Because the NZ Living Standards 2004 report showed more beneficiaries were experiencing hardship many groups are once again calling for higher payments. Benson-Pope says that changes after 2004 have already done that.
What caught my eye was Pita Sharple's comment which illustrates the 'rock and a hard place' the Maori Party have got themselves into with their 'welfare policy'.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said while he did not like benefits because they entrenched dependency, people receiving them needed to be paid a realistic income.
He called on central and local government agencies and large companies to address the real problem, which he said was despondent communities with no jobs caught in a cycle of hopelessness.
BUT increasing benefit rates entrenches dependency. There has to be a significant advantage in working or some people simply will not.
And the second part of his comment is not much use either. We had the 'jobs jolt' policy which was supposed to stop people moving to these 'despondent communities with no jobs'. The major failure of that policy was it didn't include people on the DPB. If a parent can get a benefit then someone else can tag along. And we still have the populations of these communities being artificially sustained by procreation on a benefit.
How low does unemployment have to go before we admit that it is no longer responsible for the cycle of hopelessness? There are plenty of employers crying out for workers but welfare has made, and continues to make potentially productive people unreliable and unemployable.
Update; Just watched Tariana on Breakfast TV. She said the Maori Party doesn't like the welfare system but there will always be people on benefits so we need to look after them properly (read pay them more). It's a bit like Sue Kedgely saying the Greens don't like soft drinks but we should make the cans bigger so people don't go thirsty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree with you Lindsay. There has to be some benefit in working. Some years ago (before working for families payment) I worked 35 hours per week and got a top up from WINZ. What really got me, was that I would have been better off on the DPB, as I would have been paid only a few dollars less but I wouldn't have had the clothing and travel expenses. When I pointed this out to a local MP she said, yes but you have your pride. Personally, I think you need more than that, especially if the government wants people to work in tedious repetitive jobs.
Gloria
Good on you Gloria. Who was the MP or if you don't want to say, which party?
lindsay, what are your ideas about the following? If we reduce benefit payments to the point where they are a strong incentive to find work, how do we deal with those that can't or won't find work for lentghy periods? A sustained period of income that doesn't meet even the barest of living requirements is going to reflect in crime statistics, don't you think?
Thats what the police are for Belt.If they turn to crime lock the buggers up!
I should clarify my last statement by saying that People in genuine need will never go without in NZ....not if the people can control and determine where THEIR money shall be spent and on whom so that covers those who CAN'T work.
Those who WON'T work...? Well to hell with them.And if they do what Belt suggests they will then refer back to my previous post.Why should the rest of us be held down by the lowest amoungst us? Lets set a high standard and insist they come up to match it.
Belt, I've never argued for cutting the rates at which benefits are paid - only against increasing them. But if you look at how many of the prison population were on benefits before incarceration you would have to say the existing payment rate didn't prevent them committing crime anyway. People with expensive addictions are already living on leftover crumbs.
Where we have to bite the bullet first is the DPB because the most important aim should be to stop more newcomers with babies in tow coming into the benefit system (or rolling off Mum's benefit onto their own). That entry point is the most problematic feeder. Welfare started to snowball with the introduction of the DPB and that's where we have to begin reform.
As I've said before the only way I can see of doing it is limiting the DPB to temporary emergency assistance. Anybody already on it can keep their entitlement until their existing youngest hits school age.
Anyone unable to find a job goes on the dole and that needs an overhaul as well. An incremental plan to transform it into a contributory scheme.
Sickness and invalids? There we may just have to live with those who aren't genuine.
I hate being a defeatist but we may have already lost a generation of people to long term dependence. My efforts are concentrated on prevention over cure, and babies and children over "grown-ups" who refuse to.
But as I've said before (sorry to ramble) the details aren't as important as convincing the public that reform is vital. There I do believe some progress is being made. Although "progress" is a misnomer. Things often have to get worse in order to get better.
Sorry, I can't remember her name. Actually she may not have been an MP, she was managing Simon Powell's office in my area.
Gloria
Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
»
Post a Comment