Kiwiblog

The NZ Herald wants the driving age raised even further:

This is a very conservative Government. If there was any doubt about the caution of John Key’s Cabinet it has been dispelled by its decision on the driving age.

Last year its transport officials floated the possibility of raising the age from 15 to 16 or 17 with restrictions until age 18. In January the Herald canvassed its readers on the subject.

The vast majority, 80 per cent of a Nielsen survey of 2300 people, thought the age should be at least 18. A few, 6.5 per cent, thought it should be 20. The Government’s decision: 16.

Personally I am glad the Government did not raise the age to 18 because of responses to an online survey.

I’ve always said tying it to the school leaving age is sensible,

The Dom Post says welfare is a safety net not a right

First it was Christchurch’s Harris family. Theirs is one of the homes into which the taxpayer deposits about $1000 a week in welfare benefits, and who have gained $30,000 extra in “special” benefits since 2000, because they persuaded Work and Income that they “needed” new tyres for their 2007 Chrysler saloon, and to fence a swimming pool at a property they own in the city.

Now it is Benjamin Easton, a man who cheerfully admitted last week that he was quite capable of earning, but who has chosen instead to live on the dole and rent a council flat. He was doing so, he said, so he could bring “the people’s challenge to the courts”

Benjamin will be having his say at Backbenches tonight, and of course he is also commenter here.

The Press examines South Canterbury Finance:

Since the company known today as South Canterbury Finance (SCF) made its first loan in 1926, it has grown to become one the largest finance companies in New Zealand.

Over this period it has played an important role in providing capital to businesses and individuals, especially in the South Island. Like so many other finance companies, however, SCF has struggled during the recent recession, and made a loss of $154.9 million in the second half of last year. But unlike many of these other companies, it is controlled by a millionaire in Allan Hubbard, who has the confidence and the means to produce a rescue package for SCF.

The deal announced this week is consistent with the commitment given by Hubbard last year when he said he would be prepared to use his personal wealth, which the National Business Review “rich list” put at $550m last year, to back his company. …

Hubbard is renowned not for high-living but for being a generous philanthropist and a businessman with integrity. And that integrity was visible this week in the rescue package for SCF and its 40,000 investors.

Give that man a knighthood!

The ODT is not impressed with Airways Corp:

Dunedin International Airport chief executive John McCall has every reason to be outraged after jet flights last Thursday night were diverted to Invercargill because no traffic controller was available.

Here is an essential service, supplied by the government-owned Airways Corporation, that did not deliver.

That failure not only inconvenienced 237 passengers and many of their friends and relatives, but also trashed the reputation of the airport and the city.

Diverting the passengers to Invercargill is surely cruel and inhumane punishment!

The Dom Post reports:

A unemployed man trying to stop Manners Mall from becoming a bus-only road says his dole has been cut after he admitted he had no intention of getting a job.

Activist Benjamin Easton, 49, also revealed he had not had a job interview since he went on the dole nearly three years ago.

He met Work and Income for a work test yesterday after telling The Dominion Post he was on the benefit deliberately so he could bring the “people’s challenge to the courts” and that he was “perfectly capable of earning”.

Mr Easton said last night he had received a letter from Work and Income telling him he did not meet eligibility criteria and his benefit had been stopped as of yesterday.

One hopes this is an isolated case, but who knows. The vast majority of people on the dole are looking for work, and would much rather be working. However what we don’t know if how big is that minority who see it as a lifestyle.

Mr Easton said losing the dole would force him to move out of his $135-a-week Wellington City Council flat. “If they knock me off [the benefit] I will go back to living on the street.”

No he is not being forced to live on the street. He is choosing to, because he has chosen not to make himself available for work.

The activist has taken cases on a range of issues including an Environment Court appeal against the council’s $11.1 million Manners Mall bus route project.

“If I don’t do this then there isn’t anybody else to do it. I am the only person who knows what it is I am talking about.”

Now that is quite possible!

The Dom Post reports:

Benjamin Easton, who has lodged an Environment Court appeal to stop Manners Mall being turned into a buses-only road, told The Dominion Post on Tuesday he was “deliberately and directly” on the dole so he could bring “the people’s challenge to the courts”.

“It is a sacrifice, really. I am perfectly capable of earning.”

No it is not a sacrifice to force taxpayers to fund your political activism.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said she was “appalled” by the comments, and Work and Income officials had called Mr Easton in for an immediate work test after reading them.

Good.

Mr Easton said he had been told to attend Work and Income at 9.30am today, but he was not worried about the potential threat to his benefit.

“I’ll take to them the information of what it is I’ve presented to court relative to the issues I’ve raised, and if anyone’s gainfully employed, it’s me. I’m working hard. The amount of hours I’ve put into these proceedings in the public interest is extraordinary.”

If Mr Easton thinks he is gainfully employed, then he does not need a benefit, so just cut it off.

To get the dole you need to be available for work and seeking work. He is neither.

Mr Easton – who has taken several cases on a range of issues – has lodged an appeal against Wellington City Council’s $11.1 million project to make Manners Mall a bus route.

Mediation is set for next week, but if it fails the resulting court action could cost the council up to $90,000. Last year, it spent $72,000 successfully defending Mr Easton’s High Court bid to stop the proposal.

The appeal is being taken on behalf of protest group The City is Ours, which has applied for legal aid.

I actually oppose the change to Manners Mall also, but I don’t want taxpayers funding the protest. Individuals should use their own resources to protest.

The row comes as Ms Bennett prepares new work-test rules that will see people on the dole lose their benefit after a year if they cannot show an honest attempt to find work.

“If you say, `well, actually, I haven’t done anything and I live deliberately and directly on the unemployment benefit so I can bring the people’s challenge to the courts and to the system’, then we will cancel your benefit.”

She is also planning compulsory work tests for sickness beneficiaries deemed fit to work part-time and domestic purposes beneficiaries whose youngest child is six.

Ms Bennett said she wanted a simplified system for work tests, with graduated sanctions rather than the current sole sanction of complete suspension or cancellation.

Can’t happen soon enough.

Colin Espiner reports:

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

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

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

This will be known as the Phil U policy on Kiwiblog

compulsory budgeting advice for beneficiaries who claim frequent grants,

Sensible.

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

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

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

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

Well that would be a good law change also.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s biggest home visiting programme is under review after researchers found its US counterpart failed to reduce child abuse.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has called for an evaluationof the former Labour Government’s flagship Family Start programme, which costs $29 million a year.

