Why we need welfare reform
July 31st, 2011 at 9:32 am by David FarrarImogen Neale in the SST reports:
Lots of babies, lots of partners, lots of houses and lots of benefits.
Welcome to the career dream of young boys already failing in the education system. …
“There is no warmth about loving little children or wanting to be good parents. It is purely about this being a pathway to an income,” the one-time principal of a youth justice facility school said. …
Sutherland said in some cases the children were merely repeating what they saw in their own homes.
“They perceive that they’ll get a girl pregnant. She will be on some form of benefit and will get a house, and that they’ll live with them, and that is their income.
“They live with mum, who often has a number of children and boyfriends.”
If you grow up in a household where no adults are ever in employment, then all too often your expectations are changed.
Related posts:
- Why Welfare Reform is a Win Win Win
- Dom Post on welfare reform
- Pagani on welfare reform
- IP’s Welfare Reforms
July 31st, 2011 at 9:41 am
What a non-story. How about my story:
I was in the supermarket yesterday and saw two teenage mothers with their babies. I reckon they are just ripping us all off deliberately and there are probably tens of thousands more like them out there.
That’s a story with just as much substance as the one in the Sunday Star-Times.
[DPF: I think the principal of a youth facility would be in a good position to make the observations she did.]
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:46 am
What did socialist Labour do during its nine years in poower? Nothing but foster a culture of welfare dependency.
Vote:What has Labour lite done so far to reform the welfare state? Zero, absolutely nothing.
July 31st, 2011 at 9:47 am
This leads to the issue of vulnerable children, many of whom are a result of this culture. Q+A dealt with some of these issues this morning – and what is clear is that all our child abuse/poverty/welfare problems are far more important than being bogged down with political rhetoric.
Gluckman and the Green Paper and Annette King and many others keep saying this should be dealt with cross party. The best possible way this issue can be made clearly above politics is for pledges:
- National should pledge that if they win in November they will offer Annette King the Social Welfare Ministry
- Labour should pledge that if they win in November they will offer Paula Bennett the Social Welfare Ministry
Then we’d know they are serious about raising this to a whole of country problem that needs everyone’s support and efforts.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:50 am
You’re right Mikenmild. There is absolutely no way in hell that any of the thousands of uneducated/unemployable teenagers in New Zealand receiving stackloads of free cash on the “bennie” would have planned such a windfall….
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:51 am
Pete
I quite agree. The discussion on Q+A was good, but it doesn’t tell anyone anything that isn’t already known. The chances of the major political parties in NZ agreeing on an approach to thee issues is virtually nil. Their raison d’etre is to maintain their differences above all.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:58 am
Mikenmild said…
I reckon they are just ripping us all off deliberately and there are probably tens of thousands more like them out there.
That’s the type of democracy that you’re so fond of Mike. Why do you complain or raise concern/s about something which is a result of democracy? Philosophical contradiction? Yep, you’ve just encountered one. Umm, you know what I mean. Put rights into a constitutional system at its foundation and you won’t encounter a contradiction like the one you’ve just posted above. My money (via taxation) should be used by the state to protect my rights (ie, law/order, national defense, judiciary) and not to redistribute it to the very people you saw at the supermarket? Have I contradicted myself all along in my argument over this issue? Nope! Have you? All the time and I have exposed the fallacy of your belief here, but you still seem not to get it.
Yesterday or Friday (I think), you replied to me in one of my post saying (Its democracy Falafulu) which I agree. But why moan about things that democracy allows such as your disgust at those 2 teenage mothers?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:00 am
but it doesn’t tell anyone anything that isn’t already known.
Gluckman made it clear we don’t know enough about what works and what doesn’t, what’s cost effective and what’s not, and what reallocation of resources will be palatable to middle New Zealand.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:05 am
The DPB was introduced in 1974 by a Labour government under Norman Kirk.
Vote:The adverse affect it has had on children and the family would be done away as a ‘unintended consequence’.
Unintended……?
July 31st, 2011 at 10:12 am
Why is this a non-story, mm?
The dpb was first introduced to provide financial assistance where marriages broke down. It was at a time when eligibility depended on getting a separation order and that required evidence that the spouse, usually the wife, was justified in leaving the home.
The dpb then became popular with solo parents(who were only elegible if they applied for paternity orders). They could capitalise family benefit and buy a house.
Over the last forty years, the sands have moved. Becoming a beneficiary is a career move. We had the example of a soloparent with 5 kids to 4 different fathers. According to Bennetts statistics it is not at all uncommon for beneficiaries to have more children — perpetuating state dependancy. We have seen the situation where a family – all on benefits – received government grants to fence the swimming pool on there rental property. Another example was the Wellington activist who candidly acknowledged that he could work but chose to engange in plaaning issues instead. There is a very low threshold for admission to other taxpayer funded support.
