I suppose, in terms of welfare reform, NZ is somewhere between the US and the UK. Here is Frank Field, ex Labour Minister, telling the Blair (or Cameron) government what it should be doing (I'm sure he would like to go a lot further having read some of his work). He makes an interesting point;
Beveridge (architect of Britain's welfare state) never meant welfare to be free of conditions. Nor did he think it important to give incentives to claimants to leave welfare. He assumed people would do that automatically as jobs became available.
Why is it now the government's job to incentivise beneficiaries into work? At a recent meeting a woman asked what ACT would be doing about making it worth her while. Look at what she is really saying. There is work for her but because it only pays a bit more or the same as her benefit she doesn't want to do it or think she should. Mind you, she doesn't object to you working so she doesn't have to.
3 comments:
I knew I knew you from somewhere Lindsay.
This is Peter from today at the Vic Clubs Day.
:)
The thought had crossed my mind. Good to put a face to the name....just don't ask me any questions about environment policy:-)
But that's the whole bind of it. Govt made benefit levels generous enough to not exclude anyone from a life on par with his neighbour (1972 Royal Commission on Social Security) and then found people, quite rationally, chose not to work. I know plenty do because they recognise the advantages and they deserve real kudos. I think you worked as a single mum didn't you Gloria? Or am I confusing you with another Gloria? I think working single mums are the bees knees. And so do their kids. If not in the moment, in time.
Post a Comment