Ahem. That programme was not a Labour flagship. It was started by National in the late 1990s.

It follows the discovery by American researchers that Healthy Start in Hawaii – the model for the New Zealand version – did not prevent abuse, mainly because workers did not have enough training to recognise the danger signs and take action.

The researchers also found the strategy had shifted from home visitors identifying the key triggers of abuse – such as violence, drug and alcohol abuse and post-natal depression – to “strength-based” goal-setting by the families themselves.

One mother’s goal, approved by the home visitor, was “to be happy”.

Hmmn. I not conversant with the details of how it has morphed over time, but it used to be regarded very highly as making a real difference with some dysfunctional families. It sounds like they are skimping on training, and have gone a bit politically correct if it is now all about goal setting instead of identifying and preventing abuse.

Professor Anne Duggan, who led the research into Healthy Start and is working as a visiting specialist in Auckland, said New Zealand’s Family Start seemed to be “a wonderful resource for families” and she did not think it should be scrapped.

I would hope it is not scrapped also. If changes are needed, change them but the concept of a one stop support shop for families is I think a very sound one.

Oh and can some-one shoot the sub-editor:

FAMILY START
* Cost: $29 million a year
* Created by Labour in 1998
* Goal: Providing home-based support for families with high needs and identifying key triggers before problems occur.
* Problem: Lack of training to recognise danger signs of child abuse.
* Researchers found that Healthy Start in Hawaii, on which Family Start was based, did not prevent abuse and merely allowed families to set their own targets.

I can almost excuse a general assumption being wrong about which Government started it, but not knowing Labour was not Government in 1998 is inexcusable.

A good editorial from the Dom Post:

The Social Development Ministry appears to believe that the increases, which mirror international trends, are beyond its control. An investigation by the auditor-general found the ministry paid little more than lip service to changes made by the last government to improve the vetting of beneficiary claims and better prepare sickness and invalid beneficiaries for a return to full or part-time employment.

Extra staff had been hired and the wording of medical certificates changed to provide more information about claimants’ health, but the ministry had not established contact with many long-term beneficiaries, was not actively managing the cases of many of those who might be able to return to work, was not applying sanctions to beneficiaries who refused to co-operate, and was not monitoring the effectiveness of the changes.

And people wonder why so many are sceptical of the increase in numbers.

Perhaps the most damning of the auditor-general’s findings was that 24,000 people had been continuously on the sickness benefit for more than a year, despite it being intended for those with a “short-term medical condition”.

I suspect many of those 24,000 cite drug addiction as their sickness. I’d rather we fund them into treatment, rather than keep paying them the sickness benefit.

The majority of those on both benefits deserve public sympathy. But there is sufficient evidence of people slipping through the cracks in the system to suggest that numbers can be significantly reduced by more active case management. The department’s southern region office reduced the number of beneficiaries on its books by 134 in six weeks when it established a team to interview sickness beneficiaries aged between 25 and 49.

Superb.

For that reason, the recent indications that National ministers are preparing to implement their pre-election promise to make it tougher to sign up for and stay on both the sickness and invalid’s benefit are welcome. Those who are permanently incapacitated deserve all the help the state can offer. So do those taking their first tentative steps back into the workforce. Government plans to increase the amount long-term beneficiaries can earn from part-time work make sense.

However, a short-term medical condition, no matter how debilitating, is not a reason for a life of dependency.

Neither is being a solo parent.

Michael has avoided the “h” issue in his SST column and insteads talks welfare:

LAST week 70 NGOs – mostly voluntary and welfare agencies – met in Auckland to declare war on child poverty. But not in the Cameroon nor Colombia, Niue nor Nicaragua.

In good old New Zealand.

According to their later communique, chaired by Barnardo’s chief executive Murray Edridge, more than 220,000 Kiwi kids live in direct poverty as a result of their parents being dependent upon a welfare benefit. And because the value of a benefit “is way below the poverty level”, the NGO summit demanded an immediate increase, plus tertiary training incentives, and the provision of breakfast in all decile 1 and 2 schools.

The best thing is for a parent to move off the welfare benefit and into the workforce. New Zealand has a huge fiscal deficit and the notion that we can afford to pay people more money to not work is madness. We need more people in work.

“We want our kids to be barristers, not baristas!” declared chairwoman Ani Pitman. They didn’t want them doing “menial jobs”.

All that is wrong with New Zealand, the welfare system and NGOs was probably summarised in that last point. Better to be on the dole than in a menial job. Better being a criminal defender than a skilled worker. And if none of these options are immediately at hand then just give us more money.

Almost any job will make you better off than being on welfare. And not just about the money. I’ve worked as a cleaner to earn $1.99 an hour.

This calculated and continuing attack on the taxpaying workers of this country demands reply, not simply to respond to the silly sophistry of this latest gimme summit, but because it refuses to address the real cause of all child deprivation in this country: their parents.

There is not one child in this country who should be going to school without breakfast. If there is, then that is a mandatory call to CYF. Clearly, the parent or parents are unworthy of the name.

Similarly, if the welfare benefit is not enough to house, feed and clothe your kiddies then there are two possibilities. First, the parents in the equation are smoking, drinking, gambling or huffing the taxpayer money intended for their children. Or, second, that their boyfriends are. Either way, it is testimony of child abuse and neglect, not child poverty.

Laws over-generalises here, but his point is basically sound. There are times when a family does get hit with an exceptionally large one expense such as a medical or dental bill. However there are grants and loans from WINZ to cover such situations. The welfare system does not give a life of luxury, but it is certainly enough for the vast majority of families on it to give their kids breakfast. Breakfast does not cost a lot. it is about priorities.

Except for those permanently incapacitated by injury or mental illness, the welfare benefit is a bridge. From independence to independence, not from sob story to lifestyle. That the summit NGOs don’t get this is the reason why NGOs exist: to create a need and then to amplify it.

And for those permanently incapacitated, I don’t think we do enough.

Yes, it’s true that New Zealand has more unskilled labour than we have jobs. But even those unskilled and I use my council’s litter and graffiti teams as an example perform valuable community service. They are probably of greater value to my city than the entire legal fraternity. But, according to the summit, these are unworthy and menial occupations.

Heh. Poor lawyers. Always picked on.

This country’s welfare system does not deliver poverty. Rather it rescues people from it. It is generous on any international scale and probably to a fault. And it is neither the cause nor the solution of our country’s underprivileged, undernourished and underloved children.