Now, tell me this: is it right for someone to have children knowing that the parents do not have the resources to look after them without the government taking funds from others, in the form of tax? Is it reasonable for those who have to meet the increasing cost of welfare to debate where the line is drawn?
NZ is becoming bottom heavy. There is an increasing culture of dependancy. There should be an increasing culture of productivity and added-value. Instead, as soon as soon raises the issue they are stonewalled by allegations of beneficiary bashing or inane comments such as yours.
In response to your “ripping off”statement, the answer is, ÿes”they might be ripping us off. They may have got there with the assistance of a taxi chit paid by the tax payer because they wrote the car off when drink driving. Equally, they may be wholly deserving of the benefit and criticism of their circumstance may be wholly unjustified. So long as the response to any debate is “hands-off”and “dont go there” we, as a society will continue gathering downward momentum around the plughole.
The line is being determined by those who benefit. Those who meet the cost are being denied the right to bring their views to bear? Is that healthy?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:14 am
Boys siring babies for the income – huh.
Do none of you hand wringers see there is a major contradiction here?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:18 am
you poor innocent soul andrei, have you not worked this out?
its called lying.
the mother lies about being single so gets more money, the sperm donor is ‘single’ so gets full dole.
they flat together so they don’t get assessed together and get less benefit.
happens all the time, and they are quite proud of it, becuase they ‘earn’ more money that way.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:19 am
Andrei
Girls can, and do, walk away from parental responsibility.
A few months ago, I was leaving to go to work, and my 6 year old son aksed me if he would have to go to work too when he was older.
I said to him, “Of course, that’s how it’s supposed to work.”
If young people don’t see it in their lives, they don’t know it. This is why work for the dole is so vital. It may be a higher cost, and the work may not be the the best job out there, but there is a dignity in work, and the payoff will be the next generation who are brought up seeing that you do not get something for nothing..
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:33 am
The N_____ in the woodpile here is that when someone (usually a penisless one) goes onto the DPB they are asked to name the father of their child and if they don’t they get less money.
And the individual so named is then obliged through the TAX department to pay, their income is garnished at source.
And even more pernicious, if one with a penis is supporting a child (not his own) and that relationship falls apart with the penisless mother of that child going onto the DPB then that
manmug will be liable for that child through the IRD for many years to come.Th DPB is a vile and wretched big Government scheme actually designed to wreck the normal relationships between men and women and more particularly between fathers and their children.
Most certainly designed in the very pit of hell and implemented by the servants of the deceitful one.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:41 am
Every family would have a story to tell I believe about the DPB.In my case i have a nephew (who is a bit slow) that has had three babies with 3 different females all of who have a state house.one lives in Nelson one in Christchurch and the other in Greymouth.Mark (his name) has never had a job hes 24 and spends his time living with each of them as he feels like.I own a hotel and had a female staff member ask me if I can put her husband up in a room for a while,(she is a good christian by the way).Turns out she was not married but living de facto and had been for several years with 4 kids.She was investigated by winz and told to pay back the grand sum of $2500.She was expecting to pay much much more and even maybe go to jail.This person would seem on the face of it to be a very nice upstanding citizen a church goer,so if she can rip us of it would not surprise me to hear of many many more.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:42 am
Th DPB is a vile and wretched big Government scheme actually designed to wreck the normal relationships between men and women and more particularly between fathers and their children.
It’s actually a worthwhile scheme that’s sometimes abused. In particular it allows parents and children to live free of vile and wretched partners.
In the past church based charity often did something similar, but it’s far more fair and evenhanded if it is not controlled by such judgmental institutions.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:57 am
This is not a welfare problem but a moral problem. The underclass is led astray by the corrupt Godless liberal intelligesia. There is no morality without God.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:58 am
pete george says…far more fair and even handed……
but not fair to the tax payer carrying this burden.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:58 am
mikenmild (1,435) Says:
July 31st, 2011 at 9:41 am
What a non-story. How about my story:
I was in the supermarket yesterday and saw two teenage mothers with their babies. I reckon they are just ripping us all off deliberately and there are probably tens of thousands more like them out there.
That’s a story with just as much substance as the one in the Sunday Star-Times.
Well unintended consequences all over again.
Poor contraception and reproduction teaching.
Poor relationship teaching.
Lack of teaching of personal responsibility
Removal of youth rates leading to no jobs available for young people. Next best income the DPB.
Poor govt. policy re families
Poor govt. policy re the NZ dollar, supporting small business.
The list goes on and on.
What you anti freedom crusaders, socialists fail to take into account every time is the unintended consequences of all the stuff you enforce upon people.
Anyway at the end of the day MM you don’t know if what you said is true at all.
They may be well supported. and its a truism that as you get older these young ladies look younger and younger.
