Welfare reforms are go
July 20th, 2012 at 9:09 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
The Government’s welfare reforms have become law but the controversial policy will continue to dog National, with a rowdy protest planned for the party’s annual conference at Sky City this weekend.
Teen beneficiaries will have their payments managed as soon as next month and new requirements for solo beneficiary parents to look for work will come into effect in October. Parliament passed the changes by 64 votes to 57 last night.
I honestly don’t think we do teenagers a favour by just handing the benefit over to an 17 year old, and saying here’s the money, now go away. Likewise while we must have a welfare state that looks after children and parents who are left without enough financial support, we shouldn’t have a welfare state that encourages a sole parent on welfare to have further children.
The changes have been labelled an attack on the poor by beneficiary advocates, but the Government says it will modernise welfare and overhaul the system from a passive approach to an active, work-focused system.
Auckland Action Against Poverty and the Auckland-based student movement Blockade the Budget will picket National’s conference on Sunday in protest to the reforms.
Excellent, not the same without Sue Bradford there. I recall one conference in Dunedin where she charged into the church service, and one of Bolger’s staff did a very nice tackle on her. For years afterwards many delegates thought Todd was DPS, rather than a political advisor!
Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford said there were no jobs for beneficiaries to move into, especially those who could only work between the hours of 9am and 3pm, or who faced leaving their children at home alone after school.
In which case they will remain on the benefit. The requirement is to seek and be available for work – not to gain a job. Having said that, while there are not jobs for everyone on welfare – there are and will be jobs for some. The jobs market is fluid, not static. There are always vacancies coming up.
The Government failed to realise that parenting was a job in itself, she said.
It is a job, and hence generally no work-testing until the child is five.
Beneficiaries will also been given access to long-term reversible contraception.
How awful. That’s just like Nazi eugenics according to the Dom Post cartoonist Hodgson.
Related posts:
- Stage 1 of the welfare reforms
- IP’s Welfare Reforms
- Large welfare families
- Contraception and welfare
July 20th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Oh you mean like every other working family in NZ? There are plenty of options. We use a combination of
1) Staggered start times so that some days I take the children to school, some days my partner does, some days a friend does
2) After school care some days
3) Having friends so that 1 or 2 days we pick our and their children up from school, other days the friend does, other days after school care
I’m sure there are other options that we haven’t had to or are unable to use, such as other unemployed friends helping out, parents or grandparents helping out or not producing children when you can’t look after them yourself in the first place.
I hate Sue Bradford. She is a corrosive and negative influence on New Zealand, and it escapes me why she is given oxygen in the media.
I notice she carefully said “one parent beneficiaries” which is of course trying to obfuscate from “had a sprog to one fella, moved in with the next one – but he’s not the parent…”
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 10:34 am
it escapes me why she is given oxygen in the media.
It’s not just her it’s the entire leftist philosophy perpetrated by all left politicians and by almost the entire media corps (because almost all of them are lefties as well) and by all lefty voters and that includes most floaters as well as people who never vote anything but left. Together this is well over 50% of the entire country and around say, 90% of the media airtime. Bradford personifies the wrong-headed thinking but every single one of the above people are merely points on the same wrong-headed spectrum she is on.
The wrong-headedness is failing to recognise the truth and consequences arising from this.
Mandela is explaining a truth of the human condition. He is pointing to a fact of life. A trait of what it means to be a human in the process of being. It is, in other words, NOT a choice, it is NOT a political perspective, it is NOT a fact of race and it is NOT a fact of circumstance. It is a fact of life. If you are alive, it is in you. Period.
Lefties do not get this. None of them do. Despite one of their greatest heroes, a man who many would say is the greatest man alive, just as Churchill was in his day, telling them this.
The way out of welfare is not, as lefties would have us do, to wrap people in so much cotton wool they’re swaddled in comfort and all they have to do is put their feet up and relax while the taxpayer plumps their pillows. That’s what Bradford’s solution is. She claims not to do this, is to lack compassion. So does every single lefty for what I just said, to a greater or lessor extent, is every single lefty’s solution. Sure, I drew a hyerbole, but every single lefty believes the way to fix welfare is to provide more of it and what I drew is merely the logical extension of that philosophy and every single lefty is merely a point on a spectrum between what we provide today and that hyerbole.
Comparing that treatment to what Mandela is saying, do you think that would turn people into creatures of light or would it make them bloated, dependent, selfish cry-baby’s who, rather than knowing how to exercise their power to benefit themselves and their families and ultimately, the whole world, to the contrary only ever knew how to stamp their feet and demand more and more from others for less and less effort on their own parts? And if that really happened in some imaginary world to those creatures of light, do you think that such treatment might result in a severe degradation of their light and power to the point where the only thing those poor shadows of creatures of light knew how to do was to turn in on themselves with chemicals so their depressing dull dreary existence faded temporarily from consciousness? Do you think that might possibli happen?
