception of significant rorting and people do not have confidence in govt to deliver one.
Incidentally, to your suggestions I would add a more realistic ‘glide path’ for benefit reduction when people take on work – I think the current system traps some people in the benefit cycle by reducing their benefit payments too rapidly when they get some work (which of course is what we all want them to do.)
(Also I only disagree with you on the list in that I would place booze at #2 on the list – it is worse than regrettable that some parents are prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of family to retain their personal vices.)
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Have a free rein Steve.
Same to you johnboy.
What is your POINT?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Still be fair bereal. Your spelling has improved since we pointed it out to you.
Self improvement is a wonderful thing but sometimes a little guidance helps the process as well.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
You just proved my point darling.
Vote:Oh dear johnboy.
I’ll try one more time.. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
January 5th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
“You just proved my point darling.”
No. The sheep will do that later on.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
You girls are not in the same league.
Vote:LOL
You Know it and
you cant stand it.
Once again. Happy New Year.
January 5th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Shooting fish like you girls in a barrell is so much fun, it almost drags me away from Corro St.
Vote:But not quite, adios muchachos.
January 5th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
bhudson:
I think the cost of administering the system would be less than at present… have you seen the red tape that controls WINZ now? Volumes of it… all because of the typical policy-maker’s response of “oh, here’s one outlying case not covered by our rules… let’s write more rules”. As opposed to employing people with judgment and then letting them exercise it. Once the payments were set up they’d be automatic, and the savings made through combining the purchasing power of beneficiaries to demand discounts from suppliers would help too.
But damn it, that’s precisely what we elect them to do. If Paula Bennett can’t do it – and clearly she can’t – then she should have been left on the DPB, not be receiving a Ministerial salary and perks.
Yes, we’re a capricious lot who demand to see results and a three year electoral cycle discourages change. But if you do the hard work when not in government; if you have a costed plan (what used to be called “a manifesto” – remember when we got those, and not pledge cards or smiles and waves?!); if you begin implementing it as soon as you’re elected; then if you’re not showing the benefits three years on maybe it’s the wrong plan.
Absolutely. Another fact that’s been known since before I can remember, and which successive dropkicks have promised to rectify. And failed.
I honestly didn’t see that many beneficiaries who spent a lot on booze. Whereas they inevitably seemed to smoke and every house had a Sky dish on it. Smoking, eating takeaways and watching TV were the “essentials” due, as I’ve said, to boredom. I don’t know how they do it… being unemployed drove me stir crazy and even if all those things were laid on for free I wouldn’t be interested. Even on a good income I take booze and takeaways in moderation and can’t be bothered with any of the other vices on your list – too boring. But that’s because I find other things challenging. A lot of beneficiaries would be only too happy to do something that challenged them. Alas “work for the dole” schemes invariably do not.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Oh the irony!
This mongrel gets the sickness benefit because he is hooked on pot.
Nanny state has increased the tax on tobacco.
I pay horrendous tax to legally smoke tobacco.
The ‘Wankers Of Wallywood’ use our tax to pay this drop kick to sit at home and smoke an illegal drug.
Fuck I am sick of leftard, retard governments …. when is it going to end?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Rex
Capricious? Yes. ‘Unfortunately ignorant’ is another term (I use ‘unfortunately’ because our dear old media are at least equally culpable in spreading and maintaining ignorance amongst the populace, as those people might be in not seeking the understanding.)
I agree on the too short elctoral cycle. My opinion is that a 4 year term would have little impact – 4 years is sill too short a time to prove more complex initiatives. I think the term should be 5 years. My rationale is:
- 5 years is a more realistic timeframe to take and prove actions (no excuses at the end of 5 years if the govt hasn’t delivered)
- I think one term govts are largely a thing of the past now, the new ‘standard’ is 6 years broken into 2 electoral cycles (both of which serve to prevent the govt taking real action)
- assuming above, 5 year term would see an average or poor govt out in 5 years instead of 6
- two 5 year terms is only 1 year longer than the 9 years of suffering under Labour (the point being that the negative of term length is only marginally longer than what they would have had anyway)
- I think 4 years would prove to be a “band aid” solution with little or no practical impact
I’m not expecting a huge groundswell of support (on this blog, or among the general public.)
