Kiwiblog

Danyl at Dim post blogs in response:

But the point here is that having a couple of children shouldn’t be a ‘bad personal choice’ for everyone not earning a high income. 

It’s not a couple of children. I don’t disagree that a couple of children shouldn’t be a bad personal choice. This was four children though. One from a previous relationship, and three from this one. I stand by my view that if your household income is $42,000 a year, then it is not a good time to have a fourth child.

This used to be a country in which a family could be comfortably supported on a single, average income.

$42,000 a year is below the average personal income (for a FT employee) and well below the average household income for a couple. And four children is twice as much as two children.

That’s because our median wages remain stagnant while our living costs continue to rise.

Untrue. Our median after tax wage has increased in real terms.

Choosing your family size to meet your budget is nothing new. It is what the vast majority of couples do. Many well off couples decide to say limit their family to two or three kids, as a third or fourth kid would be too expensive.

I have a lot of sympathy for families with children, who fall on hard times, say with one or both parents losing their job. That is why we have a multi-billion dollar welfare state with welfare benefits and Working for Families.

But if a family is already finding it tough to make ends meet, and chooses to have further children, then I have less sympathy.

The Dom Post editorial:

As new Labour leader David Shearer embarks on the daunting task of reconnecting his party with the people who used to vote for it, he could do worse than take note of recent developments in Britain.

There, Liam Byrne, the British Labour Party’s spokesman on work and pensions, has written an extraordinary article calling for a radical rethink of the welfare policy his party first introduced almost seven decades ago. …

Byrne lauds him for his vision, but says he would be worried by the way his system has “skewed social behaviour” by creating long-term dependency. “For him ‘idleness’ was an evil every bit as insidious as disease or squalor,” writes Byrne. “He wanted a responsible government taking determined action to create work, but a responsible workforce too.”

Michael Joseph Savage, the architect of New Zealand’s welfare state, believed everybody, as a right of citizenship, was entitled to “a reasonable standard of living in the days when they are unable to look after themselves, whether it be because of old age or physical infirmity”. However, he also believed in the dignity of the working man.

It is inconceivable that Savage and his colleagues ever viewed welfare as a valid alternative to work, as some of their successors appear to do.

Labour campaigned at the last election that working poor with children will get an extra $10/week and those not working with children will get an extra $70/week. What an awful incentive and message they were sending out.

In New Zealand, as in Britain, the challenge for Labour is to reconnect the party with the working man, and woman.

A good start would be for David Shearer to announce the scrapping of their 2011 policy to pay beneficiaries $70/week more to not be in employment.

I like this photo (from Stuff) of the Ministers being sworn in. I like the fact that a third of the front bench are woman (and two are Maori women) and indisputably all there on merit – not on the basis of quota or factional appeasement.

I also likes this response from John Key to David Shearer’s call to be on the Ministerial committee on poverty:

Mr Key wished new Labour leader David Shearer all the best in what was a “thankless” job as leader of the Opposition.

Mr Shearer had been “quite quiet” as an MP so it was difficult to tell how he might perform.

However, he rejected Mr Shearer’s call to widen a ministerial group on poverty to all MPs.

“I’m more than happy for David Shearer to be a part of the ministerial committee if he’s happy to give the Government confidence and supply.”

Heh.

On the serious substantive issue, both John Key and David Shearer would sincerely like to see less poverty in New Zealand. They agree on the aim, but the reality is National and Labour disagree strongly on the solutions. This is not always a bad thing – it means NZers get to choose whose policies etc they prefer.

For example National believes a key way to reduce poverty is to reduce the numbers on welfare. Labour however believes that you reduce poverty by paying those on welfare more.

One could argue shouldn’t we do both. Well, yes you can but the policies are not that compatible. The more you pay people on welfare, the harder it generally is to reduce the numbers on welfare.

Ultimately it is of course a bit of a balancing act. Few advocate abolishing the welfare state and having a Singapore system where families must support those not in work, rather than the state. And likewise few support having a welfare state where work is voluntary and you can just go on a benefit whenever you feel like it.

A reader has sent in this guest post about their experiences of being on the dole and with WINZ:

I became unemployed in 2009. It was my choice, and it was a bad choice. I was hoping to move jobs and thanks to the recession, both my plan a and backup plan fell over. After 6 months of living off savings and some Working for Families money, I applied for the dole.

I generally found WINZ to be really helpful and some people I worked with really bent over backwards for me, even when I wasn’t worried about things. Pretty much every case worker sympathized at the lack of jobs, and acknowledged that there really wasn’t much that I could do.

However when I had to renew my dole after the 1 year mark I ran into some issues. I had taken myself off the dole over the summer while I tried to build up a small business I had started. I actually was told I should not be trying to create a business but should be looking for work. As a result of my initiative and in spite of having 3 interviews in the previous few weeks as well as me delaying my reapplication and actually going without income for several days on the hope that I would not have to reapply*, the Case worker decided I was a proud, lazy bludger and cast around for suitable torture. Having discovered that I was ineligible for one course due to actually having been a productive member of society(!), I was enrolled in a “course” for work seekers that turned out afterwards to be a weekly, early-morning commitment.

