Tragic events in Christchurch have overtaken National’s Welfare Working Group’s report into the future of the welfare system, which was released on Tuesday.
This is a time when all New Zealand stands together, including political parties, out of respect to the victims of the quake and their families and to ensure that the rescue and recovery operations in Christchurch can proceed without unnecessary distraction.
For that reason Labour has not formally responded to the WWG report’s recommendations or the Government’s response.
However, I do have some initial thoughts, which you will see below. I and my Labour colleagues will expand on these when the time is more suitable.
The WWG report sets a target of taking 100,000 people off welfare and into work over the next decade:
- Where are the jobs going to come from?
- Jobs have been not been a priority for this government.
- Moving 100,000 people off benefits and into work takes us back to the total benefit figures in 2008 when National took over.
- The past two years have been a huge wasted opportunity.
- The economy has ground to a halt under National.
- It is not possible to force people into jobs that do not exist.
- GDP will have to increase by 3 per cent a year over the next decade to meet this target. Current forecasts average 2.5 per cent a year. Where’s the plan?
The report is a mix of:
- Tried and failed ideas from the 1990s – privatising welfare delivery, splitting welfare policy and delivery arms, work for the dole, and,
- Advocating for incentives and programmes to get people into work. Many of these existed under Labour but National abolished or slashed them – such as the Training Incentive Allowance for solo mums on the DPB, scholarships, dedicated Winz case managers who built up knowledge of individual clients and were better able to assist them, ECE funding, strategic skills and training programme funding, and,
- Extreme ideas which give the Key government room to appear less hard line by rejecting them. Eg forcing solo parents who have another child to look for work when the youngest turns 14 weeks; and giving young parents access to free “long acting, reversible contraception”;
Making solo mums look for work when their child turns three, instead of five, says paid work is more important than the job of caring for and nurturing young children.
The first six years of a child’s life are the most important in terms of development.
Child poverty, which is already on the rise under National, will get worse still.
Forcing severely disabled people on a “Jobseeker Support Benefit” with supplementary payments tied to efforts to get into work will result in severe mental anguish and hardship for an already vulnerable group of people.
Early childhood education fees, which have already gone up under National, will rise again.
Blaming and punishing the poor lets tax avoiders who do not pay their fair share of tax off the hook.
“free “long acting, reversible contraception”” Um, is that safe? What if it does some kind of damage. It’s almost like sterilisation. It sounds like a sicko idea.
I’m in complete agreement with you, Annette, and it just punishes the 3 year olds to have their mothers ripped away from them like that.
There’s a lotta crazy stuff in the WWG, but basically it’s a bunch of people from private welfare companies calling for the privatisation of the entire welfare system, under a model in which they’re financially rewarded to get everyone – new Mothers, the sick, the disabled – back into the workforce as quickly as possible, with the power to suspend benefits or force people into work schemes if they fail to comply.
There is nothing wrong with offering or giving young parents access to free long term contraception. It is very sensible
Unless, like Wisconsin? , they insist on it or penalise financially if not taken up
It’s legalised slavery!
!
I agree with you Annette: insisting on imperatives that are impossible to fulfill is one of the most psychologically cruel things you can do to a person, and is the sort of thing that occurs in abusive relationships. This is what you are doing when you purport to force people into jobs that are not there. An analog is the abusive husband who spends all the money on himself and then says, “If there isn’t a decent dinner on the table when I get home, you better watch out!” In both cases there is no cut-out point for bullying and humiliation, because the putative cut-out point is an impossibility.
With regard to the terrible tragedy unfolding in Christchurch: while petty politicking would be disgraceful under the circumstances, this does not mean that one’s critical faculties should be put to one side. Quite the opposite. The results of this crisis will have to be addressed, and critical engagement will be necessary if this is to be done well.
Goneburger Trevor
What is “extreme” about giving people the option of free contraception? Its a damn good idea, if I assume cost is an issue for some. It doesn’t say compulsory contraception does it? Spud – your petty emotions and three year old prose aside, slavery is when one person owns another. Please indicate to me where this one of the recommendations in the report. There are more important things to worry about in New Zealand at the moment, so why on earth even bother with this nonsense until it is appropriate.
Don’t forget the extra workload many of these “ideas” will put onto WINZ.
