Opinion: National's stance on welfare not so tough

Tough on welfare? National might want voters to think that. But the party's latest move on welfare reform is also carefully framed to make some of the claims from National's critics that the package bullies and punishes beneficiaries sound rather shrill.

Those claims will certainly be levelled at the most striking element of National's overhaul of the benefit structure - a new requirement that sole parents who have an additional child while on the benefit be subject to part-time work testing once the child turns 1.

This stick - designed to break the cycle of intergenerational welfare dependency - would affect around 4800 beneficiaries a year out of a total of nearly 330,000.

Another seemingly significant step is placing the 58,000 people currently getting the sickness benefit in a new category of jobseeker support, along with the 57,000 on the unemployment benefit and 11,000 of those getting the domestic purposes benefit.

This group will be expected to be looking for work and available for work subject to their capacity to work.

However, sickness beneficiaries were already subject to such work-testing and they will still be able to get "temporary exemptions'' if they are deemed not fit to work.

The welfare working group - which recommended the more work-focused welfare system which National has picked up - said in its final report back in February that it has estimated that 37 per cent of beneficiaries were already expected to actively look for work. A rough calculation has that figure rising to around 53 per cent under National's latest changes. But that presumes zero exemptions.

The policy typifies National's overall election strategy so far - maintaining momentum through drip-feeding policy to demonstrate the party is focused on the issues that matter to voters, while at the same time not overly scaring the horses.

The working group also recommended increasing the sanctions on beneficiaries who do not meet their work obligations.

However, National is sticking with the graduated sanctions applying now and which begin with a 50 per cent cut to a person's benefit on the first failure to comply with work-test rules.

Neither has National (sensibly) followed the suggestion of the working group that targets be set for reducing the overall numbers of beneficiaries. Instead, National is claiming the changes will cut the numbers by 46,000.

That remains to be seen. It depends on jobs being there to fill. National is still holding firm to its Budget-time forecast of 170,000 more jobs over the next four years.

What is indisputable is that National is serious about welfare reform. There is more policy to come. However, the party is feeding it out in bite-sized chunks which the electorate can digest without feeling National is merely beneficiary bashing for electoral advantage.

- New Zealand Herald

National's welfare reform

Isn't this a new mix of an old tune that didn't make the charts when it was released back in ... well, there have been several remixes but they never made much impression.  Not of course counting the totally original one: Shipley's slashing of benefits for a livable amount to subsistence which resulted in a boom in food banks and children arriving hungry at school.

Make beneficiaries apply for jobs.  Yes.  Go around annoying employers who do not need more staff, just so "the idle bludgers" can prove to WINZ they have really been applying for jobs.  Cut the benefit to people who do not comply with this or that additional requirement, and see what result?  What will those individuals do, I wonder.  Become homeless?  Steal?  Cut back even further on food?  Consequences being.....?  Has anyone thought it through? 

Are there jobs in locations and with conditions that make it possible for people with dependants to take them?  It is all very well to say fruit pickers are needed in some location and no NZers are willing to do that work.  Why not? Could it be because they are short term, payment is by amount worked which means bad weather or slow ripening means no work and no money?  Is there accommodation for children?  What happens when the season is over and the worker has to find another rental property, preferably back where they had friends and family who could give support such as minding the kids when the parent has a doctor's appointment?

Someone on a benefit is short of resources, by definition.  Being in a supportive community is important for mental health as well as practical needs e.g. being able to use a friend's washing machine when their own has broken down. 
The sheer impracticability of these get-tough measures in the past has seen them act as a burden on beneficiaries with minuscule if any advantageous result for anyone else.  It comes across well before elections which is the only positive thing one can say about it, if that is one's idea of positive.

 

Propaganda

You know what? It's very carefully designed to shift the emphasis once more away from the high earners towards blaming the beneficiaries.  While we are oohing and aahing about how much it costs and that we can't afford it, we quietly get further behind the 8-ball because National refuses to get the money from those who have got it.

Dead right I am disgusted at the punitive sending women off to work after 12 month with a new child. This is not going to break the perceived generational welfare problem. This is going to create a generation of children who are even angrier and more violent than the ones we already have because mum wasn't there to care for them because she had to look for work.

And what are the women supposed to do (this doesn't apply to men on single parents benefit because they are unlikely to get pregnant again) about preventing this happening? Wear a chastity belt until all their existing kids have left school? [Abridged]