Jacinda Ardern in The Truth

Jacinda Ardern, Labour spokesperson for welfare, wrote an article , Welfare of the nation, which appeared in last week's Truth. Note she starts with her own door-knocking story which counteracts David Shearer's now infamous roof painter on a benefit (more evidence of the ideological split on welfare currently dividing Labour).

Door knocking in an area with low electoral enrolment last year, I met a woman who was ecstatic I could enrol her. When I asked what occupation she would like listed, she dropped her head and said: “I was a receptionist, but I’m a bit sick right now. I start chemotherapy soon. I’m so sorry”. I asked her why she was apologising and she replied “because I’m on a benefit”.
Nothing indicates to me more that something is wrong with our welfare system than when those who need help apologise for receiving it, and the minority who don’t need the support, but get it all the same, are portrayed as the norm.
The concept of the system hasn’t actually changed all that much since 1938, when the unemployment benefit was made available to anyone who was “unemployed, is capable of and willing to undertake suitable work, and has taken reasonable steps to secure employment”.
It was a social contract. Everyone paid into a collective pot, and if you fell ill or lost your job, you drew from the pot until you found work again. Simple. The concept remains unchanged, but not our perception of it. Why? And how do we restore the notion of true social security?

The concept does not remain unchanged though.  For starters, today "everyone" does not pay "into a collective pot" before they have access to a benefit. Thousands of teenagers start life there and stay year after year. Also, as I have demonstrated before, pre 1970s people had to be of sober habits, good moral character and not have induced their own incapacity to work. And before the 1970s the DPB - in terms of dependence, now the single biggest benefit type - did not exist. Hence it is not a "minority who don't need support" - it's a majority. Not if you define support the way it was defined at the outset of social security.

To say all people on a benefit have chosen welfare as a ‘lifestyle’ is way off the mark. We know Kiwis want to work – the queues of people who turn up for jobs at supermarkets are evidence of that.
There are 112,000 sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Most come off it within four years. The overall rate fluctuates very little, although the Ministry of Social Development predicts that the Government’s costly welfare reforms will still see more people on the DPB than when the Government started.
In 2009, IRD surveyed why people on government support struggle to get off it. The first reason was job availability. Numbers two and three? Whether they had the right skills, and could cover childcare costs.
These are legitimate issues. A sole parent on the DPB receives $293 per week before housing assistance. If they find part-time work, they can apply for help with child care and receive a maximum of $3.91 per hour. If you’re moving into a minimum wage job that has curious hours and requires either a babysitter or childcare, it has the potential to wipe out your wages from day one.

Who is saying "all" people on a benefit have chosen welfare as a 'lifestyle'? We all know that there are people with terminal illnesses, people made redundant or people born intellectually disabled who need support. And most people appear happy with paying taxes to provide it.

But let's get on to the DPB. There aren't 112,000 sole parents on it for starters. She's failed to identify that a growing number of DPB recipients are caregivers to people who would otherwise need to be hospitalised or institutionalised. Then she downplays the level of dependency by telling us that "most come off it within four years". But many go back on it. Her statistic conveniently masks what the government now knows to be the truth as expressed here:

 " just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits."

Next, if people came off the DPB when jobs were available how come when NZ had the lowest unemployment in the world (2007) the numbers only just dipped below 100,000?

Then she emphasises the weekly payment of $293. Add to this the average weekly accommodation supplement and average family tax credit and the sum is $519 per week. And the IWTC that Labour now wants to abolish was exactly about preventing moving into work having "the potential to wipe out your wages from day one". Honestly, she is stupid.

Finally:

It’s time to revive Michael Joseph Savage’s philosophy and create a social security system minus the shame.

Be careful watch you wish for there Jacinda. Savage's system was based on the concept of the deserving and non-deserving. Whereas you and your comrade Deborah Russell want it to be free from any notion of worthiness. Make your mind up.