Archive
The Free-market, Hyper-individualism… and a Culture of Cruelty?
.
.
Up till recently, I had believed that there were two facets comprising to create a neo-liberal economy (not “society” – neo-liberalism does not recognise community or society where individuals organise for a greater collective good).
The first was a free market predicated on minimal regulation; reduced government; greater reliance of private enterprise to deliver services; and a lower tax-take which forces future left-leaning governments to curtail vital infra-structure and social-spending.
As Coalition Finance Minister, Grant Robertson clearly told the told the country in March this year;
“We’ve put aside $42bn over the next four years for capital investment but you know what? It won’t be enough. We understand that we need to take a more innovative approach to the financing of infrastructure.”
Which was well understood by National’s former Finance Minister, Steven Joyce, when he accused Labour of a so-called “$11.7 billion fiscal hole” in their pre-election costings.
National’s tax cuts of 2009 and 2010 were not just an election bribe at a time the country could ill afford them – they were a strategic move to constrain a future Labour-led government in a tight fiscal straight-jacket.
Then-Finance Minister, Bill English, said that the 2009 tax cut represented a $1 billion loss of revenue to the National government;
“About 1.5 million workers will receive a personal tax cut, injecting an extra $1 billion into the economy in the coming year.”
The following year, National’s tax would be estimated to cost the State at least $2 billion in lost revenue.
This was well-under-stood by commentators, analysts, politicians. National-leaning John Armstrong explained this in straight-forward terms;
The message is Labour – if it wins – is not going to spend money the new Government will not have…
… is not going to make promises in advance he cannot keep.
[…]
The yawning chasm of the Budget deficit meant there was no new money to spend. Some cherished policies would have to be introduced progressively – rather than in one go. Savings would have to be found; sacrifices would have to be made. And so on.
That was penned by Mr Armstrong in 2011. It still holds true today.
The second facet of neo-liberalism is promulgation and amplification of the Cult of the Individual. Whether this means cheaper imported goods at the expense of local industry and jobs; doing away with retailing restrictions (or even planned, deliberate breaking of the law); easier access to alcohol and subsequent social impacts; the primacy of the Individual’s rights for self-interest and gratification would trump communities expectations of collective responsibility; social cohesion; the health and wellbeing of the population, and the greater good.
For example, attempts by communities to restrict and reign in plentiful availability of cheap alcohol is usually met with a predictable vocal chorus of indignant outrage from people for whom the Right To Buy When/Where-ever supercedes any societal problems. The most spurious arguments are presented, attempting to portray consumers as hapless “victims” of “bureaucracy-gone-made”. Or “Nanny statism”.
Yet, the cost of alcohol abuse was estimated to be approximately $5.3 billion in 2016. That’s $5.3 billion that could have been invested in education, health, public transport, housing, conservation and pest control, increased research in green technologies, etc.
The heavy costs of alcohol abuse is socialised, whilst profits are privatised to business and their shareholders. For many, it is more important to be able to buy a drink at 4am in the morning than social problems arising from easy availability. For some individuals, that convenience outstrips whatever harm is occurring elsewhere. “It’s not my problem”, is the thought that often runs through the minds of many who demand their rights – regardless of consequences.
But there is a third aspect – like a third leg to a three-legged stool – that must exist if neo-liberalism is to thrive: Cruelty.
A certain amount of callousness; disdain; and outright hatred must replace compassion, egalitarianism, and a sense of community cohesion if the neo-liberal version of “society” is to operate successfully.
It is the reason why neo-liberalism never took hold in Scandinavian countries.
It is the reason why – once a foothold was gained in the late 1980s – successive governments ensured the neo-liberal model was maintained in this country.
Almost by definition, neo-liberalism cannot operate in a society which has values diametrically opposed to it. It took an “economic crisis” in 1984/85 for the Lange-led Labour government to impose Rogernomics.
In 1991, Ruth Richardson used the “BNZ Crisis” to implement drastic cuts to health, education and welfare. Housing NZ tenants were forced to pay market rents. User-pays was introduced for hospitals and schools – though the public resisted and ignored the $50/nightly charge for public hospitals.
Neo-liberalism could not have been introduced so easily without the convenient constructs of various so-called “economic crises”. The mainstream media at the time was complicit in the “reforms” sweeping every aspect of New Zealand’s cultural, social, and economic activity.
But once introduced, the speed of so-called “reforms” accelerated and opposition became harder. Mass protests seemingly had little or no effect. The change of government in 1990 from Labour to National only made matters worse – Richardson’s “Mother of All Budgets” plunged the country further into recession.
For the following thirty years, the neo-liberal paradigm ruled unchallenged, with perhaps the rear-guard action from the now-defunct Alliance, and a few stubborn media commentators who still asked uncomfortable questions where we were heading as a country.
By 2002, the Alliance was crippled and forced out of Parliament.
The remaining critical voices of media commentators grew fewer and fewer.
The “revolution” was all but complete. Neo-liberalism was bedded-in, supported by a propertied Middle Class feeling “wealthy” with bloated house-values and bribed with seven tax cuts since 1986.
But all was not well in Neo-liberal Nirvana.
There were embarrassing reminders that the notion of “trickle down” – now repudiated by the New Right as an ‘invention’ by the Left – was not working as per expectations of devotees of the Chicago School model. As Budget Director for the Reagan Administration, David Stockman, said;
“It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down, so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”
It became apparent that the promises of neo-liberalism were largely faith-based. Enormous social problems were being caused as corporate power increased; union power waned; wages stagnated; wealth drained away to a tiny minority; and simple things like home ownership rates were falling dramatically.
Tellingly, it was the gradual loss of the great Kiwi Dream of home ownership that was a litmus test-paper for the toxicity of neo-liberalism’s false premises and empty promises.
Ironically, this was happening at a time when mortgage money was easier and cheaper to obtain from the banks. But only if you earned a high income or already owned property to borrow against. Or could rely on the Bank of Mum and Dad.
Those who already had the assets could hope to get more.
Those at the bottom, or struggling middle classes, would miss out.
For many, they discovered that hitting rock-bottom wasn’t as low as you could go. For growing numbers of New Zealanders, “bottom” meant a shredded welfare safety-net that had gaping holes in it under the National government;
.
.
Added to a mounting housing crisis, various National ministers exploited every opportunity to portray the poor; the homeless; the chronically sick; unemployed; young people; in the worst possible light. They were authors of their own misfortune, according to former PM, John Key;
.
.
National’s Bill English disdain for young unemployed was made abundantly clear on several occasions;
“ A lot of the Kiwis that are meant to be available [for farm work] are pretty damned hopeless. They won’t show up. You can’t rely on them and that is one of the reasons why immigration’s a bit permissive, to fill that gap… a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a license because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable, you know, basically young males.”
“ One of the hurdles these days is just passing a drug test. Under workplace safety you can’t have people on your premises under the influence of drugs and a lot of our younger people can’t pass that test.”
And again in December this year;
“Government’s fees-free policy will ‘soak up staff out of McDonald’s’...”
English’s demonisation of unemployed and young New Zealander’s appeared at complete variance with those same people desperate for paid work. But that did not make him pause in his attacks.
Housing for the poor, the homeless, and vulnerable was also on National’s “hit list”, as they pursued their agenda to down-size state activity in housing.
First came the “reviews” and people’s live upended as National ended tenancies based on an ideological notion that state houses were not for life. The social problems resulting would be euphemistically known later as “unintended consequences”;
.
.
National’s response was predictable,
.
.
Therein lay their own seeds for electoral defeat three years later.
In the years that followed, National portrayed welfare beneficiaries and Housing NZ tenants as negatively as they could possibly get away with.
The meth-hysteria portrayed HNZ tenants as hopeless, lazy drug fiends. National was only too happy to fan the flames of demonisation, as it allowed National to evict tenants and sell off state houses. Their policy in September last year was unequivocal, and linked gangs and drugs, with Housing NZ tenants;
.
.
The press statement above was issued by former welfare beneficiary-turned-National Minister, Paula Bennett. The same Paula Bennett who, only eight months later, lamented on Radio NZ;
“I’ve always had concerns… I just didn’t think that the 0.5 [microgram limit] sounded right. I questioned [the Health Ministry] in particular who had set that standard, questioned Housing NZ numerous times, got the Standards Authority involved.”
She suggested tenants should be compensated. That was ‘big’ of her.
She also stated,
“[I] was horrified that people might be smoking P in houses, I’m not going to shy away from that.
Then I started seeing reports and I remember one in particular from an expert – he said, ‘You can just about get more P residue off a $5 note than you could have at some of these houses with 0.5 micrograms’ and so that raised alarm bells for me.
But … then who am I to be standing in and saying at what level I felt that [the limit] should be?”
Maybe she could have asked Sir Peter Gluckman. He was the government’s Science Advisor at the time. The one appointed by John Key. Yeah, that one.
Or, she could have paid more attention to a 2014 MSD report which revealed a staggeringly low rate of drug-use amongst welfare beneficiaries;
.
.
Yeah, that one!
But that would have gotten in the way of National’s cunning plan.
Plans that drove thousands of welfare rolls, as Key’s administration struggled to balance the government’s books after two unaffordable tax cuts in 2009 and 2010;
.
.
In September 2017, on TV3’s ‘The Nation‘, then Welfare Minister, Anne Tolley, described National’s drive to reduce welfare recipients in the most Orwellian way;
“But we do have a significant number of people who are looking for work, who are capable of working, and so most of them, it’s just a light touch to help them along the way.”
In the same interview, Lisa Owen challenged Minister Tolley on the fate of welfare beneficiaries who had been pushed off welfare. Minister Tolley admitted that she and the National government had no idea what had happened to the thousands of people, including families with children;
Lisa Owen: How do you know that they’re going on to a better life?
Tolley: Look, there’s a whole lot of people that don’t want the state in their lives. Tracking people is awful. They go off the benefit—
[…]
Anne Tolley: They go off the benefit for a whole variety of reasons.
Lisa Owen: How can you claim success, though, for that when you don’t actually know if they’re earning more money than they were on the benefit—?
Anne Tolley: We do track if they come back on to benefit, and we do have a close look at what has happened. As I say, we do do a lot of training. We do provide a lot of opportunities for people to retrain.
Lisa Owen: But you don’t know what’s happening to those people. You’ve got no idea.
Anne Tolley: We have 44% who self-identify to us that they’re going off into work. You know, people go overseas. They age into superannuation. There’s a whole lot of reasons why.
Lisa Owen: All right, so you don’t know.
Thankfully, former PM John Key was more forthcoming in 2011 that New Zealand’s “under class” was growing.
As National ramped up it’s campaign of denigration and punitive action against welfare beneficiaries and Housing NZ tenants, compliant State organisations were reaping their victims.
.
.
One was a victim of damp housing and poverty-related disease;
.
.
One was chased for a welfare debt she could have no chance of repaying – but MSD pursued it “in case she won Lotto“;
MSD was trying to recover approximately $120,000 from a chronically-ill beneficiary in her 50s who will never be able to work again. The Ministry has pursued her for years and spent a large amount on the case, even though it is plain the woman has no money and her health will never allow her to work again.
The judge asked the Crown lawyer whether it was worth continuing to pursue the beneficiary.
The lawyer responded that it was, as the beneficiary might win Lotto and would then be able to repay the money.
And the most recent example of victimising the homeless simply defies comprension;
.
.
Homeless men at the “drop-in centre” were shaken awake through the night every half hour.
All because the facility was not compliant with fire and building consents. To it’s credit the Rotorua Lakes Council said “fire and building consents were being rushed through so people could sleep at the shelter“.
But Mr Deane – the organisor of the facility ” was told yesterday [5 July] that they had to remain awake until the necessary consents were granted”.
The common term for this is sleep deprivation.
It should not be forgotten that the practice of sleep deprivation was one of the five techniques used by the British government against Northern Irish citizens arrested in 1971. Subsequently, in January 1978, in a case taken by the government of Ireland against Great Britain, in the the European Court of Human Rights, ruled that the five techniques – including sleep deprivation – “did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture … [but] amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment“.
Sleep deprivation was determined to be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In 2010, the British government lost a Court appeal to prevent public release of a report revealing the practice of sleep deprivation torture had been used against British resident, Binyam Mohamed. The Court judgement stated;
“The treatment reported, if it had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom would clearly have been in breach of [a ban on torture].
Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could be readily contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of BM by the United States authorities.”
In 2014, the UN committee against torture condemned the United States for allowing sleep deprivation to be used as a torture technique against prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The United States governments calls such practices “enhanced interrogation”.
To discover that sleep deprivation is being used against homeless men in New Zealand is disturbing.
To realise that a practice considered torture by various international organisations has barely been reported by the mainstream media – is deeply troubling.
We have reached rock-bottom as a society when people are being subjected to “a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment” – simply because they are homeless.
This is the definition of abuse against the vulnerable: they are unable to fight back because they are utterly powerless.
If this practice of sleep deprivation was carried out in our prisons, there would be a major Royal Commission of Inquiry.
But not when the subject of this abuse is the homeless. Their powerlessness is worse than men and women incarcerated in our prisons, despite being “free”.
The cruelty shown to our welfare beneficiaries; to Housing NZ tenants; and to the homeless, has been sanctioned by a sizeable ‘chunk’ of our population;
.
.
Fully a quarter of the country’s population has continued to endorse the National Party at four consecutive general elections.
What does this say about a quarter of the population’s attitude to what has amounted to a campaign of vilification and denigration against those at the bottom of our social-economic ‘ladder’ – a campaign that has been skillfully carried out to facilitate pushing people off welfare and selling off state houses.
This degree of callous cruelty has been led by various ministers in the previous National government who have mis-used information; misled the public; and made derogatory comments against those whose sole ‘crime’ was to be poor.
This was bullying from the highest level of power, toward those at the lowest level of powerlessness.
National’s subtle and graduated vilification of the poor made cruelty permissable in a country which once valued tolerance, fairness, and egalitarianism.
When depriving homeless men barely merits a mention in our media, and few bat an eyelid, what other possible conclusion can be made?
This Coalition government is constrained fiscally when it comes to welfare and state housing.
It suffers no such constraints when it comes to showing strong moral leadership to reject State-sanctioned cruelty.There is no fiscal cost to compassionate leadership that lifts up the powerless.
There are good men and women in Labour, the Greens, and NZ First. That is perhaps their strongest common bond between all three; a rejection of the culture of callousness that has seduced and poisoned the hearts and minds of so many New Zealanders.
Every Minister in this coalition government can reject decades of a culture of cruelty by reaffirming the humanity of the unemployed; solo-mums; youth; sickness beneficiaries; state house tenants; the drug and alcohol addicted; and the homeless.
Every Minister in this coalition government can use their position of power to speak on behalf of the powerless.
Every Minister in this coalition government can remind all New Zealanders that we are not bullies; we are better than that. If we cannot look after the powerless in our own society – then what possible hope is there for us and our children’s future, to be a compassionate society?
This will be the defining point of difference between what we have been – and what we hope to become.