The answer to this situation is not to apply more of the same treatment. As we all know, that’s the precise definition of insanity. So why is it, that the lefter the lefty, the more loudly they yell, for precisely that?
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 11:16 am
“That’s just like Nazi eugenics according to the Dom Post cartoonist Hodgson.”
I’ve seen similar accusations from other leftwing organs. Which really shows little other than a big misunderstanding about what eugenics is. Eugenics is aimed at improving the ‘genetic stock’ of humanity by removing undesirables from the gene pool. It was (and is) a barbaric practice that almost inevitably leads to unethical practices.
For my own reasons, I don’t agree with the provision of sterilisation to beneficiaries. It is hardly tantamount to eugenics, however, to seek to reduce the size of beneficiary families for the express purpose of preventing strain on the public purse.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 11:33 am
You want proof that welfare destroys lives and communities – watch Coppers on TV1 Tuesday nights at 9.30pm.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Time the public spotlight shone on the RIPOFF of public monies through ‘corporate welfare’?
Time to open the books and tell the public EXACTLY where are public monies are being spent at central and local government?
GIVE THE PUBLIC THE ‘DEVILISH DETAIL’!
Give us the NAMES of the consultants/contractors; the SCOPE, TERM and VALUE of these contracts in Annual Reports – so they’re available for public scrutiny!
Where is the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis which PROVES that all these private piggies-in-the-middle – engorging themselves at our public troughs represent better ‘value for money’ than former ‘in-house’ public services provision?
SOCIAL WELFARE – NOT CORPORATE WELFARE!
Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Hi Penny. Tell me, was this really you?
http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Hysterical-scenes-during-arrest-of-Occupy-protestor-Penny-Bright/tabid/309/articleID/240742/Default.aspx
Reid
‘Anti-lunatic campaigner’
http://www.pennybrightismental.com
P.S. Have you occupier vandals paid for the damage you did to the carpark roof and the Aotea Square grounds, or is that a problem for ‘the man’ (i.e. the Auckland ratepayers)?
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
This is the welfare bill the government said would only work if WINZ is allowed to cause undue hardship to children?
I paraphrase, but that would be the gist of using the financial veto on the greens amendment.
[edit: for some values of 'cause', I know, but still]
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
When they brought in the universal benefit / DPB, wasn’t it capped at being a certain ratio of GDP? I would love to know what that per centage was, and what it is now. Does anyone know?
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Two problems.
Kiwis still flocking to AusT.
Yep and I have had more people knocking on my door looking for work than at anytime since the 90 -96 period. The jobs machine is broke and meantime the rulers of our world are busy arguing about water, smoking and generally how to fuck NZ.
Shameful bastards.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7316349/Kiwis-still-flocking-to-Aus
No one in Govt. seems to understand that it is Govt. policy that stops jobs being created or not as may be. E.g. when the hobbit was threatened Key bent over for the film moguls to keep the jobs here. And good that he did, BUT when we keep saying that he needs to change the wage making structure and allow youth rates etc we run into a blank mind.
Brainless.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
If parenting was a real job, you could get laid off for doing a horrible job. Still, as long as we are going to pay people to be parents, it is logical that we align incentives with desirable outcomes… we need to pay for quality, not quantity. DPB = Base $ * School Performance of Children in Family (Averaged, in %).
Penny – Why are you railing against consultants doing work for government? When government is 50% or so of GDP, they’ve got to work for someone. Besides, even other corporations realize that consultants are needed to drive change. People may well be able to do their job as currently defined, but very few people are capable of redefining their job. People that smart (relative to the demands of their job) are either lazy or tend to go find another job that matches their skill level (elsewhere or via promotion). Thus, nearly every job tends to be filled with someone near the maximum of their ability or resting on their laurels. Neither type is going to drive change, so organizations stagnate and consultants are needed to fix things (i.e. increase efficiency, stop money being wasted). The public sector is especially prone to this, since promotion is often based on tenure and so go-getters get gone.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Russell Norman is fighting house prices (a welfare issue) but with only one arm as being a member of the left he isn’t allowed to attack immigration to which the Savings Working Group attributed the lions share of the blame for rising house prices.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Viking2 says:
This.