Vote:i.e. you are getting older in their eyes to.
July 31st, 2011 at 10:59 am
Pete George: “sometimes abused”?? Surely you jest. It’s abused and exploited on a widespread scale. Likewise similar benefits in other countries are also being used as lifestyle choices.
Vote:We should stop this breeding for dole culture once and for all.
July 31st, 2011 at 10:59 am
Forget about putting useless Annette King or Paula Bennett in charge of welfare reform.
Vote:My vote is for Lindsay Mitchell, a true subject-matter expert. She would be a first class minister.
July 31st, 2011 at 11:01 am
NOOKIN………..Well said you sum the situation up nicely…
Q&A on the other hand was typically farcical. Sir Peter GLUCKMAN assured us that the Science showed that no one section of society abused their children any more than any other. The Maori lady guest reminded us of the established historical fact that Maori never smacked their kids until the pakeha arrived and criticised them for not doing so. Johansen the expert proclaimed that everyone of us was to blame for the situation, Annette KING was full of bluster about what she would do while failing to disclose why she had allowed the situation to get out of hand over nine years, and HOLMES showed ignorance when he asked Johansen why people thought he was a communist.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:02 am
@ Raging Glory, don’t turn this into a god or moral debate. You Christians have no authority on how to tell people how to raise their children.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:05 am
Raging Glory (23) Says:
July 31st, 2011 at 10:57 am
This is not a welfare problem but a moral problem. The underclass is led astray by the corrupt Godless liberal intelligesia. There is no morality without God.
What a lot of shit.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:06 am
It’s abused and exploited on a widespread scale.
Can you quantify how big a problem it is? How many? What proportion? If they weren’t on DPB would they just be on unemployment instead?
It’s certainly a problem but it shouldn’t be unnecessarily exaggerated, and the difficulty of any alternatives shouldn’t be underestimated.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:07 am
Damn I should have watched it Backster – sounds funnier than Monty Python
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:07 am
My vote is for Lindsay Mitchell, a true subject-matter expert. She would be a first class minister.
What party? What electorate?
backster must have a different version of Q+A to me.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:09 am
Why not – we do it better than most and they don’t end up on the DPB as a rule
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:14 am
Manolo, you beat me to it. Any party at all serious about tackling welfare abuse and reform will beg Lindsay Mitchell to take a redesigned Social portfolio.
Pete George “What party? What electorate?” Who the hell cares? It’s Lindsay Mitchell that’s needed. Not Lindsay wearing a red rosette, or Lindsay in a blue rosette, or a yellow one.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:20 am
No use blaming Labour alone – successive governments, both National and Labour, have failed to take any measures that address the fundamental lack of self reliance that plagues the ‘poor’. Legislation over the years has been little more than window-dressing so governments can look as though they are addressing the issue of welfare dependency as a lifestyle option.
I come from a family, originally with an extraordinarily strong work ethic, that has, on the whole been degraded by the availability of state assistance for housing and breeding over the past 30 years, and the result isn’t pretty.
The thing that really frustrates me is that people who genuinely could not be expected to work are hugely disadvantaged by our current system – young and old people with severe health problems who have huge extra expenses imposed by physical disability or illness live in genuine poverty under our current system of benefits – largely I suspect because they are don’t have the personal mobility to commit crime or work for cash under the table – my extended family’s main means of improving their standards of living. At one stage my nephew was living with the mother of his children – she was a ‘solo mother’ with state provided housing and income – while collecting an unemployment benefit and working two building jobs for cash. His sister, also on unemployment benefit, bought things she wanted – sound systems, clothes – on a credit card and then basically did a public tantrum in the local welfare office until here debts were paid for by the public. The one sister in the family that did earn an honest living had the lowest living standard of the three of them.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:35 am
Raging Glory @ 10.57am: “There is no morality without God.”
Rubbish. I consider myself to be a very moral person, and I haven’t needed God to make me that way. I put it down to my own beliefs and the beliefs of my parents when I was growing up. God didn’t play any part of it.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 12:17 pm
The rise of the welfare ethic under Labour in particular (e.g WFF) has made our welfare system like a disease that has infiltrated NZ society and corrupted it to diminish the work ethic.
I think it’s important to have a welfare system to support people temporarily while they are in between jobs, or after a marriage/relationship break up. The key word is temporary. What many folk need is more focus. Instead of seeing the dole or DPB as a viable income they need to see it as temporary help while you are looking for employment. What people need is a plan. If you want to apply for a benefit in the above circumstances you have to come to WINZ with a plan showing what you are going to do to get off of it and into either work or getting educated towards some kind of qualification.