This is what will inspire New Zealanders to choose what we aspire to be, and what kind of leadership will take us there.
Cruelty or compassion? Hopefully that will be the true point of difference in 2020.
.
~ In Memory ~
.
~ Emma-Lita Bourne ~
.
~ Wendy Shoebridge ~
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Robertson on infrastructure – $42bn ‘won’t be enough’
Fairfax media: Steven Joyce sticks to $11.7 billion hole in Government budget
Scoop media: Government delivers April 1 tax cuts, SME changes
Scoop media: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – Labour confined to a fiscal straitjacket
Dominion Post: ‘Pressure valve’ medics patch up night’s drunks
Fairfax media: Alcohol – How can we reduce the harm it causes?
RBNZ: Banking crises in New Zealand – an historical perspective
NZ Herald: July 1984 – When life in NZ turned upside down
The Encyclopedia of New Zealand – Te Ara: The ‘mother of all budgets’
Wikipedia: The Alliance
NZ Initiative: Defeating the trickle-down straw man
The Atlantic: The Education of David Stockman
NZ Herald: Home ownership rates lowest in 66 years according to Statistics NZ
Interest.co.nz: Housing mortgage rates are more likely to go down rather than up
Fairfax media: Bank of mum and dad could be NZ’s sixth largest first-home mortgage lender
NZ Herald: Auckland teen couple face sleeping in car
TVNZ: More homeless people sleeping in cars
Mediaworks/Newshub: The hidden homeless – Families forced to live in cars
NZ Herald: Minister spells out $43,000 ‘salary’ claim for solo mum
NZ Herald: Benefit cuts for drug users defended by PM
NZ Herald: Bennett increases pursuit of welfare ‘rorts‘
Fairfax media: Key – Mums of one-year-olds better off working
NZ Herald: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
NZ Herald: Beneficiary birth control ‘common sense’ – Key
Fairfax media: House call plan to nab benefit fraudsters
NZ Herald: Unions demand Bill English apologise for describing jobseekers as ‘pretty damned hopeless’
Fairfax media: Bill English says employers are regularly telling him that Kiwis can’t pass drug tests
Twitter: Newshub – Bill English “soak up staff out of McDonalds”
Frankly Speaking: Fact Sheet – Employment-Unemployment and Queues for Vacancies
Dominion Post: State tenants face ‘high need’ review
Fairfax media: Nearly 600 state house tenants removed after end of ‘house for life’ policy
Fairfax media: Housing policy will destabilise life for children
NZ Herald: State housing shake-up – Lease up on idea of ‘house for life’
Fairfax media: Housing policy will destabilise life for children
NZ Herald: ‘No point’ in new state houses – Bill English
National: New crack down on gangs and drugs
Radio NZ: Paula Bennett: HNZ too cautious on meth testing
Beehive: PM appoints Chief Science Advisor
NZ Herald: Minister claims low drug result as victory
NZ Herald: Bennett trumpets 5000 fewer on DPB
Fairfax media: Number on benefits drops, reaction mixed
NZ Herald: Over 5300 benefits cut due to info sharing
NZ Herald: Benefits cut for 13,000 parents in new regime
NZ Herald: 11,000 disabled children lose welfare benefit
Radio NZ: About 2000 children hit when parents lose benefits
Radio NZ: Thousands losing benefits due to paperwork
Mediaworks/TV3: The Nation – Welfare Debate
NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing
Fairfax media: Aggressive prosecution focus at MSD preceded woman’s death, inquest told
NZ Herald: Damp house led to toddler’s death
Catriona Maclennan: Loans to feed kids are income and disqualify benefit, says MSD
Radio NZ: Homeless shaken awake as Rotorua shelter awaits consents
European Court of Human Rights: Case of Ireland v. The United Kingdom
BBC: Binyam Mohamed torture appeal lost by UK government
The Guardian: UN torture report condemns sleep deprivation among US detainees
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2008
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2014
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2017
Additional
Gordon Campbell: Ten Myths About Welfare – The politics behind the government’s welfare reform process
Other Blogposts
Public Address: We are, at last, navigating out of the “meth contamination” debacle
Pundit: Beneficiary ‘impact’ highlights poverty of social policies
The Daily Blog: A Fair suck of the sauce bottle!
The Daily Blog: New Government response to MSD sadism is just not good enough
The Standard: Loans to feed kids are income and disqualify benefit, says MSD
Previous related blogposts
Easter Trading – A “victimless crime”?
Professor Bill English lectures young New Zealanders on free education
The Mendacities of Ms Amy Adams – “hidden borrowing”?!
Tracy Watkins – Getting it half right on the “Decade of Deficits”
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 July 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (ono)
.
.
You show me yours, I’ll show you mine…
.
Perhaps the most ill-considered public statement from NZ First leader, Winston Peters, was his recent (11 September) demand that Labour disclose it’s full tax plan as a pre-condition for coalition;
“You are not asking the questions. You can’t possibly mean to go into an election saying, ‘My tax policy will be decided by a committee, and I am very sincere about that’. One needs to know what we are talking about … that should be fatal to a party’s chances. And we need to know.”
The jaw-dropping, gob-smacking, forehead-slapping gall of Winston Peters! For him to demand clarity and full disclosure from others – when he himself has made a fetish of not disclosing to voters who he will coalesce with, post-election – takes the Hypocrisy-of-the-Year Award from National and plants it firmly on his own Italian suited jacket-lapel.
On top of which, none of Peters multi-billion dollar policies have yet to be costed.
So here’s the deal, Winston. You want to see Labour’s tax plans? We want to see your coalition intentions.
We’ll show you ours if you show us yours. After all, “One needs to know what we are talking about“.
As Jacinda said, “Let’s do this“.
.
Richard Prebble should keep vewy, vewy quiet
.
On the matter of Labour referring taxation reform to a Working Group post-election, former-ACT Party leader Richard Prebble was scathing in his condemnation that Jacinda Ardern would not disclose her intentions toward implementation of a possible Capital Gains Tax.
In his regular NZ Herald propaganda slot, he wrote on 7 September;
“…Jacinda thinks the answer to every problem is a new tax. Asking for a mandate for capital gains taxes without giving any details is outrageous. All new taxes start small and then grow. GST was never going to be more than 10 per cent.
Who believes it is fair that the Dotcom mansion will be an exempt “family home” but a family’s holiday caravan plot will be taxed? The details are important…”
A week later, he followed up with;
“In a “captain’s call” Jacinda changed the tax policy to say that a Labour victory was a mandate for Labour to introduce any new tax and at any rate that a nameless committee of “tax experts” recommended, just the family home is off limits.
Any tax? What about land tax? Yes. Tax on the family bach and boat? Yes. Water? Petrol? Nothing is off the table. Will the capital gains tax be 33 per cent? Maybe. The petrol tax 10 cents a litre? Probably. Water tax. Guess a figure. “Trust us” says Jacinda.
No party has ever asked for so much power.“
This, from the man who was a former Minister in the Lange Government which – in 1986 – introduced various neo-liberal “reforms” that the Labour Government had never campaigned on; had not included in their manifesto; and introduced the regressive Goods and Services Tax in 1986. The Goods and Services Tax was never disclosed to the public in 1984.
Prebble and his cronies deceived the New Zealand public in the 1984 election campaign. They withheld their true agenda. They lied to us.
For Prebble to now rear up on his hind legs, braying in indignation, pointing a stained finger at Jacinda Ardern, is hypocrisy beyond words.
As former producer of TV’s The Nation, Tim Watkin, wrote on Prebble’s sanctimonious clap-trap;
“To read and hear a member of the fourth Labour government like Richard Prebble howling about transparency is like an Australian cricketer railing against under-arm bowling. Labour’s manifesto in 1984 was as artful a collection of vagaries as has ever been put to the public and after winning a second term in 1987, Prebble and his fellow Rogernomes embarked on a series of reforms – arguably the most radical tax reform ever considered by a New Zealand government, including a flat tax – without campaigning on them.”
Richard Prebble should think carefully before raising his voice on this issue – lest his own track record is held up for New Zealanders to scrutinise.
Does he really want that particular scab picked?
.
Latest Colmar Brunton Poll…
.
The latest TV1/Colmar Brunton Poll (14 September) has Labour and the Greens climbing – a direct antithesis to the TV3/Reid Research Poll which had Labour and the Greens sliding (12 September).
12 September: Reid Research-TV3
.
.
14 September: Colmar Brunton-TV1
.
.
Which raises two questions;
- Are polling polling companies operating in the same country? Or Parallel Universes?
- Is it about time that all public polling was banned once early voting begins?
The chasm in poll-results for National, Labour, and the Greens confirms critics of polls who dismiss results as wildly unpredictable. “Bugger the pollsters“, said Jim Bolger in 1993 – and with considerable justification.
Though Winston Peters and his supporters may be nervous at the fact that both polls have NZ First at 6% – perilously close to the 5% threshold. Any lower and Peters’ Northland electorate becomes a crucial deciding factor whether NZ First returns to Parliament.
Several commentators – notably from the Right – have been making mischief with the poll results, suggesting that a vote for the Green Party would be a wasted vote. Without the parachute of an electorate base, if the Greens fall below 5% in the Party Vote, their votes are discounted and Parliamentary seats re-allocated to Labour and National.
John Armstrong and Matthew Hooton are two such commentators making this fallacious point. Fallacious because even at Reid Research’s disastrous 4.9%, the polling ignores the Expat Factor. Expats – predominantly overseas young voters – are not polled, but still cast their Special Votes, and often for the Green Party.
In 2014, the Green vote went from 210,764 on election night to 257,359 once Special Votes were counted and factored in. The extra 47,000 votes was sufficient to send a fourteenth Green Party List candidate to Parliament;
.
.
It seems contradictory that there is a total black-out of polls on Election Day itself – when voting stations are open. But polling is allowed to proceed two weeks out from Election Day when voting stations are also open.
It may be time for this country to consider banning all polling whilst voting stations are open. If poll results are so open to wild fluctuations, and certain commentators make mischief from questionable data, then the possible risk of undue influence on voters cannot be discounted.
Once voting begins, polling should cease.
The only poll that should count after voting begins is Election Day.
.
Losing the plot, Winston-style
.
On Radio NZ’s Morning Report (14 September), NZ First Leader, Winston Peters lost the plot. His haranguing of Guyon Espiner did him no credit.
More incredible was Peters’ assertion that he has not made any “bottom lines” this election;
“I have never gone out talking about bottom lines.”
Peters’ blatant Trumpian-style lie flew in the face of his bottom-lines during this election campaign.
On a referendum on the Maori seats;
“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”
On re-entering Pike River mine;
“I’m making no bones about it, we’ll give these people a fair-go, and yes this is a bottom line, and it shouldn’t have to be.”
On a rail link to Northport;
“I can say for the people of Northland and Whangarei, this is going to happen. We’ve got the corridor; it’s been designated. The only thing it lacks is the commitment from central government and we are going to give this promise, as I did in the Northland by-election – we are 69 days away from winning Whangarei as well – and that’s one of the first things we’re going to be doing straight after the election.”
Peters has issued several other bottom lines, including changing the Reserve Bank Act, banning foreign purchase of land, setting up a foreign ownership register, reducing net migration to 10,000 per year, and not raising the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation (from 65).
Peters also attacked Espiner for personally supporting the neo-liberal “revolution” in the 1980s. As Espiner pointed out, when Roger Douglas tore New Zealand’s social fabric apart, he was 13 years old at the time.
Plot lost.
.
Labour’s tax & spend – what ails the Nats?
.
National has launched a full-scale attack on Labour’s taxation policies and plans to set up a Tax Working Group to investigate the possibility of a Capital Gains Tax.
The Crosby-Textor line is childishly simple: the Right have identified a ‘chink’ in Jacinda Ardern’s teflon armour – kindly on loan from previous Dear Leader;
.
.
But there’s more to it than simply attacking Labour through a perceived weakness in their taxation policy.
Labour is attempting to shift New Zealand away from a low-taxation/minimalist government, and return the country to the fully-funded social services we all once enjoyed.
Remember free prescriptions? Yes indeed. Prior to 1986, prescribed medicine was free.
National’s growing concern is not that Labour will introduce new (or higher) taxes.
Their worry is that New Zealanders will like what their taxes can buy; free tertiary education. Lower medical costs. Cheaper housing. New, re-vitalised social services such as nurses in schools.
Up until now, the Cult of Individualism had it’s allure. But it also has it’s nastier down-side.
If New Zealanders get a taste for a Scandinavian-style of taxation and social services, that would be the death-knell for neo-liberalism. When Jacinda Ardern recently agreed with Jim Bolger that neo-liberalism had failed – the Right noticed.
And when she said this;
“New Zealand has been served well by interventionist governments. That actually it’s about making sure that your market serves your people – it’s a poor master but a good servant.
Any expectation that we just simply allow that the market to dictate our outcomes for people is where I would want to make sure that we were more interventionist.”
For me the neoliberal agenda is what does it mean for people? What did it mean for people’s outcomes around employment, around poverty, around their ability to get a house? And on that front I stand by all our commitments to say that none of that should exist in a wealthy society. And there are mechanisms we can use that are beyond just our economic instruments and acts, to turn that around.”
– the Right became alarmed.
This election is not simply between the National-led block vs the Labour-led bloc – this is the battle for the future of our country; the soul of our people.
This moment is New Zealand’s cross-road.
.
WINZ and Metiria Turei – A story of Two Withheld Entitlements
.
Recent revelations that WINZ has withheld $200 million of lawful entitlements to some of the poorest, most desperate individuals and families in this neo-liberal Utopia (note sarc), has shocked some;
.
.
$200 million withheld from welfare recipients who could have used that cash to pay for doctor’s visits. Shoes for children. Even lunch meals – which so many National/ACT supporters continually berate the poor for not providing for their kids – as Donna Miles reported on 13 September;
.
.
Did the country rise up in a clamour of righteous anger? Was there a vocal outcry on social media? Were the Letters-to-the-editor columns filled were disgust and demands for a fair go for beneficiaries?
Like hell there was. If New Zealanders noticed, they showed little interest.
Yet, even the Minister for Social Welfare, Anne Tolley, had to concede that WINZ had fallen woefully short in helping those who need it most in our country;
“I agree at times it’s too bureaucratic and we’re doing our very best.”
$200 million in lawful entitlements withheld – and there is barely a whimper.
Contrast that with former Green Party co-leader, Metiria Turei, who did some “withholding” of her own;
.
.
A young solo-mum withholds information from social welfare in the mid-1990s, after then-Finance Minister Ruth Richard has cut welfare payments – and every conservative moralist; middle-class National/ACT supporter; media elite; and right-wing fruitcake, has a collective hysterical spasm of judgementalism that would put a Christian Fundamentalist to shame.
Perhaps if social welfare had not been cut in 1991…
Perhaps if WINZ had not withheld $200 million in rightful welfare entitlements…
Perhaps then Metiria Turei would not have had to withhold information, merely to survive…
Perhaps if half this country were not so drenched in…
.
.