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
bhudson:
I agree. How about, though, if we offered the public longer terms but with the power of recall and/or Aardvark’s idea of recoverable proxy? Then it might be saleable.
Most people are tired of politicians prancing about every three years and spending the other two doing nothing lest they risk losing a single undecided voter. But they don’t want longer terms because they don’t trust the bastards. So a longer term with an “emergency brake” mechanism of some sort might do the trick.
Another option would be “half” elections, as they do in the Australian Senate. A six year term (in that case) but half come up for election every three years. I suspect that might work against the consistency we’re looking for, though, as an MP could gain enough support for a measure only to see all (or half) his supporters wiped out before the measure came up for a vote.
Which reminds me… coupled with electoral reform we need Parliamentary reform… less “whipping”, more scope for Private Members Bills, stricter restrictions on urgency, to name but a few… but that’s another story.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Something we have never done substantially to my knowledge is ask the beneficiaries how they would design it.
There are many highly intelligent people on the various benefits. I think it would be quite a valid technique to get their public input in detail, not just in a few de-personalised random surveys but in an organised methodical way.
We always discuss this from the taxpayer’s perspective but never from theirs. Put up all the anonymous results on the net for public discussion, including all comments made on the surveys – nothing censored except profanity like fuck and shit like that.
Having said that however as a true conservative I’ve already decided in my own mind what’s good for that bunch of blighters and what I think would be jolly good is adjusting the benefit categories – finessing them, making them more detailed, so they better identify risk factors. Look at it a different way – instead of designing a structure according to need, design it from the ground up using risk management to progressively identify more and more specific categories people who either deliberately or somehow other fall into the long term categories. Weed out the somehow other categories and leave them alone, work on the others until they’re eliminated from the system.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Rex,
How would the recall/emergency brake work? My thoughts would be it would have to be real enough to have teeth, but with safeguards to prevent a stampede at the merest hint of trouble, delayed benefits, and any other vagaries of government.
I would be happy enough to swap 5 years for he current 3 with no new constitutional provisos – keep it simple without introducing genuine, great risk. (Having said that, I am not so much against the emergency brake as just a little dubious that the introduction of more change/complexity might introduce other problems.)
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
A nice symbolic victory, this guy is pretty much the gold standard of dole bludging. Might put the wind up some of the others. If they can come for Daryl, they can come for anyone ( hi Phool !) . Followthrough is essential though. Keep the momentum up, Paula.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
reid:
A “true conservative” advocating asking beneficiaries what ought to be done?! I can hear the four horsemen of the VRWC coming for you over the hill…
You’re right, though. Decades of tinkering have produced a mass of rules and a huge bureaucracy headed by a dimwitted Minister which presides over some people who haven’t got a blanket while others fence their bloody pool. Start with a clean slate.
bhudson:
I’m conscious we’re both threadjacking a little… though not as bad as some (I’m looking at you Johnboy
)
Recoverable proxy is eloquently explained by Aaardvark (and elaborated upon further in the linked discussion). I can’t see anything to improve upon his model (which is not to say it couldn’t be). Recall is more complex and problematic, but we can learn from the way the US has implemented it without necessarily copying it. As I understand it, it works much like a referendum: if you want to recall your MP you start a petition. If you get the signatures of a certain number of registered voters, it triggers a “recall election” (effectively the reverse of a normal election).
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Ah shit happens Rex. I just can’t help myself sometimes.
Just a bit of fun when there is stuff all on the box (Apart from Coro St.)
.
No self control eh.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
bhudson 8.29
Congrats for the most non statement. non understandable, load of bull EVER.
WTF was that supossed to mean ?
You might have missed the point
Confused thinking such as that is a joke.
What topic are you on about ?
FFS we are all doomed if we start to think your muses have any relevance.
Nice work to totally obstruct the topic.
Why do you do that ?
Are you more informed than anyone else ?
WTF is your point?
i dont think i am an idiot but i just dont get it.
Please spell it out for the morons.
FYI
this is about abuse of the social welfare system.