The dole is the government paying you to look for work in essence. What you need to have is a plan. For example every day you aim to make 5 ‘contacts’ (minimum) – applying for jobs in the paper, on Seek or Trade Me as well as calling companies up by phone or cold calling – dropping into businesses with your CV. Whatever you do, you keep a record of your contacts. Once you meet the goal each day you’ve achieved your obligation to the government to keep paying you your benefit.
People’s mindset is another factor. “There are no jobs” – if you keep telling yourself that, then you won’t find a job. What areas are you looking in? Only one field? How about looking at as broad a field as possible – how are your skills transferrable. Are you just looking in one town.city? Broaden your search. Look at part time or temporary work as a means to open more doors. The more you restrict yourself to one field of employment in one place and only fulltime the less likely you are to succeed.
No skills or qualifications? How about upskilling and getting qualified? There are plenty of options out there but people need to get organised and focused and value the work ethic more than the welfare ethic.
It’s meant to be difficult to be on a benefit – that’s part of your motivation to get off it, so that you reap the benefits of working in a job.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 12:48 pm
But unfortunately they did used to eat them.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I wasn’t aware that eating one’s children was an established part of Maori culture.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
That’s possibly the most revealing comment you’ve made in all your 1,437 comments so far. Recommend you spend $20 and buy Dr John Robinson’s book. You might learn a thing or two.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
milkmilo’s latest pearl: “How about my story: I was in the supermarket yesterday and saw two teenage mothers with their babies. I reckon they are just ripping us all off deliberately and there are probably tens of thousands more like them out there. That’s a story with just as much substance as the one in the Sunday Star-Times.”
A ‘one-time principal of a youth justice facility school’ says: “It is purely about this being a pathway to an income” and yet the resident moron (based on his experience in a supermarket), knows better. Cue: Tui billboard.
One of the by-products from the decade of dear leader, has been the creation of a section of society totally dependent on welfare. There is no requirement for responsibility / accountability / parental obligation when there is an expectation that the State will take care of you cradle to grave. Generational dependency has become rampant and it will take a major effort to roll back the tide of bludgers who consider it their ‘right’ to be paid benefits for life – courtesy of the taxpayer.
Of course, if you subscribe to the socialist wet dream that the solution to all ills is to tax the [so called] rick pricks in order to support your welfare dependent voter base, then I suppose this is OK.
But in the real world, this principle is a social (and fiscal) disaster.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:13 pm
What Elaycee says!
MM. Please answer my question. Is it right that members of a society should be able to bring children into this world knowing that they do not have the resources to look after them?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
The Gantt Guy (7) Says:
“That’s possibly the most revealing comment you’ve made in all your 1,437 comments so far.”
Nah…
Vote:Just one of many.
July 31st, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Gnatt Guy
Have you read Dr Robinson’s book? What did you make of it? Did he really say ‘Maori culture was not just dysfunctional but mad, criminally insane. The consequences of those decades of killing, social disruption, destruction of crops, infanticide, fear and uncertainty was a society in shock’?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:28 pm
So Prince William, what are your plans for the future ?
Lots of babies, lots of partners, lots of houses and lots of benefits.
I’ll fix this for ya too, Lacking A Clue (Elaycee)
One of the by-products from a sesquicentennial of failed colonial governance, has been the creation of a section of society totally dependent on welfare.
and yeah, spare a thought and a few dollars for those starving African kids eh.
Is it right that members of a society should be able to bring children into this world knowing that they do not have the resources to look after them?
Best to kill them and eat them don’t y’all think. Solve two problems at once.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Mikey: I haven’t read Robinson’s book (yet), but I have read “This Horrible Practice” by Dr Paul Moon of AUT. That quote sounds very like something he said in his book… which was derided of course by all the lefties….
Moon tends to “tell it like it was” rather than portraying pre-European Maori society as being all aroha and basket weaving, with small matters like constant warfare, cannabilism and slavery just mere footnotes, or worse, denied altogether.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:40 pm
BWAV – this post a little close to home huh?
Unlucky. You should read it carefully – it may do you some good.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:42 pm
small matters like constant warfare, cannabilism and slavery
Killing in the name of the lord…ahh the good old days of the holy crusades and still a game worth playing by the rich white fuckers eh ?
gotta love them dark ages !
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:42 pm
David Garrett
I have read Paul Moon’s book too, and found it an excellent work. However, I don’t recall anything in it about killing and eating one’s own children. As an aside, there was a little debate over Moon’s book, in the Listener I think, from one or two scholars who deny that there was such a thing as cannibalism. Moon remained more convincing, to me at least.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Don’t worry bout me or mine Elaycee (Lost Any Credibility). All is good in my hood.
This post doesn’t highlight the need for welfare reform. It highlights the need for better education, true equality of opportunity for marginalised youth and a higher standard of reporting/understanding on the real issues from dumbfucks in the media and troll farms on line.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Black with……
A problem with the crusades?
Since when has it been wrong to reclaim what was yours?
