WELFARE REFORM PROTESTS ALARM BENEFICIARIES
Friday, October 5, 2012
The language protesters are using to describe ongoing welfare reforms
is unnecessarily frightening people on benefits, according to welfare
commentator Lindsay Mitchell.
"Welfare reforms are being described as 'cruel', 'punitive', 'brutal',
'vicious' and 'violent' prompting beneficiaries to fear the worst - that
they will lose their income."
"This is simply untrue. The reforms are focussed on getting more people
into work and on creating better outcomes for children. For people on
the DPB the work expectation kicks in when their youngest child goes to
school and can be met with a little as ten hours per week until their
youngest turns 14. But if there is no work, they will continue to be
supported. Loss or partial loss of benefit will only apply to those who repeatedly refuse to meet drug test requirements for suitable jobs; who repeatedly refuse to enrol their child with a local GP or kindergarten, or who have an unresolved arrest warrant against them."
"If benefit payment rates were being cut, as happened in the early
nineties, an outcry would be understandable. But demonstrating against
the government putting more effort and resources into getting people
into work makes no sense. Especially in such a distraught fashion
which, as I said earlier, is actually alarming the people the protesters
claim to care about."
www.welfarereform.co.nz
Murdoch Mysteries: S02 E11 – Let Us Ask The Maiden
24 minutes ago
1 comment:
I'm on an IB I'm alarmed because of my experiences so far with Work and Income.
It is clear that the staff are overworked (at least in my office) with ongoing delays in simple decisions. A few years ago things seemed to go through the system faster.
It is also clear that case managers often don't take into account individual circumstances. I have had several instances where this has interfered with my treatment and slowed my recovery.
Protests don't alarm me (although some of the descriptions of what the changes will do are eye rolling). What does alarm me are the implementation of changes that make sweeping assumptions, in particular that the staff at Work and Income are fair and ensure clients receive their full and correct entitlement as they are obligated to do, and that their personal circumstances are taken into account when decisions are made. This is NOT MY EXPERIENCE at all and I can see the "stick" that is intended to protect and help being used just because they can with little thought about the wider picture.
Post a Comment