I’m just wondering if policies based on humanitarian principles have ever failed? The WWG proposals certainly have been shown to be failures in the past. Clearly they have a disassociation from reality. There is nothing to stop National adopting the failed policies, because they believe it will reduce numbers on welfare. They have no plan to create jobs or put those people into a position where they can look after themselves. Privatising welfare is like selling your first born. As for that contraception thing, the words eugenics and social manipulation seem apt. We know where that leads to.
Personally I cannot do any more than I already have to help out with the Christchurch Earthquake. These proposals if taken up will affect those people as well. So there is no harm in debating them.
Have to be careful about the “where are the jobs” Annette. John Key commented that the changes probably won’t be actioned for a while. Might be a 2012 or 2013 plan? If so they will have an out by inserting the phrase “when employment improves,” and still get support for the plan assuming that they win the Election.
I find it very very wrong that mothers be forced to go to work as opposed to choosing. The plan is aimed at the very very few on the DPB who have more babies and they become the poster women for the “Benefit Bludgers”.
Dear Annette,
Its gracious that you talk about respect for the victims and families: If you truly cared about the welfare of New Zealanders, and those in turmoil due to the quake; you would call to put an end to the emissions scam.
Off thread. Clare
Where are you on this? If you don’t address this Canterbury and the entire nation will struggle.
@Dave – you are the one making personal attacks during a national disaster. I don’t need this, there is enough unpleasantness to do with people dying, please leave me alone. You sicken me.
p.s. I notice you haven’t insulted anyone else for responding to this thread, nor Annette for writing it.
I would appreciate it if someone could remove Dave’s comment (4:00pm) as this is a dark time for NZ and it’s not appropriate to have personal attacks be made. It beggars belief that anyone would do that at a time like this.
I note Clare you delete the main points of comments. Reasons unknown (well, known). Figure this: The comments come from 4 CH CH businesses (families) I have had to help depart CH CH today, concerned with the worry of continued tax and political scams (e.g. ETS) that see them orientated towards welfare when they’d rather survive through self-preservation. Yet, you delete the core aspect of their comment. Speaks volumes for the disrespect from politicians, controlled democracy, political agendas and crocodile concerns from both political parties does it.
@Simon. Your comment was a rant. Off thread. Happy to run if you rewrite and link to the post. Clare
@Spud. Your comments are just as bad as Dave’s. Stick to the thread.
No because I was pointing out how inappropriate his personal attack was when there are people dying. If you can’t sympathise with that then I don’t want to interact with you either clare.
? Rant.? ??? With respect, asking politicians to depart from agenda in favour of Cantebury’s public interest? How is that rant Clare????? Ans: its not.
Have you been to Christchurch today Clare? I have. Do you comprehend the Welfare-systemic-detriments of the Emissions Scam on those businesses and families effected? (the ones you supposedly care for) e.g. THE COMMENTS AGGREGATED BY THOSE BUSINESSES WERE VERY ON THREAD NOT OFF IT. eg. do you not think the people of NZ need openness not conditioning through subvertive forms of tax and free-speech curtailment? But, to finalise, where is Annette King on the welfare detriments of the Emissions Scam under these circumstances? or do you promote driving up the systemic problems for welfare as a result of this scam tax – given the quake’s dynamics?
I’ve just realised who you are – original Simon, I agree that the ETS is taking food out of people’s mouths. That along with the GST hike is making things very difficult for people.
@ Spud, rgds, yes. a former Labour Voter. Hi!
Point: ETS + GST = 29.4% in now effective GST (incorporating current effects on CPI). Noticed your fuel bill? Noticed your food bill? How does that help CH CH?
Answer: It doesn’t. It cripples. I have closed down 4, maybe 5 businesses in CH CH today. Families. Homes. Gone. Why?
Answer: Over consumtption-taxation forces a rise of 12.5% (median over 4 businesses) cost hike (ops) due to ETS and GST = motivation depletion = inability to re-start. 45 jobs. Gone. 3 families finacially displaced.
@ King/Curran: So, what is the position on the emissions scam. Using your report here, ETS punishes the poor AND punishes the rich who pay for the poor. It punishes those in canterbury. Where are you on this?
Hi Simon
, it sounds like you have had a very rough time out there. Goodluck.
And where are you on this as well? http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/02/25/paying-to-rebuild-christchurch-a-small-temporary-earthquake-levy/
no. i’ve not. the people of CH CH have. made worse by politicians who defend taxing the disadvantaged. mainly national and labour politicians.
I have mixed views on this, I mean people are already giving their money and aid. And there’ll be more to come. Plus everyone is already poor from our double dip recession. Do we need this tax to pay for the quake? If we do and it could help then, I dunno…
Well I’m willing to talk about the welfare scam already underway under key’s nat government.
This report is exactly as requested by key. Throw in some fascist doctrine amongst the right wing dogma, and pretend to have the beneficiaries best intrests at heart. Sham politics at it’s finest.
What is more interesting, and decidedly underhand, is how the nats have said these measures won’t be in place before the election. That way, should they sneak back in on another ticket of lies and damn lies, then they are free to be as extreme as they really want to be, all under the guise of a public mandate.
Should read – Throw in some fascist doctrine to exclude
@Spud – no not personal, you claimed “slavery” which is a slur on all those involved in the report. A more inappropriate comment could not be found. Any attacks you perceive to be on you, are brought on by you and your posts. You are being too precious. Once again I ask where in the report “slavery” is mentioned ?
@Spud – no not personal, you claimed “slavery” which is a slur on all those involved in the report. A more inappropriate comment could not be found. Any attacks you perceive to be on you, are brought on by you and your posts. You are being too precious. Once again I ask where in the report “slavery” is mentioned ?
@dave…. it would pay not to misrepresent another persons opinion, or analysis. it simply makes you look petty. on a relevant note, while the earthquake in christchurch is undoubtedly one of, if not the worst, and most devastating event to occor here in nz personally and financially, life still goes on. if the govt uses this tragedy to push through inhumane, or untenable welfare policies, then it is our responsibility to hold them to account.
it is not acceptable to hide behind what is a personal tragedy for thousands of kiwis to implement policies that will do no more than create tragic outcomes for thousands more vulnerable people.
that would be cynical politics at its lowest level.
Thankyou, bbfloyed. I would’ve asked his slavery question had it not been dressed in personal attack, especially during a disaster.
But will answer anyway, despite this, because I wasn’t very clear. I was responding to the sentence about forcing people into work schemes, it has the potential to have beneficiaries working for below the minimum wage, and I regard that as slavery.
And yes in a way beneficiaries are owned by the state because their survival depends on the money from the government.
Interesting snippet from Fran O’Sullivan this morning, making a lie of the claim of many on the right that the tax cuts were not funded by borrowing, let them dismantle Ms O’Sullivans ideology and intellect
“This is the opportune time for him to review the extent of his Government’s tax-cuts, which are being funded through borrowing and not healthy surpluses”
The WWG report was a sham from the get -go. Blaming the wrong people for stuff is typical of old style politics.
To quote gordon campbell
“The same politicians who have been unable to manage an economy so that it employs people, are now blaming people for not finding jobs that do not exist.”
I agree with mr. Campbell insofar as it is important to understand what the Group DIDNT take into account
“A long list of relevant issues have not been part of the WWG agenda. So far, the WWG’s investigations have not involved any substantial analysis of :
(a) the extent of poverty among beneficiaries and low income workers and its effects
(b) whether benefit levels can sustain basic living standards vis a vis rising costs, and the related health outcomes, particularly among children.
(c) the cost and optimum form of work and training schemes for the young unemployed.
(d) the availability and affordability of childcare, region by region
(e) the global recession’s impact on the job market
(f) the adequacy of the government’s current job creation policy.
(g) the job outcomes attributable to the government’s stimulus policy during the recession.
(h) changing social attitude to marriage breakdown and divorce, and the implications for DPB figures.
(i) the social and economic value – including opportunity cost – of parenting carried out by DPB recipients
(j) the net cost of work schemes as opposed to the health costs and law and order costs that are unemployment -related
(k) the extent to which demographic factors such as the ageing population are being reflected in the sickness and invalid benefit numbers…etc etc. “
For the record I agree with spud, their are metaphoric slaves as well as literal ones. people can effectively be “owned” without someone having ownership papers on them. Glad to see you back brother. Hope your brother is hanging in there?
anyone who earns under 40k a year would qualify as a “wage slave” already. it wouldn’t take much of a push to widen that group.
Dude, that would be practically half of all full time working NZ’ers.
Spud, I think your attempts to get out of being held responsible some ridiculously off-kilter assertions by using the Earthquake is in extremely bad taste.
I have a feeling if you weren’t such the loyal Labour supporter you are that would have been a ban.
I haven’t done anything wrong, what I responded to was in bad taste. I know people in CHCH who have not been accounted for and am very upset. Reading comments like yours just makes me wonder why people bother attacking others at a time like this. Please leave me alone so that I can get back to commenting. I’m not trying to use anything as an excuse, it’s wrong to go after people who are already feeling trauma.
Now back to the thread, you make a good point Viper, wages are pretty miserable here and with the rising cost of living, lifestyles aren’t getting any better.
@Dave
You don’t need to use the word slavery to advocate for it and, IMO, modern slavery is more about removing peoples choices so that they have no power to direct their lives than actual ownership of them. It leaves the people who take such power to themselves more power and less expense.
Hayek got it wrong – the road to serfdom for the majority is capitalism.
Is this not a case of taking a Christmas present off a group of people that used it, re wrapping it and saying look we handed you a present? Taking away the TIA that helped with childcare and transport costs related to study, then giving it back? Telling NZers that what we had cost too much money, lots of New Zealanders saying BOOO! then handing it back and with different wrapping and everyone shouting YAY what a good idea? Very strange, like they admit they shouldn’t have done it in the first place.
Then again, haven’t I been saying they would do this?
In regards to working at age 3, are Single parents to take their children to job interviews? What if you use Playcentre or something where parents are supported and do free training within the centre (as per Playcentre requirements) and help run sessions? I suppose this type of ECE will not be suitable for this type of family anymore. Shame really as it really does become a support network for families, not just children. I do believe that is should stay at age 5-6.
I believe whole heartily that parents should be at home while their children are younger. ECE once children are 3 like Kindy yes, but If you can stay at home I do think in most cases it is best.
If you are studying already, does this mean you have to look for work too?
As for Work for the Dole, how would this work with the health and safety requirements? I was young last time National was in (think around age of 11) but did this not fail partly due to the health and safety regulations and policies at the time, like work boots needed etc. As I said I was young and going off my memory as an 11 year old.
I don’t know how it would work. As for the free “long acting, reversible contraception” Am I guessing IUD’s etc that offer protection for 3-5 years? They are not recommended for people with multiple partners due to the risk of infertility caused by increased risk of infections as well as other problems that can occur, which is what this recommendation is aiming at isn’t it? So if it not recommended for people with multiple partners, then how is it going to help the perceived situation?
As for case managers, it is easier just to have one, instead of explaining and going over things that are painful to go over time and time again. It can end up making you feel deflated and is quite upsetting, especially when you are made to feel like scum and they talk down to you in front of your children.
The “free, long acting reversible contraception” potentially creeps me out a bit. I know that it’s a long shot, but it honestly sounds like a few steps away from sterilising the poor… How could it be guaranteed that young women won’t be forced into it? Also, following on from A Mother’s point about the IUDs, if a person has multiple partners, the risk of infections is greater – potentially made greater still by the ‘long term contraception’ protecting a person only from pregnancy?
I don’t even think that the National govt would go so far as to require people to inject or consume hormones in order for them to access help. There are far too many human right issues.
The one I am worried about is making parents look for work when their child is 3. A parent should be at home if possible, until they are school age. I do not agree with this part at all.
The biggest problem is that there is no consistent availability or affordability of childcare around the country, and any work-test cost comes out of the childrens mouths when the parent is looking for work (as will the travel to interview costs).
The second biggest is that the woman working part-time with a child age 3 to 5 will get less money in the hand than a woman with children over 5 – because she will have childcare costs the woman with children in primary school will not have. Effectively this means she is losing some of her exemption from abatement to childcare costs.
The third biggest, well maybe not third biggest, is that being work tested normally prevents full-time study. Parents cannot be available for work 9 to 3 and (be in course between those hours) then study full-time, except at Open Poly or extra-mural (and even then it’s not that viable as a sole parent, should they get a part-time job to continue with a full-time study workload).
So very few parents will be able to take advantage of a return of a TIA if they can only use it until their children are 3 years of age.
It would appear that parents with children over 3 are to be restricted to part-time work availability and part-time study only. And who would subsidise travel (and without a subsidy pay for the travel out of the DPB) to part-time courses – thus effectively closing even part-time options down to Open Poly and extramural.
I wonder if it is study OR work.
My student loan is growing and I do not want a debt with nothing to show for it. That just seems pointless. If I am to look for a job, then it will be hard to study as my children are not in school yet. I am not super woman, my children are 4 and nearly 3.
Or I could just change over to the student allowance? That against the rules though if you on the DPB you can not get the student allowance only the loan. Oh so confused… As it is I have to do a placement this month for 3 weeks and childcare is going to be hard going for that time as have one under 3 still and will be more than 20 hours a week. But NZers like the fact that TIA was canned (due to Paula Bennett lying and misleading the public)
Oh well, all I can do is do my best and hope they do better for the others that find themselves in my shoes. Oh and due ot the funding to Unis – They have stopped a lot of part time options including the degree I am doing. This doesn’t help. I’m lucky I was already in part time so can continue, but others do not have a choice in a lot of degrees its full time or nothing.
Makes it hard.
Mother. How do regard yourself in the scheme of things as a mother with two preschoolers and collecting the DPB? Are you a bad person? Or a person giving it her best shot?
Interesting question.
I see myself that I am a strong person, who is doing the best for my children (leaving a relationship that had gone bad due to ’someone’ getting a new job, trying to stay awake to do the work due to odd and long hours then eventually taking what his workmates used (you fill in the gaps) so no warning it was going bad, pre kids, but it got pretty nasty. He has got help since
Moving out with two young children (9 weeks and 16 months at the time), into a house by myself in Aug 2008 and in the same week made enquires into Uni as I knew I had to support them some way. I did Data entry before I had children (stoped work 2 days before I had my oldest) but that wouldn’t support us all. Following Feb started doing a uni prep and cross credited them over. I then started Uni degree part time last year (childcare too expensive) from home, didn’t give up and found a way around the canning of the TIA. It will take me 6 years instead of 3 but I will get there. I will qualify at the end of the year my youngest is 6. I think that doing this was pretty courageous really.
I put my children first. I volunteer at the Playcentre, doing office jobs there etc, helping out on sessions and doing the courses there too, as being involved with the education of my children is important to me. My children are happy, they laugh, are polite (please thank you your welcome) they share and have empathy. They ask questions and can’t think of anything worse than time out. That makes me happy. Playcentre has giving me support, friends with other mothers with children (hardly any of them are single, me and one other?)
I pick myself up and carry on and get things done. I am busy and it doesn’t involve sitting at home and drinking beer or wine. It doesn’t involve going out socialising. It does involve making sacrifices and being able to make money and meals stretch (like the other mothers as most are single income families, it involves sacrifices)
A lot hear I am on the DPB with young children, therefore think I am a bad person and must be lazy. They just hear DPB and the stigma of it is pinned on me. Due to having two little people, I do think some assume I fell pregnant while I was on the benefit and that is not the case.
I have a plan, I will get there, I am not just sitting around. I am busy, I am not lazy. I am who I am.
So I suppose I am giving it my best shot at a new chance of life for the three of us. Wish I didn’t have to collect the DPB and at the moment I am trying to think in my mind that it is the same as the student allowance as I am a student and a collecting a benefit like other students do. If it wasn’t the DPB it would be the student allowance. I know it isn’t the same but it helps ME feel better about the situation.
So does this mean Labour regrets being responsible for legislation that allows work-testing of invalid’s beneficiaries, and for changing the law to make social security about moving people into employment rather than meeting the basic necessities of life? Do you regret abolishing the special benefit in 2002, under urgency so nobody could have a say about it? Even the tories in 1995 tried to do that and failed but everyone was so wild, including Labour, that it never got passed. Labour’s 2007 amendment Act is completely anathema to anything that resembles in the slightest what Labour used to stand for when it came to the poor. Labour really has to front up to these issues if it’s ever going to be trusted over its social welfare policies again.
A Mother. A very impressive story of survival. I like to think of DPB being for you and others like you. Gutsy is a word that springs to mind.
“They just hear DPB and the stigma of it is pinned on me.
That makes me very angry for you. Sort of like racism really. Condemned before you speak.
Good luck with your family and your study.
ianmac basically summed up everything I want to say. Good on you A Mother, for you I have absolutely nothing but respect. Hope your studies go brilliantly, you absolutely deserve it!