That exclusive responsibility rests with the people who brought them into the world, and the people responsible for their ongoing “care”. This country has too many crap parents. End of story. Until we start facing that reality, we will continue to blight the lives of those we most profess to care for.

Hard to disagree with that conclusion, even though I am sure many will try.

Vernon Small at the Dom Post writes:

More than 9700 families receiving Working for Families credits own rental properties and are using losses on them to boost the amount they get from the taxpayer.

Other recipients of the scheme, introduced to help struggling families, are using trading companies, sheltered within trusts, to pocket tax credits even though they are earning well over $70,000, a high-powered review of the tax system has found.

Ipods for everyone!

The Herald reports:

Hundreds of state beneficiaries are receiving payments totalling more than $1000 a week.

The top 50 recipients face an audit of their entitlements ordered by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. …

They include a couple with 10 children who get $1200 a week. Both parents have been on the unemployment benefit for more than 15 years.

$1,200 a week is their net income. This is equivalent to a salary of $86,000 a year or $1,657 a week gross.

It is likely over their time on the benefit, they have had the equivalent of over a million dollars.

90% of parents choose to restrict the size of their families to what they can afford. People make rational decisions on whether they can afford a third or a forth child. There is no simple answer, but most Kiwis would be aghast at paying two parents the dole for 15 years, during which time they have 10 kids. Now there may be something unique to their circumstances, but the fact they are on the dole not the sickness, invalids or dpb suggests something very wrong. How can anyone be on the dole for 15 years?

There’s been heaps written about Paula Bennett but I can understand where she’s coming from. She’s escaped into a new world. A better world for her and the whanau. She’s broken the dependency cycle.

Her daughter though is taking the old world with her and that’s all I will say on that matter judging that decision.  Than there must be relief today in the papers that her and the “baby Daddy” have broken up.  For now anyway.

The point of that comment is that Paula Bennett now earns $200,000 a year+, wears suits, gets free travel and has status in society. Wicked for her and I’m pleased for her. But when your kid has got a problem, money can’t necessarily solve the problem, but it is better than being broke. Much better than being broke.

Bennett has connections now. She can get the father of her grandbaby help inside.  She can help him when she gets out.  Or not if she wants.

Bennett’s story is an exception. Although she’s a “rolemodel”, most of us will never get there. We won’t be so lucky. We are looking to Paula to deal with many issues. She’s going to fail because the issues are so massive.

1. Like reigning in the deadbeat Dads and making the public get down on them as much if not more than us.

2. Like making people realise that individual responsibility and choice is all fine and good, but try doing that with three kids, ill parents, and generations of debt, failure and dependency.

3. Like making those of us on welfare wonder why families in NZ earning income we can only dream of, are also receiving welfare in the form of working for families?

That’s a good point. Welfare is for people who genuinely need it. I can live off my income from the state, why can’t a family with only one kid live off theirs that is twice or three times mine? Why are they now a beneficiary?  They are like us.

Paula Bennett has done really well for herself. But if another middle class, well-dressed person asks me why all of us can’t be like Paula, I will scream!

I have three kids. I have no one to turn to in order to look after them while I am either at training or working. I’d love to go work with adults, speaking adult and not baby. I can’t afford childcare so what do you do? If someone looked after my kids during the day I wouldn’t need an excuse, I’d work again. While it’s not fun to work in a low wage job, it is what adults do and I can’t wait until my children are at school and old enough to let me get back in there.

I have to say that I am gaining very very different impressions of the two women involved in the issue of the cutting of the TIA allowance and the release of their total income from taxpayers.

Jennifer Johnston has really impressed me with her sincerity, attitude and arguments. The Herald reports:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has asked her officials to look into setting up a loan to help solo parents cover their extra study costs.

The suggestion came during a phone call yesterday to Jennifer Johnston, one of two solo mothers whose details she released after they spoke out about her decision to cut the Training Incentive Allowance for tertiary level courses. …

She said she would take Ms Johnston up on an offer to join her for coffee when she was next in Invercargill.

Ms Johnston said she also apologised to Ms Bennett. “I was pretty angry yesterday. I don’t bear her any ill will.”

She said Ms Bennett had listened carefully to her case but also made it clear she could not promise anything.

“I run a family, she runs a department, but my family has a budget just like her department and at times I have to make financial decisions that are unpopular. Sometimes the people I’m responsible for, my children, will come to me and say, ‘Mum, how about we do it this way?’ Sometimes I can compromise and sometimes I can’t – that’s the reality of having a budget. I don’t know what will come out of our conversation but at the very least I know my minister heard my concerns.”

She brushed off concerns about privacy, saying it was not hard to find out what level of benefits a woman in her situation would be entitled to.

I made a similar point on radio yesterday. Most benefit information is a matter of public record. You just can’t calculate it to the exact dollor without knowing what someone’s rent is etc.

But as I said, kudos to Ms Johnston for her positive advocacy and constructive suggestion re expanding loans, rather than a grant.

I have to say that things are rather murkier with Ms Fuller. First of all is the fascinating revelation that she had her benefit information disclosed by Labour in 2007:

The single mother who is taking Paula Bennett to the Privacy Commission for releasing her income details has had her income disclosed publicly before – by Labour in 2007 and by herself on a Trade Me message board last week. …

Ms Fuller listed some of her entitlements on a Trade Me message board under her user name thehappyhocker last week, before Ms Bennett provided the information to the Herald.

Good to see the media pick up on the Trade Me disclosures for they are very relevant.

Ms Fuller’s income had also been used by the Labour Party in 2007 as an example of the success of its policies. She said she had given permission for then social development minister David Benson-Pope to use the information after she set up a cleaning business with an enterprise allowance.

In his speech, Mr Benson-Pope lists her total support from the state as $180.50, including an accommodation supplement of $91, a family tax credit of $69.50, and another $20 a week from Working for Families.

What is especially interesting to me, is what links (if any) Ms Fuller has to Labour. Often people trumpeted by Labour as sucess stories are Labour Party members and activists. This may not be the case, but it often is. And it all comes down to whether there has been appropriate disclosure.

A thread started by Ms Fuller on the Trade Me message boards also has some alarming allegations in it. Also a huge amount of abuse (some from other people on the DPB) – enough to make a general debate thread on Kiwiblog look like a polite conversation.