What are u talking about?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
johnboy
Vote:try and have an origional thought
January 5th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Rex,
Fair point on the threadjack. Still, I would be a shame to ignore a decent discussion now (and it is tangently related.)
I’m afraid I do not agree with Aardvark on recoverable proxy. While I do think more public referenda should be binding (more than the zero we have had recently) and that state officials should not be able to manipulate them through their carefully constructed “assistance” with the referendum question wording, I don’t think open democracy on any and all issues is a workable beast in the real world. It certainly would open us all to some very “interesting” – read terribly inconsistent – government. It would also inevitably result in giving more power to political activists and lobby groups as they would likely be the groups that would actually exercise their proxy – it could be argued that the reality would be a further marginalization of the ‘common voter’.
The recall referendum would seem to be targeted at individual representatives, but could possibly be a constitutional safeguard for govt as a whole (although I think he clip level for signatures to force thr referendum should be increased for that.)
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Bereal,
What am I talking about? How to avoid misuse of the benefit system. You would have seen hat if you had actually followed the sequence of posts between Rex and me. That discussion pointed out that our parliamentary system and electoral cycle are related to the benefit misuse issue as the short 3 year cycle works against govts taking suitable action as they are focused on short term results. Therefore we have perpetual band aid and/or populist actions designed to help poll results rather than fix he problems.
All completely obvious if someone follows the discussion.
Whether or not you like it is cometely irrelevant to me.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
I have tried and in fact am still very trying but it’s no good bereal.
I just can’t come up with an origional thought.
(Sorry Rex.
)
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
bereal you appear to be mentally retarded and with massive reading comprehension difficulties. Bhudson’s 8:29 is perfectly understandable to anyone with an IQ over 70, the ability to follow a thread, and a very basic knowledge of political systems. Which ones do you fail on?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Thats ok johnboy, no need to apologise, we all know you arn’t capable of any origional thought.
bhudson, have another bevvy mate.
each effort you try is more confused and laughable than its predecessor.
You have been found out mate.
You and johnboy are a good pair.
Now joined by your deciple put it away.
Try to address the topic, any of you.
Vote:Not up to it?
OK
January 5th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Bereal,
I am sorry you are not able to understand it
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
What happened on Coro tonight bereal.
Give us all a rundown.
That’s if you could follow the plot of course.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
And now. mimcing onto the stage, is Put it away.
Try and have a change mate.
Dont call me names, try and address the subject.
Bet you can’t.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
So i’m mentally retarded with an IQ below 70
Vote:How is it that i can run rings around you girls ?
January 5th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
This is so much fun
Vote:Last time i had so much fun i was shooting fish in a barrell
January 5th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
i love it that i’ve got under you girls skin.
Vote:lovely
i’ve got you all buggered on my own
so easy.
January 5th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
bereal WTF is “mimcing” supposed to mean? Mincing? Mimicing? Try using words that exist. Rex and bhudson went off on an interesting diversion into term lengths and recall procedures, which was clearly written and well laid out. This obviously went right over your very low brow and confused you deeply and you launched into a semi-coherent screed of short sentences as paragraphs ( indicating an attention span of about 7 words at a time), absurdly attacking bhudson for his writing style which is infinitely better than yours. Your post was so poorly laid out and thought out that on first glance I thought you might be Phool back with us under another name. Yes it’s really that bad . I just described your obvious mental deficiencies and you obivously consider a fair description of yourself to be “calling you names”, well that’s your call. If you want to see me address the ( original ) subject of this thread, you will find it at 8:36. I have not entered into Rex and bhudson’s digression because while I find it interesting, I don’t know enough about these electoral concepts to add anything to what’s been said. Obviously the concept of not opening your mouth if you don’t know what you’re talking about is a foreign one to you.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
No bereal its just that you have become boring.
Picture cat and ball of wool.
You are the wool.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
bhudson:
I don’t think open democracy on any and all issues is a workable beast in the real world… It would also inevitably result in giving more power to political activists and lobby groups as they would likely be the groups that would actually exercise their proxy – it could be argued that the reality would be a further marginalization of the ‘common voter’.
But the way that recoverable proxy works (taking Aardvark’s example) is that if an MP represents a constituency of 35,000 people, he has 35,000 votes in Parliament. So let’ say a lobby group convinces even 10,000 of those people to recover their proxies and not support a Bill. So, when the MP voted he would say “25,000 for, 10,000 against”. The majority still rules (alas it’s probably the ignorant majority, but still…)
A lobby group would have to work very hard to get more than 50% of people to a) agree and b) go to the trouble of recovering their proxies. I think Aardvark’s prediction – that most people wouldn’t bother most of the time – is right (except perhaps after an initial period where people got over-excited with their new toy).
Yes, it is.
Hmmm… never thought of it being used that way! That idea has great potential, though…
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Hey, Put it away
The word i was looking for was MINCING.
Get it babe, MINCING.
You are such a laugh.
You
Must try harder.
So much fun.
Lighten up babe.
Dont bite so hard,
like a fish.
Get it now ?
Vote:I can spell it out even clearer if you still don’t get it dear.
January 5th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Still got an attention span of about four words at a time bereal? And I see you’ve thrown a rather obvious latent homosexuality into your odd mix of personality traits. But I see you haven’t addressed any of my criticisms, so I thank you for your admission of defeat. I’m sorry you are not a winner, please play again. No refund. Now run along and let the adults talk.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Oops – first par of my 10.26pm is quoting bhudson. Tags seem to be disappearing at will today???
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
i gotta go now Put it Away,
Vote:we agree its a no contest.
try harder next time
happy new year darling.
January 5th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
do we have philu back under a new name, sober and with improved grammar?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
bereal, when you grow up you will learn that just saying something doesn’t make it so. Declaring yourself the winner just looks ludicrous when you have made no intelligent points at any stage, and avoided all intelligent criticisms aimed at you. Now stop wasting your time trying to understand what the grownups are talking about and get back to your cartoons.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
You may have cracked it nickb. That’s why he has to go. To his new job as trainee nightshift manager at Macca’s.
Paula’s been round to see him.
Quardle Ardle Doodle.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Rex,
Re: recovered proxy. My thoughts are that it is the very likelihood that Joe Public will not take action to use their proxy (that is, choose to let it remain or recover it issue by issue) that weakens what Aardark is trying to achieve – direct involvement of the populace in general lawmaking process and decision making. I agree that it would give everyone the opportunity, however I think the general ambivalence(?), lack of understanding, motivation would result in less direct involvement in general business (whereas those motivated groups could and would act to have their wishes felt on each issue.)
If the real objective is to have the public have more direct say in important matters, then perhaps binding referenda is another option – it allows the public to be heard on matters of import while not allowing political activists and lobby groups to distort general business and lawmaking (more than they currently can.)
[I accept this is digressing more from the tread topic]
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
No, no, Phool is far too busy displacing the Huffington Post with his powerful and dynamic blog which is becoming the go-to news source. Why he even got a comment three weeks ago! Things are really heating up for Phool, and I don’t mean the knives on the stove. Besides, who’d make him night shift manager, I doubt he’s even qualified to dunk the fries.
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
bhudson:
I have to say that the input of certain oher parties to this thread makes a compelling argument for never letting the great unwashed anywhere near an important decision
I agree with you re referenda, and also want to see BCIR introduced (it was a primary motivator for my joining NZF) but they’re a means by which the public may propose initiatives whilst recoverable proxy is a means to oppose measures from the legislature that one doesn’t support.
I admit I take a similarly pessimistic view to you as to whether such a mechanism would be used by a populace more interested in the identity of a 46 year old “celebrity” who got maggoted, but it’s surely worth a try?
Vote:January 5th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Rex,
So another way of looking at recoverable proxy is could it be written (effectively) to apply only on matters of import? Thus removing the risk of the general process being hijacked by the activists but allowing the public to have a binding say on important items. Constitutional matters would be easy to write in, but I suspect it would be tougher to capture all or most other items which might warrant the recoverable proxy vote but which aren’t constitutional matters.
Setting aside the difficulty of drafting for a moment, I think that would give both of us what we have been arguing (and probably Aardvark too at least for the most part.)
From a workability point though I wonder if maybe a govt recall referendum option might be easier to establish and educate the public on. The real question then would be on how many signatures required to invoke the referendum?
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 12:26 am
bhudson:
I have a rather perverse view of the “trigger” issue (how many signatures required to trigger a referendum, recall etc).
I believe it should be set quite low, but that the voting paper or online poll be prefaced by multi-choice nonpartisan questions (devised by the electoral authorities) about the substance of the issue and politics in NZ generally. Failure to answer 75% correctly invalidates the vote.
I know that sounds like I’m stirring but I’m serious. I want m aximum participation from everyone who’s taken the trouble to at least basically inform themselves on what it is they’re voting for or against.
As far as I know, Aardvark’s view of recoverable proxy is that it could conceivably apply to anything… issues of little import would filter themselves out because no one would bother recovering their proxies.
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 7:16 am
I have strong reservations about recoverable proxy and binding referenda. Referenda could be used a bit more but still sparingly. I think it would be a potential disaster if they were used on legal issues like S59.
I think we have to mostly look at making representative democracy work better. That means making it more attractive for more capable people to become politicians, more transparency, more accountability (not the negative nit picking defeat at any cost accountability Labour seem to think they have to exercise).
I don’t think our system is too bad, it just needs to be improved. Changing to a four year term would help.
More governance, less politics.
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 8:28 am
REX … One of the major differences between the worker and the self-employed is PAYE. The self-employed sees all the money coming in and begrudges that going out presumably to keep the beneficiaries. Whereas the worker doesn’t see his tax money and largely doesn’t care. So I hope you see the connection between PAYE and your voucher or automatic payments. I’m not sure what the effects would be but I think it would be bad and not solve the problem.
Vote:I also remember the guy who was on a sickness benefit who lived rough but he had the ambition to own a yacht. He started by living in a 16ft’er and last I heard, couple of decades ago, he had graduated to something larger and more comfortable. A voucher/AP system would prevent such enterprise. I really admired that guy trapped as I was with a good job, family etc.
January 6th, 2011 at 8:33 am
Rex,
A test would have the affect of excluding participation based on IQ – it would exclude those who simply don’t have he same depth of understanding, as opposed to those who cannot be bothered trying to understand.
Purely objectively, from a standpoint of participation by an informed public, the idea has merit. I think the reality, however, would be to unfairly disenfranchise sections of the public – in a sense a return to autocracy [depending on how challenging the test questions are of course.]
Not really in keeping with our egalitarian society. Also, wouldn’t narrowing the franchise this way also open the way to other qualification criteria? – educational qualifications, being a (real) taxpayer, obeing a land owner, etc. (certainly I know there are some who would link the right to vote to paying tax (non-benefit income).)
The current franchise which not only allows, but could be argued to promote, voter ignorance doesn’t necessarily help my right political leanings, whereas I suspect your idea probably would, but I would resist steps to narrow the franchise. I think it is both a pillar and strength of our democracy.
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 8:48 am
PG,
If we moved to more direct democratic participation, why should the anti-smacking amendment and the likes be excluded? Because some people might not like the outcome? (of the democratic process.) The idea that such a model would lead to populist decisions that other groups wouldn’t like is simply part of the democratic process (and is no different to what we have – in terms of decisions being made for poll results – now except for the lack of binding direct participation by the voting public.)
I do agree that the scope for direct participation should be limited, but the limits should not be set on the basis of not liking the possible outcome. (That is not an accusation by the way.)
I do think this would be difficult to draft and run. It came up on this thread in relation to safeguards in the event of longer electoral terms. I think now that perhaps a recall capability might be a more practical way of dealing with that.
I don’t think a shift to a 4 year term would have real significant (positive) impact. I think it is still to short an horizon for adequate returns on complex and/or major initiatives (which we seem to have little or none of under the current cycle.) I would support a 5 year term (with rationale I posted earlier in this thread.)
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 9:30 am
I just don’t think it’s a good way to make various laws. I think laws have to be well thought through, with consistency and effects carefully considered. It doesn’t always work properly now, but it would be much worse on an ad hoc populist basis.