Perhaps then, our sheep and pigs might finally learn to fly.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Winston Peters to Labour – Front up on your tax plans
Fairfax media: Gareth Morgan positions himself as alternative to Winston Peters
NZ Herald: Richard Prebble – The Jacinda tidal wave can be stopped
NZ Herald: Richard Prebble – The Jacinda tidal wave has gone out
Radio NZ: Time to come clean on coalition compromises
TVNZ: Colmar Brunton poll – Labour maintains four point lead over National, could govern with Greens
Mediaworks: National could govern alone in latest Newshub poll
Colin James: Of polls, statistics and a Labour deficit
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – This election is a two-party dogfight now
NZ Herald: Remaining Green Party voters ‘mainly hippies and drug addicts’ – Matthew Hooton
Parliament: The 2014 New Zealand General Election – Final Results and Voting Statistics
Radio NZ: Morning Report – The Leader Interview – Winston Peters
Fairfax media: Winston Peters delivers bottom-line binding referendum on abolishing Maori seats
Fairfax media: Winston Peters says Pike River re-entry is bottom line to election deals
NBR: TV3 – The Nation – Peters promises rail to Northport
Newsroom: What a National-NZ First Govt might actually do
Fairfax media: Jacinda Ardern says neoliberalism has failed
Radio NZ: WINZ staff accused of withholding entitlements
Fairfax media: Turei rallies Palmerston North troops in fight against poverty
Other blogposts
Donna Miles: Child Poverty – Facebook Post Shows The Nats Don’t Care
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 September 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Anne Tolley’s psycopathy – public for all to see
.
.
14 October: Surplus
On 14 October, seven years after National came to power, Finance Minister Bill English, announced that his government had posted it’s first surplus; $414 million for the last financial year. English said,
“So that means the government has to take a different approach to reducing debt and maintaining surpluses than we have done in previous cycles.
So there won’t be any sense of the constraints coming off because I think in the past that has been the expectation after a period of constraint. It’s important that we continue to focus on improving our expenditure management so that we don’t slip into old habits and put that 10 kilos back on again.
The Budget 2015 one was pretty slim. We’ve had six months of growth that were softer than expected, that seems to be coming right now. But we’ve yet to see what impact that will have on the forecast.”
.
14 October: Death by Deficit
From a story broken by Radio NZ on 14 October;
Minister of Social Development Anne Tolley admitted that having to provide monthly medical certificates in the early stages of cancer was difficult, but said the government had to draw a line somewhere.
She said cancer patients could not expect special treatment, because then everyone would want it.
“Where you draw the line is always the issue,” she said.
“You start creating a whole lot of layers and there would be, I’m sure, other groups of people that would come forward and say, ‘we need special consideration too’.
According to the Radio NZ report by Alex Ashton – and released on the same day as Bill English announced his “surplus” – people suffering from cancer and about to undergo critical surgery, were being harassed by MSD/WINZ to undertake “job seeking obligations”;
Hundreds of cancer patients are being placed on the Jobseeker benefit while they are getting treatment.
One woman, who does not want to be identified, applied for a benefit when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
She was put on Jobseeker Support, which replaced the sickness benefit after the 2013 welfare reforms.
She said she had to pay for a medical certificate every month to prove she could not work – even though her surgeon insisted she would be off for much longer.
“The letter from the hospital wasn’t sufficient. I then had to go back and get a doctor’s note to keep them happy, just to prove the fact that I was going in for surgery,” she said.
“Then I also had to, on the day of my surgery, get someone from the hospital to fax through that I had been operated on.”
Cancer Society chief executive Claire Austin said the woman’s story was common, and the system lacked common sense and sensitivity.
She said many cancer patients had never been on a benefit before, and deserved help while they were going through an extremely tough time.
“The situation really is ludicrous. We’ve got people who are already in work, who are unable to work because they are either sick and have to go through treatment, or have surgery.
“They have to then apply for a benefit, which is a benefit that requires them… to be available to work.”
The welfare “reforms” of 2013 were carried out by Paula Bennett – herself a former solo-mother and receiver of a free tertiary education paid by WINZ.
When the extraordinary situation of cancer patients forced to undergo work-testing and fulfill job-seeking obligations was put to the current Minister of Social Welfare, Anne Tolley, her response was less than sympathetic;
Minister of Social Development Anne Tolley acknowledged that having to provide monthly medical certificates in the early stages of cancer was difficult, but said the government had to draw a line somewhere.
She said if cancer patients were given special consideration, other people would want those considerations as well.
“Where you draw the line is always the issue,” she said.
“You start creating a whole lot of layers and there would be, I’m sure, other groups of people that would come forward and say, ‘we need special consideration too’.
Tolley complained that if cancer patients were given special consideration, other people would want those considerations as well ?!
Well, yes. If “other people” were equally sick, critically injured, or suffering some degenerative condition – they would need state support. After all, that is why we have a welfare system. That is why Ms Tolley is the Minister for Social Welfare, and is on an annual salary of $272,581 (plus some very generous allowances, retirement perks, and superannuation fund).
Tolley has exhibited questionable behaviour in the past. As previous Minister for Police, she made a spectacle of herself standing atop a crushed car that had been seized from some teenage boy-racer. She positively gloated at it’s destruction;
.
.
Interviewed on TV3 News in June 2012, she even taunted boy-racers to carry on breaking the law by challenging them to “bring it on“, so their cars could also be confiscated and destroyed.
Thankfully, boy-racers apparently had the good sense to ignore Tolley’s dangerous school-yard ‘dare’, leaving the Minister’s childish words hanging embarrassingly in the air – though not before an editorial in the NZ Herald voiced it’s own distaste at her actions;
“What, then, was the Police Minister, Anne Tolley, doing dancing on the bonnet of a crushed car at a Lower Hutt scrapyard this week? This was a crass stunt unbecoming of any minister of any government.
[…]
But worse than the undignified celebration of such a dubious landmark was the message being delivered by Ms Tolley. She was suggesting, in effect, that when on top, the boot should be put in as far as possible. That it was fine to wallow in the misfortune of others.”
Three years later, on 21 June this year, political reporter Corin Dann interviewed Social Development Minister, Anne Tolley for TVNZ’s Q+A. The interview was brilliant, in that we, the public, caught a further glimpse of a person who apparently has very little empathy or concern for those less fortunate than herself.
To re-cap from my previous blogpost;
Last year, two year old old Emma-Lita Bourne died last year from a brain haemorrhage. Emma-Lita had been suffering from a pneumonia-like illness in the final days of her short, misery-filled, life, leading up to her death.
In a coronial inquest, Coroner Brandt Shortland concluded;
“I am of the view the condition of the house at the time being cold and damp during the winter months was a contributing factor to her health status.”
Corin Dann pointedly asked Tolley about Emma-Lita’s death;
@ 6.35 –
“Some would argue with the recent case, for example, with Emma-Lita Bourne who died in the state house, [a] damp house, why not just give those families more money to pay their power bill, rather than give the organisations money to come in and work and all the rest of it?”
Tolley responded;
@ 6.54 –
“And, and, when you look at something like Whanua Ora, they are doing some of that. See, see, what we’ve got with the focus on individual programmes and agencies working in silos, families don’t work like that. They’re very complex issues so if I don’t know the details of that particular family…”
A member of the public listening to Tolley’s comments where she admitted to “[not knowing] the details of that particular family” might have forgiven the Minister for an unfortunate turn-of-phrase that simply came across as someone who didn’t care.
However, when placed alongside her recent comment on 14 October, on Radio NZ’s report;
“Where you draw the line is always the issue. You start creating a whole lot of layers and there would be, I’m sure, other groups of people that would come forward and say, ‘we need special consideration too’.
– and Tolley’s apparent lack of interest in children dying in cold, damp State houses, coupled with an obvious delight in crushing cars – confirms an impression of a somewhat indifferent, cold, and unpleasant personality.
But is that the sum-total of why Tolley refuses to understand the needs of families living in damp houses, or cancer-sufferers being forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops for no discernible good reason?
14 October: Where the money went
Last year, the outlook for National to meet it’s self-imposed goal of a surplus for the 2014/15 financial year seemed bleak. This was a problem for National, as Radio NZ’s Brent Edwards explained with simple clarity on 21 November 2014;
“From National’s perspective, it has been a key political argument to perpetuate the narrative that only it can be fiscally responsible while in contrast Labour is irresponsible with taxpayers’ money. Setting a surplus target of 2014-15 has been an important part of that political strategy.”
The Opposition were prepared to make the most of National’s impending failure to meet it’s own goal of generating a surplus.
It’s reputation, according to public perception, of being the Party of Responsible Fiscal Management would be badly damaged if it failed to deliver on it’s promise of a 2014/15 surplus.
English’s task was made harder by the deteriorating state of the economy, as Brent Edwards reported. English lamented;
“This combination of lower commodity prices and low inflation means that the nominal or dollar value of New Zealand’s economic output will not grow as fast as previously expected. This will affect farm and company incomes and we expect this to flow into the Government’s books through lower revenue.”
If National could not balance it’s books by tax-revenue, it had only one other option available to it – reduce spending.
And cut spending the government did – by a whopping $1.081 billion in ten Vote areas. According to Treasury, Total Crown Expenses cuts comprised of;
- Government Superannuation Fund: cut by $2 million
- Health: cut by $52 million
- Education: cut by $235 million
- Core government services: cut by $42 million
- Law and order: cut by $96 million
- Transport and communications: cut by $304 million
- Primary services: $108 million
- Housing and community development: cut by $97 million
- “Other”: cut by $140 million
- Forecast new operating spending: cut by $7 million
Note that many of the areas cut were those relating to health, education, justice, and housing/community development – four of the most critical areas of any government’s spending.
No wonder so many hospitals are in the ‘red’ with their budgets.
No wonder so many schools cannot afford maintenance on their delapidated buildings.
The cut to Law and Order did not just affect prisons, courts, and policing. As Radio NZ recently discovered, it also impacted on legal aid for domestic violence victims;
.
.
The Radio NZ report explains;
The Ministry of Justice took over legal aid in 2011, and introduced a series of budget cuts aimed at saving $250 million.
[Criminal Bar Association president Tony] Bouchier said things had deteriorated since then, and more funding was the answer.
“The whole idea of legal aid is to give people the opportunity of access to justice which is an absolute basic right in this country,” he said.
“It comes down to whether the government is going to properly fund the legal aid system; that’s where we’re at at the moment.
“The legal aid system is not being fully provided for and it’s causing all sorts of issues of justice in our court system – it’s legal aid on a shoestring budget.”
Remember Anne Tolley’s rebuke to cancer sufferers;
“Where you draw the line is always the issue. You start creating a whole lot of layers and there would be, I’m sure, other groups of people that would come forward and say, ‘we need special consideration too’.”
Fair-minded people would not expect that women (and others) needing protection under the law, from violent partners, should be denied access to a lawyer, and expect legal aid if they required it. Especially if their safety, and that of their children, depended on it.
But not according to this government.
According to this government, cancer sufferers and victims of domestic violence should not expect ” special consideration “.
14 October: Spending on ‘important stuff’
- As National posts it’s first surplus – paid for by cancer sufferers; domestic violence victims; and tenants in decaying, cold, damp State houses – Bill English was dropping hints of tax cuts in 2017 (election year);
“I suppose that’s possible, we put the allowance in there three years ago…[and] we’ve always got the capacity to move that around.”
The Herald, though, was less than impressed at loose talk of tax cuts, suggesting instead that National address the ballooning $60-plus billion debt (see Appendix1) racked up by National;
The surplus is worth celebrating, even if it does not last long. But it would be wrong to give it away in tax cuts, even if it proves to be sustainable.
It’s editorial headline, “Use surplus for benefit of everyone” was positively socialist.
.
- National Ministers had an early Christmas when they gifted themselves 34 new BMWs. The last batch – bought in 2011 – are to be replaced only after about three years’ use.Cost? Unknown. According to National, the price is “commercially sensitive”. (Code for *politically embarrassing*.)
.
- National loves to invest. Cycleways. Aluminium smelters. ‘Hobbit‘ movies. Even farms in the middle of the Saudi Arabian desert. Cost to taxpayer: $11.5 million
.
- National also loves to invest in property. Specifically, a luxury $11 million apartment in New York, and a $6.2 million luxury Hawaiian mansion. Total cost to taxpayer: $17.2 million.
.
- Bailing out Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, and helping Rio Tinto make a good profit ($10.2 billion!) that year? Cost to taxpayer: $30 million.
.
- Subsidies and special tax concessions to Warner Bros for ‘The Hobbit‘, and to other movie companies? Cost – ongoing.
.
Anne Tolley asked; “Where you draw the line is always the issue”.
The above list might be a good start.
National’s “achievement” of a $414 million surplus was paid for by ordinary New Zealanders; sick people suffering from cancer; State house tenants with sick and dying children; women bashed by their partners. Children living in poverty. The unemployed and solo-parents (mostly women) pushed off welfare for most trivial reasons. All have also paid dearly for this government’s excesses.
Some who are “paying dearly for this government’s excesses” may not have expected to be victimised. Cancer Society chief executive, Claire Austin, suggested that up to 800 cancer sufferers could be on a jobseeker’s benefit, without an official WINZ work exemption excusing them from job seminars, interviews, and other bureaucratic hurdles. She stated;
“[There were] probably just as many who gave up because it’s just too distressing, too complex, there’s a lack of sensitivity in terms of the process”.
One wonders how many of those estimated 800 cancer sufferers who are on the jobseekers benefit, and are being chased by WINZ to fulfill work-ready obligations, also voted National?
If one quarter of the population are represented by the 1,131,501 voters who voted for National last year, then it would be fair to assume that a similar ratio of one quarter (200) of those 800 cancer sufferers voted National.
Is this what they expected from their charismatic Prime Minister, that nice, friendly, easy-going Mr Key?
Which sector of New Zealand society will be next to feel the cold, dead hand of this penny-pinching government? A government that refuses to invest in New Zealanders who need assistance the most – but has no hesitation throwing money at luxury limousines; multi-million dollar residences; subsidies to corporations; and a farm in the middle of nowhere in a Saudi desert.
Who will be next?
More than ever, I am reminded of this;
.
.
Appendix1
According to Treasury, as at 30 June 2015, net government debt currently stands at NZ$60.631 billion. That equates to 25.2% of GDP.
In 2008, net debt stood at around NZ$10 billion, as the Treasury chart below shows;
.
.
Current net debt is six times what it was, seven years ago.
.
.
.
References
Interest.co.nz: Treasury reports OBEGAL surplus of NZ$414 million in year to June 30, 2015
Radio NZ: Jobseeker benefit for cancer patients ‘ludicrous’
Radio NZ: Welfare should be a safety net not a trap – Bennett
Legislation.govt.nz: Parliamentary Salaries Determination 2015
TV3 News: Car crushing ‘discredits law’ – expert
NZ Herald: Editorial: Car crushing an undignified stunt
TVNZ Q+A: Revolutionary changes in store for social services (14:11)
Radio NZ: Power Play with Brent Edwards
NZ Herald: No surplus this year – Treasury
NZ Treasury: Analysis of Expenses by Functional Classification for the year ended 30 June 2015
Radio NZ: Legal aid rules not failing domestic violence victims says minister
Fairfax media: Tax cuts ‘possible’ after first surplus for NZ government
NZ Herald: Editorial – Use surplus for benefit of everyone
Fairfax media: Crown looks to trade in its luxury limo fleet
NZ Herald: Govt backtracks on limo statements
NZ Herald: Complaints laid against Murray McCully over Saudi farm deal
Fairfax media: NZ government shells out $11m on New York apartment for UN representative
Fairfax media: NZ diplomat involved in decision to buy $6.2m luxury Hawaiian mansion
Otago Daily Times: Smelter gets Meridian, Govt lifeline
Rio Tinto.com: Rio Tinto announces a 10 per cent increase in underlying earnings to $10.2 billion and 15 per cent increase in full year dividend
Fairfax media: Poverty-stricken kids resort to scavenging
Fairfax media: Cancer Society attacks ‘ludicrous’ benefit requirements for cancer patients
Wikipedia: 2014 General Election
Additional
NZ Treasury: Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ended 30 June 2015
NZ Treasury: Year End Financial Statements – 14 October 2015
Previous related blogposts
Hon. Paula Bennett, Minister of Hypocrisy
A fitting response to National MP’s recent personal attacks on Metiria Turei
On ‘The Nation’ – Anne Tolley Revealed
“I don’t know the details of that particular family” – Social Development Minister Anne Tolley
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 October 2015
.
.
= fs =
On ‘The Nation’ – Anne Tolley Revealed
.
.
On past occassion, I have been critical of ‘The Nation‘ for not making greater use of facts and data when confronting National ministers. Without cold, hard facts and stats, slippery Ministers like Steven Joyce can find wiggle-room to avoid straight answers and indulge in wild flights of fantasy-spin.
But when the team at ‘The Nation‘ get it right, they do it well, and Ministers are laid bare for the public to see, hear, and assess for themselves.
Cases-in-point, the 2 May interview with Corrections Minister, Sam Lotu-Iiga, and the more recent (26 September) interview with Social Development Minister, Anne Tolley;
.
.
Both interviews showed Ministers out of their depths, and grappling with critical problems that apparently have “snuck up” on them – though the rest of the country had long been aware that not all was well in the Land of the Long White Cloud (and possible Red Peak).
Recent “revelations” of massive problems for children in State-care are only confirmation of what many in the sector already knew. According to Tolley’s own speech to the Fostering Kids New Zealand Conference on 24 September;
By the time children with a care placement who were born in the 12 months to Jun 1991 had reached the age of 21:
Almost 90 per cent were on a benefit.
Over 25 per cent were on a benefit with a child.
Almost 80 per cent did not have NCEA Level 2.
More than 30 per cent had a youth justice referral by the age of 18.
Almost 20 per cent had had a custodial sentence.
Almost 40 per cent had a community sentence.
Overall, six out of every ten children in care are Māori children.
[…]
64 per cent of the 61,000 children notified to CYF in 2014 had a previous notification.
In 2013, children who had been removed from home were on average 8 years old and many of these children had been involved with the system since 2 or 3 years of age.
[…]
Seven year-old children should not have eight different home placements.
A study of those in care in 2010 showed that 23 per cent of children who exited care and returned to their biological parents were subject to neglect or physical, emotional or sexual re-abuse within 18 months. Ten per cent of those who returned to kin or whānau were re-abused, while re-abuse rates for those who exited into non-kin and non-whānau placements was one per cent.
It has taken seven years for a National minister to come to understand this? Where have they been all this time – playing golf on Planet Key?
But not only has this government ignored this crisis in supporting young people in State care – but they have been criminally guilty of making matters worse by job cuts and destabilisation by constant re-organisation of MSD (Ministry of Social Development);
.
.
Then Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, was adamant that there would be more frontline social workers, despite the massive number of redundancies. Her mantra at the time was;
”I can absolutely assure them that the concentration is on frontline staff, on social workers that are working with those people that need it most, and that’s where this Government is putting their priorities.”
Take note that in the “re-structuring” in 2009, the job cuts included “a team of 18 child abuse education social workers“. In effect, skilled professionals working on behalf of children suffering abuse were sacked.
Only the Minister of Finance trying to balance his books, and those who perpetrate child abuse on small bodies, could possibly have been delighted at that announcement.
To deflect criticism from the growing problem of child poverty and New Zealand’s “under-class” (which, in October 2011, even Key was forced to admit was rising), Bennett resisted demands to assess just how bad the problem really was;
.
.
No measurement; no way of telling how bad it is. Very clever, Ms Bennett.
But worse was to come, as National slashed the state sector to make up for revenue lost through two tax cuts and the recessionary effects of the Global Financial Crisis;
.
.
.
This time, the person over-seeing on-going job-losses and re-structuring was the current Social Development Minister, Anne Tolley. This time, the cuts were given a new euphemism; “re-alignment”.
Despite Bennett’s reassurances in June 2009 that there would be a “concentration […] on frontline staff, on social workers that are working with those people that need it most” – six years later the cutting of back-room support staff resulted in inevitable (and predictable) consequences. As Tolley herself was forced to admit on ‘The Nation‘;
“Well, there’s 3000-odd staff, but only 25% of them are actually working with children. And of that 25%, they’re only spending 15% of their time actually with children.”
.
.
At that point, Lisa Owen asked Minister Tolley the question;
“So are you telling me that we need more back-room staff to allow those people to get on to the front line and deal with the kids?”
Tolley’s reply was pure gobbledegook;
“What we need is a system that is designed to look after those children when they first come to our attention, we need good interventions with them and their families, and we need to free up the front-line social workers to do the work they come in every day to do which is to work with children, not a system that’s built on layers and layers of risk management and bureaucracy and administration, which is what we’ve got now.”
The reason it is risable gobbledegook is that after hundreds of job losses – of mostly so-called “back room staff” one assumes – and restructurings, there cannot be too many “layers and layers of risk management and bureaucracy and administration” left in MSD.
Lisa Owen pushed the Minister further;
“…But some evidence that was provided last year was the case-load review, which said that you were 350 social workers short. So can we expect more social workers?”
When the Minister offered vague assurances that “we may well” expect more social workers, Ms Owen was blunt;
“But ‘may well’ is not a definitive answer, is it, Minister? So yes or no? Will we get more?”
Tolley’s response was anything but reassuring;
“I don’t know, because the final system proposal will come to me in December, so I’m not going to pre-empt what the panel’s coming up with. What they’ve done in this interim report is give us the building blocks…”
Listening to the Minister was not only far from reassuring, but left a sense of unease.
Our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, has already said that “outsourcing” to private providers for MSD services is possible;
“Child Youth and Family does outsource to the private sector already some contracts, and I think last year $81 million of business went to private sector contractors, so I can’t get up and say there is no involvement with the private sector, because there already is that.
I don’t think we’re seriously talking about the private sector taking control of all the children, but if there is some small function they could do, maybe, I’d have to see what that is.”
“Some small function”?
What is Key referring to – delivery of afternoon tea and biscuits to CYF staff?
Or, as more likely, would “some small function” involve Serco – already in deep trouble over it’s incompetence over running of Mt Eden prison?
This is a possibility that Tolley herself touted as a possibility on TVNZ’s ‘Q+A‘, as recently as June this year;
.
.
On 31 August, CEO of the Association of Social Workers, Lucy Sandford-Reed,was reported on Radio NZ as saying she believed call-centre operations might be outsourced;
“That really creates an opportunity for further fragmentation of the service delivery and could potentially create the opportunity for failure. And there has been a sense that a organisation like Serco could be looking at picking up those contracts.”
Tolley was adamant on ‘The Nation‘ that there would be no outsourcing of MSD’s front-line services. She told Lisa Owen to her face;
“Look, I- Let’s put it to rest – this is a state responsibility. There’s no talk within Government at all of outsourcing that responsibility.”
However, only two days earlier (24 September), it was reported that Serco had indeed been ‘sniffing’ around CYF facilities in Auckland;
CYF sites visited by Serco – Tolley
Thursday 24 Sep 2015 4:30 p.m.
Serco case managers have visited several Child, Youth and Family facilities in Auckland, Social Development Minister Anne Tolley has confirmed.
She’s previously denied knowledge of such visits, and told Parliament today she had been given incorrect advice by her ministry.
“I apologise for giving an incorrect answer (to previous questions)… I’m disappointed that I got incorrect information,” she said.
Opposition MPs suspect the visits were connected with the possibility of some CYF services being contracted out to Serco.
The question that begs to be asked is; why has National drawn attention to the (supposed) “failings” of CYF/MSD? Why was Tolley so eager to receive a report so scathing of her own department, as she stated in her 27 August press statement;
“I welcome the release of this report, which makes for grim reading for those involved in child protection, and have met with the Commissioner to discuss his findings.”
Usually, this is a government whose ministers are desperate only to present “good news” stories. They are quick to dismiss, minimise, or deride any criticism that does not fit with their “good management” narrative. Blaming the previous Labour government has become the #1 Default position of National ministers.
The only possible rationale why Tolley has commissioned a report into MSD/CYF – where no public or media pressure had demanded one – is that Paula Rebstock’s highly critical findings of MSD/CYF were pre-determined.
As Chris Trotter wrote in his analysis of Rebstock’s report on 2 April;
“The Rebstocks of this world are spared the close-up consequences of their recommendations. They are experts at reading between the lines of their terms of reference to discover exactly what it is that their commissioning ministers are expecting from them – and delivering it. So it was with Paula Bennett’s welfare review, and so it will be with Anne Tolley’s review of Child Youth and Family (CYF).
Once again in the lead role, Ms Rebstock will not have to work too hard to decode the meaning of Ms Tolley’s comment that: “CYF has drafted its own internal modernisation strategy and while it is a good starting point, it doesn’t go far enough”.”
Without doubt, Rebstock’s eventual (and predictable?) report into MSD/CYF was highly critical of that organisation.
Key has publicly disclosed that he is not averse to privatisation (aka, “outsourcing”) aspects of MSD/CYF’s services.
Despite Tolley’s denials, Serco has shown interest in CYF facilities.
Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Rebstock report; the willingness of Ministers to front up to the media to candidly admit to MSD/CYF’s shortcomings; is setting up a Problem demanding a Solution.
That “Solution” is privatisation of services.
Which perhaps is what Tolley was referring to in her 24 September speech;
“While the new operational model is being developed, a feasibility study of an investment approach to improving outcomes for vulnerable children is being commissioned by MSD on behalf of the panel, and the findings will inform the Panel’s December report.”
“Investment approach”?
As in business investment.
This explains Tolley’s rejection of Lisa Owen’s suggestion of paying caregivers more money;
“Well, I think you’ve always got to be very careful that you’re not setting up a professional caregiving regime. And when you talk to people who are fostering, most of them don’t do it for the money.”
Indeed, “people who are fostering, most of them don’t do it for the money” – but it sure helps pay the bills, especially for professional services for some very damaged children.
No wonder Tolley was vague on whether more money or social workers would be provided to MSD/CYF, in her replies to Lisa Owen. This was never about increasing resources to the Ministry or caregivers.
This is about a private enterprise “solution” to a National government “problem”.
The Rebstock Report is simply the means to sell that “solution” to the public and media.
Machiavellian does not begin to cover this mad agenda.
.
.
.
References
TV3: The Nation – Interview – National’s Chief Strategist Steven Joyce
Beehive.govt.nz: Speech to Fostering Kids New Zealand Conference
Fairfax media: Job cuts for MSD
NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing
Scoop media: Combating poverty more important than measuring it
Radio NZ: MSD restructure ‘lacks transparency’
Fairfax media: 98 MSD staff face the axe – union
Twitter: Frank Macskasy to The Nation
Radio NZ: Key – More CYF private sector involvement possible
TV3 News: Tolley – Serco could run social services
TV3 News: CYF sites visited by Serco – Tolley
Beehive.govt.nz: Minister welcomes State of Care report
Additional
MSD: Redesigning the Welfare State in New Zealand: Problems, Policies and Prospects (1999)
Other Blog posts
The Daily Blog: Fixing CYFs – Paula Rebstock is asked to “rescue” another state agency
The Daily Blog: Why The State Needs To Support Young People Until They’re 21
Previous related blogposts
WINZ, waste, and wonky numbers – *up-date*
Bill English: When numbers don’t fit, or just jump around
Random Thoughts on Random Things #3
John Key’s government – death by two cuts
The cupboard is bare, says Dear Leader
Government Minister sees history repeat – responsible for death
“I don’t know the details of that particular family” – Social Development Minister Anne Tolley
Polls and pundits – A facepalm moment
“The Nation” reveals gobsmacking incompetence by Ministers English and Lotu-Iiga
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 September 2015.
.
.
= fs =
WINZ, waste, and wonky numbers – *up-date*
.
.
Radio NZ’s reporter, Ruth Hill, posted this story on Friday 10 July. Note Ms Hill’s comment;
“However, 4916 just dropped out of the system because they did not do the paperwork.”
.
.
Even as National boasted about a drop in beneficiary numbers;
.
.
– unemployment continued to rise;
.
.
This discrepancy can be explained – in part – with RNZ reporter, Ruth Hill, revealing;
“Thousands of people are having their benefits cut off because they are not filling in the complicated paperwork required…
[…]
… 4916 just dropped out of the system because they did not do the paperwork.”
This was a ticking time-bomb predicted by beneficiary advocates in 2013, when National implemented many of it’s punitive welfare “reforms”;
The changes sparked protests in front of three Auckland Work and Income offices by Auckland Action Against Poverty protesters yesterday who said the moves were about “cutting costs by pushing vulnerable people off the books” rather than getting them into decent jobs.
So how bad is the problem with WINZ forms?
On 8 February 2013, I blogged on precisely this problem (WINZ, waste, and wonky numbers);
Paula Bennett has directed WINZ to make life more difficult for the unemployed, when registering with WINZ. As if losing one’s job wasn’t stressful enough, Bennet has forced the implementation of some draconian rules and requirements for beneficiaries. (The implication being that it’s the fault of the unemployed for being unemployed?!)
One of the bureacratic bundles of red tape are the number of forms issued to WINZ applicants.
For those readers who have never had the “delight” of dealing with WINZ – these are the forms that are required to be filled out. Note: every single applicant is given these forms (in a little plastic carry-bag).
And if you have to reapply to WINZ for a benefit (if, say, you’ve lost your job again) you are required to fill out these forms all over again.
This is where taxpayer’s money is really going to waste in welfare.
All up, seventythree pages of information and forms to read, understand, fill out, to collect information;
.
.
(Blogger’s Note: for a comprehensive view of each WINZ form, please go to blogpost: Bill English: When numbers don’t fit, or just jump around)
This system becomes even more laughable when one considers that if an an applicant has been a WINZ “client” (ie, beneficiary) before, they remain on MSD’s computer files. Much of the information sought is already on-file.
The cost of this must be horrendous, and it is ironic that at a time when National is cutting “back room” support staff to save money, that they are permitting taxpayer funding for this ‘Monty Pythonesque ‘ exercise in out-of-control form-filling.
No wonder that this was reported in Fairfax media,
“Social Development Minister Paula Bennett this morning said latest figures showed 328,043 people were now on benefits, with 57,058 of those on an unemployment benefit.
Reforms passed by Parliament require people on an unemployment benefit to reapply for it after one year. Bennett said this change had led to 5000 people cancelling their benefit.
More than 1400 of those said they had found work, more than 2600 didn’t complete a reapplication and more than 1000 were no longer eligible. ”
How many people with minimal education or poor command of the English language could hope to fill out so many forms of such complexity?
National has a peculiar – but effective – way of dealing with unpleasant statistics.
It either does not engage in collecting data (eg; foreign house buyers, poverty levels, etc), or, it implements policies that will artificially impact on statistics without actually resolving under-lying problems. Whichever is the cheapest, easiest option. And whichever draws the least worst headlines.
If pushing New Zealanders off welfare – by making the system unnecessarily complex and frustrating – has the end result of an apparent drop in welfare numbers, then that is ‘Mission Accomplished’ for this government.
Pushing people into poverty; homelessness; the degradation of street living and begging; are not matters that greatly concerned successive Social Welfare ministers, whether Paula Bennett, nor her successor, Anne “Look-At-Me-Standing-On-A-Crushed-Car” Tolley, as she told Radio NZ;
“There is no reason for Work and Income to continue monitoring people who have chosen not to re-apply for a benefit.
If people require welfare support, it is their responsibility to get in touch and provide Work and Income with information that allows them to assess a beneficiary’s need. Once that is complete, Work and Income can provide the assistance people are eligible for.”
This is the same minister who told TVNZ’s Q+A, political reporter, Corin Dann, on 21 June;
DANN:
“Some would argue with the recent case, for example, with Emma-Lita Bourne who died in the state house, [a] damp house, why not just give those families more money to pay their power bill, rather than give the organisations money to come in and work and all the rest of it?”
TOLLEY:
“And, and, when you look at something like Whanua Ora, they are doing some of that. See, see, what we’ve got with the focus on individual programmes and agencies working in silos, families don’t work like that. They’re very complex issues so if I don’t know the details of that particular family…”
Tolley admitted not knowing the details of the family whose child died of cold/damp related illness.
Make no mistake, the end purpose of seventythree forms, and having to re-apply every twelve months, is to cause frustration and dissuade people from re-applying for welfare benefits.
Ministers then trumpet “success” at a drop in welfare numbers.
The next time you see beggars on the streets with signs saying “no money, please give what you can” – they are most likely telling the truth. They are this government’s dirty little secret.
Addendum1
“There is no official measure of poverty in New Zealand. The actual work to address poverty is perhaps what is most important.
Children move in and out of poverty on a daily basis.” – Paula Bennett, 16 August 2012
Addendum2
One of the more bizarre and ridiculous policies by the Ministry of Social Development is annual re-application forms sent to beneficiaries with permanent disabilities such as spina bifida.
For those who are not aware, spina bifida is a permanent, life-long condition. There is no cure.
MSD seems to believe that a miraculous recovery is possible, judging by the forms it sends every twelve months to people with spina bifida.
.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Thousands losing benefits due to paperwork
Fairfax media: Benefit numbers reach a six-year low
Radio NZ: Unemployment rises to 5.7 percent
Fairfax media: Number on benefits drops, reaction mixed
Fairfax media: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply
Fairfax media: Foreign house owner register downplayed
NZ Herald: Measuring poverty line not a priority – Bennett
TVNZ Q+A: Interview with Anne Tolley
Previous related blogposts
“I don’t know the details of that particular family” – Social Development Minister Anne Tolley
Bill English: When numbers don’t fit, or just jump around
WINZ, waste, and wonky numbers
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 July 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Un-employment; under-employment; and the plain unvarnished truth… *** UP DATE ***
Continued from: Un-employment; under-employment; and the plain unvarnished truth
.
.
Additional to my original blogpost on The Daily Blog on 6 February.
In up-coming unemployment stats, I’ll be focusing on the Jobless and under-employed numbers, as well as the narrower “unemployed” stats from the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS). It is evident from the numbers of under-employed and the extremely narrow defining on what constitutes an unemployed person, that we are not getting the full picture from the HLFS.
Coupled to that, the Census last year revealed unemployment to be at an astonishing 7.1% whilst Roy Morgan poll (5 December 2013) had the figure at 8.5%.
By comparison, the HLFS (at roughly the same time) had unemployment at 6.2%.
So unemployment stats ranged from 6.2% (HLFS) to 8.5% (Roy Morgan).
Coupled to that is the narrow definition of the HLFS used by Statistics NZ (see below), and we begin to see why the “official unemployment rate” appears more ‘benign’.
From the January 2014 Parliamentary report, Unemployment and employment statistics: the Household Labour Force Survey in context;
The Reserve Bank has expressed concern at its variance with other indicators. [2] A commentator in the Westpac Bulletin, puzzled by the continued weakness of the HLFS in 2012 compared to the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) and other labour market indicators, described it as ‘confusion reigns’ and suggested that survey ‘volatility’ played a role. [3] The ANZ commentator is cautious: ‘The HLFS has been very volatile in recent years, and we and the Reserve Bank will treat the result with a degree of scepticism, preferring to take note of a wide range of labour market indicators.’ [4]
These broader labour market indicators include external ones such as business and consumer surveys and job advertisements. These are in addition to those derived from official statistics such as changes in the employment and labour force participation rates, full- and part-time work, and hours worked, together with fine-grained analysis of changes by region, industry and age.
Various reasons for the volatility of the unemployment rate and its variance with other labour market indicators have been discussed – the impact of the recession, the dynamic nature of the labour market, the survey nature of the HLFS, and differences in coverage of the statistics. It has been suggested that the HLFS is more volatile at a turning point – either going into or out of recession…
The latest Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS) stats;
Officially unemployed stats;
The unemployment rate decreased over the quarter, down 0.2 percentage points to 6.0 percent. This decrease reflected 2,000 fewer people being unemployed [147,000]. The fall in unemployment was from fewer men unemployed.
Official unemployment: down
The under-employment stats;
Over the year, the total number of under-employed people increased by 27,200 to 122,600. As a result, the under-employment rate increased 1.0 percentage points to 5.3 percent.
Official under-employment: up
The HLFS Jobless stats;
In the year to December 2013, the number of people in the jobless category fell 27,400 to 257,100. Alongside the 15,000 fall in the number of people unemployed, there was also a 10,200 fall in the number of people without a job who were available for work but not actively seeking.
Official Jobless: down
Observation #1: Under-employment is increasing, which brings into question how effective the “drop” in unemployment and Jobless actually is. As being “employed” is defined as working for one hour (or more) per week; with or without pay: the whole statistical reporting of true unemployment in New Zealand is now called into question. Especially with regards to the next point.
Observation #2: “A 10,200 fall in the number of people without a job who were available for work but not actively seeking” signifies that the drop in Unemployment/Jobless can also be attributed to people giving up, as this Radio NZ report stated in February last year (2013).
Observation #3: As stated in the “Definitions” below, a person who is job seeking only through newspapers is not considered in the “Unemployed” category, but under the wider “Jobless” definition. Considering that a number of households cannot afford the internet, and do not qualify for WINZ registration, this makes a sizeable “chunk” of unemployed effectively invisible.
Observation #4: The above Observation suits successive governments, which are desperate to report lower unemployed so as to gain support from voters.
Definitions
Jobless: people who are either officially unemployed, available but not seeking work, or actively seeking but not available for work. The ‘available but not seeking work’ category is made up of the ‘seeking through newspaper only’, ‘discouraged’, and ‘other’ categories.
Under-employment: employed people who work part time (ie usually work less than 30 hours in all jobs) and are willing and available to work more hours than they usually do.
Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the following:
-
worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment
-
worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
-
had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial dispute, or leave or holiday.
Up-coming unemployment stats will focus on Jobless and under-employed numbers, as well as the more restrictive “unemployed” stats from the HLFS. Hopefully this will create a more comprehensive ‘snapshot’ of what is happening in the jobs ‘market’.
Further Information
“4 out of 5 New Zealand homes had access to the Internet, up 5 percent since 2009.”
The corollary to that is that one in five households – a staggering 20%! – do not have internet access.
Which means that job seekers on little or no income (especially if they do not qualify for WINZ support) may rely solely on newspapers to look for jobs.
But as I’ve reported above, using a newspaper to be job-seeking does not quality you as “unemployed”.
20%.
That’s quite a number.
No wonder of official unemployment stats are dodgy as hell.
.
*
.
References
NZ Parliament: Unemployment and employment statistics: the Household Labour Force Survey in context
Roy Morgan: New Zealand real unemployment steady at 8.5% and a further 11.3% (up 2.7%) of workforce are under-employed
Roy Morgan: Roy Morgan measures real unemployment in Australia not the “perception” of unemployment
Statistics NZ: 2013 Census QuickStats about national highlights
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey: September 2013 quarter
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey: December 2013 quarter
Statistics NZ: Definitions – About the Household Labour Force Survey
Statistics NZ: Household Use of Information and Communication Technology: 2012
Radio NZ: Unemployment rate falls as more give up job hunt
Previous related blogpost
The REAL level of unemployment
Roy Morgan Poll: Unemployment and Under-employment up in New Zealand!
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Un-employment; under-employment; and the plain unvarnished truth…
.
Continued from: Roy Morgan Poll: Unemployment and Under-employment up in New Zealand!
.
.
This is the plain, unvarnished truth that most New Zealanders don’t know; don’t understand, and quite frankly, many do not want to know or understand. For many – especially National/Act supporters living in their own fantasyland – this is the reality that would shatter their comfortable upper-middle-class world-view.
First, read Mike Treen’s excellent analysis on The Daily Blog, on 30 January;
.
.
(Note the pathetic and largely ineffectual attempts by right wing blogger; self-proclaimed “social welfare expert”; and ex-Act candidate, Lindsay Mitchell, and one or two other National Party supporters to undermine Mike’s analysis. They are unable to address or answer even the most simple points Mike and others have raised.)
Then, read Matt McCarten’s piece in the NZ Herald, a few days later;
.
.
And now, here’s the ‘kicker‘;
According to Statistics New Zealand, which carries out both the five yearly Census as well as the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS), the definition of an employed person is so loose and wide-ranging as to make the term meaningless;
Definitions
About the Household Labour Force Survey
The Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS) provides a regular, timely, and comprehensive portrayal of New Zealand’s labour force. Each quarter, Statistics NZ produces a range of statistics relating to employment, unemployment, and people not in the labour force.
The survey started in October 1985 and the first results published were for the March 1986 quarter.
More definitions
The labour force category to which a person is assigned depends on their actual activity during a survey reference week.
This section includes definitions used in the HLFS release. These conform closely to the international standard definitions specified by the International Labour Organization.
Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the following:
-
worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment
-
worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
-
had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial dispute, or leave or holiday.
So, if you “worked for one hour” – even without pay! ” – you are automatically classed as employed by this country’s statisticians.
No wonder that the Roy Morgan poll consistently reports that New Zealand has a higher unemployment rate than is generally reported by Statistic NZ’s HLFS or Census.
Quite simply,
- It appears that our stats are horribly wrong and are under-stating the severity of unemployment in New Zealand by several degrees of magnitude,
- Lower unemployment figures suit the agendas of successive governments (National, as well as Labour-led),
- Community organisations are over-worked struggling to put band-aids on the growing problem of hidden unemployment,
- New Zealand as a whole suffers through loss of productivity; increasing costs due to poverty; and other socio-economic problems.
When a government agency purports to measure employment and unemployment, and defines being employed as “working for one hour or more”, either paid or unpaid, those are not statistics – they are a sick joke. In effect, we are fooling ourselves as a nation that we have “low unemployment”.
These are not facts – they are propaganda; half-truths; mis-information; lies-dressed-up-as-comforting-facts. The reality – unpalatable as it may be for many – is that our unemployment is much, much worse than we have been led to believe.
If New Zealanders want to keep up this pretense, they will eventually have to “pay the Piper”, as societal problems worsen. And then, the rioting begins.
Note: For future reference, any subsequent use of Statistics NZ data referring to unemployment, in any upcoming blogposts, will carry the caveat;
“Definition of Employed (by Statistics NZ) includes any person who is;
- anyone working for only one hour (or more)
- anyone not paid for their labour
Accordingly, Statistics NZ information may not present a fully accurate picture of this country’s unemployment/employment rates.”
*** Up-date ***
The HLFS results for the December 2013 Quarter reported a “drop” in unemployment from 6.2% to 6.0%.
Interestingly, as Radio NZ reported, “the fall in unemployment did not match the pick up in jobs, due to more people searching for work“.
This ties in with the fact that “employment” is defined as anyone working for one hour (or more).
If more people are looking for work, this suggests any number of factors,
- The HLFS survey is failing to pick up accurate numbers of unemployment,
- Statistics NZ’s definition for unemployed is too narrow,
- The number of under-employed is (as Roy Morgan reveals) so high as to mask real unemployment.
Also interesting to note that the drop in the HLFS survey results mirror the fall in Roy Morgans polling, further lending credibility to the latter.
.
*
.
References
NZ Parliament: Unemployment and employment statistics: the Household Labour Force Survey in context
Statistics NZ: Hours Worked in Employment
Scoop News: New Zealand Real Unemployment at 9.1%
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey: June 2012 quarter
The Daily Blog: EXCLUSIVE: Billions of dollars stolen from the unemployed
NZ Herald: Matt McCarten: Rose-tinted view cruel fairy tales
Roy Morgan: New Zealand real unemployment down 0.3% to 8.5% and a further 8.6% (down 1%) of workforce are under-employed
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey: September 2013 quarter
Scoop News: Inequality keeps rising, says UC social research expert
Statistics NZ: Labour market statistics for the December 2013 quarter
Radio NZ: Unemployment falls to 6 percent
Previous related blogposts
The REAL level of unemployment
Roy Morgan Poll: Unemployment and Under-employment up in New Zealand!
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The REAL reason for the drop in welfare numbers
There is an underlying reason for this headline,
.
.
In the above July 2013 article, Social welfare Minister, Paula Bennett proudly asserted,
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said today there are now 309,782 people on a benefit compared with 320,041 last year.
[…]
“That’s a reduction of more than 10,000 on welfare over the past 12 months and I am particularly pleased that 5600 of them are sole parents.”
Nowhere in the article does it state where those 10,000 welfare beneficiaries ended up.
Was it in paid work?
Did they go back into full-time education or other courses?
Or were they simply dumped from WINZ’s books? Like the recipient of these letters that were recently provided to me? (We will call him/her “Citizen X” – all identifying details have been redacted to respect his/her privacy and protect him/her from possible reprisals by Bennett, her office, or MSD official. Same for the WINZ officials whose names appear on the letters.)
.
.
A few days later, “Citizen X” received this letter. Adding insult to injury, they were demanding that an outstanding amount (an amount between $200 to $300) be repaid;
.
.
This was despite that “Citizen X” had had her/his unemployment benefit cancelled – not because s/he had found paid employment (s/he hadn’t) – but because s/he had fallen foul of National’s harsh new welfare laws.
In part, the MSD website states,
On Jobseeker Support for more than 12 months
If you still require Jobseeker Support after 52 weeks you’ll have to re-apply for your benefit. We’ll let you know when you have to re-apply and tell you what you need to do.
When you re-apply, you’ll also need to complete a Comprehensive Work Assessment. This will identify what steps you’ve taken to find work and what help you might need from us to be more successful in getting a job.
In effect, National has placed a one year time limit on all unemployment benefits. They haven’t advertised it as such – they refer to it as “re-applying”.
As Simon Collins reported in the NZ Herald back in January (2013),
The Council of Christian Social Services pointed yesterday to “a growing gap between those who receive a benefit and those in genuine need who are either losing or unable to obtain social welfare assistance”.
Unemployment increased in the two years to last September from 144,500 to 170,000, but those on unemployment benefit dropped by almost a quarter from 65,281 to 50,390.
Sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit have also dropped in the past year. Rules for both benefits were tightened in September 2010, when unemployment beneficiaries had their benefits cancelled if they failed to reapply after a year.
Sole parents were required to look for part-time work when their youngest child turned 6, an age reduced to 5 last October.
Christian Social Services executive officer Trevor McGlinchey said his members were reporting increases in demand for their services as people found benefits harder to get.
[…]
Ironically, the tighter welfare rules may also partly explain the rise in unemployment, as beneficiaries are counted as unemployed only if they are actively looking for work. Employment slipped only slightly from 63.6 per cent to 63.2 per cent of adults in the two years to last September, but the “jobless” rose from 7.1 per cent to 8.4 per cent because those not looking for work fell from 29.3 per cent to a record low of 28.4 per cent.
What this means is that eventually a significant number of people simply give up re-applying for the minimal amount that the dole pays ($206.21 per week).
Constant, repetitive, incessant demands for information and a less than helpful attitude created by MSD policy create an atmosphere of naked hostility.
The complexity of applying, with the multitude of 73 pages of WINZ forms and other bits of paper, may also prove to be a dis-incentive for many – especially those for whom English, reading ability, and general low education is a real problem.
.
.
The massive number of WINZ forms and other documents handed out to applicants has been covered in this previous blogpost; WINZ, waste, and wonky numbers
These are some of the bureacratic barriers which National and MSD have created for the most vulnerable and dispossessed people in our country.
All done to “massage” beneficiary statistics.
As Bennett said, back in July,
“That’s a reduction of more than 10,000 on welfare over the past 12 months and I am particularly pleased that 5600 of them are sole parents.”
No doubt, National will use this “success” at the next election and a sizeable portion of the voting population will be sufficiently uninformed and gullible enough to accept this without question.
It will be up to those who oppose National and it’s virulent brand of right-wing politics to spread the truth; under this party, poverty and inequality will continue to worsen.
.
.
Because even the Prime Minister has had to reluctantly concede the enormity of what we are facing,
.
.
Pushing people off welfare, regardless of whether or not they have jobs to go to, just to massage welfare statistics, is a vile obscenity.
This will not “lift people out of poverty”, as Key has promised.
It is increasing poverty.
How long will it be before this growing poverty, sense of hopelessness, and constant attacks by National and MSD results in the inevitable outbreak of violent civil disturbance? Desperate people tend not to care – especially for the empty promises of well-fed, well-housed, comfortable politicians.
Is this really what New Zealanders want for their country?
The clock is ticking…
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 December 2013.
.
*
.
Sources
NZ Herald: Welfare rules force people to struggle on without benefits
Fairfax media: Number on benefits drops, reaction mixed
Fairfax media: Hungry kids scavenge pig slops
NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing
References
Work and Income: Jobseeker Support
Additional
Gordon Campbell: Ten Myths About Welfare -The politics behind the government’s welfare reform process
Previous related blogposts
Class act, National – taking money of widows?!
How Paula Bennett and National are wasting our taxdollars
National ramps up attack on unemployed and solo-mums
Random Thoughts on Random Things #4…
OIA Request points to beneficiary beat-up by Minister Chester Borrows
The REAL level of unemployment
.
.
= fs =
Another “satisfied” WINZ client…
– Peter
.
.
I ran a blog called Aotearoawolfing, but stopped posting after I ran out of things to say. Obviously I did it anonymously, as like everyone I have things to hide i.e. my life off the internet.
Basically have left New Zealand for good to the United States (where I also have citizenship – though my family live here). I got out while I still could.
In my case I was depressed and I could no longer could work at my job like I used to, and I couldn’t get a job again at a decent wage. By the time I got through the W&I process I had full-scale clinical depression. No support exists, and the whole experience made me think the sole focus of W&I right now is make young people homeless (which aren’t counted on unemployment statistics) or force the burden of care onto the family.
Hopefully National gets turfed out next election, but if it doesn’t then I am no longer in New Zealand – even if I have to pay off a big student loan with interest (no thanks to the cut to the student loan holiday while overseas). But on that story, most don’t pay it off as John Key has no jurisdiction in places like Canada or the US – only in Australia. In fact most never want to go back to New Zealand, John Key threatening them with prison if they return will only ensure that the best and brightest never return.
Really I don’t understand the government’s paranoid obsession about the unemployed, and student loan borrowers. As the reason there is a shortfall in the budget is due to stagnant wage growth, the richest 10% avoiding tax, and everyone with qualifications leaving the country as they can’t get work in New Zealand. It is the worst crisis since the 1980s-1990s and the government isn’t doing anything to fix it.
Hope I didn’t go on too long, hopefully I can find the time to start blogging again – even if it is from the other side of the world.
.
*
.
Previous related blogpost
Student Defaulters – to be arrested on sight at all borders
.
.
= fs =
Benefit fraud? Is Chester Borrows being totally upfront with us?!
As I blogged five months ago, when National is attacked with bad publicity, it’s Party strategists retaliate;
.
See previous blogpost: National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
.
As I wrote in the above blogpost, when threatened with bad headlines or a scandal of some description, National’s automatic defense is to generally to default to one of three deflections;
- Blame previous the Labour government
- Release story on ‘welfare abuse’
- Blame Global Financial Crisis or similar overseas event
In February of this year, the Auditor-General released a report into Key’s dealings with Skycity. The resulting publicity became positively toxic for the Nats.
Toby Manhire, in a Listener article dated 19 February, listed ten quotes from the AG”s report, which were highly damning of National. It was by no means the “vindication” that Key claimed (knowing full well that 99% of the public would never read the AG’s report).
On cue, Associate Social Development Minister, Chester Borrows, issued media releases on National’s latest “crack down” on “welfare abuse”;
.
.
National is once again being hit by a slew of bad headlines;
Smith gives nod for open-cast coal mine on conservation land
NZ unprepared for a deep water oil spill, Greens say
Consumers hard hit by hefty electricity price rises
National’s fix over GCSB draws a storm of protest
Loans door shutting on first-home buyers
High petrol prices hit struggling families
Job ad stall hints at unemployment rise
SkyCity deal doesn’t add up: Treasury
Housing plan ‘a weak compromise’
And again, on cue, Chester Borrows has done his bit, by defaulting to Option #2,
.
Source: Radio NZ – Thousands stopped from getting benefits not entitled to
Checkpoint: Listen to Chester Borrows on Checkpoint
.
However, Borrows is mis-leading the public in one respect. On 18 July, the Minister released a media statement where he said,
“Enhanced information sharing between Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has identified and stopped 3139 illegitimate benefits in just six months, says Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows…
[…]
… The enhanced information sharing started earlier this year, highlighting beneficiaries whose taxable income did not match what they had declared to MSD. MSD staff reviewed each case, and where the beneficiary was earning enough income that they were no longer eligible to receive a benefit, that benefit was stopped.”
Source: Beehive – Information sharing stops more welfare fraud
This is simply untrue.
WINZ announced this in May last year – over a year ago,
.
Source: WINZ – IRD and MSD improve information sharing
.
But even earlier than last year, MSD/WINZ were leeping track of their “clients”. The following two letters are from an acquaintance, who luckily keeps every piece of correspondence from government departments.
The first is from 2009,
.
.
[Published with permission.]
The letter clearly states,
“We regularly compare our records with other government agencies…”
(Note; the over-lap that so concerned the MSD was a matter of two weeks, and centered more around confusion as to when the WINZ “client” was deemed to start work.)
The second letter is from 2001,
.
.
[Published with permission.]
Even in 2001 – twelve years ago – WINZ and the Immigration Dept were comparing information.
Accordingly, I have emailed Chester Borrows, seeking clarification of his claim that information sharing is a “recent development”. I have also sought details of the alleged 3,139 cases of benefit “fraud” that Borrows has asserted;
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Chester.Borrows@parliament.govt.nz
date: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM
subject: OIA Request PleaseKia Ora Mr Borrows,
I am lodging an OIA request with your office.
According to recent media releases from your office, 3,139 cases of alleged benefit fraud has been identified, including 1,948 people who were wrongly getting the unemployment benefit and 559 illegitimately on the sickness benefit. These cases all supposedly invloved working whilst receiving a WINZ Benefit.
My questions are;
1. Over what period of time were these 3,139 cases detected?
2. When did IRD and WINZ begin sharing information?
3. Does WINZ and the Dept of Immigrqation also share information on WINZ beneficiaries who travel overseas whilst in receipt of a benefit?
4. When did that WINZ/Immigration Dept arrangement, in respect to Q3, begin?
5. What other government ministeries, departments, SOEs, and other bodies does WINZ share information with?
6. When did those arrangements, in respect in Q5, begin?
[and in a follow-up email shortly thereafter.]
7. Of the 3139 illegitimate benefits found, what was the time period involved with people receiving a benefit and earning income from another source?
How many were within the following periods;
– 1 week
– 2 weeks
– 3 weeks
– 4 weeks
– 2 months
– 3 months
– 6 months
– Over 6 months – under one year
– Over one year
8. How many prosecutions have been undertaken of all nine cohorts listed above?9. How many have been convicted?10. How many were in actual employment whilst receiving a welfare benefit, as opposed to some other source of income?
I look forward to your response within the legislated time period.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
If the rest of Minister Borrows’ claims are as dubious as his assertion that information sharing between government department “started earlier this year” – then all claims and comments from National ministers demand checking and confirmation.
Otherwise, claims of mass benefit fraud appear to be little more than a propaganda exercise designed to deceive the public and deflect criticism from economic and social problems that National appears stymied to address.
At the very least, Borrows is taking credit for a policy – inter-departmental information sharing – that has been in place since 2001, at least. How many times can politicians take credit for policies they had little or no part in implementing?!
Wouldn’t that be fraudulent on the part of the Minister?
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 July 2013.
.
.
= fs =
National on Child Poverty?!
.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – Poverty among Budget targets
.
At first glance, it appears that National has recognised that a crisis exists in our country; a crisis involving 275,000 children living in poverty.
Without doubt, this problem (I refuse to call it an “issue”) hit the public’s collective consciousness on 22 November 2011, when Bryan Bruce’s sobering documentary,”Inside Child Poverty” hit our television screens (see: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco).
Since then, the problem has become a major concern concern throughout the country.
More and more organisations, schools, political groups, etc, are adding their voice to a growing clamour for action. Most New Zealanders – those with eyes to see; ears to listen; and a mind to understand – want action. They want kids fed, so that they can attend their schools and learn and get a decent chance at life.
This is what Bryan Bruce, the documentary-maker of Inside Child Poverty wrote on his Facebook page;
.
OK, let’s get some things straight about providing free healthy meals in schools.
1. First of all let’s decide on the principle before arguing about the detail.
Let’s admit there is a significant problem of children turning up to school hungry and that a lot of kids are eating low cost foods that contain a lot of sugar and fat , causing obesity , diabetes and long term health problems.
And at least get the Feed The Kids Bill to Parliamentary Select Committee. You can argue all you want about how it should be funded or what’s going to be on the menu there.
If you don’t think we have a community responsibility to feed children and/or educate their palates to healthy eating habits – then read no further it will only make you angry.
2. It doesn’t fill a hungry kids tummy to point at their parents and shout “Your problem is you have bad parents”. This page takes the view that kids don’t get to choose their parents and we have a community responsibility to ALL our kids to make sure they grow up healthy. And if that means feeding them for free- then that’s what we do.
3. No one is going to force feed any child food they don’t want to eat or is culturally inappropriate. If you watch the video below which I filmed in Sweden for the documentary you will see children from multi -cultural backgrounds CHOOSING their food. And Yes children with allergies are catered for and Yes children can still bring their own lunch prepared by the parents .
4.Free healthy school meals can be paid for without raising taxes. We just choose to re-distribute the existing pool of tax payer money and give up on some other things. Here are some suggestions, I’m sure you can think of other ways we could spend smarter.
(a) We could fund school meals out of the Health vote rather than the Education vote. In a document released under the Official Information Act I revealed that children under 14 receive 10% of the money set aside for health care. But children under 14 represent 20% of our population. So we could fund some of it – if not all of it – by giving kids their fair share.
(b )It is a well accepted health statistic that for every $1 we spend on preventing disease we save $4 in expensive hospital cure. So within a few years the scheme will fund itself out of what we save. If we DON’T do it, taxpayers will be spending much more than they are now on the Health budget in the future.
(c) We could make children a spending priority. National plans to spend a billion a year on Roads of National Significance over the next 10 years. What about Children? – aren’t they of National Signifcance? I’d much rather feed our kids than be able to by – pass small towns while driving to Auckland .
(d) We could pay the pension to people when they actually stop working and not just because they reach 65.
(e) We could spend more energy making sure people paid their taxes . Last year the IRD detected about a Billion dollars worth of tax evasion mostly by businesses. It’s estimated that the real tax evasion in NZ is between 4 and 5 Billion.
If you pay PAYE you can’t cheat your taxes. So we could easily pay for free school meals if more adults played fair.Let’s impose greater penalties for tax evasion, and let’s stop thinking of tax as a bad thing. Tax is a good thing – it’s giving to ourselves. That’s how we can have schools and hospitals and yes even Roads Of National significance. Tax is the price of civilisation. Get over it.
Now whether you agree with some of the above, all of the above or none of the above , let’s at least agree that The Feed The Kids Bill should at least go to Select Committee after its First Reading so the issue can be properly debated.
Please contact your local MP today and urge them to support the Feed The Kids Bill.
You can find their contact details here, just click on their name :
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs
Thank you
Bryan
.
(Please give Brian support by going to his Page and “liking” it. The bigger the numbers, the more ‘clout’ he has.)
It’s fairly obvious to all by the most stubborn-minded that a malnourished child is not well pre-desposed to learning well. A child who cannot focus on his or her lessons and falls behind, eventually becomes alienated and disenchanted. The cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and anger perpetuates.