Dave at Big News blogs on some of the allegations. They include claims of boasting on Facebook of spending $200 on CDs in a month etc. If the claims are correct, Labour may once again be regretting their choice of champion.

And in another thread he blogs on posts by Fuller where she admits to living with her partner while getting the benefit, and knowing what she did was wrong.

And for those who think this is Big Brother, all Dave has done is catalogue posts made voluntarily by Fuller on the Internet.

The Herald reports:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is facing a complaint under the Privacy Act for disclosing the amounts two solo mothers have received in benefits – but last night she remained unrepentant.

One of the mothers said she will complain to the Privacy Commissioner after Ms Bennett provided the Herald with details of the state support she and another had received. The Labour Party also plans to lodge a complaint with the commissioner.

Ms Bennett disclosed the women’s weekly incomes after the pair – Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston – objected to the Government’s decision to stop the Training Incentive Allowance for solo parents doing tertiary level study.

The statement that Fuller and Johnston merely “objected” to the decision doesn’t cover in fact what they were doing. This was not a case where they just gave their views for a newpaper story. I’ll return to this later. First what does the Privacy Commissioner say:

By releasing a large amount of personal information to the media, the individual is taking the risk that unfavourable publicity could result. If the Minister releases only information which is relevant to the issues raised by the individual, that person may not be able to claim that any particular harm was caused by the Minister’s disclosure rather than by the individual’s own disclosure. If the individual is not harmed, there would not be an interference with the individual’s privacy under section 66 of the Privacy Act.

So had Fuller and Johnston merely stated their view on the TIA decision, or were they putting out there a lot of personal informtion about themselves.

First there was the fullpage spread in the HoS. One quote is:

“The DPB is a living, for which my children and I have been very grateful. But it does not afford an ability to save for these sorts of extra expenses.

How can the public judge whether or not there is an ability to save, unless you know how much welfare is being paid to the person. This was a clear opening of the door. But there is more.

And Labour in the House opened the door also:

Darien Fenton: What does the Minister say to sole parent Natasha Fuller, who says her dreams of becoming an early childhood teacher have been squashed by the Government’s decision, and who feels that all the efforts she has put into training so far have been for nothing, because she cannot afford to further her studies without the assistance of the training incentive allowance?

A clear statement that study was unaffordable (even with interest free student loans). Again this opens the door.

We also have these statements from Fuller on the well read Trade Me Forums. She is the Happy Hocker and said:

no o stirer, im a fellow dpb mum, if u read the link its me they are talking about, I was shocked when this came up today as i get disabilty allowance and max in our area of $110 accom supplement and a very very long wayyyyy off $1000, wanted to send this thread to bennat as proof, and a few other mps that are very supportive

So Fuller is openly talking about her personal informaton such as getting a disability allowance and how much her accom supplement is. And as it happens in terms of gross income it transpires she is almost getting $1,000 a week.

And again she talks about her income and costs here:

i bet thats because they pay high rents, mine is $110 and i pay $280 rent but in cambridge, so its really not like its free cash its eatine up, considering my standard benifit with 3 kids is $260 then i get wff and $30 disability which would barly cover the costs of my meds, hospital trips etc

Here she clearly suggests she is getting only $400 a week plus WFF. In fact it is $715 a week. So again this is not the case of someone having their circumstance revealed just because they got interviewed in a newspaper and said they did not like the decision.

There was also a Facebook campaign page set up, which is now hidden from view. But there is also this campaign website.

Now I should make clear that I think it is a good think the two women want to access tertiary education and have a path off the benefit. Good on them. But with interest free student loans and childcare subsidies, it is not a given that it is impossible to undertake study while on welfare. And if they claim it is impossible for them to do so, then the public (who fund both their welfare payments and their tertiary studies) are entitled to have relevant information to assess that claim.

And an equivalent annual gross income of $46,700 for an adult and three kids, while not comfortable, is probably more than many tertiary students could imagine having while studying.

And if one is going to put yourself out as not receiving enough support from the state, it is also relevant to have revealed that just two years ago you gained a $9560 enterprise grant.

Anyway that is my view. What do others say. The NZ Herald editorial says Bennett was right:

The crux of this issue is whether the information now released by Ms Bennett is relevant to their case, or merely an attempt to intimidate, as critics say. The two women claim genuine financial hardship is thwarting their prospects of escaping the benefit and building a career. The total amount they receive from the state must, therefore, be relevant.

Absolutely. And they conclude:

The upshot will not be that people stop speaking out or that the Government escapes criticism. It will be that all information relevant to an issue is more likely to be put before the public at the outset.

Labour seem determined to stand up for the right of peopel to demand more money from taxpayers without revealing all relevant information.

John Armstrong notes Bennett’s strong performance in the House:

In recent months, however, the self-proclaimed Westie has undergone a Pygmalion-like transformation from a rough-around-the-edges ministerial tyro to a more assured, informed and more confident parliamentary performer who is now much more to grips with her vast Social Development portfolio.

One journalist even reported a while back that Bennett often came off better than Annette King in their encounters. And King is a parliamentary veteran.

In Parliament yesterday, Bennett cited the Privacy Commissioner’s guidelines. She said those showed it could be the case that people going to the media were giving ministers “implied” consent to discuss their personal circumstances. But she added defensively: “This is not something we will be making a practice of.”

The reply drew scorn from Labour MPs. A liberal interpretation of the guidelines, however, might suggest Bennett may be right.

Colin Espiner blogs:

But Bennett’s office has been getting increasingly frustrated that the coverage the women have been getting in the media hasn’t included exactly what the pair already receive courtesy of the taxpayer.

Now, the usual way of dealing with this is to quietly slip the details out to a friendly journalist, or suggest someone ask a question that would reveal the information. Let’s be clear here that Labour did this all the time. It’s standard practice.

A useful reminder.

But Bennett went the more open route. She had her staff release the information openly. So for the record, Fuller gets $715 after tax a week from the Government, and Johnston $554. Both are receiving an allowance for pre-degree study.

Fuller also got $9560 under an enterprise allowance to start a cleaning business, which failed because of illness.

The point of releasing the women’s details was to show that they’re already getting pretty hefty benefits – probably more than many working families.

But Colin warns:

I can understand Bennett’s frustration. She’s getting boxed about the ears by a couple who clearly haven’t been telling the full story about their personal situations.

HOWEVER. Ministers have to be extremely careful about using the power of their office to come down on pesky complainants like a tonne of bricks. Bennett has extraordinary access to beneficiaries’ private lives through the Ministry of Social Development.