The Byzantine Empire was under attack by the Muslims.What ‘s wrong with self defense?
It’s only wrong when white Christians are involved.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Since when has it been wrong to reclaim what was yours?
Oh yeah, I forgot, white christians have owned the middle east since day one. That’s why they can do whatever the fuck they like there and get away with it.
What ‘s wrong with self defense?
Taken to the extreme, you get nutjobs like Brevik thinking his way of life is under attack and to defend it he has to massacre as many innocents as he possibly can. Surely it’s only a matter of time before the Kyle Chapmans here in NZ are forced to self defend their ‘way of life’ from insidious outsiders and for the greater good of their people.
Nah…we’re more worried about the bloody maaaris starting a revolution and reclaiming whats rightfully theirs.
Back on point though. I’ve always used negative role models to better myself. Fucked if I was gonna grow up poor and ignorant just cos I was surrounded by it. If anything kids should use their dropkick rellies and fucked up living arrangements as a spur to want to do better. Surely they don’t really want to perpetuate the ‘dream’ lifestyle of bludging and breeding to get by ?
That ex principal of a youth justice facility sounds like a right wing nutjob one step away from cleansing society of the ‘wrong’ kids herself…the good old fashioned way.
CHK CHK…BOOM
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 2:23 pm
BWAV – bollocks. The article highlights the need to extricate ourselves from generational dependency and poor parental role modelling in the most vulnerable sectors of society.
BTW, equal opportunity already exists – all you need to do is get off your arse / get a meaningful education and then apply it in a commercial environment in return for the rewards and the lifestyle you want. The alternative is to play the ‘woe is me’ card / keep claiming oppression due to colonisation / court as much sympathy as possible (together with the cash) from the bleeding heart liberals / keep pushing for ever increasing handouts / bring kids into the world and claim the associated benefits / etc.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.
If throwing increasing amounts of taxpayer cash was the solution, then this problem would have been solved years ago. The first step required is at parental level, but until the most ‘vulnerable’ sector accepts that this is the issue and then wants to do something about fixing it, then nothing will change either.
Until the cash runs out and it will HAVE to change!
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 2:33 pm
@PEte George – it is a scheme that is abused wholesale. Fifteen years in the rental game almost every house I advertised for rent in Wainui and Lower Hutt would attract families – Mum, Dad and 2-4 kids. In almost every case they would ask for the rental agreement to be in Mum’s name. Why? She was on the DPB and the Dad (many of whom were working – they had references after all) lived with them. His name would be on nothing – the utilities bills, sky etc etc. When they move out the mail keeps coming for months with these people – years in some cases – and I never saw a Dad’s name on a piece of mail.
The other really common family dynamic I saw was a woman in the late 30s/40s who had kids turning 18/19 who having more babies to make sure their income stayed the same. The DPB scheme needs a total overhaul, not pathetic tweaking around the edges.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Fifteen years in the rental game almost every house I advertised for rent in Wainui and Lower Hutt would attract families – Mum, Dad and 2-4 kids. In almost every case they would ask for the rental agreement to be in Mum’s name. Why? She was on the DPB and the Dad (many of whom were working – they had references after all) lived with them. His name would be on nothing – the utilities bills, sky etc etc. When they move out the mail keeps coming for months with these people – years in some cases – and I never saw a Dad’s name on a piece of mail.
…and being the caring and concerned citizen you are, you didn’t turn a blind eye and keep the rent cash rolling in. You reported it to the authorities for the sake of the children so they wouldn’t grow up to perpetuate the cycle and only aspire to welfare dependency.
Good on ya mate. If only we were all like you and cared more about the system being defrauded than lining our own pockets trying to be slumlords.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 3:11 pm
BWAV, what a racist. you assume that the people on the DPB etc will only live in slums or that properties in Wainui or the hutt are all slum properties.
quite the prejudiced little prick aren’t you?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Elaycee said…
BTW, equal opportunity already exists – all you need to do is get off your arse / get a meaningful education and then apply it in a commercial environment in return for the rewards and the lifestyle you want.
Absolutely correct.
BWAV, what sort of equal opportunity that you talk about here? Opportunity for education? It already exists, the problem is that some people study harder than others, irrespective of their upbringing (ie, either from poverty or wealthy) or their ethnicity. That’s fact. Deal with it and stop moaning.
Our eduction system allows anyone from any background to get one.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:00 pm
BWAV, what a racist. you assume that the people on the DPB etc will only live in slums or that properties in Wainui or the hutt are all slum properties.
quite the prejudiced little prick aren’t you?
…and what a jumped up ignorant ass you are.
I’m assuming that if you’ve got rental/investment properties in Wainui that you rent out to beneficiaries knowing they are defrauding the system, and you turn a blind eye, then you are as complicit in a crime of ripping of the taxpayer as much as the benefit cheats and have no right to bitch moan in public like you’re some morally superior being because you’re also contributing to the wholesale abuse.
