Myself and Muriel Newman explain how in this week's NZCPR lead articles.
The first part of my piece, which concerns the removal of the requirement to name the father of a child supported by a benefit, has mostly been stated already at this site but the second was something I had been intending to blog about but hadn't:
"But wait – there’s more.
This is just one of the changes this far-Left government intends to make. They also want to scrap other sanctions (benefit cuts) such as those imposed for failing a drugs test or for failing to keep Work and Income appointments. It won’t surprise if they also scrap sanctions that motivated young parents to attend parenting and budgeting courses, and enrol their child with a local GP.
Many of the sanctions loathed by the Left merely imitate the obligations that the paid workforce experience. Now taxpayers will be expected to meet obligations beneficiaries don’t have to and pay for the beneficiary’s ‘privilege’.
This topsy-turvy ‘world view’ was recently exemplified when Catriona McLennan, a well-meaning lawyer and advocate for the Child Poverty Action Group was heard extolling the generosity and kindness of Micky Savage’s original benefit system, and how New Zealand needs to return to that inclusiveness.
What a shock it would be for a young single mother of today to find, under the 1938 social security provisions, nobody was interested in whether she named the father of their child or not: because there was no benefit for single mothers. At best, a deserted wife could apply for a Widow’s Benefit but eligibility rested on her having been married and having sought financial support from the father through the courts.
It’s almost laughable when today’s beneficiary advocates complain about National’s ‘harshness’.
They are out of touch with reality. But they plan to drive policy made by a government with the same problem."
Mum jailed for letting a 10 year old go for a walk
43 minutes ago
3 comments:
Lindsay, I must be missing something here. You write
"This is just one of the changes this far-Left government intends to make. They also want to scrap other sanctions (benefit cuts) such as those imposed for failing a drugs test or for failing to keep Work and Income appointments."
How does this fit with Shane Jones suggesting there will be tough times ahead for those not prepared to work for the dole?
Or is this a case of the left hand not knowing what the left foot is doing?
Well-spotted. Was just about to blog about the inter-party inconsistency:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/there-no-more-sitting-couch-shane-jones-goes-full-throttle-work-dole-scheme
My feeling on the coalition's mixed messages regarding welfare sanctions is that generally women will get less of a hard time and men will get more (if Sepuloni and Jones get their respective ways). Never mind the overwhelming evidence that unsanctioned women on the DPB often attract deadbeat men, with likely outcome numbers of both will increase, with conversely more children with poor outcomes.
Post a Comment