Same here… hardly a day goes by without someone in NZ asking me how to get a job over here (and WA alone will happily absorb 21,000 more hard working, productive Kiwis if the government does nothing about job creation) while I try to head the other way and find recruiters depressed about the short, medium and even long-term prospects, exacerbated by the new lowball-bidder-wins “all of government” recruitment process.
The only thing I’d add to Viking 2′s succinct summation of National’s fiddling while NZ burns is “tinkering round with the welfare system to fool the few remaining rubes who think no beneficiary wants to work and all they need to motivate them is greater depths of poverty”.
Fix the jobs machine first. Then push people into it.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
All beneficiaries by virtue of the fact that they are on a benefit, in the first place, have demonstrated that they can’t look after themselves and the best value for those paying for this IE: the Tax Payer is to, manage their finances for them, if they don’t like it or think they can do a better job, then relinquish the benefit and look after yourself. Lets start with No alcohol, no cigarettes, no drugs unless prescribed by a doctor, no takeaways of any kind, no fizzy drinks or chips, no motor vehicals,. Access to fresh fruit and vegetables and healthy alternatives, public transport, prepaid phones for emergencies.
Vote:What do you call people who give sexual favors to people, who have no intention of facing up to the consequences, for payment, State funded prostitutes.
As for that waste of space lifetime beneficiary sue on her backford. No more oxygen.
July 20th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Just watched the penny bright clip. No very bright at all, what a loser, achieved absolutely nothing.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Mr_Blobby suggests:
Don’t get out much? I’ve been on the unemployment benefit a few times. What that “demonstrated” was that two employers so mismanaged their businesses they closed down owing creditors and staff money (in one case I flew back from a business trip to Auckland to find tbe office locked and bereft of furniture, with no clue as to the whereabouts of the employer – that was my “notice”). I’d been prudent and had no debt, but I did have rent to pay and children to raise so had no choice but the demeaning, degrading queue at WINZ (though it wasn’t called that then).
Clearly those failed businessmen have demonstrated that they can’t look after a business, so on the basis of your theory, there is an even stronger argument that any of their future enterprises should be managed by a government bureaucrat.
I’m not denying that some beneficiaries don’t benefit from income management; many do. Many are even smart enough to know they do – when the Howard government introduced income management for Aboriginal people in the NT the east coast latte drinking establishment cried “racism”, but indigenous community leaders, in the main, welcomed the move.
What I object to is the implication that beneficiary = stupidity, particularly in a country whose government has no idea how to set about solving the employment crisis.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
The only thing I’d add to Viking 2′s succinct summation of National’s fiddling while NZ burns.
I think it’s only partly National’s fault (and that’s debatable). Are you suggesting they create more state employment? Or subsidise private job creation?
I think National are trying to address business activity and employment, but in very difficult financial times. Because it’s hard to get traction and it’s hardly changing it doesn’t get much media coverage.
Petitions and taniwha won’t create many jobs (but they do keep journalists employed).
What appears to happen on the surface and on the media circus is not a fair reflection of everything that’s being done, or at least what’s attempted. And quite a bit of what’s being done now is preparation for when the economy picks up.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
@Pete George
Certainly the worldwide economic situation is outside National’s control and that makes things only partly their fault. But as Viking 2 has alluded to, their inherent tendency (mirrored by Labour, and amplified in the Greens) to regulate and tax every aspect of our lives doesn’t help.
Nor does not having anything in place to encourage venture capital over property. Or research and development (leaving aside some excellent work done in our CRIs, I’m talking private sector R&D incentives such as those in Australia and elsewhere). The Budget could have provided more direct assistance to the small business sector and it did not provide any incentives to encourage innovation.
Technology Development Grants provide just 20% of an eligible firm’s R&D costs – Australia offers a 150% tax rebate on eligible R&D – where would you choose to site your lucrative high-tech start up? Plus the $3 million and above turnover threshold is far too high, as it rules out innovative tech start-ups and “man in a shed” ideas that may be worth support.
And in a contracting economy there is an argument to be made, not perhaps for expansion of the public sector, but that the effect on the economy of keeping public servants employed is less damaging than shedding them to the dole queue – or to the booming jobs market a short plane ride away. The time for public service cuts is when the economy is growing and there are unfilled positions in the private sector which they can fill.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Take your point Rex. I was not referring to occasional times when some assistance is required, a short term temporary backstop to help people get back up. But to the long term beneficiaries who have made it a life style choice.
Vote:Beneficiary = stupidity. I would really like to say yes to this one but I can’t, in all honesty. The first class citizens in our society are the beneficiaries, criminals, and anyone relying on the Government for an income. The second class citizens are the fools who work for a living and pay PAYE. The third class citizens are the stupid, who set up businesses and provide the means for everyone else. In all classes Maori are at the head of the queue.