Well, I turned up every week. Typically, about 6 people who were supposed to did not. They started the process of being kicked off the benefit. Many who did show up didn’t have a CV, including one fellow who had been “looking for work” for over a year. We were told one week that the WINZ staff at that office had been calling people up, and almost no one had been answering their cell phones. The point was well made – would you get a job if an employer rang?

As for the course, it consisted of

A warning about what would happen if we didn’t show up for the course.
Looking through the WINZ web site for jobs that might possibly be suitable

As an experienced professional who’d found several jobs without any help from WINZ, and had a WINZ work broker wonder in amazement that I hadn’t found employment, it was humiliating. There were of course no jobs on offer for my skill set. But I did apply for several more basic jobs and got one interview. It did make me think about what I had to do to get a job, and made it clear that sitting on my bum was unacceptable.

Because, see that’s the thing. When there’s no sales being made on trademe, and there’s no interviews in sight, and the business that’s looking for a hundred non-skilled workers doesn’t even bother to reply to your application, you start to get depressed. And yet the dole payments, the working for families tax credits keep rolling in. That combination of discouragements and easy money is corrosive. I was actually better off unemployed financially than I had ever been for many years employed – and with hours of free time to boot. I would have been a fool if I hadn’t seriously considered making it a long term lifestyle.

In the end, I got a job by looking in other places. We moved city. It was a massive upheaval and traumatic for my family, but I am now a productive member of society.

One thing that helped the transition was the IWTC. Because of that extra income our Working for Families doesn’t drop and helps fund my travel to work and other extra costs. I can’t believe anyone would want to give that bonus money to people who don’t work – if you’re not leaving the house your costs are much, much lower.

I was out of work for almost 2 years. Yes, there are few jobs. But forcing people to get out and look is a good thing. Making them re-apply for the dole is a good thing. Forcing them to regular courses is a good thing (how on earth will someone who can’t get out of bed once a week get out of bed every day for a job?). Giving people a  financial incentive to work is a good thing.

As Labour says, there are people on the benefit who want to get out and work. No one doubts that. But there are also a large number who find it easier to sit at home and collect free money from the government. Society pays people the dole on the condition that they are looking for work, and I find it extraordinary that the measly token gestures such as the National party have made are so vigorously decryed by those who “support” people like me – long term unemployed. Instead of supporting them, they merely make the issue worse.

What would I do?

• I would reduce (yes, reduce) the amount of working for families paid to beneficiaries and increase accommodation payments. It was my observation that payments are actually quite generous for people with no accommodation costs, but in places like Auckland those costs are crippling.
• I would have people required to behave much more like they are in work. Many people are simply not employable because they have habits that are simply not compatible with being employable. Having them turning up *every* day for courses or sign-ins at normal work hours would be a minimum. Actually getting together people with complementary skills and seeing what they can produce. Encouraging out-of-the-box solutions.
• At worst, I would like to see WINZ have work available that pays that anyone can just walk into off the street if they’re prepared to do it. Frankly there were times when I’d have quite happily shoveled manure all day and back again if I’d earned a dollar for it, just so I could be counted as working. I’m not talking work-for-the-dole here, I’m talking work for a little more pay than the dole, as a morale booster.

* My wife was castigated by another staff member for my recklessness when she visited the office for another matter. She was almost reduced to tears in fact. Which makes what happened even all the more bizarre.

Always great to have a first hand perspective.

National has announced:

Under National, there will also be a stronger, more proactive stance against those who abuse and defraud the welfare system. Jobseekers whose recreational drug use affects their ability to apply for or secure a job will also be sanctioned, and through the investment approach those with drug addictions will be supported to overcome their illness. In addition, benefit recipients on the run from the Police will have their benefit cancelled.

I think many will be surprised that this wasn’t already the case in terms of those running from the Police.

And a vast proportion of people on the sickness benefit are drug addicts. The welfare state should not be there to allow someone to remain a non work capable drug addict for years or decades. They should be treated and if they won’t take treatment, be sanctioned.

“This year alone, Work and Income’s data matching found around six to 12 per cent of people were receiving benefit payments they weren’t entitled to.

That’s a huge percentage. Of course not all of this may be due to fraud. Some may be accidental, but I would hope everyone would agree that figure should be around 1% or less.

And from the policy:

There are 25,000 people currently receiving a benefit who have committed benefit fraud in the past, or who have received substantial overpayments they were not entitled to, after abusing the welfare system.

I bet you Labour say it is a miniscule problem, not worth worrying about.

In my By the numbers blog at Stuff I write:

Up until yesterday I would have said the worst of their new policies was the return to 1970s-style national industry agreements, which would have the government impose terms and conditions on every single employer in an industry.