The Mana Party introduced a “Feed The Kids” Bill – aka the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill – into Parliament last year, on 8 November 2012. The Bill is scheduled to come before Parliament for its first reading on 5 June this year.
With pressure coming hard and fast on Key and his increasingly shakey, poll-driven, ‘government’, their strategists are planning to end National’s destructive austerity Budgets and begin spending on essential social services that are critical to the well-being of our communities.
Part of this is Key’s stated intention;
Children who aren’t fed become victims and the Government has to deal with that, Prime Minister John Key says.
His comments come as action on child poverty is tipped to be the surprise package in Finance Minister Bill English’s fifth Budget on Thursday.
“The vast overwhelming bulk are [fed] in New Zealand, but if a child isn’t fed then actually they become a victim and whatever we think of that we need to try and deal with that issue.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
At his regular press conference, Key was coy at whether National would rule in or out a food in schools programme – but was more candid in ruling out support for Mana’s “Feed the Kids” member’s bill.
So. What we have is;
- A firm “no” by National to Mana’s initiative
- A firm “no” by Peter Dunne to Mana’s initiative (Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”)
- A vague committment; “The vast overwhelming bulk are [fed] in New Zealand, but if a child isn’t fed then actually they become a victim and whatever we think of that we need to try and deal with that issue.”
Now, call me a cynic if you like, but National has a fairly poor track record on dealing with social matters, whether it be unemployment, solo-mothers, worker’s rights and conditions, etc.
To give an example; our high unemployment.
Unemployment is high.
Jobs are scarce.
National’s ‘solution’; “reform” social welfare and make it harder for the unemployed to access welfare support, or to retain it. Additional ‘solution’; demonise the unemployed and infer that that are bludging. Ditto for solo-mothers.
That was National’s ‘solution’; force people off welfare and make the numbers look good. (see: Bennett trumpets 5000 fewer on DPB, see: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply, see: Welfare rules force people to struggle on without benefits)
I hope I’m wrong, but my gut feeling is that the Nats plan to pull a “swiftie”. We’re going to see something along these lines;
- A WINZ-based “targetted” approach where families that cannot afford to buy adequate food will have an increase in their food grants – but will probably have to re-pay it from their weekly welfare assistance.
- A reliance on some form of “PPP”-style programme, such as Fonterra’s milk-in-schools programme. There will be nothing concrete – just a “promise” to “investigate possible options”.
- A commision of enquiry of some description.
- An increase for school budgets to buy food, but which will be limited; capped; and money will be taken from elsewhere in Vote:Education to fund this.
- No increase in welfare assistance; no food in schools; but a form of food vouchers making up a portion of a beneficiaries overall entitlement.
- A limited “trial” food-in-schools programme – for a handful of schools only.
Far from addressing this crisis, National, ACT, and Peter Dunne will apply a band-aid “solution” and present it to the public of New Zealand as “Mission: Accomplished”.
It will be nothing of the sort.
Only one thing will begin to address this problem – a change of government.
.
References
NZ Herald: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco (23 Nov 2011)
Previous related blogpost
Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”
Can we afford to have “a chat on food in schools”?
Other blogs
The Daily Blog: Hungry Kids Annoy Frazzled Lobby Group Director
.
.
= fs =
A tale of contrasts…
.
Once upon a time, there was a small nation at the bottom of the world, where the people were proud of their egalitarianism…
Then they f****d it all up.
To he, who has plenty, they gave $100,000. Not because he saved lives or raised families out of poverty. He got it because he was leaving a high-paid job after just nine months in employment,
.
.
From he, who has very little, they took away $3.73 (per week). Not because he did something wrong, but because a government department – supported by aParty in power that looks down on the poor – could.
.
.
$3.73. That buys a ‘budget’ loaf of bread and maybe a small block of cheese or bottle of milk.
$100,000 – buys an upmarket sports car or a good deposit on a nice house.
Who needs the money the most; Mr Stewart or Mr Holmes?
Welcome to New Zealand, circa 2013AD.
Are we proud of what we’ve become?
.
.
= fs =
WINZ, waste, and wonky numbers
From previous blogpost, Bill English: When numbers don’t fit, or just jump around…
… Paula Bennett has directed WINZ to make life more difficult for the unemployed, when registering with WINZ. As if losing one’s job wasn’t stressful enough, Bennet has forced the implementation of some draconian rules and requirements for beneficiaries. (The implication being that it’s the fault of the unemployed for being unemployed?!)
One of the bureacratic bundles of red tape are the number of forms issued to WINZ applicants.
For those readers who have never had the “delight” of dealing with WINZ – these are the forms that are required to be filled out. Note: every single applicant is given these forms (in a little plastic carry-bag).
And if you have to reapply to WINZ for a benefit (if, say, you’ve lost your job again) you are required to fill out these forms all over again.
This is where taxpayer’s money is really going to waste in welfare.
All up, seventythree pages of information and forms to read, understand, fill out, to collect information,
.
.
.
(Blogger’s Note: for a comprehensive view of each page, please go to previous blogpost: Bill English: When numbers don’t fit, or just jump around)
This system becomes even more laughable when one considers that if an an applicant has been a WINZ “client” (ie, beneficiary) before, they remain on MSD’s computer files. Much of the information sought is already on-file.
The cost of this must be horrendous, and it is ironic that at a time when National is cutting “back room” support staff to save money, that they are permitting taxpayer funding for this ‘Monty Pythonesque ‘ exercise in out-of-control form-filling. (More on that below.)
No wonder that this was reported in Fairfax media,
“Social Development Minister Paula Bennett this morning said latest figures showed 328,043 people were now on benefits, with 57,058 of those on an unemployment benefit.
Reforms passed by Parliament require people on an unemployment benefit to reapply for it after one year. Bennett said this change had led to 5000 people cancelling their benefit.
More than 1400 of those said they had found work, more than 2600 didn’t complete a reapplication and more than 1000 were no longer eligible. ”
See: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply
How many people with minimal education or poor command of the English language could hope to fill out so many forms of such complexity?
By contrast, applying for a bank mortage is vastly simpler – an irony considering the vastly greater sums of money involved.
In fact, an application for an ANZ Mortgage comprises of eight pages (four, double-sided),
.
.
Eight pages for a mortgage to borrow anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million and upward.
And 72 pages for an unemployment benefit of $204.96 per week, net, for a single person over 25. (See: Unemployment Benefit – current)
So how much does all this cost us?
Last year, this blogger emailed the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) with an Official Information Act (OIA) request, asking what the cost of all these pamphlets cost,
.
Date: Tue, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 1:38 PM
From: Frank Macskasy
Subject: Information Request
To: Paula Bennett “Paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz”Kia Ora Ms Bennett,
I would like to make an official Freedom of Information Request.
Please provide information as to the costings of the following forms and information leaflets produced by MSD/WINZ;
“Work and Income Employment-Earnings Verification” (VO6-mar 2011)
“Work and Income Find a job build a future Tools to help you find work” (JOBSW0007-nov 2010)
“Jobz4u Manual Jobseeker Enrolment” (-)
“Work and Income Unemployment Benefit Application” (M18-JUL 2011)
“Work and Income Unemployment Benefit Application – What to bring” (M18-JUL 2011)
“Work and Income How can we help you” (CM0001 – OCT 2010)
“Work and Income Online Services” (-)
“Work and Income” plastic carrybag for above items.
Please provide total costings for EACH item printed, on an annual basis for the last four years, and a break-down of costings for usage per year and per WINZ client.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
After seeking an extension, on 4 February this year, the MSD replied with these costings,
.
.
.
Firstly, it’s disappointing to note that of the eight items that I requested costings for, MSD could provide figures for only five. They admitted not have costings for two documents (“Jobz4u Manual Jobseeker Enrolment” and “Work and Income Online Services” ) and made no mention of another (“Work and Income Unemployment Benefit Application – What to bring” ).
However, based on figures provided for other documents, we can certainly make some rough guesses. If MSD’s figures are correct, over four years, the cost of printing these 72 pages is around $1 million. Not a hell of a lot, when considering that WINZ benefit’s will be approximate $4.9 billion for just this financial year alone (see: Budget 2012 – Vote Social Development).
But if a Bank can offer mortgages from $1 to millions of dollars, using an eight page application form – then why would a government department be wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars – millions over decades – for a measely $204.96 (per week, net, for a single person over 25)?
The reason is fairly obvious.
A Bank welcomes a new client in the hope of offering a financial service – eg, a mortgage. Banks view clients as assets.
Under the current government, WINZ is actively discouraging people from signing up for welfare assistance,
Reforms passed by Parliament require people on an unemployment benefit to reapply for it after one year. Bennett said this change had led to 5000 people cancelling their benefit.
More than 1400 of those said they had found work, more than 2600 didn’t complete a reapplication and more than 1000 were no longer eligible. ”
See: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply
Yet, at a time when we have a critical shortage of skilled workers in this country – especially tradespeople for the Christchurch re-build – National views those seeking welfare assistance as a liability.
This is about as short-sighted as a conservative, market-oriented government can get. It shows a lot about the narrow-sightedness of National’s ministers when, like a bank, they don’t see that 170,000 unemployed is an asset waiting to be upskilled; trained and supported into new careers.
Just imagine; 170,000 new builders, computer technicians, doctors, electricians, nurses, quantity-surveyors, scientists, teachers, vets, etc. Imagine the economic growth this country would have if National viewed an army of 170,000 unemployed as an asset waiting to be tapped – rather than discouraged.
I can imagine it.
National evidently can’t. Not when they prefer to spend millions on 72 pages of bureacratic rubbish, which would put of a lot of people.
I wonder how much business a bank would get if they demanded that new clients fill out 72 pages of forms?
Not much, I’d wager.
So why does the government do it?
Addendum
.
.
This is the predictable consequence when a hands-off government does nothing to grow the economy and generate new jobs.
This is the predictable consequence when a government treats unemployed workers as a liability to be discouraged and labelled as ‘bludgers’ – rather than recognising the asset that they really are.
This is the predictable consequence of a National government.
.
.
= fs =
WINZ Privacy for some – but not for others
.
.
Most of us remember this apalling episode of Paula Bennett’s career as Social Welfare minister,
.
.
In 2009, Bennett made public private details of two solo-mothers. She handed over personal information to the media without the knowledge of the two women, Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller.
The information included each woman’s weekly income from the State, including benefits and allowances.
Her move was supported by misogynists; right wing nutjobs; assorted beneficiary bashers; and National’s core constituency of conservative cranks.
Bennett’s actions were roundly condemned by fair-minded New Zealanders who recognised the Minister’s actions as a gross abuse of her power and invasion of their privacy. No wonder that many who remembered Rob Muldoon’s style of authoritarian governance likened Bennett’s behaviour to the late, former, Prime Minister.
But Bennett defended her mis-use of Ministerial powers,
“If someone is deciding they’re happy to use their case to speak about or against something we are doing, I think it’s fair the full story be told.”
Three years later…
Deputy Chief Executive, Janet Grossman, who had been head-hunted from Britain and paid over $50,000 of taxpayer’s money to re-locate to New Zealand, resigned only eleven months after taking up her role with WINZ,
.
.
Despite quitting less than a year into her new job; and despite over $50,000 paid to relocate her to New Zealand; it is reported that Grossman was paid out $97,000 as some sort of severance pay.
When Labour MP Jacinda Ardern questioned this extraordinary payment in Parliament, this exchange took place with National Minister, Jonathan Coleman,
Jacinda Ardern: Was the only reason she was given for Janet Grossman’s departure in that briefing or information that “her husband has had job opportunities in the UK and she wishes to return back there.”?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes.
Jacinda Ardern: Was Janet Grossman paid a termination benefit?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As you know, $97,000 was allocated across five people who left that year, and there will be no breakdown given, for privacy reasons, of the allocation to any of those five executives.
See: Social Development, Ministry—Resignation of Deputy Chief Executive
Really? Dr Colemnan cited “privacy reasons “?!
Chief executive of Ministry of Social Development, Brendan Boyle, was reported by Radio New Zealand as stating,
Mr Boyle says there is nothing unusual in paying out someone their entitlements when they resign but he refuses to disclose just what payment Mrs Grossman got, saying to do so would breach her privacy.
See: MSD chief clashes with MP in committee
So let’s get this straight…
Two solo-parents who have done nothing wrong; and their only ‘misdemeanour’ was daring to criticise a politician; have their personal details of WINZ payments splashed all over the country’s media, inviting lunatics to attack and threaten them…
But the payout to a senior WINZ executive who resigned/sacked/? is suddenly a matter of “privacy”?
The double standards set by National, and their cronies at highest MSD levels, beggars belief. However, it is unsurprising.
National’s reputation for One Rule For Everyone and One Rule For Themselves, is by now fairly well known in this country.
It demonstrates their complete contempt they have for the rest of us.
This is the sort of arrogance that in other countries leads to authoritarian rule; jails full of political prisoners; eventual uprisings by the populace; and a bullet through the head of despots.
Here in New Zealand, we do things differently. Here, despots get elected to two terms of government.
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
“One law for all” – except MPs
Hypocrisy – thy name be National
Sources
NZ Herald: Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums
Fairfax Media: Paula Bennett accused of Muldoon-style bullying
NZ Herald: Work and Income boss quits
NZ Parliament: Social Development, Ministry—Resignation of Deputy Chief Executive
Fairfax Media: Social Development Ministry grilled over security
Radio NZ: MSD chief clashes with MP in committee
.
.
= fs =
Did this catch Dear Leader Key by surprise as well?
.
.
The sale of Hillside Workshops will affect it’s workers badly,
“KiwiRail is making 80 to 90 workers at the Hillside railway workshop in Dunedin redundant after making only a partial sale of the site.”
See: Dozens of railway workshop jobs to go
I wonder – was John Key as surprised with this announcement today as he was a week ago, when the HLFS figures were recently released, revealing that unemployment was now at 7.3%?
“I’m very surprised with the numbers I’ve seen this morning, goodness knows what the next one will look like.” – John Key, 8 November 2012
Perhaps he was. Perhaps, as Bryan Gould pointed out in the NZ Herald today,
“ In the wake of the grim news about factory closures and lay-offs over recent months, the figures were only to be expected. Indeed, the warnings about a crisis in manufacturing have been coming thick and fast, and from all quarters.
There was, though, one person, it seems, who was blindsided by the bad news. The Prime Minister, we were told by the television news, was “taken by surprise”. The only explanation for this is that John Key has paid little attention to the unemployment issue over the past four years, despite its destructive impact both on individuals and their families, and on society as a whole.”
See: Bryan Gould: Plight of jobless makes us all poorer
After four years of Key’s “leadership”, what do we have?
- High unemployment
- A shortage of housing, and rising house prices
- Exporters suffering under a high dollar
- National policy designed to drive down wages (see: John Key’s track record on raising wages)
- A stagnating economy
Adding to the above, this report out today,
” Continuing bad economic news is prompting forecasters to speculate the economy may have gone backwards for the first time in two years.
