Election results bad news for those on benefits
Beneficiary Advocate Kay Brereton says, “ The election result holds no good news for people on benefits, National campaigned successfully with their beneficiary bashing agenda, and will now believe their punitive treatment of beneficiaries has the support of our citizens.”
“National policy promised a continued reduction in benefit numbers, in reality this will mean more sanctions, leading to hunger, homelessness and desperation. The measure of success of the policies will be numbers of people forced into unsafe and unsuitable jobs on minimum wage.”
“National also intend to extend the control they exercise over peoples payments, removing the right to manage their own finances, as well as the chance to learn financial literacy.”
“I fear W&I increased security may be here to stay, as the National Party progresses its agenda of 'welfare reform' forcing people to try and exist precariously in the casualised minimum wage economy they are creating.”
Here's how I see the result.
Plenty of good news for those on benefits
1/ No cuts to benefit payments and no plans to
2/ Extension of income management and e-cards to ensure that rent and power bills are paid, children have a warm home to live in and food on the table.
3/ More incentive payments like the $3000 reward to move to Christchurch to apply to other centres of employment
4/ Even greater focus on the economic conditions that create jobs because work is the best way out of poverty
5/ Enhanced security at W&I offices to protect not just staff but any other clients in attendance
Not infrequently I wonder to myself how helpful the glass half empty attitude is 'at the coalface'.
2 comments:
I agree things aren't great:
1/ No cuts to benefit payments and no plans to
well this is a real pity, although there are a couple of mitigating factors: National governments generally raise benefits levels more slowly than inflation (which Labour raises much quicker); and presumably an absolute cap on benefit numbers so that benefits will only be available to 25,000 fewer people each and very year from now. We still don't have details on how to maintain the "sinking lid" policy - I'd guess some kind of "points" system and those with the least points losing eligibility.
So actually that will make a real difference.
2/ Extension of income management and e-cards to ensure that rent and power bills are paid, children have a warm home to live in and food on the table.
Sadly not yet to everyone on the bludge, including those on the white middle-class benefits (student loans/allowances & super)
3/ More incentive payments like the $3000 reward to move to Christchurch to apply to other centres of employment
A policy much more to the left of Clark: who just chopped benefits if people didn't move. But I expect the "sinking lid" will have much the same effect.
4/ Even greater focus on the economic conditions that create jobs because work is the best way out of poverty
The economic conditions that created benefit dependency are the availability of benefits!
5/ Enhanced security at W&I offices to protect not just staff but any other clients in attendance
With a sinking lid policy, taking around 10% off the major welfare benefits every year, hopefully we can see 10% of offices close every year and a similar downsizing of MSD.
So on the whole I agree this is pretty awful: to little, too late.
Positive changes National could make but haven't yet:
1. MSD could change their policy to consider internet access as an essential cost for all households (currently it isn't considered essential). This would provide better access to services.
Currently around a quarter of NZ doesn't have internet access from home. I don't know how many of those are low income earners but I'd guess most of them fall into that catagory or are unsealed mountain road rural types.
Alternatively encouraging smartphone use in a scheme similar to those in the USA where phones are provided cheaply in conjunction with a telco.
2. Improve support for mental health in our healthcare system. Funding in this area has been repeatedly cut and it means mental health consumers can't utilise time on benefits effectively by recovering.
Post a Comment