Of course it goes without saying that Wainui and the Hutt are pretty slummy in some parts.
Our education system allows anyone from any background to get one.
But it privileges those of a certain background more. Less so now, but still. There’s a reason why there aren’t any Maori or Pasifikans on the rich list and it’s not because they didn’t study hard, work like niggers, pay their dues or deserve to be obscenely wealthy. It’s probably the same reason why there’s less women on that list also.
For all the equality bullshit, it’s still a whiteman’s world out there and if you want to succeed and have the whitemans ‘enviable’ lifestyle, you have to become like him at the expense of one’s own culture, ethnicity and gender.
FUCK THAT !!!
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Gluckman made it clear we don’t know enough about what works and what doesn’t, what’s cost effective and what’s not, and what reallocation of resources will be palatable to middle New Zealand.
But this is the problem. This whole issue is not caused by mis-directed resources, it’s caused by mis-directed attitudes amongst the people who are the problem.
They won’t change their attitude if you simply re-direct certain resources. What you need to do, is take them by the scruff of the neck and say, look, enough. You are behaving badly because of x, y and z. We’re not getting all judgy about it, but we’re not going to put up with it a minute longer. It’s over. You are going to stop behaving badly, period. This is how you do it. A. B. C. This is what we are going to do to help you get to A, to monitor you while you achieve B on your own, and the evidence you need to give us when you reach C, is this. That’s the deal. There isn’t any other. This, is it. If you don’t like it, go to Australia. We start tomorrow. At 8:00 sharp, at this address. Bring your kids. We’ll take care of them while you’re learning how to get to A. Here’s the bus fare. If you’re late, x happens. If you don’t turn up at all, we’ll take your kids away and cut off your benefit.
Next.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:08 pm
sounds like boot camp for adults reid, and what a raging success that National party initiative has been…NOT!!!
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I like ABC Reid.
Vote:It’s not as if it isn’t doable, but do we have the political will as a nation?
July 31st, 2011 at 4:17 pm
do we have the political will as a nation
No we don’t Mick and partly that’s cause your average voter is such a fucking numpty issues such as this never occur to him but he knows plenty about the latest sports results and his wife’s really into those fascinating celebs as well so they do OK in the pub quizzes and these are your brainier average voters; and partly that’s cause there is no politician who’s got the guts to say, we have to use the “e” word: Enough.
No more.
So no, no will, and no courage.
Bugger.
sounds like boot camp for adults reid
Full details were omitted for purpose of explanation Black but suffice to say, long term, life changing, not boot campy short sharp…
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:43 pm
What you need to do, is take them by the scruff of the neck and say, look, enough.
I wish it was that easy. It can be hard enough to convince your own 18 year old let alone a large and varied demographic.
Whether its work avoidance or tax avoidance there will always be a significant proportion of people who will use the system to what they think is their advantage. As soon as you put something in place to help people in genuine need you will get opportunists working out how to take advantage of it.
Wired in multi generation habits and attitudes can’t be wiped out with a scrag of the neck. We have to try, but don’t expect perfect nor fast results.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:47 pm
For all the equality bullshit, it’s still a whiteman’s world out there and if you want to succeed and have the whitemans ‘enviable’ lifestyle, you have to become like him at the expense of one’s own culture, ethnicity and gender.
FUCK THAT !!!
Black if anyone doesn’t understand they are capable of overcoming any adversity, beating any challenge and directing their own destiny provided they have the effort and will required to direct their all thoughts and actions toward attaining that, I feel very sorry for them.
There are indeed a lot of people who don’t know that simple truth and who think they really aren’t capable powerful resource-filled beings but fact is, they all are, even the handicapped ones, in their own ways.
Success in life comes from actualising that attitude in yourself first – making it into an actual reality – then teaching it to others, in whatever way you can.
Sometimes lots of money comes with that and sometimes it doesn’t but that is the way and the only way, to move from current position to a better one.
It depends what you look at. If you’re in poverty with a poor education and a rough upbringing with no holidays away hardly ever and your only income which you’ve only ever got from the govt gives you about $40 spare p.w. and you have no skills and if you’re a woman you have kids, of course it would even occur to you to think like the way I just described. That’s the challenge and how you change it from what it is currently to that above is clearly not an easy question, but my point is, all it is, is attitude: i.e. the thoughts you have and the value systems you adhere too. That’s all it is. The answer to changing life circumstance to rise from poverty into working or from working to lower middle or from lower to upper middle etc is always the same. Change your thoughts. That’s the only way.