I’d support referendum based blocking of laws, but to force them to be re-thought and re-framed rather than to dictate exactly what they should be. Lawmaking needs expert consideration.
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
jcuknz:
That’s an excellent point. Being self-employed myself I certainly feel the pain of taxation more keenly than when I was on a salary (and paying more tax!). I wonder how many people in NZ are self-employed or, in some other way, actually physically pay their tax obligations themselves?
I’m sorry but I don’t… the attitude of the payers and that of the recipients wouldn’t seem to be particularly strongly linked, to me? What bad effects do you see from controlling what beneficiaries can do with the bulk (but not all) of their money.
Your story about the sickness beneficiary raises another good point, though one I suspect wouldn’t apply to a great number of people. First off, I should say that I’m dubious about the guy – people who are “sick” generally recover (or decease); he sounds like one of those on whom WINZ had given up, and decided to move him off unemployment so as to make the figures look good. More pertinently, if you’re living off the “generosity” (enforced generosity for many) of others, your options might be limited, and those limitations might just include not owning your own yacht.
I believe a benficiary has a right to expect a roof over their head; water; electricity (reasonable amounts); sufficient food; medical and dental care… not to live the life of Owen Glenn. If your heart is set on a yacht there are other ways to achieve it, including building one in your yard after work and on weekends, as someone I know has done.
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
bhudson:
It could easily do that, yes. But not the way I envisage it operating. Rather than questions that require working anything out, they’d be a simple test of general and specific factual knowledge, realting to politics generally and the topic of the referendum in particular. So (to pluck a ridiculous example out of thin air) it might ask “Who is the Leader of the Opposition?” and give five multi-choice answers, not ask “If Phil Goff is deposed, who’s most likely to lead Labour?”
That’s an awful example… I just can’t think of a better one as I’m working and my mind is on other thngs at present, but I hope you get what I’m trying to convey from it.
Yes, there’d be those who’d try that. But they’d try it now if they thought they could get away with it; I don’t think such measures would ever gain acceptance in NZ whereas it’s possible, though I admit unlikely, that simply expecting people voting on a measure to understand the basic issues on which they’re being given the privilege of deciding isn’t too much to ask.
And remember, I’m not suggesting a test before voting in an election, just on referenda / recoverable proxy issues.
Vote:January 6th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Pete George:
So why do we elect currency traders and farmers and teachers and union officials and shoe salesmen and dental nurses to make our laws?
Government is informed by experts (at least they’re meant to be experts) in the public service, and various NGOs and others weigh in with research.
Given access to that information, you and I are just as capable as anyone in the current Parliament of reaching a sensible conclusion – moreso than most. And if we’re willing to invest the time in considering the data and reaching a decision, we have as much right as any of them to a say – again moreso than most, who blindly allow their vote to be cast in their absence so as to prove their loyalty to the party and hopefully gain a promotion.
I agree with your earlier comment that the very best solution is to improve representative democracy, starting with improving the quality of representatives, but alas the existence of political parties coupled with the foibles of MMP – particularly the existence of List MPs – means that will never happen.
I just think giving more power to people has the potential to gain traction amongst a disillusioned and disengaged electorate whereas one about yet more electoral reform and changing the way parties work will meet with ennui from the electorate and opposition from entrenched interests.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 9:02 am
#fail Paula.
Cannabis is not an addictive substance, proven by science.
Therefore, someone should be taking a look at the doctor and canning her/him.
She’s looking at the wrong problem…
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Who’d hire this guy, Harris. It is quite amazing how easy it was to rip off the system and it took over 20 years to kick him off. This is typical when 3rd party, the taxpayers, are flipping the bill. Politicans and civil servants don’t care. National tries to talk tough but only working on the fringes. This article is laughable. We won’t hear about this again until just before the elections. This should have been done 2 years ago when National took office. And who is supporting Harris now? We still are.
Vote:January 7th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
If anyone thinks the tap has been turned off they’re dreaming. The acts at Farmer Cres have shown us that he will appeal, be granted a resumption of his benefit, which will continue for some years yet while the case goes through several courts of liberal, weak, out-of-touch judges
Vote: