Welfare reform is disgraceful...

Image via Wikipedia

Welfare reform report is 'disgraceful'...


Beneficiaries advocate Sue Bradford has called a report suggesting at least 100,000 people on welfare benefits be forced back to work within 10 years a "disgraceful, dirty attack" on beneficiaries.

The Welfare Working Group's final report was released yesterday, giving the Government 43 recommendations to reform the welfare system.

The report focuses on lowering the number of people on welfare benefits from about 360,000 to 260,000 within 10 years by setting work obligations and harsh penalties if people do not comply.

Welfare Working Group chairwoman Paula Rebstock said she was confident the reform package would have a positive impact on people, their families and the wider community.

But Ms Bradford said the report was a "disgraceful, dirty attack" on welfare recipients, and the Government should throw it in the rubbish.

"I'm begging to think they've been looking to Nazi Germany for inspiration, with their underpinning 'work makes free' philosophy, attempted eugenic control of a portion of the population, and its potential racist implications for Maori."

The former Green MP said the new system would subject beneficiaries to punitive work testing and sanctioning, including the sick, injured and disabled.

One of the many recommendations in the report was merging all existing categories of benefits, including the sickness and invalid benefits, into a single Jobseeker Support payment.

The additional costs of other benefits would be converted into supplementary payments, meaning overall payments would not be cut.

The group also suggested solo parents work 20 hours per week when their youngest child reached three years old.

Solo parents would receive assistance aimed at covering the costs of childcare for the first six months, or two years of study.

The Government has already ruled out a radical recommendation to send mums who have a subsequent child while on welfare back to work when the child turned 14 weeks.

Recipients who do not meet their obligations would get a 25 percent payment cut for the first failure; 50 percent for the second; 100 percent for the third; and a 13-week stand-down for a fourth or any subsequent failure.

The establishment of a single crown agency, Employment and Support New Zealand, which would administer the system, was also recommended.

Ms Rebstock said the proposed changes would reduce the number of people looking for work from 37 percent to 77 percent, and the Government's forward liability would go from $47 billion to $34b by 2021.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said the changes would spell a disaster for vulnerable children.

"Forcing solo parents to work when their youngest child is three and cutting off their benefit if they don't comply will punish children and entrench the growing gap between those who have the most and those who need the most."

Ms Turei said work testing people with chronic illness, and moving to a single benefit were equally unacceptable.

Unicef NZ said it was concerned small children may not receive the best care and be at risk of inadequate childcare arrangements when parents are forced to work.

Unicef NZ executive director Dennis McKinlay said he hoped the Government would follow through with its commitment to ensure no child was placed at risk.

The Public Service Association (PSA) said the proposal to create a new crown entity to look after welfare was a return to the failed model set up in the 1990s.

"Work and Income New Zealand (Winz) was a byword for corporate excess and lack of direction," national secretary Brenda Pilott.

"If we've learnt one thing from the failed state sector reforms of the 1990s it's that policy and operations have to work closely together."

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the Government would consider the report.

"This will take time and we'll keep talking to New Zealanders about the kind of welfare system they want, that is fair and effective."

She said the 2021 target sounded ambitious, but other recommendations were not extreme.


Acknowledgements: National Business Review

Related articles

• Editorial: Election-year roadblock for welfare change (nzherald.co.nz)
• One benefit of welfare reform (concisecomment.wordpress.com)
• Welfare revamp to push single parents to work (nzherald.co.nz)
• Call for 50 per cent rise in benefits (nzherald.co.nz)
• Welfare study group defends proposals (nzherald.co.nz)
• PM unveils welfare reform package (guardian.co.uk)
• English defends job scheme (nzherald.co.nz)
• Full transcript | David Cameron | Speech on Welfare Reform Bill | London | 17 February 2011 (newstatesman.com)
• Radical Welfare Reform in UK (politics.ie)

The Greens anti-smacking debate and bill...

Greens MP, Sue Bradford has certainly opened a can of worms with her anti-spanking bill. She is either condemned for taking parents rights away from them in disciplining their offspring, or she is congratulated for having the courage and intestinal fortitude to put the way New Zealanders discipline their children onto the political agenda and platform. Who is right?

Ms Bradfords solution to the scenario where New Zealand has been accused of being one of the most dangerous places for children, has been to put forward a bill to repeal a certain section of the Act that allows parents reasonable force to discipline their children. Its purpose has been described as sending a signal that the use of force against children is not acceptable. Its effect will be to outlaw smacking. Police will have to prosecute anybody who broke the law. No assurances can be given that it won't happen. But will the law become an ass?

There will not be a flood of prosecutions of bewildered parents to the courts, because most incidents of parents disciplining their children will be behind closed doors anyway. The occasional case of parents losing their cool in supermarkets will be just that, an isolated case. However those parents who beat their children with whips,bamboo sticks, hosepipes, pieces of wood and other articles are actually more likely to be prosecuted now that disciplining of our children has become a public debate, and rightly so!

Don't condemn Ms Bradford and the Government who may support her bill at the third reading in a few weeks time, just be grateful that our childrens interests have been considered and debated on the national stage. Just remember this, also, that it is never right or legal to assault adults in public ever, even if they are playing up and making a total pest of themselves in a supermarket or a public bar somewhere!

Finally, we have to ask ourselves the following question: Is teaching children that violence is an acceptable solution to problems in anybody's interests? Perhaps Sue Bradford's stimulated public debate has already caused many parents to personally think about their own disciplinary methods towards their own children. Ms Bradford is not an ogre or threat to society, she is a politician who has never sought physical force of any degree to discipline her own five children. Does she deserve personal threats? Of course not! Those people who have taken such a negative reaction towards their perceived right to physically discipline their children have a few issues of their own to sort out!

Incidently, the state of California and its residents are having their own particular debate about banning physical force against those children who are under three years of age!