But yesterday Labour announced that every beneficiary with dependent children would become eligible for the in-work tax credit, and get an extra $60 a week.

You can read the rest at Stuff, and comment there.

Labour’s latest bold policy is to borrow $2.6b and spend most of it on paying people not to work.

Labour says it will effectively extend the in work tax credit to, well parents not in work. Ironically in Government they refused to do so, even in the face of legal challenges to the policy.

Labour had already pledged to give all beneficiaries an extra $10/week. This would give a DPB recepient an additional $60 a week on top of that. While National is working on incentives not to remain on the DPB, Labour is getting rid of one the few existing incentives to be in work.

In fact Labour’s policy is unfair to working low income parents. Because if you work, you have additional costs such as travel to work, work clothes etc.This policy makes it harder for someone to go from welfare into work.

Incientially this is not the first time Labour have pledged to end child poverty. They said in 2002 that if they got re-elected, “ending child poverty will be its top social policy“. Not as bad as their policy to have no one under 18 not in work, study or training – that particular policy they had announced five times previously.

So with this policy working families will have to pay the interest on Labour’s extra borrowing, while a sole parent on the DPB will get an extra $70/week in the hand.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Sosefina Masoe spends her nights in one of the most powerful offices in the country; from the top of the Beehive she can see the lights of the Wellington skyline and the moon reflecting on the harbour.

When the 49-year-old solo mum isn’t cleaning Prime Minister John Key’s office, she’s at home in her Porirua state house with her four teenage children and four grandchildren.

Masoe joined Parliament’s other cleaners in Labour’s caucus room today to push for a $15 an hour minimum wage and to remind politicians that poverty does exist in this country.

First of all good on Ms Masoe for being in work, despite having eight kids and grand kids to care for. That’s excellent.

And from my time at Parliament, my memory of the cleaners are they were very hard working and professional. I am sure Ms Masoe is the same. And she is quite entitled to her view that she should be paid $15/hour. Personally I think that it is better to achieve that through negotiation than increasing the minimum wage. You can not create a more prosperous country by simply passing a law demanding everyone gets paid more. If only it was that easy.

She earns the current minimum wage, $13.50, and says that’s about $453.34 in the hand a week.

By the time she pays $250 in rent, $90 for power and $70 for petrol to get to and from work, Masoe has about $43 left to pay for groceries.

That usually consists of budget canned spaghetti and baked beans, cheap bread, oats, noodles and margarine.

“This is what our low wages can afford. It’s budget food, it’s not healthy,” she told MPs and fellow Service and Food Union representatives this afternoon.

Parliament’s cleaners worked hard for the health of those in the complex, they were “the most important people in your life” and deserved more, Masoe said.

“The cost of everything is going up, we can’t afford to feed our families with $13.50 an hour any more.”

Except that the family doesn’t just get $13.50 an hour.

Whale does some maths:

Her take home is $453 per week. Her WFF Credits are worth at least $677 per week if the article claims of eight children (four teens) are correct.  That equates to a salary of about $70,000 per annum.

Whale is correct except I actually make it that she gets $712 of WFF, which makes her gross income equivalent around $77,000. Also on top of that the taxpayer subsidises a state house so that it is only 25% of income maximum.

So when Labour plant a story about how someone has only $43 a week to pay for groceries for their family, it would be nice if the media thought to ask about total household income, because to be frank it is dishonest to ignore the other $700 a week of income.

The Waikato Times reports:

A single Waikato mother of six children has been receiving benefits for almost 30 years.

She is one of an army of long term Waikato beneficiaries revealed in information released to the Waikato Times under the Official Information Act.

Social Development Ministry statistics show 1647 people in the region have been receiving some form of benefit for 15 years or more.

A further 1500 have been on it for between 10 and 15 years, 3655 between five to 10 years, 6309 between two to five years and 12,904 for less than two years.

Nationally, welfare payments cost taxpayers about $7.6 billion a year.

The case of the solo mum who has been on the DPB for 30 years makes me curious. Did she have six children to the one partner, and then he left her or died? Probably not, as then you would not be on the DPB for 30 years.

So presumably up to five of the children she has had, were while on the DPB. Not to get the DPB you have to be effectively “single” and not in a relationship with someone. So who are the fathers of the six children and are they contributing to their upkeep?

I have no problems with having the DPB available to solo parents who find themselves without a partner for reasons of death or divorce/separation. I do have a real problem with solo parents who have multiple children while receiving the DPB. Now I’m not advocating no support in these circumstances because that may punish the kids. But I do think there needs to be a disincentive to continue having children if you are unable to support them yourself.

John Key said:

I’ve often said that you measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable.

But you also measure a society by how many vulnerable people it creates.

At the moment it is creating too many, so we are going to make changes.

Good.

Over the past year, there were between 8,500 and 13,500 young people aged 16 or 17 who were not in education, training or work.

What we know is that when these young people turn 18, 90 per cent of them will go onto a fully-fledged adult benefit, unless we do something to intervene.

I wonder how long on average they stay on a benefit for?

The first change is to find out who all these young people are.

At the moment we simply don’t know, because we lose track of them when they leave school.

That has to change.

The Government is going to amend the Privacy Act and the Education Act to allow two things to happen:

• schools will be required to tell us when 16- and 17-year-olds leave during the year
• and information on these young people can be shared between the Ministries of Education and Social Development.

 For the first time, we will be able to find out who all these disengaged 16- and 17-year-olds are; what circumstances they are in; what problems they have had at school; and what their risk of long-term welfare dependency is.

It staggers me that up until now, the Government was unable to even identify who these 16 and 17 year olds are.

We are then going to fund community and other organisations to provide a transitions service, similar in some ways to the current service, but one which:

• much more closely targets the young people most at risk of long-term welfare dependency
• and has a greater range of tools available, such as being able to arrange access to social services like drug and alcohol or counselling services
• and, most importantly, is focused on results.

For the first time, a considerable part of the government’s funding of transitions services will depend on something actually changing.

That could include goals like the young person successfully completing a training programme, or not being on a benefit at age 18.

Put simply, we are going to make it worth someone’s while to get these young people back on track.

Incentives tend to work.

At the same time, the government will provide a lot more training places.

Next year there will be 7,500 places available under the Government’s Youth Guarantee policy, which provides free study towards school-level qualifications in places like polytechnics and wananga.

And in two years’ time we will have built up the number of Trades Academies so that 4,500 places in free, work-focused trades and technology training are being offered.

I imagine this will cost the taxpayer more money in the short to medium term. But I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on stuff like this, if it really does lead to fewer young people spending years or longer on benefits.

The second part concerns those young people who are receiving benefits in their own right.

I need to make it clear that today’s announcements will not affect the Invalids Benefit, which can be received by people as young as 16.

But there will be changes for young people who receive other sorts of benefits.

At the moment these young people are largely left to their own devices.

But I believe this hands-off approach has failed this group of young people.

We can do a lot better.

So the policy on benefits for young people is going change.

These changes will apply to all young people who get the special 16- and 17-year-olds’ benefits, and also to 18-year-old teen parents.

This has three elements.

And they are:

1. first is that we are going to fund community and other organisations to provide comprehensive and concentrated support to these teen beneficiaries
2. we are not going to simply hand over benefit money every fortnight. Instead, we will have a much more managed system of payments, with the young person’s support provider, or MSD in some cases, paying bills on their behalf and helping them manage within their budget
3. Young people who are receiving these payments will have clear obligations, for example; to attend budgeting or parenting programmes. Most importantly, each of these young people will have to be in education, training or work-based learning

The details of (2) are likely to be:

• some essential costs, like rent and power, will be paid directly on the young person’s behalf
• money for basic living costs like food and groceries will be loaded onto a payment card that can only be used to buy certain types of goods and cannot be used to buy things like alcohol or cigarettes
• and that a certain, limited amount will be available for the young person to spend at their own discretion.

And details of (3) are:

We have carefully considered the interests of the children here.

And we absolutely believe that a child’s interests are best served if their parent continues with her own education, and if the child is in good-quality childcare.

So we will be insisting that teen parents continue with education or training, and we will cover the costs of the childcare involved. …

However, we envisage that by the time their child is one year old, most teen parents will be in some form of education or training.

The cost of the package is estimated to be $25 million a year. I think that is an investment worth making if it produces results.

Being a parent can be bloody tough, even for professional couples in their 30s. Our current system of just paying a benefit to a couple of 17 year olds, and hoping they’ll be okay as parents has been benign neglect. I welcome these changes, and think they’ll be good for both the teenagers, and for their kids.

A Q&A on the policy is below:

WelfarePolicy_QA_3

MacDoctor blogs:

John Key was castigated in the left wing blogosphere for suggesting that the increase in people needing food parcels was due to issues of budgeting. It seems he was right. Not that the Herald would actually use the MacDoctor’s headline – they prefer:

Mum refused food aid under tough new rules

And then they launch into a long story about a solo mum with fibromyalgia and three children (7, 13 and 17) who has had to escape an abusive relationship. So far so good – that is what the DPB was intended for (although I would have thought she would have been on the sickness benefit, rather than the DPB). The story gets lurid with the nasty National government refusing to provide this poor lady with food aid.

Only in paragraph ten do we learn that this woman is receiving $827.50 a week in various forms of government largesse. It is not until the end of the article that we learn that she has had  four aid packages in the past six months and that she refuses to attend any budget meetings with WINZ.

I note the rent for the property is $385 a week. The article does not say whether or not she has applied for a state house. Maybe she doesn’t want to move, but if she did move into a state house then the rent would be well under $200 a week.

The power bill is $65 a week. At 25c/unit, that is 37 units a day which seems pretty high.

Also worth noting that while her expenses are currently $31/week higher than her income, $83 a week is repayments and fines. So if they had been avoided, then there would be a surplus of $52 a week.

None of this is suggesting that life isn’t challenging bringing up three kids on $830 a week. I am sure it is. But the facts show that the level of taxpayer support is already very significant, and that there are cost savings which can be made.

UPDATE: The Herald today reports:

However, a Glenfield solo mother of three children who was refused a $106 food grant on Wednesday was given the money late on Thursday after the Herald reported on her case.

Work and Income head Mike Smith said the mother, “Maree”, was not refused a grant – “she walked out of the meeting before a decision could be made”.

“Last year Maree received 13 hardship payments. She owes us $1400 for money we’ve advanced her,” he said.

“She is clearly having trouble managing her finances. We want to help her with that, rather than continuing to service the symptoms of the problem with hardship grants.”

Stuff reports:

Reports of a starving boy eating cockroaches, pensioners eating cat food and a soaring increase in demand for food parcels were raised in Parliament today as Labour accused the Government of turning its back on New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens.

Labour’s deputy leader, Annette King, asked Prime Minister John Key what he intended doing to help people who couldn’t afford to buy food because of the rapid rise in the cost of living.

”Many low-income families can’t afford even a basic nutritious diet for their children…the Salvation Army in Whangarei has seen an increase of 90 percent in food parcels since the New Year and is now having to ration them to one per family,” she said.

Mr Key said he understood the cockroach case could be an issue of neglect rather than income support.

”The Government obviously supports not only a benefit-based system for those who find themselves in need but also significant hardship grants,” he said.

The Government spends $21.2 billion on social security and welfare. Yes, that is $21.2 billion. That is aI lot of money for a country of 4 million.

So if I was media, and I heard claims about a family so starving, that a six year old boy is forced to eat cockroaches for food, I would ask two questions before breathlessly reporting the claims.

1. What is the family’s current income, and are they getting all the Government support they should
2. What has that income been spent on, so there is no food for their six year old child?

The level of welfare that a “poor” family gets is exactly the same today, as it was under nine years of Helen Clark. No benefits have been cut, and they are adjusted for inflation. In fact National passed a law making the inflation adjustment mandatory.

NZ has a very generous welfare state at $21.2b. That is not to say that life isn’t very tough for families dependent on welfare – of course it is. But I would be amazed if it turns out that the reason that six year old was eating cockroaches was because WINZ had refused them assistance.

UPDATE: The BOP Times makes clear this is a case of neglect, not insufficient support. So shame on Labour for trying to blame the cost of living on this.

A Western Bay mother’s appalling neglect of her family reduced her 6-year-old son to eating cockroaches to survive.

This admission was made to Homes of Hope director Hilary Price.

The boy told how hungry he used to get before he and his siblings were removed from their mother by Child Youth and Family (CYF) and put into the care of Homes of Hope.

One day they got so hungry they went to look for food and found cockroaches. He then described eating the cockroaches: “Yeah, they were crunchy and juicy.”

Mrs Price did not doubt the boy was telling the truth because of his age and the manner in which he confided to her.

“I was appalled to hear that. There is no excuse when the person was receiving enough support to access the basics for her children.“

Yet this is what Annette King asked the PM in Parliament:

What is he prepared to do to assist New Zealanders who are most in need, in light of reports over the weekend that a boy a was found eating cockroaches because he was starving and that the budgeting services are receiving reports of pensioners eating cat food as the cost of living keeps going up at a rapid rate?

So Labour knew this was a case of extreme parental neglect, and that the local welfare group had said the mother was receiving enough support for the basics – yet they still tried to portray this case as tied to the cost of living. Shame.

Claire Trevett in the Herald reports:

When Labour’s social development spokeswoman Annette King asked about Salvation Army reports of high demand for food parcels, Mr Key responded by saying it was true that the global recession meant more people were on benefits.

“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills.

“And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”

The PM is right that the majority of those on a benefit do not use foodbanks. Those who do use foodbanks probably fall into three categories:

1. Those whose expenses regularly exceed their income – which probably does indicate a budget prioritisation issue
2. Those who have a temporary one off high priority expense, such as medical bills (note special need grants are also available)
3. Those who prefer free food to paying for food

I don’t know what proportion of foodbank goers fall into each category. But I am reminded of what happened when VUWSA set up both a welfare fund (free cash) and a foodbank (free food) for students.

Year after year they would report that demand exceeded supply, and that this proved how more and more students were living in poverty, and hence why they needed to double the budget for said funds. And even after said doubling, the following year they would again run out of free money and free food. And again they would declare this proved how more and more students were living in poverty.

My theory was simpler. My theory was simply that students like free money and free food.

The Press reports:

Former gang leader Darryl Harris will lose the sickness benefit he has claimed for 26 years.

Social Development Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes said Mr Harris, who lives in Christchurch, had been told that his benefit would stop from January 10 because “he no longer meets standard eligibility requirements”. …

Mr Harris, who has three months to appeal against the decision, and his wife, Marcia Robins, made headlines a year ago when it was revealed they had been claiming unemployment and sickness benefits continually since 1984.

They had received $30,000 in special-needs grants since 2000, including payments for new tyres for their 2007 Chrysler saloon and to fence a swimming pool at one of their Christchurch properties.

Efforts to cancel Mr Harris’s sickness benefit failed when he obtained a medical opinion from one of Work and Income’s designated doctors that he was addicted to cannabis.

Oh no, he is sick, so he must get welfare for life. Or not.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said yesterday that the Government believed those who could work should, “and if that is considered hardline, so be it”.

“If someone is receiving the benefit because they are unwell, it is reasonable to expect them to be making every effort to get well so they can return to work.

“That is their responsibility to the taxpayer,” she said.

“It is unreasonable to expect the New Zealand taxpayer to support someone for extended periods on welfare because of a drug habit, unless every effort is being made to kick that habit and get back to work.”

You go Paula.

Simon Collins reports in the NZ Herald:

An alternative welfare review group will call today for raising welfare benefits by as much as 50 per cent to meet the basic needs of jobless families.

The alternative group, chaired by Massey University social policy expert Mike O’Brien and including former Green MP Sue Bradford, says current benefits of $194 a week for a single adult or $366 for a sole parent with one child are “simply too low to live on”.

It calls for restoring benefits “as a first step” to the proportion of the average wage that applied before they were cut by up to $27 a week in 1991. That would mean raising the single dole by 53 per cent to about $296 a week and lifting the benefit for a sole parent with one child to about $536 a week.

I have some questions for the alternative welfare working group:

1. Is pepsi more popular than coke where you come from?
2. Is the gravitational field strength also 9.81 m/s^2 on your planet?
3. Is the sun a yellow sun, meaning Kal-El has his full powers or a red sun, meaning he is just a normal human?
4. Does the fertile soil on your world allow you to grow the money on trees, or do you plant seeds in the ground?
5. Is the speed of light 299,792 km/s in your dimension?

Keeping Stock alerted me to this story in the Dom Post:

An out-of-work artist is setting up a taxpayer-funded “beneficiaries’ office” in downtown Wellington to promote the virtues of being unemployed.

Yes – taxpayer funded.

He is part of a $53,000 performance art installation series paid for by Creative New Zealand and Wellington City Council.

Creative NZ is defending its decision to provide a $40,000 grant but said last night it was unaware of the installation’s “precise content” when the grant was signed off.

Well why the fuck not? Someone should get sacked for this. Or at a minimum Chris Finlayson should take $40,000 out of their budget for next year. Art is one thing – but promoting the virtues of bludging should not qualify.

Tao Wells, 37, advocates the opportunities and benefits of unemployment and says it is unfair that long-term beneficiaries are labelled bludgers for exploiting the welfare system.

It’s unfair that I have to work 60 hour weeks to fund your fucking life style, you bludging wanker.

Wells’ installation, The Beneficiary’s Office, urges people to abandon jobs they don’t like rather than suffering eight hours of “slavery”.

“We need to work less, so we consume less. The average carbon footprint of the unemployed person is about half of that of those earning over $100,000.”

I await the Green Party insisting that this pilot be introduced nationwide – that everyone gives up their jobs to reduce carbon emissions.

Backed by five “staff”, Wells plans to promote his unemployment philosophy publicly and debate it with politicians and the gainfully employed.

Remember, we are paying for this.

He described himself as an unemployed artist with a masters degree who had been “off and on” the unemployment benefit since 1997. Wells said he was receiving welfare and admitted his benefit was at risk by him speaking out.

Late yesterday afternoon his benefit was cut off after Work and Income learned of the project.

Not just a greedy selfish bludger, but a stupid one also.

He refuses to work, but is happy to apply for grants so he can preach about why people should bludge like him. WINZ should refuse to put him back on any benefit unless he can demonstrate sustained activity seeking employment.

Wells denied his pro-unemployment stance was hypocritical when he was being paid $2000 for the project. “We should never be forced to take a job. If you’re forced to take a job it’s a punishment. If a job’s a punishment then society must be a prison.”

Listen Mr Fuckwit, you are not forced to take a job. So long as you don’t want those of us who do work to pay you a benefit, you do not need to ever work again.

Creative NZ boss Stephen Wainwright said the agency’s role was to encourage, promote and support the arts. Innovative new work, such as the Letting Space series, could act as a powerful form of social commentary and encourage debate.

Oh for fuck’s sake. They seriously have too much money. Having a layabout wanker who is illegally claiming the dole, promote dole bludging as a lifestyle choice is not innovative. Would Creative NZ give money for a tax felon to set up an office and advise people not to pay their taxes?

This just makes my blood boil.  We’re borrowing $240 million a week and this is what Creative NZ thinks is a priority. Why don’t the staff responsible at Creative NZ follow the advice of Mr Wells and quit their jobs to escape the slavery of work.

The Press reports:

Lance Bradford says he was so determined to get Metallica tickets that he quit his job before camping overnight at a Ticketek outlet.

His employer would not give him the afternoon off to set up camp outside Canterbury University’s student union, so the driller quit.

Bradford, 23, said he was “ripped and angry” when Metallica said they were coming to New Zealand, but not to Christchurch.

This month, his favourite band announced a surprise Christchurch date, with tickets going on sale at 9am today.

“When I found out they were coming, I thought if they are willing to come down here, then I’m willing to quit my job and come down here to line up,” Bradford said.

While admiring of his tenacity and determination to get Metallica tickets, I do hope he finds another job and doesn’t plan to go onto welfare anytme soon.

If he does, he may get a nasty surprise, discovering WINZ staff do read newspapers.

Another solution may have been to keep the job and pay a friend to queue up for you.

Incidentally if I was his employer, I’d definitely give him leave to queue up for music tickets so long as the absence was not going to critically affect things.

Dutch News reports:

The Frisian villages of Dongeradeel and Dantumadiel have come up with a novel way of cutting spending on welfare payments – encouraging jobless women to find a rich man, the Leeuwarder Courant reports on Tuesday.

The local social service departments are paying for the women to have a make-over in the hope they can hook up with a rich husband to support them, the paper says. If 70 women find a new husband, the council can save €400,000 on welfare payments.

The councils are putting €1,400 into each woman to have her hair done and get help with her image. They will also get their wardrobe updated and tips on social skills and presentation.

I await the announcement of a pilot here, by Paula Bennett!

The NZ Herald says work can make you better:

For some time, the startling increase in the number of people on sickness and invalids benefits has been as vexing as it is worrying. Have we become a sickly society? Is this the logical consequence of an ageing population? The relentless rise in the number of such beneficiaries – from 1.2 per cent of the working-age group in 1980 to 4.8 per cent today – suggested other factors were at work. Indeed, it is now apparent that a major factor is mental illness. Psychological disorders, led by stress and depression, accounted for the entire increase in sickness benefits and a third of the increase in invalids benefits from 1996 to 2002. This has obvious implications for those charged with getting as many beneficiaries as possible back into the workforce. …

Happily, it has just been highlighted by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which, in a position statement, noted that “the evidence is compelling: for most individuals, good work improves general health and wellbeing and reduces psychological stress”. The college points to a recent British review, which found the beneficial effects of work outweighed any risks, with the benefits much greater than the harmful effects of long-term unemployment or prolonged sickness absence.

I’ve had a couple of brief periods of unemployment or under-employment. During those times I did volunteer work so I was still doing something, rather than nothing.

The Press focuses on the proposed Gaza flotilla inquiry:

The Israelis also fear what they see as the stitch-up that the Goldstone inquiry into the assault on Gaza a couple of years ago became. Although it was led by a respected South African former judge, Richard Goldstone, and made some efforts at even-handedness, that inquiry’s findings were quickly unpicked by critics as weighted unfairly towards the Palestinians and ultimately were easily dismissed. One of Palmer’s tasks, if he gets the job, will be to ensure that the inquiry is conducted with a scrupulous regard to impartiality. A properly conducted inquiry might help defuse some of the tension that the raid has generated. It might go some way to averting serious and lasting diplomatic damage that at the moment seems inevitable.

I may not agree with Sir Geoffrey on alcohol reform, but I think he would be a very good choice for this role. NZ is one of the few countries seen pretty much as an honest broker, and a proper inquiry would be very beneficial.

The Dom Post talks road safety:

Last year 10 people died on the roads over Queen’s Birthday Weekend. By late yesterday this year’s toll was one. That is good news, but it is still one too many.

Aroha Ormsby was killed when she was thrown from a car. Her death leaves three young children motherless, and friends and family confronting a personal tragedy that will never be revealed by a study of the bald statistics.

The death of Ms Ormsby – and of the hundreds of other New Zealanders killed each year – is why the police were right to trial a lower tolerance for those who break the speed limit. As long as there are New Zealanders dying on the roads there can be no slackening in the effort to make the roads safer.

The sceptics will point to the atrocious weather over the holiday break, and say that the low toll and lower speeds owe as much to people staying home or slowing down in the rain. That will have played a role but so too will the increased prospect of a ticket.

I certainly think the appalling weather was the major contributor. I also think it is unwise to jump to conclusions based on just two data points.

They should remember that the 100kmh limit is just that – a legal limit. It is not meant to be treated as an infinitely flexible guideline, something that applies unless the road is clear and it’s a sunny day, or unless there is a car that needs overtaking

I hope the editorial writer has never over taken a car by exceeding the limit. Never mind that to overtake a car travelling 90 km/hr means you need a straight road with no cars coming for at least 2,000 metres to do so without exceeding 100 km/hr.

The ODT looks at Labour’s mud and smears:

The Labour Party seems unable to get over the fact that John Key is wealthy, and it has frequently made attempts to imply or demonstrate that he gained his wealth deviously, and continues to do so.

None of these efforts has succeeded.

Helen Clark tried it when she claimed Mr Key personally profited from the 1993 privatisation of Tranz Rail, because he had been a former director of Bankers Trust, which won a contract to advise the then National government on the sale.

At the relevant time, however, Mr Key was nowhere near the sale; he was operating as a foreign exchange dealer.

Ms Clark may have been badly advised, but this did not slow her attempts to muddy the Prime Minister’s credibility, especially in the business and commercial world.

Clark and Labour’s view seem to be if you made your money in business, you must be corrupt – the only honest way to earn money is as a teacher, academic or unionist.

The latest attempt has been made by another senior party figure, the Dunedin North MP, Peter Hodgson, who has tried to show the Prime Minister knows what assets are held in his “blind trust”, implying that a conflict of interest has or can arise where government policy is concerned, to Mr Key’s financial advantage.

That is a serious claim to make where public figures are concerned who hold positions where they can influence policy.

Mr Hodgson’s “evidence” – it hardly justifies the description – has been successful to the extent that Mr Key, in responding, seems to have had some knowledge of one asset in particular.

It is no more than that, however: there is no shred of proof that his knowledge – if he had it – has been used to influence policy to his advantage.

Key’s crime is that three weeks after the blind trust was set up, he referred to owning a vineyard that was now in the blind trust.

That appears to be the end of the latest attempt to impugn the Prime Minister for his wealth, but it is unlikely to be the last.

The ODT has got to the heart of the real crime – that John Key is wealthy. You can just feel the envy and hatred blister as they snidely refer to his holiday home in Hawaii. How dare he have become wealthy.

The Herald reports:

ACC’s focus on getting beneficiaries back to work could become a model for those on long-term social welfare, invalid and sickness benefits, says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.

Such a new direction would be costly, for example, by funding drug and alcohol rehabilitation and other treatments for social welfare beneficiaries, she said. And it could require a culture change to address.

As a taxpayer it is a cost I would be fairly happy to pay, if successful.

Ms Bennett told the Herald she had particular concerns about people as young as 16 and 17 being put on the invalid’s benefit for conditions such as Asperger’s Syndrome or low-level mental illness and remaining on it for a lifetime.

“It feels like sometimes in Work and Income that the whole system is set up to concentrate on what people can’t do.

“If we change that whole culture into one of what can they do, what can we actually do to get that support … it would make a big difference.”

A focus on treatment and work sounds good to me.

The Herald reports:

Work and Income has quietly started bumping dozens of people off the invalids benefit, months before tough new work tests officially come into force, say beneficiary advocates.

They say people with long-term mental illnesses, some of whom have been on the invalids benefit for years, are being bumped down to sickness benefits because they may be capable of part-time work or study within the next two years.

The invalids benefit is only for people with conditions that will last for at least two years and who cannot work regularly for at least 15 hours a week.

Well if people are capable of part-time work of 15 hours a week, they shouldn’t be on the Invalids Benefit.

Most of the people on the Invalids Benefit are amongst our most deserving. They are genuinely unable to work due to their health problems, and probably will never be able to work. To some degree I actually wish we can do more for them.

But some of those on the Invalids Benefit are able to work, at least part-time. We often see remarkably fit criminals who are listed in court documents as invalids beneficiaries.

the growth in this benefit has been pronounced. Have a look from the beginning:

It really started to take off around 1981. I’m sure it wasn’t all injuries from the Springbok Tour that has seen it go from 10,000 to 85,000.

Now wait a minute, some of you may be saying. Hasn’t the population increased also since 1929. Well yes it has.

As the benefit is for those aged between 18 and 64, one should compare it to the working age population of the same range. Stats NZ only has data back to 1991 publicly available, so I start the next graph there:

As one can see, the number of recipients of the Invalids Benefit has more than doubled as a proportion of the working age population. This is not a sustainable trend.

Is 3% of the population, or 1 in 30 adults aged under 65 really incapable of even part-time work? Certainly some are – I know some people on the IB who are absolutely incapable of 15 hours a week. But is it 1 in 30?

The PM has announced some welcome reforms:

1. Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients whose youngest child is aged six or over (to be referred to as the Phil U clause)
2. Part-time work obligations for people on a Sickness Benefit who have been assessed as being able to work part time
3. More graduated sanctions for people who don’t comply with their work obligations such as a reduction in benefit rather than just cancellation
4. An increase in the amount that people on the DPB and Invalids Benefit can earn each week, without affecting their benefit, from $80 to $100
5. Change the rules around the Unemployment Benefit so it can only be granted for a 12-month period, and then one has to reapply and undergo a comprehensive work assessment
6. More frequent reassessment for people on the Sickness Benefit

Now these are not radical reforms. But they are good sold steps in the right direction, reinforcing that welfare should generally be temporary assistance, not a lifestyle choice.

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.