Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?
200 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
John Key sorta rules out the weird and disturbing "14 weeks old" suggestion:
It was also expected to recommend that women who had more children when they were already on a benefit be required to go back to work when the baby was 14 weeks old.
"Personally I feel a bit queasy about that, I think that's a step too far, I think most New Zealanders would think that's a little on the extreme side."
Working part-time once your youngest child was three was reasonable, he said.
So he's appointed a working group whose recommendations are "extreme" and make him "queasy". Righto.
-
We should remember the nature of this government (and most, to be honest). The report WILL be severe, so as to make the final recommendations "not so bad". Bait and switch, my friends, bait and switch. Try not to get too incandescent too soon.
-
We should remember the nature of this government (and most, to be honest). The report WILL be severe, so as to make the final recommendations "not so bad". Bait and switch, my friends, bait and switch. Try not to get too incandescent too soon.
I think the 14 weeks policy is so clearly insane it will have the opposite effect, and discredit the entire WWG project. If it's an attempt to shift the middle ground then it's doomed to failure.
-
Sue,
So he’s appointed a working group whose recommendations are “extreme” and make him “queasy”. Righto.
is it cynical to think 14 weeks is in there there so the government can seem benevolent when they set it at 3 years?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I think the 14 weeks policy is so clearly insane it will have the opposite effect, and discredit the entire WWG project. If it’s an attempt to shift the middle ground then it’s doomed to failure.
With you on that. I considered the bait-and-switch angle, but I think it’s really more about Rebstock and her pals being moral sadists. A competent Labour response would absolutely hammer that suggestion and the people who have made it.
-
It was also expected to recommend that women who had more children when they were already on a benefit be required to go back to work when the baby was 14 weeks old.
I want to know where the recommendations for making contraceptives cheaper and abortion more accessible are. Otherwise, the 14 wk thing is basically saying “no sex while on a benefit.”
Someone has heard the gag about "so this is what the working class call fucking? It's too good for them" and not realised it was a joke.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
So he’s appointed a working group whose recommendations are “extreme” and make him “queasy”. Righto.
Well, to be fair Russell, I don’t think Helen Clark was given to rubber stamping every politically untenable recommendation that crossed her desk. And despite what some folks will assert, I don’t think you could fairly say the Fifth Labour Government appointed nothing more than cronies and sycophantic arse-lickers who were handed a script and told any ideological deviationism would be looked upon most unkindly.
A competent Labour response would absolutely hammer that suggestion and the people who have made it.
After a slightly bewildering performance from Goff on Morning Report, I'd like to know where Labour's magical job creating policies are beyond... um, tinkering with monetary policy. Or something we will told about in the fullness of time.
-
Well, to be fair Russell, I don't think Helen Clark . . .
Enter the Craigbot.
-
Sacha, in reply to
A competent Labour response would absolutely hammer that suggestion and the people who have made it.
.. and the people who selected the group's members
-
Bait and switch, my friends, bait and switch. Try not to get too incandescent too soon.
Well, that's what we assumed about mining in national parks, right? That some of the ideas were so insane that they were a blind for 'something else'? And instead they turned out to be genuine intentions.
Now, maybe they've learned from the embarassing backdown over that. So yeah, maybe 14 weeks is a blind for six months. But... I'm no longer sure anyone is that well organised. (Where is my diabolically competant evil, etc.)
Also, the DPB. That's the only benefit that's a payment for doing actual work, right? It's not the unemployment benefit, because the people on it are working as care-givers.
And yes... if I were still in Sue's position, on an Invalids' Benefit and trying to shape work around my abilities while WINZ actually got in the way of doing that, right now I'd be terrified about what was going to happen to my family.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Try not to get too incandescent too soon.
please. wait until this arvo :)
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Whatevers, Danyl. {Lengthy rant redacted} ETA: I’m starting early on giving up troll-bait for Lent.
-
Bait and switch, my friends, bait and switch. Try not to get too incandescent too soon.
Hahahaha jk?
We're not joking
Just joking
We are joking
Just joking
We're not joking -
[self-redacted. adds nothing to the conversation]
Craig, snap.
-
A comment on WINZ and childcare: I'm on the board of my local not-for-profit, community run childcare centre. A regular feature of our monthly meetings is the centre manager wearily explaining particular columns on the fees outstanding spreadsheet as "there's a problem with the payments from WINZ". She regularly has to spend considerable amounts of time chasing up WINZ case managers to find out why payments haven't come in. It's a huge stuff-around.
I would not expect this system to become markedly more seamless and efficient if it's overloaded with a lot of single mothers being forced out to work.
-
Tristan, in reply to
You know how dissapointed Craig must be in this government when he is saying
"It was good enough for Helen Clark so it must be good enough for Key"
I'm pretty sure Craig would have wanted better than that from Key
-
I'm pretty sure Craig would have wanted better than that from Key
So this a thread for trolling Craig? He can speak for himself, you know? As you well would know if you've been here longer than five minutes.
-
Can we have a thread about the issue, please
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Also hands up anyone at winz longer than 2 years who had the same case manager
Anecdotal accounts I've heard, I think from a newspaper article, are that case managers are now required to have no humanising touches to their offices (no toys, no photos, no keepsakes) and it's expected that beneficiaries will have no assigned case manager. So every time you return to WINZ, you'll probably see a new person who doesn't know anything about you (or, at best, will have seen you several visits previously), will waste half of your allotted time (or more) just reading your case notes, and then prescribe a "solution" that you know won't work because it hasn't worked before. This is, of course, deliberate - the more inhuman and uncomfortable your WINZ experience is, the greater your desire and drive will be to get away from having to rely on WINZ.
-
If, as 3 News claimed last night, the Welfare Working Group's report will recommend work-testing -- on pain of loss of benefit -- for DPB parents when their second child turns 14 weeks old, then the group has lost touch not only with logic, but with simple human decency.
Call it heat, if you will, but the group - which includes at least one fairly unreconstructed fascist in Professor Peter Saunders - was selected to ensure that it would put forward recommendations that would make whatever Bennett and Key come up with look moderate in comparison. It's a classic bad cop, worse cop routine, like the 2025 taskforce. Kind of funny, if it wasn't so very tragic.
(Also: what Danielle said.)
ETA: a bit redundant by now, sorry, I missed a whole page of comments before posting somehow.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
As you well would know if you've been here longer than five minutes.
Since Nov 2006. 89 posts
That doesn't look like someone who came down in the last shower.
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
Ignore it my darling. Ignore it. Remember that you had Ollie at your beck and call within 10 mins, and know that, if you so chose, Danyl could also be your bitch.
-
Tristan, in reply to
Ahem. What Mathew said ive been here for quite some time. I was merly pointing out that it's intresting that someone who has been quite critical of the previous Prime Minster's conduct is now using her conduct to defend the current one. I think that needed to be pointed out. /end rant
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
She regularly has to spend considerable amounts of time chasing up WINZ case managers to find out why payments haven't come in. It's a huge stuff-around.
I would not expect this system to become markedly more seamless and efficient if it's overloaded with a lot of single mothers being forced out to work.
Agreed. The chances of a complex and controversial new regime being competently introduced -- especially with respect to work-testing recipients of the sickness and invalid's benefits -- are vanishingly small.
Apart from anything else, there aren't nearly enough tame GPs currently on the books. And anyone who knows their rights will seek appeal. It's the people who can't stand up for themselves -- including people on the autism spectrum -- that worry me.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I’m pretty sure Craig would have wanted better than that from Key
I want better from this government on all kinds of scores, and I don’t think I’ve been a shrinking violet about saying so here or anywhere else. But on the specific matter this thread is about, I might get my rage on when I’ve read and properly digested the actual report.
Oh, but having tried (and failed) to repress my memories of being on wefare under the previous two governments take it as read that I’m seriously underwhelmed that beneficiaries are still being dicked around, often (as Russell points out) in breech of the law and WINZ’s own rules.
Being on a benefit is never going to be anything less than humiliating and painful for most people. I’ve been there, darling, and you’ve got nothing to tell me about how degrading it is being asked intrusive questions about your mental health just to pay the rent. Or being an alcoholic hanging on to your sobriety by your finger nails and trying to get through to your case worker that going to a job interview in a liquor store sounds like a really bad idea. How soul-destroying it is feeling like shit on the bottom of someone’s shoe as you put another fuck-off letter in the file.
But putting the goalposts on rollerblades just makes it worse. And it doesn’t have to be that way if Bennett (and her .Labour shadow) would put some practical measures and accountabilities in place. Finally.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.