The concern with something like this is that it sends the message that if you criticise the Government, it will hit you back 10 times as hard. And while I think actually that this information WAS relevant in this case, I’m not sure it was up to the minister’s office to release it.

Personally I would have asked the two women to reveal the info themselves, and then consider releasing it if they don’t – or if they continue to only put part of the story out there.

I also would have had a lawyer give me a written opinion that the release was within the law. It looks like it is, but I am very risk averse and would want it in writing beforehand.

Bill Ralston also blogs:

Bennett, unimpressed by their arguments that she considered selectively left out some valuable financial facts, published figures showing their full income from the state including benefits and allowances.

Cue roars of outrage. Ms Fuller was “astonished”. Ms Johnston was “flabbergasted”. Green MP Sue Bradford called it “beneficiary bashing”. How dare Minister Bennett make public their financial information without getting their permission?

Hang on.

Johnston and Fuller had already taken some of their financial information public when they talked to the media, established a website and blogged about it.

In other words, they did open the door.

The rules are simple and Ms Johnston and Ms Fuller need to understand them.

* (1) If you stand up in public and make a statement, be prepared to have someone contradict you. That’s democracy.

* (2) If you stick your nose into a political fight, someone is likely to bloody it.

* (3) The public, to which you have just appealed, has the right to hear all the facts, not just the ones you chose to reveal.

He concludes:

These two women chose to exercise their democratic right and criticise the Government. Good on them. But to expect the Government not to criticise them back is just plain stupid.

If someone starts a debate they should expect there to be facts and arguments produced that may be detrimental to their position. Once again, that’s what happens in a democracy.

No one is trying to demean the women. I applaud their feisty response to the Government’s cuts but they can hardly expect to be treated with kid gloves by the media if they deliberately enter a partisan political argument.

Tracy Watkins thinks however Bennett has opened a can of worms:

Paula Bennett has opened a can of worms. By releasing the income details of women who spoke out against cuts to the Training Incentive Allowance she has backed herself into a corner.

Ministers have always been able to shelter behind the defence that they do not comment on individual cases. Neither Bennett – nor any other minister for that matter – can offer that as a credible response from now on. A precedent has been set.

That may be a good or a bad precedent!

This morning, Bennett reacted to the furore by releasing advice from the Privacy Commissioner on the circumstances in which a minister is justified in releasing personal information. My reading of it suggests that Bennett breached the rules though that is probably debateable.

The Commissioner will rule in due course no doubt. If she does rule there was a breach, then Bennett will get considerable stick, and of course have to apologise.

I think the extra information they were putting out on the Internet about their circumstances means it was justified, but again it is the Privacy Commissioner’s decision that counts.

The Herald reports:

Details of state benefits received by two solo mothers have been made public by the Government after the pair criticised cutbacks to a training allowance. …

The information provided by Ms Bennett’s office shows Ms Fuller receives $715 net a week and Ms Johnston $554. Both are getting the allowance for pre-degree study. Ms Fuller gets $28 a week. She also got the allowance from 2004 to 2006, and in 2006-07 was given $9560 under an Enterprise Allowance to start a cleaning business. She said yesterday this had since closed because she had ongoing illness problems.

I think it is good the Government is disclosing the relevant information, after Labour again put case studies up.

Incidentially Labour Ministers used to do this also sometimes, and I supported them doing the same.

The $715 a week benefit is equal to a job with an annual salary of $46,700 a year. And the $554 a week equal to a job with an annual salary of $35,800 a year.

It is not a life of luxury, but it is a not an insignificant amount of money. $46,700 is well above the median wage.

I blogged this morning on the case of Bruce Burgess, as reported in the Herald, and said there were questions about how one is facing losing a property you purchased in 1989, because of a job loss four months ago.

Well either as a result of that post, or by coincidence, the Herald has updated their story and answered some of the questions. We now learn:

Mr Burgess told the Herald today the couple own two properties in Auckland – a house in Papakura and an apartment in central Auckland purchased “in 2004 or 2005″ – but they were not currently returning any money.

This is presumably on top of the lifestyle block in Helensville. So the story now is that if you lose your job, and own three properties, you may have to give one of them up.

He said he paid about $385,000 for the Papakura property, though it was now worth about $340,000.

The apartment was purchased for “$260-something”, but he did not know the current market value.

So assuming the lifestyle block is worth at least $500,000 their propoerty assets come to over a million dollars.

But about four months ago, Mr Burgess – whose case was brought to the Herald’s attention by the Labour Party – lost his Avondale-based engineers job – and with it a $750-a-week paycheck.

And this was not disclosed in the earlier story. Now did Labour disclose to the Herald that Burgess owned three properties? Either Labour or Mr Burgess did not think this was relevant, or they did disclose it and the NZ Herald did not think it was relevant.

This is exactly why so many people are cynical about trusting what they read in the media. The Herald took a Labour planted story and ran it without checking the facts or even putting it through a logic check.

And Labour have shown us exactly what their priority is for all the money their pixies are printing. It is to give out welfare to a couple where one partner is working, and they have over $600,000 of investment properties.

This is not turning into a good week for Phil Goff. It seems he literally does advocate welfare for millionaires.

We see from this Twitter shot, that the story was obviously part of a Labour comms campaign. Goff twttering on it this morning, and asking questions in the House. So did Goff know this couple actually owns three propoerties worth around $1.4 million when he held them up as an example of why we should pay the dole to everyone?

I think Whale pointed out a couple of days ago TVNZ were running figures with the source being Labour. I hope they checked the figures before running with them.

UPDATE2: And it gets even worse for Labour. Duncan Garner blogs:

Labour has been dealing with Burgess for days over his plight and Goff has just given a vein-popping performance about poor old Bruce in Parliament.

“Why,” Goff asks, “should poor old Bruce be missing out?”

Why should 60-year-old Bruce lose his lifestyle block because his wife earns too much  for him to qualify for the dole?

Well, let me tell you what Phil Goff won’t tell you.

Bruce Burgess also owns two other rental properties on top of his lifestyle block. Burgess appears to have never told the Herald this.

But he did tell Goff. Oh yes. He told the Labour Party about his financial situation alright.

He told Labour he owned three properties. It’s just that Labour never told the media. Phil Goff never told the full story in Parliament about Burgess.

Labour did know about the other two properties. They told a deceptive story to the media and held this situation up as the poster child for their campaign. Shabby, shabby, shabby.