Academic learning on this is pointless, but is probably what will be promulgated as the “solution.” Courses on how to get a job, how to use a computer, et al. Completely missing the entire target, not even aiming vaguely toward it, and how much futility will THAT cost US, before the idiots notice it’s not working and blame some mysterious force for its failure to make much of a dent.
Maybe I should time capsule that comment and bring it up in 2015 when we’re discussing the dismal failure of National’s flagship poverty eradication program so proudly road-showed by Bennett and Key, during the 2011 election…
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
BWAV – Oh, I get it. You just want the taxpayer to keep throwing more and more money at the problem in the hope that somehow there will be a magic fix. Of course, that won’t work – more than enough money has been thrown at the problem to date but the problem is still growing!
If you spent more time trying to identify a proper fix than bleating about oppression / colonial ills / anything else you can think of, then perhaps you might add some value to the debate rather than keep adding to your extensive list of excuses.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Wired in multi generation habits and attitudes can’t be wiped out with a scrag of the neck. We have to try, but don’t expect perfect nor fast results.
Again that was short-hand for purpose of explanation Pete.
Surely with our best psychologists we could come up with a number of packages that would work for the different subsets of people we have here. Not all of these are shirkers very few in fact and many solo mums would love to organise meaningful careers for themselves. At the other end we do have the real bitches and bastards who do deliberately fuck us, the taxpayer around, on purpose, just cause we let them.
There are a lot of individuals throughout that whole range and we need appropriate packages which get through to all of them, as their needs require. Surely designing these packages is not beyond the ken of the entire psychological field in the world for why not throw such a critical contract into the international arena as well?
Why not do this? One reason only.
This country can’t call a spade a spade and a bludger a bludger. If anyone does, it’s interpreted as an attack. WTF is wrong with us as a country, if we let reality as it actually is be interpreted by rules that tell us that Timmy, even if it exists and yes, we can see he has no clothes on but Timmy, you mustn’t say anything and just pwetend it’s all pwetty normal.
Where does that attitude come from Pete? Beats the hell out of me.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Black noted: “For all the equality bullshit, it’s still a whiteman’s world out there and if you want to succeed and have the whitemans ‘enviable’ lifestyle, you have to become like him at the expense of one’s own culture, ethnicity and gender.”
Across the BRICS, we are rising in our billions. We are all whitemen now!
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 5:04 pm
If the moronic but aptly named guy Black with a Vengeance speaks for “his” people all I can say is they are well and truly fucked.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Reid – submit to the Green Paper on children. They want to hear from people with ideas.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Falafulu Fisi (1,146) Says:
July 31st, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Elaycee said…
BTW, equal opportunity already exists – all you need to do is get off your arse / get a meaningful education and then apply it in a commercial environment in return for the rewards and the lifestyle you want.
Absolutely correct.
Both wrong. I’m afraid.
You both see tertiary education as the be all and end all which it is not. Its just a part of life long learning.
The problem is that if for any reason a young person doesn’t fit the nice neat parameters that you both have and doesn’t manage school like nice little school girls then they become outcasts of the system and because the socialists have managed to steal their rights to employment via various laws and means that person then becomes a community outcast. They have no other place to go. They become outcasts in their own community. ( No sorry we can give you a job you are to young. No sorry we can afford to pay you at 15 $13.25 per hour. No sorry the State have robbed you of you right to life. ) Sad but right at the nub of these issues.
This is really simple stuff. Not rocket science.
Allow the young to have work. Work brings pride and education. Education of a different sort but hell Falufisa even all your offspring won’t all want to be rocket scientists and mathematicians. Odds are that one of them will be an ordinary kid who likes to do practical stuff. It seems that most think we don’t need or want people like that anymore.
Look out for what plumbers and builders and tradies are going to cost you all. Last year plumbers in Sydney and Melbourne were charging $100 an hour. And that’s just the local tradies.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Reid – submit to the Green Paper on children.
Am I allowed to swear in my submission Pete? (It helps me to think.)
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 6:42 pm
BWAV – when I see through the Ali G complex – I have to say I am impressed by the cut of your gib. Keep up the good work ma nigga.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Exactly why welfare needs to be conditional on taking contraception. An easy way to administer this would be by providing 3 monthly birth control shots.
http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 7:46 pm
On Q and A one point stressed over and over was the need to do trials and evaluate what programmes actually work.
As for international input – the first fact is that no “welfare number” reduction programme will work if there is a shortage of jobs – because employers don’t do turnover of the unemployed they place the unemployed at the bottom of the candidate list.
Labour reduced numbers on welfare between 1999-2008 simply because of employment growth (leaving the employer with no option but to hire the unemployed), numbers on the DPB even fell (women finding work or finding working partners to live with).
Given the number on the DPB is no longer trending upward but holding static at a little over 100,000 (this is a falling cost against GDP), the real growth in welfare numbers is with those on the SB and IB – and this trend will continue as many Maori and Polynesians have health issues as they age (many die before they reach the age for super) and the demographics of our population mean we have to make some investments in improving health outcomes amongst this group.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 7:59 pm
@Viking2: Can see your point – but for my money, if any kid gains skills (including life skills) and they turn out to be a successful plumber / policeman / businessman / farmer / or a solid, contributing citizen, then that has to be infinitely better than them sitting on their arse pumping out kids every now and then in order to qualify for a lifestyle modelled on benefits.
What gives me the sh**s, is the suggestion that there is no equal opportunity – because there is!
All it takes is some personal motivation / some parental guidance along the way, the correct attitude and some equal effort and the rewards will come.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Aposite to what I was saying above re: attitude: the beauty of mathematics.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:43 pm
What’s it like on your planet?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 9:52 pm
The numbers fell by 100,000 – weren’t you paying attention?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Farken golly SPC if Liarbore could only reduce welfare by 100k during the biggest global boom the world has ever seen, bar none, bigger than anything we’ve ever had before in the entire history of mankind, it’s purty durn useless, isn’t it?
How come it wasn’t able to eliminate welfare recipients altogether. Wipe their scourge from the face of humanity? I’m not of course referring to those unable to work and therefore worthy of assistance but to those who are able to work and those alone.
Apart from that I’ve always been cuwious to know how come we got lots and lots and lots of weally weally sick people duwing Wiarbour’s weign, SPC? How come the sickness beneficiaries simply ballooned? Wasn’t that cuwious?
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Winston Peters plan to reduce welfare numbers:
How wide is he suggesting he goes in the family to take benefits off people, for how long, and on what legal basis?
Someone bought up the term sippenhaft yesterday, this sounds like sippenhaft for beneficiaries.
What if people in the wider family don’t know anything?
Vote:How many kids would be affected by cutting benefits in the whole wider family?
Will it include taking pensions off great grandparents?
July 31st, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Reid, the upward trend on the SB and IB has continued regardless of who has been in office – it occured 1990-1999, 1999-2008 and 2008-2011.
Lisping that its related to one party in government is weak – you can do better if you weally try.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 10:44 pm
What were the welative numbers 1999-2008 and 2008-2011 SPC?
And you didn’t even addwess my first point which is that if Wiarbore couldn’t even etc..
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:00 pm
The only way to measure Labour’s record in office 1999-2008 is against other governments in office at that time – we had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world in the 2005-2008 period.
From memory the total numbers fell from 350,000 to 250,000 under Labour. This despite DPB numbers remaining a little above 100,000 the entire period and the SB and IB numbers continuing to rise. You can google the details as well as I can.
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:04 pm
The latest total number on benefits is 328,000. The Minister does not talk about SB and IB numbers, so they are not improving.
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/06/08/welfare-numbers-decline-bennett/
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:26 pm
The latest figures for all categories is here.
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2011-national-benefit-factsheets.html
sickness beneficiaries had increased from 59,158 to 59,988; invalid beneficiaries had increased from 85,038 to 85,105; and domestic purposes beneficiaries had increased from 109,289 to 112,805 in the past year (2010/2011 period).
http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/otago/145008/fewer-invalid-sickness-benefits
Between 1981 and 2004 overall SB/IB receipt increased from 2% to 5% of the working age population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21778007
Vote:July 31st, 2011 at 11:38 pm
The very latest (June 2010-11) figures show a slight annual decline in numbers on SB and IB – but the numbers are still higher than they were in 2008. The trend may be promising as in the first months of the year the trend was still upward.
Vote:August 1st, 2011 at 6:41 am
I didn’t read from the top of the thread, if that was what you were asking. I guess if you choose what constitutes welfare then it’s possible find a reduction. (or an increase). My definition of welfare includes WFF and can’t grab the full stats as about to board a plane. There’s a fascinating graph on interest.co.nz that shows the ratio of taxpayers to welfare beneficiaries and this appears to show the welfare burden on taxpayers increasing over Labour’s reign. To be clear, I think Key has done an absolutely useless job of fixing this ruinous situation.
Vote:August 1st, 2011 at 6:49 am
The words of a total and complete loser in life. I pity this man.
Vote:August 1st, 2011 at 10:54 am
SB and IB and ACC do not need to look for work on an on going bases just convince one doctor
Most are on for back pain mental problems and other subjective conditions or over state the effects of their conditions
the surfy who placed in the nationals the boxer contemplating a pro fight are the extreme examples
Dpb You chose to reproduce in this country to do so and expect to be supported is wrong
Vote:Michael Laws had one way to solve this have yet to see here a better idea. may be tie the granting of these benefits to contraception? with a right to refuse if you sign away the ability to receive any support for said progeny
February 21st, 2013 at 4:04 pm
I think this is a must done, welfare is a right of everyone
Vote: