Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Accident Compensation Commission’

National ramps up attack on unemployed and solo-mums (part rua)

24 September 2012 6 comments

.

.

Continued from: National ramps up attack on unemployed and solo-mums

Yesterday (12 September) Welfare Minister Paula Bennett released this piece of spectacular “data” to the media,

.

Full story

.

It was one of those “Shock! Horror!” stories that the media loves – great headlines, not much critical analysis. When you read the whole “story”, the questions that are not answered scream out at you,

  1. What is full meaning of the statement “An actuarial valuation conducted as part of the Government’s welfare reforms shows the average total cost of those who had received a working-age benefit in the year to June 30, 2011 was $78.1b”?
  2. Why did the Fairfax reporter not cross-reference invalid and sickness beneficiaries to ACC policy of “exiting” clients onto welfare, where ongoing rehabilitation was not available? (ACC staff rewarded for cutting off clients – MP)
  3. How accurate is the report?
  4. How does this report help create 170,000 new jobs, promised by John Key last year?  (See: Budget 2011: Govt predicts 170,000 new jobs)
  5. What was the point of the report, when Bennett herself has admitted on TVNZ’zs Q+A,“There’s not a job for everyone that would want one right now, or else we wouldn’t have the unemployment figures that we do.” – Paula Bennett, 29 April 2012 (See:  http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/transcript-paula-bennett-interview-4856860)
  6. Why has National spent $800,000 on this “report”, when previously  Bennett refused to undertake further research to gain information on child poverty,  “of course there is poverty in New Zealand. This has been acknowledged by the Government but it’s not a priority to have another measure on it” ? (See: Combating poverty more important than measuring it.)

It’s interesting that Paula Bennett rejected calls for further research to quantify the levels of child poverty in this country stating that, ” it’s not a priority to have another measure on it” – but feels it necessary to spend nearly a million dollars of our taxes on a study of  “an actuarial valuation” on long-term costings of  welfare.

If this doesn’t raise the hackles and outrage of New Zealanders then they are truly braindead.

Worse still is the timing of the realease of the Taylor Fry report.

The report – designed to paint unemployed and solo-mums in a maximum damning light – was released on 12 September.

A day later, this story became public,

.

Full story

Listen: Listen to more from Bill English on Morning Report

.

Thus far, that story does not seem to have appeared in any other media.

It has been quietly “buried” under a mountain of negative press releases from National.

This blogger has zero doubt that National was fully aware that Statistics New Zealand was in the process of releasing the data on job losses to the public. That story, plus ongoing redundancies and rising unemployment led National’s taxpayer-funded spin-meisters to pre-empt Statistics New Zealand’s bad news shocker, and instead release their own “Shock, Horror!” story.

Thus far, it seems to have worked.

But for how long?

Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank has released an astonishing report blaming National’s policies for low economic growth,,

Fiscal consolidation is expected to have a substantial dampening influence on demand growth over the projected horizon. This consolidation will, all else equal, lead to a lower OCR (official cash rate) than would otherwise be the case.

See: Govt austerity slows growth, keeps rates low – RBNZ

National fails to create the 170,000 new jobs they promised us last year, and blames beneficiaries for their incompetance? Noice.

.

Addendum

.

Yesterday, this blogger emailed Paula Minister on National’s recent bout of beneficiary bashing,

Date:   Wednesday, 12 September 2012 2:23 PM
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Recent “welfare reforms” – Some questions for you.
To: “Paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz” <Paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: Chris Laidlaw RNZ <sunday@radionz.co.nz>,
    “campbelllive@tv3.co.nz” <campbelllive@tv3.co.nz>,
    Dominion Post <editor@dompost.co.nz>,
    Daily News <editor@dailynews.co.nz>, Daily Post <editor@dailypost.co.nz>,
    Hutt News <editor@huttnews.co.nz>, Jim Mora <afternoons@radionz.co.nz>,
    “Joanna Norris ( DPT)” <joanna.norris@dompost.co.nz>,
    Kim Hill <saturday@radionz.co.nz>,
    “kate.chapman@fairfaxmedia.co.nz” <kate.chapman@fairfaxmedia.co.nz>,
    John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>, Listener <editor@listener.co.nz>,
    Morning Report <morningreport@radionz.co.nz>,
    NZ Herald <editor@herald.co.nz>,
    Nine To Noon RNZ <ninetonoon@radionz.co.nz>,
    “news@dompost.co.nz” <news@dompost.co.nz>,
    “news@radionz.co.nz” <news@radionz.co.nz>,
    Otago Daily Times <odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz>,
    “primenews@skytv.co.nz” <primenews@skytv.co.nz>, Q+A <Q+A@tvnz.co.nz>,
    Southland Times <editor@stl.co.nz>, TVNZ News <news@tvnz.co.nz>,
    The Press <letters@press.co.nz>,
    The Wellingtonian <editor@thewellingtonian.co.nz>,
    “tariana.turia@parliament.govt.nz” <tariana.turia@parliament.govt.nz>,
    Waikato Times <editor@waikatotimes.co.nz>,
    Wairarapa Times-Age <editor@age.co.nz>
Kia ora Ms Bennett,
 
Regarding your proposals to compel the unemployed, solo-mothers, etc, to undertake various obligations, or face having their welfare payments cut, I have some questions to put to you;
  1. Will recipients of Working for Families – which some call a “welfare benefit – also be expected to compulsorily enroll their children in Early Childhood Education and doctors? If not, why not?
  2. Will superannuitants who are caring for children also be expected to compulsorily enroll their children in Early Childhood Education and doctors? If not, why not?
  3. Will children of all families, regardless of financial and/or employment circumstance also be expected to compulsorily enroll their children in Early Childhood Education and doctors? If not, why not?
If  compulsory early childhood education and doctor’s visits for children of unemployed, solo-mums, and other welfare recipients is such a good idea that National is willing to enact legislation, and financially penalise parents for failing to carry out this policy – why are other parents also not being compelled to enroll their children in Early Childhood Education and medical clinics?
 
Is there a basis upon which only the unemployed who have been made redundant from companies, government departments, and SOEs, are being targetted? What is that basis?
 
If unemployed or low-income families are financially unable to enroll their children in Early Childhood Education, doctors, etc, what steps will National take to offer additional financial assistance?
 
Do you still stand by your comment that you made on TVNZ’s Q+A on 29 April 2012, that, “there’s not a job for everyone that would want one right now, or else we wouldn’t have the unemployment figures that we do”.
 
And lastly; is this propopsal – plus your other so-called “welfare reforms” – simply not an attack on the unemployed and solo-mothers to deflect attention away from your government’s inability to generate the 170,000 new jobs that Prime Minister John Key promised us at the last election?
 
I await any possible answer you might be able to provide to these questions.
 
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
 

PS: This correspondence is not to be regarded as permission, whether actual or implied, to release any personal details about me that the State might hold about me.

Her office has responded today (13 September),

Date: Thursday, 13 September 2012 9:06 AM
From: Natalie Hansen <Natalie.Hansen@parliament.govt.nz>
To: “‘fmacskasy@yahoo.com'” <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: FW: Recent “welfare reforms” – Some questions for you.

Hello Frank

The Hon Paula Bennett, Minister for Social Development has asked me to thank you for your email. 

Consideration is currently being given to the matters you raise and you may expect a reply at the Minister’s earliest opportunity.

Kind regards

Natalie Hansen

Private Secretary, Office of Hon Paula Bennett Minister for Social Development | Minister of Youth Affairs Executive Wing 5.5, Parliament Buildings| Private Bag 18041 | Wellington 6160

Telephone: +64 4 817 6815 | Fax: +64 4 817 6515 | Email: Natalie.hansen@parliament.govt.nz

Consideration is currently being given to the matters”  I raised?

It will be interesting to see what – if any – rational response Bennett comes up with. This should be good.

* Up-date*

Date:  Monday, 24 September 2012 3.57PM
From: “J Key (MIN)” <J.Key@ministers.govt.nz>
To: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Recent “welfare reforms” – Some questions for you.

Dear Mr Macskasy,

On behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, I acknowledge the copy of your email sent for Mr Key’s information.

Regards,

E Tanga          

Ministerial Assistant/Records Officer           

Office of the Prime Minister

No further response  received from Paula Bennett’s office as at 24 September.

 

.

*

.

Sources

Scoop.co.nz: Combating poverty more important than measuring it

NZ Herald: Fate of youth gloomiest stat of all

NZ Herald: Benefit tally ‘not an excuse for hard line’

NZ Herald: Andrew Cardow: Bennett out-nannies Labour’s nanny state

NZ Herald: Govt austerity slows growth, keeps rates low – RBNZ

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements

Born to rule…

29 March 2012 4 comments

|

|

Let’s play a guessing game.

‘ Who Dunnit? ‘

|

1. The Story So far…

Bronwyn Pullar was having trouble with ACC – due in no small part to National’s current cutbacks and demands for greater “efficiencies” from state owned enterprises.

Ms Pullar is a National Party apparatchik and acquaintance of  Nick Smith, a National Party MP, and ex-Minister for ACC. She is also close to other National Party high-ups; Michelle Boag , John Key, et al.

Ms Pullar attends a meeting with ACC officials, to push her case. She also has in her possession, files mistakenly emailed to her by ACC. Attending the meeting as a ‘support person’ is one-time National Party President, Michelle Boag.

Who-said-what at that meeting is contentious – each party accusing the other.

Michelle Boag then sends an email to Judith ‘Crusher’ Collins, regarding the issue.

For reasons of her own, Ms Collins forwards the email to ACC board chair John Judge and chief executive Ralph Stewart.

Soon after, the email is leaked to the media,

Things came to a crescendo on Sunday March 18, 2012.  That morning an article by the Herald’s David Fisher confirmed not only that Bronwyn Pullar was the mystery recipient of the information but that at the support meeting where the negotiation occurred she was supported by former National President Michelle Boag.  The source of the information appears to be an email that Boag had sent to Collins.

 
The blogosphere kicked in.  Cameron Slater  had a detailed post up by 8 am, complete with historical emails and links.  He then posted a further two posts on the subject up that day.  I understand that Boag bet Slater’s father for the National Party presidency in 2002.  It is apparent that Slater does not like Boag.  He certainly appeared to be enjoying the difficult predicament that Boag had found herself in.” – Waitakere News

Who leaked the email?

The candidates are;

  •  Michelle Boag – the sender of the email and Bronwyn Pullar’s friend and supporter.
  •  ACC Minister Judith Collins – the recipient of the email who then forwarded it to:
  • ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and his secretary, and:
  • ACC chairperson John Judge.

There is also an indication that Ms Pullar’s ACC case manager also viewed the email, as well as one of Ms Collins’ staff.

It’s fairly clear that whoever leaked the email did not forward it directly to the Herald. That would have left an  electronic IP-trail*. Instead, it was most likely forwarded to Cameron Slater, who would have ‘stripped’ all IP details with a simply C&P; and then forwarded it to the NZ Herald.

Slater is fairly notorious for being a useful conduit to leak information from National, to the media. Using him as an intermediary removes embarressing electronic IP ‘footprints’.

So – who would have used Slater in this manner?

In playing “Who Dunnit”, it’s worthwhile considering the three componants of any  nefarious activity,

  1. Motive
  2. Means
  3. Opportunity

Obviously, all parties to this affair have #2 and #3; Means and Opportunity.

It is #1 – Motive – that counts the most.

Who stood to gain the most by releasing the email?

Who wanted to protect his/her position the most?

Who was potentially most embarressed by the email?

Who has a relationship with Slater and could count on his discretion?

The following is honest opinion…

The last item is perhaps the most critical; whoever forwarded this email to Slater would have needed to be reassured that he would not betray the sender and land him/her in serious hot water.

Slater is National’s “asset”, doing their  ‘dirty work’ .  When the National hierarchy  does not want to dirty their own hands with mud – but still want to make public damaging information to embarress a political opponant – Slater is their go-to man.

Slater’s role in such nefarious activities is even more useful to National after Paula Bennett’s clumsy mis-handling of private information belonging to two solo-mothers, which she disclosed to the media. There is still a complaint pending against Bennett for abusing her position as Minister for Social Welfare.

Somewhere, sometime, a top National Party apparatchik would have instructed each and every minister and MP not to repeat Bennett’s mistake. S/he would have given firm instructions that releasing damaging information to discredit an opponant had to be done surreptitiously, using a Third Party.

That Third Party would be Slater.

That would give National “plausible deniability” when the sh*t hit the fan and fingers were pointed.

In my opinion, Slater’s role in this increasingly bizarre and sordid affair points to who leaked the email.

|

2. Prior ‘form’…

As explained in my previous blogpiece,  Gerry Brownlee – “In the public interest”, this government is probably one of the leakiest in recent history. Leaking to the media and feral bloggers has become a ‘speed dial ‘‘  form of communication with the public.

|

3.  Consequential Matters Arising…

Using Third Parties such as Slater, to spread muck has it’s inherent dangers.

Eventually, the entanglements and the copious volumes of information at the hands of  someone like Slater creates it’s own risks for his  “handler(s)”. Slater will have  considerable dirt on those who have leaked information to him. He  will have to be “kept sweet”,  to deny him cause to go rogue and threaten to disclose information  embarressing to those who have fed him material in the past.

|

4. A Question…

Isn’t it interesting that John Key acted at near super-sonic speed to lay a police complaint regarding the Teapot Tape. He was only too glad to  allege to Police that his privacy had been breached by Bradley Ambrose.

Shouldn’t the  release of Ms Boag’s email to the NZ Herald on 18 March, disclosing Bronwyn Pullar’s name and details, also count as a serious breach of privacy?

Why haven’t the Police been called in?

The answer, I suspect, is fairly obvious.

|

(* The means by which the email was leaked is mostly irrelevant. I offer one method – there are at least two other means by which a transfer of information could easily occur.

-FM)

|

* * *

|

Previous Blogposts

Nick Smith

ACC Email Leak – Solved!

Nick Smith – #Rua

Gerry Brownlee – “In the public interest”

Other Blogposts

Waitakerenews: Was Nick Smith shot by friendly fire?

The Political Scientist: The banality of corruption

IDLE THOUGHTS OF AN IDLE FELLOW: Ms Boag points finger: Will Ms Collins resign?

Additional

National’s Boag was in ACC meeting (first media repeat disclosing Ms Pullar’s identity to the public)

ACC denies leaking information

Speculation rife over ACC leak

Boag angrily denies leaking ACC email

Computers focus of ACC privacy inquiry

Political round-up: Leaks and denials

Collins eyes ACC defamation action

ACC worker re-viewed leaked Smith letter (note; article’s Timeline  ‘March 20’  date should read March 18)

|

|

= fs =

Nick Smith – #Rua

28 March 2012 6 comments

|

|

    “Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have had to wade through ACC claims. A fair chunk of those will have had to fight for one thing or another. They don’t get to email their old pal the minister for help, or take their case to several Cabinet ministers, or get meetings with senior managers, or lobby board members.

    Pullar shouldn’t have received any special assistance or access just because she’s well-connected. And clearly she did. Indeed, I reckon that happens quite a lot in this small country and it’s not good.” – Tim Watkin, ‘Pundit’

Indeed.

One salient point of Ms Pullar having to pull strings with various Ministers of the Crown is that in itself is indicative that matters are seriously amiss with ACC.

If  National supporters like Bronwyn Pullar are finding it tough to deal with ACC, they need to reconsider their ideology and not skirt around the effects of National’s hard-line policies which are affecting the Corporation’s customer-relations and impacting on clients.

One of the hopes of ordinary folk is that those who vote for the government-of-the-day (in this case, National) experience/suffer the consequences  of their Party’s policies. That makes everyone sit up and take notice.

For a National supporter  to attempt to avoid the consequences of National’s policies is not on. They need to “take the hits” like the rest of us.

Perhaps when sufficient numbers of National supporters/voters experience the impact of National’s right-wing policies, they may think twice when next casting their votes on Election Day.

|

* * *

|

(Note: I take no pleasure in Smith’s errors of judgement. God knows I’ve made a couple of big mistakes in my past. It would be churlish of  me not to  wish him well for his personal future, and for his family.)

|

Other Blogposts

The Standard: Confused? A guide to the letters & leaks in the Nats’ Civil War

|

|

= fs =