The Herald reports on the sad case of Bruce Burgess, who has lost his job and risks losing his property.

I find the story frustrating because it does not provide enough information to properly reach conclusions. I should say at he outset that Mr Burgess and his wife seem wonderful people, in a very difficult position. My questions are not a criticism of them, just what springs to mind from the story.

A Helensville man is wondering how, after a life spent working, saving and paying his mortgage, he can be in danger of losing his property just months after losing his job.

Bruce Burgess, 60 years old and a qualified engineer, has been busy his entire adult life.

Aside from a couple of years overseas in the early 1970s, he has worked, paid his taxes and saved his money.

His wife Jo has held down regular work as an office administrator and accounts person.

Neither of them smoke, they don’t take extravagant holidays, and drink only occasionally.

They do regular community and church work and have never been on any type of welfare benefit, save for Mr Burgess’s short stint on ACC about seven years ago.

As I said, sound a wonderful couple.

In 1989, the couple bought a 2.5ha lifestyle block on Old North Rd. They moved on to the property in 1992.

My first question is how much does such a lifestyle block cost? I genuinely have no idea. Was it a $200,000 purchase or a $800,000 purchase?

Since then, the pair have tended the sheep, chooks and fruit trees, all the while working at steady jobs to cover the mortgage. They have also worked to protect a stand of native bush, and have put a house on the property.

But about four months ago, Mr Burgess lost his Avondale-based engineers job – and with it a $750-a-week paycheck.

That works out to around $51,800 a year gross.

To make matters worse, Mrs Burgess’ income – which totals about $21,000 a year – makes the couple ineligible for any type of unemployment benefit.

Which suggests their joint income was around $73,000 a year gross.

And my God it will be damn near impossible to cope with dropping back to $21,000 a year.  Possibly they may be eligible to get the Accommodation Supplement which is an extra $125 a week, but still not much.

“I was told that because the wife was working, I couldn’t get any [benefit],” Mr Burgess said yesterday. He now fears he will “soon” lose the lifestyle block the couple have worked 20 years to build – possibly within the next couple of months.

This is the part, where I don’t have enough information. They have presumably had 20 years of paying off the mortgage. Over that time the principal remaining should be greatly reduced, and the value of the property greatly increased. So I would have thought one could borrow against the property for the months you are out of work.

So while very sympathetic to their situation, I can’t work out what caused the situation where four months of unemployment can force the sale of a house purchased 20 years ago. If it was a more recent purchase, then it would not be a surprise. But normally 20 years of repayments should give you flexibility with the bank.

Regardless I hope Mr Burgess is successful in finding work soon, and they keep their property.

The Business Roundtable has published a paper by Lindsay Mitchell on “Maori and Welfare. It isn’t necessarily BRT policy, but published to encourage debate – which is excellent. We need more, not less, policy debates.

Mitchell has found that Maori were not always over-represented in negative statistics:

One of the few areas for which long-term Maori statistics were kept is crime. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Maori (defined as people having half or more Maori ancestry) made up 5 percent of the population. In 1898, 22,752 charges
were heard before magistrates and only 2.3 percent were against people of the “aboriginal native race”.

And this situation continued for many decades. Then:

By 1957, the Maori share of offences tried in the Supreme Court was 18 percent, but in just five years it climbed to 23 percent.5 In 1959, Maori made up 25 percent of the boys admitted to the correctional Owairaka Boys’ Home in Auckland. By 1969, the proportion had risen to 70 percent, and by 1978 it was 80 percent.6 By 1961, the Maori arrest rate for 15 year-olds and older was almost 5 times the non- Maori rate.7 Young Maori migrating from rural to urban settings were no longer
under the control of their elders. Young urban Maori increasingly joined emerging groups such as the Mongrel Mob and Black Power.

She quotes James Belich:

People avoid crime, not primarily because it is illegal, but because of the disapproval of those that matter to them – in the traditional, rural Maori case, the kin group.

Lindsay goes on to make a link to welfare policies being responsible for some of the problems, especially the DPB. A not inconsiderable number of Maori have said the same at various times. Now many will disagree with Lindsay, but I suggest you at least read her report – it is only 40 pages.

Mitchell states her view on welfare:

There exists an extreme view that the state has no role at all in welfare provision. It is not one I share. Nevertheless, the state should limit its involvement to that of providing a safety net of last resort. Self and family responsibility must come first. Middle class welfare – the provision of cash or services to those who can afford to meet their own needs – must be avoided. Welfare reforms that deter people from behaving in detrimental ways because there is no perceived risk should be made with those basics in mind.

I broadly agree with that proposition. Welfare should be trgeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.

Lindsay then makes six recommendations:

1. replace the DPB with temporary assistance only (max one year);
2. replace state-funded unemployment benefits with private unemployment insurance;
3. tighten eligibility for sickness and invalid benefits;
4. consider assistance-in-kind and income management as stop-gap measures only;
5. consider privatising income support delivery to improve efficiency and incentives and allow for Maori ownership;
6. consider empowering employment entrepreneurs, and increased use of loans and opting-out as features of a future safety net system.

I do support reforms along the lines of what Clinton did, with a maximum time you can spend on a benefit. They have been a huge success. I think restricting the DPB to one year only though is impractical. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 are worth exploring. The status quo is not exactly producing great results, and we should be open to looking at can we get better outcomes by doing it differently.

This is where I am a bit disappointed by the Government’s response:

Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.

Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said none of the ideas were on the agenda for the Government.

It would be nice if the response was that while the proposals were not current policy, we will at least read and consider the report, and respond to it after due consideration. As I said, the status quo is nothing to be proud of.

The Herald reports:

Two economists are calling for a fundamental rewrite of New Zealand’s welfare system because of the numbers of people being made redundant who can’t get the dole because their partners are still working.

When I read this, I thought to myself that I bet one of the economists is Susan St John.

Dr Susan St John of Auckland University and Keith Rankin of Unitec say the system is based on “outmoded social concepts” such as assuming that everyone lives in single-income families where dad goes out to work and mum stays home with the children.

I don’t think the system is based on those assumptions. I think a change with what Dr St John proposes would be both unaffordable and inefficient – it would be more middle class welfare and tax churning.

Going from two to one incomes is not nice, and many families struggle I am sure. But that can’t be compared to a zero income family. The unemployment benefit is for families where neither partner is (significantly) working.

The Government already has massive deficits and debt. This is the silliest time to be proposing making it worse – in my opinion. Any extra welfare payments have to be borrowed and eventually paid back by future taxpayers.

National announced yesterday the relief package for those who lose their jobs during this period of global recession. It is up to $160 a week for 16 weeks for those with high accommodation costs.

Strangely one of the criticisms from Labour has been people who get a redundancy payout of over $25,000 will not be eligible.

Labour really don’t get this concept of limited funds, so you target to the most needy. But hey it is good to see Labour concerned about those who get redundancy payouts equal to one year on the minimum wage or seven months on the average wage.

National has released its transitional relief package, to be funded out of the deposit guarantee to banks. Details:

• Assistance will be available until they get another job and their circumstances improve, or for up to 16 weeks (Labour is 12 weeks)
• National’s relief package will initially be available for two years (Labour’s is permanent)
• Targeted at people who lose their jobs, and as a result either go on to a benefit or rely on the income of a relatively low-paid spouse or partner, in contrast to Labour’s relief package, which includes payments to people who are made redundant yet have a well-paid spouse and limited outgoings.
• If a family loses eligibility for the Working for Families in-work tax credit ($60 a week for most families) due to redundancy, then they will be able to keep it for 16 weeks. This means that you don’t ave both your wages disappear and your WFF reduce at the same time.
• Also the maximum Accommodation Supplement will be increased for eligible families by $100 a week for 16 weeks.

National has given three examples of how different families would do under National and Labour’s packages:

Low paid sole parent of $35K with one child

Current Weekly Net Income $712 a week
Redundant under National $541 a week
Redundant under Labour $425 a week

One income family of $70K with two children

Current Weekly Net Income $1,077 a week
Redundant under National $778 a week
Redundant under Labour $618 a week

Two income family of $200K with no children

Current Weekly Net Income $2,684 a week
Redundant under National $1,342 a week
Redundant (one not both) under Labour $1,649 a week

So National’s package will help the sole parent family on low income and the mid income family with two children, while Labour’s will not help them at all. And in contrast National won’t help the couple with no kids who are still on $100K, while Labour will give them over $300 a week.

If the calculations are correct (and they are taken from National’s policy paper) then I would say National has targeted it a lot better.

A reader helpfully left a message on my cellphone telling me to read the story on Page A8 of the Herald carefully, about someone voting Labour because they have allowed him to be on welfare for five years.

I thought he had it wrong, but sure enough we go to this article on how some immigrants are voting and get:

Indian immigrant B. Mohan said his support for Labour stemmed from the party’s “number-one welfare policies” which had helped him to “survive five years of unemployment”.

“The National Party and its millionaire leader, John Key, will never be able to understand the poor, and we cannot trust the rich politicians who listen to consultants rather than their hearts,” said Mr Mohan, who has been without a job since moving to New Zealand in 2003.

I skim read the article early this morning and missed the significance of this. He has been without a job for five years, since he moved here in 2003. What an indictment on our welfare system.

With the lowest unemployment in the world almost, Mr Mohan has not managed to find any work at all in 250 weeks. How preposterous. And no wonder he is supporting Labour – he knows he won’t have five years on the dole under National.

John Armstrong has some advice for Labour:

Labour, however, is consumed with slapping the “hidden agenda” label on Key and company. That tactic does not work if National’s agenda is the same as Labour’s.

Key is countering the hidden agenda charge bit by bit with trust-building promises. The first was his promise to resign as prime minister if National alters state-funded superannuation. His latest assurance is to promise to take a bill to Parliament to make it mandatory on governments to inflation-adjust benefit rates each April. This is code for saying National will not be repeating Ruth Richardson’s 1990 benefit cuts.

Likewise his belief in and “personal commitment” to the welfare state – made in the week that Labour was marking the 70th anniversary of the groundbreaking legislation underpinning it. Key’s endorsement flows from his state house upbringing. But such a hand-on-heart declaration from a National leader would have been unthinkable just a short time ago.

On top of these assurances, Key could not cut benefits even if he wanted to. MMP has put paid to such unilateral acts by one party.

This makes a nonsense of Labour’s scaremongering. But there seems to be little recognition of this rather large obstacle. So Labour keeps hammering the fear factor.

Maybe that should be Labour’s campaign theme – Fear Factor

The Press says National’s Benefits Policy is a good start.

It is widely accepted now that long-term dependency on welfare benefits should be avoided where possible, writes The Press in an editorial.

Numberless studies have shown that while any benefit system worth the name must provide a safety net for those in genuine need, staying on a benefit for a long time is not good, by many measures, for society or individuals.

Indeed those who move from welfare to work gain the most from it, yet of course some call it beneficiary bashing.

The policy proposed by National this week, which would alter some of the incentives currently in place, has been, perhaps predictably, denounced by Labour as a return to the policies of the 1990s and an attack on beneficiaries. It is hardly either of those things, although how effective some of the proposals would be and how they would work in practice may be open to question.

Labour would label a ham sandwich as a return to the policies of the 1990s, if National made it. It is their focus group tested slogan to be applied to everything.

The proposal that single parents on a benefit should at some point have an obligation to begin to look for work, if implemented, would not be extreme. Indeed, it would put New Zealand more in the mainstream of welfare thinking around the world.

It is Labour who is at the extremes with their policy.

A later OECD study, addressing the notion that allowing single parents to stay out of paid work benefited their children, reiterated the organisation’s belief that it was in the best interests of all, including single-parent families, to engage in paid work as this was the most effective way to reduce the risk of family poverty, enhance child development and give children the best possible start in life.

So why is Labour against reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development and giving children the best possible start in life?

The test of any policy is, of course, how it would work in practice and this policy still needs to be fleshed out. As with the work tests that Labour has introduced for the unemployment benefit, there would be increased administrative costs with National’s proposals and it is unlikely that any large savings would be made. If, however, it is likely the long-term social results would be beneficial, as the OECD suggests they would, then the proposals deserve consideration rather than kneejerk dismissal.

Indeed.

A wide range of reactions to National’s Benefits Policy. Taking them in no particular order.

Bll Ralston displys his outraged liberal roots and agrees with Helen Clark that it is beating up on single parents:

Frankly, less than 4000 adhering to the government breast on a more or less permanent basis is extremely few. In an effort to eradicate these last few bludgers, as it sees them, National will spend many millions of dollars in bureaucratic terms policing its new “back to work” system, counselling the DPB recipients and ensuring they really are making a buck for themselves.

Colin Espiner blogged yesterday and calls it Don-lite – watered down from Don Brash, but still different from Labour. He concludes:

There will be the usual objections from beneficiary advocates but National’s welfare policy won’t lose it any votes and may even pick up a few. It will be interesting to see how Labour responds. My pick is it won’t have too much to say.

Simon Collins has a useful look at the party differences:

It [Labour] believes the welfare state exists to empower those who would be powerless without it. For sole parents, the domestic purposes benefit gives them the power to leave unhappy or abusive relationships, and to balance paid work and unpaid parenting in the ratio that suits them and their children.

In contrast National, as John Key put it yesterday, believes in “a genuine safety net in times of need”. It thinks people should be moved on as quickly as possible.

I don’t think National in beliefs or policy encourages people to stay in abusive relationships. The DPB still exists. The difference is, having once moved out, whether or not one is forced to seek work at some stage, or can you stay on it for a decade without ever seeking a part-time job? But Collins is right the views are seen as “empowerment” vs “safety net”.

As his [Key's] policy pointed out, New Zealand’s refusal to work-test sole parents is now out of line with all Western countries except Australia, Britain and Ireland, all of which have signalled moves to start work-testing.

Yes, as with the 90 day trial period policy, this is standard practice in the developed world.

Collins also has quotes from various advocacy groups:

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, an invited guest at the policy launch, said making parents work part-time made sense, but only if implemented with discretion.

“We’d want to make sure that the work requirements are within school hours and not within the school holidays. Otherwise we are going to have a lot of unsupervised kids.”

Case Managers will need some discretion.

Another guest, Mercy Mission founder Barbara Stone, said she agreed with the work requirement “as long as it’s in school time and there is someone at home for the children for the rest of the time”. She said it was hard to get jobs for sole parents, who often had low self-esteem.

The focus should be on work during school hours only. But a part-time initial job may boost the self-esteem and confidence so that a full or near full-time job is easier to obtain once the kid or kids are older. Having a total break from the workforce for 10 years makes it much harder.

Housing Lobby spokeswoman Sue Henry said she was upset that John Key had “regurgitated” the work requirement policy that National implemented in the 1990s. “Quite frankly, latch-key kids and youth gangs and transience are a direct byproduct of taking the stick to beneficiary families [in the 1990s],” she said.

Yes there were no gangs before the 1990s. What a sensible contribution.

But Parenting Council chairwoman Lesley Max said the requirement for sole parents to work 15 hours a week was “consistent with the norm that exists across society as a whole”.

And who would argue with Lesley?

John Armstrong looks at the policy also:

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue – a much paler blue in the case of National’s bits-and-pieces patchwork welfare policy.

Heh that could apply to many National policies!

The latest policy is archetypal John Key. It promises things Labour would happily do itself – such as making the annual inflation-related adjustment of benefit rates a legal obligation on governments, rather than just convention.

Yet in forcing part-time work obligations on some sickness beneficiaries the policy has enough to be identifiably National in origin. But not so much that it frightens centre-ground voters.

Labour and the Greens ritually slammed the policy as an attack on beneficiaries. Some in National’s ranks must think “if only”.

As I said, a sensible combination of carrot and stick.

The Herald editorial is reasonably negative on the policy:

It [solo mothers breeding to get the DPB] is probably as much a myth as the Labour Party’s idea of the average employer. That is to say, there are instances of benefit abuse just as there are rogue employers, but to treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work would be as foolish as legislating labour arrangements for all. Nevertheless, that is what National proposes to do with sole parents, invalids and sickness beneficiaries.

It is an interesting analogy, but somewhat flawed. Not all sole parents, invalids or sickness beneficiaries are being work tested. Only those DPB recipients whose children are aged over six, and only that small minority of invalids or sickness beneficiaries who have been medically assessed as capable of part-time work. The editorial concedes this later down, so the rhetoric of “treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work” is somewhat hyperbolic.

For sickness beneficiaries the policy seems fair enough. As the economy has strengthened and the unemployed have faced more stringent job-seeking requirements, the numbers on sickness and invalids benefits have risen suspiciously high. They have needed only a doctor’s note, and even if the doctor assesses them to be capable of part-time work, they have been under no obligation to seek it. National intends to change that.

Some praise amongst the grumpiness.

But there will be cases where the time and cost of taking a low-paid job put added stress on a sole-parent family for little if any financial gain. It is doubtful that society gains from that stress, or that it is worth the trouble the ministry might take to enforce it.

Single mothers with good earning capacity are normally anxious to return to paid work as soon as child care allows. National’s efforts will be felt mainly by those with few skills and poor earning capacity and, frankly, Mr Key ought to have more important things to do. This policy does more to stroke the shibboleths of party supporters than meet any pressing social need. He should return to topics that count.

The policy is pretty standard in the developed world. And having an extra 30,000 or so people in the workforce will help close the gap with Australia.

John Key has just delivered a speech, where he outlines National’s Benefits Policy. A summary is in this press release, and also they have released the full 11 page background paper. Very pleased to see the full papers released.

So the major aspects:

• Paid work is the best way to reduce child poverty
• A part-time work obligation on DPB recipients whose youngest child is six or older
• A part-time work obligation on those (5,600) sickness and invalids beneficiaries who have been assessed as capable of working part-time
• No work for the dole
• Any long-term unemployed (one year or more) will have to reapply for the benefit and undergo a comprehensive work assessment
• Case Managers to be given more options rather than just stopping benefit payments, such as a graduated reduction as an interim sanction
• Increase in the earnings threshold before abatement from $80 a week to $100 a week
• Anyone on the sickness benefit for more than a year will be sent to a designated doctor for an assessment
• CPI adjustments to benefits to be enshrined in law (as it is for Super) rather than merely being convention
• Those who frequently need benefit advances to attend (at taxpayer expense) a budget advisory service to help them manage

Looks to me a very good moderate policy, with the right mixture of carrots and sticks. The left all too often go all carrot and no stick, while the right do all stick and no carrot.

The NZ Herald and Dom Post preview National’s welfare policy which will be released today. Key aspects so far:

• DPB recepients whose youngest child is six or older spend at least 15 hours a week working, training or looking for work
• Allow beneficiaries to earn $100 a week before their benefits abate – an increase $1,000 a year.

Both seem pretty sensible to me. Will be interesting to see the full policy.