Yes. Successive Governments have had no idea about how to solve pretty much anything. The default is to throw money at the problem. A spray and pray mentality.
In short there is no answer; we have gone too far down this road to turn back we will have to wait until the system is no longer affordable through taxation and borrowing.
There are some 30+ reasons why a businesses fail, the most common is undercapitalization, but I would also suggest that over taxation would have the biggest impact on cash flow.
July 20th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Looking forward to the round of protests.
Plenty of front page shots/breathless lead stories on the telly featuring beneficiaries who are outraged at the prospect of having to take some personal responsibility and abhore the notion that people who work and subsidise them are entitled to any measure of assurance that beneficiaries will try to help themselves.
Mummy and Daddy come home from work, turn on the telly and see this lot shouting, doing their silly street “theatre”, carrying their silly signs and chanting their silly rhymes. Perfect.
Vote:July 20th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Pete George (13,896) Says:
July 20th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
The only thing I’d add to Viking 2′s succinct summation of National’s fiddling while NZ burns.
I think it’s only partly National’s fault (and that’s debatable). Are you suggesting they create more state employment? Or subsidise private job creation?
I think National are trying to address business activity and employment, but in very difficult financial times. Because it’s hard to get traction and it’s hardly changing it doesn’t get much media coverage.
Petitions and taniwha won’t create many jobs (but they do keep journalists employed).
What appears to happen on the surface and on the media circus is not a fair reflection of everything that’s being done, or at least what’s attempted. And quite a bit of what’s being done now is preparation for when the economy picks up.
Sanctimonuos crap Pete.
Our tourisms two top most men this week have criticised what the govt. is doing and all Key(minister of Tourisn) could say was to support the person in charge. No saying well maybe we can do better and what do we need to do. Just tell those two to piss off back to their boardrooms. Key is a minister for a huge industry in NZ that would probably warrant two or three top people. Instead we have a part time minster who has 1000 other things to think about. He should give this up to an MP who is passionate about tourism or quit being PM and concentrate on tourism. Prime example of over inflated self importance.
We refuse to sort out our unions and refuse to repair the damage done to young people by dicrimination of their wage earning ability.
Just today we began discussing the possibility of having work produced in China because its just too hard here.
Every person who manufactures knows this.
The Govt fucking ignore it.
We don’t have a minsiter of Production, Manufaturing and Marketing to fight for companies. We have a bunch of useless lawyers arguing over fucking Treaty claims and rooting Kiwi’s along the way.
We have about 6 major industries in NZ. Milk and we don’t have a Minster who boots arse and looks after 25% of our export earnings. 25 fucking % of our income and we treat the industry like we can’t be bothered.
We don’t have a minister whose whole life is about forestry despite forestry being about our 2nd or third largest income earner.
We did have a Minister of Fisheries who was pasionate about the fishing. But Key decided he should do mining instead. Now, I’m sure he will do a good job cause he is a that kind of person but fishing was a passion for him.
We don’t have a Minister of Wine, a Minister of Meat, a Minister of Horticulture or a decent Minister of Science nor a Minister of IT, but we do have ministers of 50 other non event things.
We need exports to survive, do we have a policy or a minister with a passion to drive that. Hell no we have a Minister who is busy allowing our industries to be raped by Treaty. But again Key has an Advisor on Science. A one man band with his own narrow focus.
We have an RMA that requiers years to get anything done. We had (thank God) a stupid bloody Greeny who thought we should control the environment like you do in a hot house for growing tomatoes. Well that didn’t work and neither do lots of others because of this uneducated stupidity.
When are people like you Pete ever going to get angry enough to stand up for Kiwi’ s instead of sanctimonious politicans who are complete devoid of reality other than their own cloistered world?
Vote:Yep when Pete?
July 20th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Viking 2 – what you just said should be required reading at the Beehive. The Rugby World Cup warrants a Ministership but milk doesn’t… I hadn’t thought of commodities as needing separate Ministers but now you mention it, it seems like a damn good idea.
After all, WA has a Minister for Mines and Petroleum, who’s a very experienced and steady hand. There’s also one for Regional Development, plus a Minister Assisting, so the parts of the state that produce the revenue get plenty of attention.
Plus WA has “Royalties for Regions”, which ringfences part of the State budget and isnsists it must be spent on the areas that produce the wealth.
Now of course NZ doesn’t have mining royalties but if, as you say, 25% of our income is from dairying that suggests a damn sight more investment should be going into regional areas than is at present, developing their capacity to produce even more of our revenue.
Vote: