Some straight answers from the Minister for Social Development. For that, at least, she gets a tick.
260 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister intend to abandon the previous Government's proposal to move towards a single core benefit, given the statement in the National Party policy "Reject Labour's planned new benefit terminology which will make the government workers use the term "income support" rather than talk about benefit types."?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: Yes
259 (2009). Sue Bradford to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (10 Feb 2009): Does the Minister have any plans to replace the Social Security Act 1964 with redrafted legislation to govern the administration of the social security benefit system; if so what is the proposed timeframe for having any such legislation replacing the Social Security Act replaced?
Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: No.
There will however be amendment bills. One is needed, for instance, to introduce the DPB work testing National promised. In fact, the DPB itself was introduced under an amendment bill. That was a change of enormous significance. So promising not to replace an Act needn't be the disappointment it initially looks like. Especially to those of us who want real reform. Ultimately it will be unavoidable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I firmly believe the National Party will never drastically reform the welfare state.
It might tinker with it, modify it around the fringes, but never undertake a complete overalhaul of it, because the Party is too scared of the political consequences.
Duh. fundamentally the problem is with the electoral system, the franchise, not the welfare system.
Take the vote from all beneficiaries, all WFFers, anyone not paying the top tax rate -
and then you'll see some real reforms overnight!
Post a Comment