Retail figures for the September quarter showing a big fall in spending follow weak inflation and job numbers for the same period have been released in recent weeks.
Westpac economist Michael Gordon says there is a reasonable likelihood the economy contracted in the most recent quarter.
Deutsche Bank senior economist Darren Gibbs believes that at best, the economy failed to grow at all and possibly went backwards during the period.
He said a manufacturing survey for October due in the next fortnight will give the first indication of whether or not the economy’s loss of momentum is continuing in the current quarter.
Finance Minister Bill English told Morning Report that the numbers bounce from quarter to quarter and the latest figures are not of concern.
He said the economy is as uncertain as it has been for years, and the Government will continue to focus on straight forward objectives, like getting back to surplus and rebuilding Christchurch.”
See: Economy may be going backwards
No wonder New Zealanders are escaping to Australia faster than East Germans climbing The Wall, during the Soviet era,
“A net loss of 39,500 people to Australia contributed to New Zealand’s net loss of migrants in
the September 2012 year. This is down from the record net loss of 40,000 in the August 2012
year. The September figure resulted from 53,700 departures to Australia, offset by 14,200
arrivals from Australia. In both directions, most migrants were New Zealand citizens.”
See: International Travel and Migration: September 2012
It’s not just the low pay (which is being driven lower by National policies); nor the cost of housing rising higher and higher as a minority speculate on property for tax-free gains; nor rising unemployment; nor the growing wealth-divide.
What is driving New Zealanders to escape – and I use that word with precise deliberation – is that our society has a strong impulse for self-flagellation that manifests as constantly making wrong economic decisions. Instead of looking at the long term – sufficient numbers of New Zealand voters opt for short term benefits. The result is that few of our economic problems are actually addressed in a meaningful way.
The joke is that so many New Zealanders still hold a quasi-religious faith in the National Party as “prudent managers” of the economy.
Which is sad, really.
National is the last political body to earn the reputation of “prudent manager”.
Any Prime Minister who reveals surprise at a worsening economic situation – despite data screaming “Red Alert! Red Alert!” on every indicator, is one who is asleep at the wheel and hasn’t a clue what is going on around him.
How can a Prime Minister with an entire government department at his disposal, which spends $17,547,000 a year, be oblivious to 13,000 people losing their jobs in the last three months?
See: Household Labour Force Survey: September 2012 quarter
Does he not read a newspaper?
Or, as with the GCSB briefing in February, was Key simply not paying attention?
Or perhaps, as with the John Banks police file, did he wilfully choose not to look at the information?
Precisely why are we paying this man $411,510 each year?!
One other reason why so many New Zealand voters are so deluded into voting for National; the old ‘aspirational middle class‘ thing.
We all want to be affluent, succesful, and secure. The National Party is filled to the brim with millionaires, rich lawyers, businessmen and women, etc. Even Paula Bennett knew how to rort the welfare system when she was on the DPB, and bought a nice house with WINZ assistance.
Mowst of us want that. So by electing National, some of that success will rub of onto us, right?
Right?
So f*****g wrong.
Who benefitted from National’s 2009 and 2010 tax cuts? Check out the data,
.
2009 taxcuts
.
.
2010 taxcuts
.
.
As the numbers above show, the higher your earnings, the greater your tax cut. Conversely, the lower your earnings, the less you got.
If you earned $40,000 p.a. your tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010 was – $9.94.
At the same time, GST went up. That meant you were now paying 15% on food, electricity, fuel (more actually), rates, etc.
High income earners have done very nicely out of the tax cuts.
By contrast, the Australian governments treated their low-middle income earners somewhat differently,
“As part of the Government’s policy to spread the benefits of the mining boom, one million people will be freed from paying tax when the tax-free threshold is trebled from A$6000 to A$18,200.
More than seven million earning less than A$80,000 ($102,000) will receive tax cuts and parents with children at school will be paid A$410 a year for each primary school pupil and A$820 for each secondary student.”
See: Fed-up Kiwis head to Oz en masse
That is called re-distribution of wealth to those who need it.
As compared to National’s re-distribution of wealth to those who do not need it.
It takes a while for the Aspirationists to wake up and realise that they’ve been conned. In the meantime, Key smiles and waves and bats away serious economic problems; Paula Bennett targets and blames the unemployed for daring to be unemployed; Hekia Parata is busy undermining our education system; John Banks is throwing taxpayers money at private Charter schools; and the rest of the National Party are further dismantling our once egalitarian society, and doing dubious back-room deals with casinos, big business, foreign governments, and god-knows-who-else.
The only thing that would really, really, really piss me off is that National voters became disenchanted with their own “government” – a mess of their own making – and headed off to Australia. To hell with that!
It’s a shame that Aussie Customs can’t made a small addition to their Immigration Declaration Form,
Have you ever,
[] been convicted of a drugs offence?
[] been a part of a terrorist group?
[] voted National?
Ticking the last box should be grounds for immediate repatriation to New Zealand.
The Aussies may already have started: I understand that Paul Henry is being sent back to New Zealand?
.
.
= fs =
Bill English: When numbers don’t fit, or just jump around…
.
Sign of the times: spotted on power pole in Stokes Valley.
.
See previous blogpost: Job Hunting, Bennett-style
.
As unemployment continues to rise and rise and rise and rise and rise and rise and… National Ministers have apparently been making friends with Mr Walker, Mr Beam, or indulging in some other relaxing substances…
There’s no other way to explain some of the weirdness emanating from Parliament.
Take, for example, Little Leader, Bill English, and his comments about the latest unemployment figures – now at 7.3%, or 175,000 in real people-numbers.
English responded with these curious comments,
“What we have found through this recovery is that it has been a bit hard to predict and we’ve seen these sort of numbers jump around, they can be up one quarter and diown another quarter.”
“Jumping numbers“, huh?
Hmmm, maybe Paula Bennet might want to try some of that work-place drug-testing on Little Leader?
Mind you, it didn’t help when English tried to suggest that the reality of unemployment didn’t match his reality,
“These numbers don’t fit with some of the other indicators, just for this quarter. For instance, the number of people on the unemployment benefit continues to drop, including in Auckland where the survey shows a rise in the number of people unemployed.”
See: Jobless figures result of ‘grumpy’ recovery – English
It’s a bugger when “numbers just don’t fit”. Perhaps he needs a bigger shopping bag? Like, enough to hold 175,000 unemployed?!
However, it’s interesting that English sez that “the number of people on the unemployment benefit continues to drop”. He’s either telling fibs (unusual for a National Party politician), or is not aware of MSD unemployment figures which are easily available on the internet…
Registered unemployed on WINZ benefit
December 2011 – 59,964
March 2012 – 53,479
June 2012 – 49,622
September 2012 – 50,390
Source: MSD 2012
Source: MSD 2011
From June to September, there has been an increase in registered unemployed – not a a drop as English claimed.
So registered unemloyed are rising.
But why are they not rising anywhere near the same numbers as Statistics New Zealand’s Household Labour Force Survey?
The HLFS survey states that 13,000 more people were unemployed in the September quarter. Which is certainly indicated by the number of redundancies we see almost on a daily basis in media reports.
This blogger suggests that there are a number of factors why the number of registered unemnployed does not match the HLFS – though both are tracking upward, proving that unemployment is most certainly on the rise.
1. Married/Relationships
Quite simply; if you’ve lost your job and your spouse/partner is still working, you’re not eligible for WINZ assistance.
This is one of those quirks in our welfare system that a partnered couple can both be working and the State demands that they both pay taxes. Yet if one of them loses his/her job, s./he is not entitled to WINZ assistance. Both would have to be jobless before being eligible unemployment benefits.
Conversely, if two people are flatting together and not ina relationship, the situation is completely different. If both are working and one loses his/her job, s/he is eligible for the unemployment benefit.
Moral of this story; WINZ want to know who you’re in bed with. A quaint bit of 1950s-style moralising by the State?
This blogger suggests that a substantial number who have lost their jobs recently are in relationships will not bother to register with WINZ because it is pointless. They will not receive State assistance. (Despite having paid their taxes.)
2. Redundancy/Holiday Pay
It’s quite like that those made redundant recently still have holiday pay, savings, or redundancy pay to live on. WINZ will not offer an unemployment benefit if the applicant has money in his/her bank account.
3. Stand-down Period
After redundancy or holiday pay is used up, WINZ can then put an applicant on a 13 week stand-down. (I’ve no idea why. Sadism? Just for the hell of it?)
This blogger suspects that the numbers on unemployment benefits will rise in the next few months, more closely mirroring the Household Labour Force Survey.
Another factor to consider is that Paula Bennett has directed WINZ to make life more difficult for the unemployed, when registering with WINZ. As if losing one’s job wasn’t stressful enough, Bennet has forced the implementation of some draconian rules and requirements for beneficiaries. (The implication being that it’s the fault of the unemployed for being unemployed?!)
One of the bureacratic bundles of red tape are the number of forms given to WINZ applicants.
Forf those readers who have never had the “delight” of dealing with WINZ – these are the forms that are required to be filled out. Note: every single applicant is given these forms (in a little plastic carry-bag).
The cost of printing these things must be phenomenal.
And if you have to reapply to WINZ for a benefit (if, say, you’ve lost your job again) you are required to fill out these forms all over again.
This is where taxpayer’s money is really going to waste in welfare.
This is the first booklet; the ‘Unemployment Benefit Application‘ – a thirty-page application form.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A thirty page document – to apply for a sum of $201.96 a week (WINZ benefit, nett, for a person over 25).
By contrast, banks have a couple of pages for a mortgage application form where sums in excess of $200,000 are being lent, and repayments start at $400 a week.
Next form, something called ‘Find a job build a future Tools to help you find work’,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And just because the initial 30-page WINZ application form may not have satisfied the Minister; her Ministry; and sundry bureacrats, another application form was enclosed in the “pack”; “Jobz4u Manual Jobseeker Enrolment“.
This one was ‘only’ nine pages,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Another form, this time only four pages long, the ‘Employment-Earnings Verification‘ form,
.
.
.
.
.
Bizarrely, the above form is replicated on page 4 of the thirty-page ‘Unemployment Benefit Application‘. One wonders if Bennett is aware of the duplication of these forms?
The next form (yes, there’s more!) was the ‘WINZ – How can we help you‘. When assisting the person fill out these forms, there was a strong urge within me to scribble across each of the following eight pages,
“How can we help you?
By cutting down on these goddamn forms!! How many forests had to die for this crap???“
I have a sneaking suspicion that might not have helped the person I was assisting in her application.
The ‘WINZ – How can we help you‘ form,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And the last two, the ‘Unemploymen Benefit Application – What to Bring ‘ and the ‘WINZ Online Services ‘ (both one page),
.
.
.
All up, seventythree pages of information and forms to read, understand, fill out, collect information…
This system becomes even more laughable when one considers that if an an applicant has been a WINZ beneficiary before, they are still on MSD’s computer files. Much of the information sought would already be on-file.
The cost of this must be horrendous, and it is ironic that at a time when National is cutting “back room” support staff to save money, that they are permitting taxpayer funding for this ‘Monty Pythonesque ‘ exercise in out-of-control form-filling.
No wonder that this was reported in Fairfax media,
” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett this morning said latest figures showed 328,043 people were now on benefits, with 57,058 of those on an unemployment benefit.
Reforms passed by Parliament require people on an unemployment benefit to reapply for it after one year. Bennett said this change had led to 5000 people cancelling their benefit.
More than 1400 of those said they had found work, more than 2600 didn’t complete a reapplication and more than 1000 were no longer eligible. “
See: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply
How many people with minimal education could hope to fill out so many forms of such complexity?
Applying for a bank mortage is vastly simpler – an irony considering the vastly greater sums of money involved.
Addendum
.
Date: Tue, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 1:38 PM
From: Frank Macskasy
Subject: Information Request
To: Paula Bennett “Paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz”Kia Ora Ms Bennett,
I would like to make an official Freedom of Information Request.
Please provide information as to the costings of the following forms and information leaflets produced by MSD/WINZ;
“Work and Income Employment-Earnings Verification” (VO6-mar 2011)
“Work and Income Find a job build a future Tools to help you find work” (JOBSW0007-nov 2010)
“Jobz4u Manual Jobseeker Enrolment” (-)
“Work and Income Unemployment Benefit Application” (M18-JUL 2011)
“Work and Income Unemployment Benefit Application – What to bring” (M18-JUL 2011)
“Work and Income How can we help you” (CM0001 – OCT 2010)
“Work and Income Online Services” (-)
“Work and Income” plastic carrybag for above items.
Please provide total costings for EACH item printed, on an annual basis for the last four years, and a break-down of costings for usage per year and per WINZ client.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
.
= fs =
Guest Author: MSD. WINZ. IT. OMG!
– Alan Benton
.
.
I wonder who is handling the hiring of staff for the IT side of MSD. I highly suspect it is a private firm, such as Addecco who I know have a concrete and firmly locked up contract for instance at StudyLink, and adminster all their temps and contractors. Some of those staff have been rolled over for years my flatmate tells me, one person he works with had been rolled over for more than 6 years.
That means, to me, there is possibly a whacking great sum of budgeting that is just used as straight out corporate subsidy. This simply means in turn that there is a whacking great some of money that is not and cannot every be put into operational budgets, it’s literally flying out the door in “costs” to have an outside private firm do the work that internal management ought to probably be handling themselves.
My last contract at MOH was handled by an outside firm. I worked out they made just short of $15K off me on one stint there, even though the only work they did was sourcing me, and that was it. Absolutely nothing more. I was interviewed by internal staff, my workload was set by internal staff, my performance was monitored by internal staff and payments came from within the MOH’s system, not the Agency, YET the Agency actually still made money off me every single hour I worked there.
I couldn’t help wondering what would happen if this sort of thing was dropped, and the budget that gets set aside for such “management” using these outside companies actually went into operational matters.
And I was just one of many there at the time who got brought in to help oversee the next iteration of one of one of the systems there … multiply that by more staff and more departments across the Government, and you’re probably looking easily at millions and millions going to these private companies instead of the systems themselves.
And in one of my older roles as mentioned, when staffing was cut, it was still a case of crank out even better and “more efficient” systems but with a steadily diminishing ability to do it properly to start with. It seemed complete madness to demand that sort of thing. Kind of like MSD demanding people get off their butts to work and berating them for not having the ability to cope when they’ve gone and cut the programs that were helping people in the past get OFF the bloody thing in the first place – including one Ms Paula Bennett of all people!!!
I was constantly told that we couldn’t do this, couldn’t do that, didn’t have the money. And yet it never seemed to stop pay rises for the CEO, never seemed to stop splashing out on decor, never seemed to stop demands for the latest and greatest flashing lights and gizmos … but if I as Manager tried arguing for server investment, security investment, it was uphill all the bloody time. Yes, there was capital outlay involved. But it was banging my head against a concrete wall to make them see that if they did right first time, we wouldn’t constantly be mired in patchup jobs, make do workarounds and the threat of chronic system failure dangling above our heads. And I just got very apprehensive when this was happening in the security area. “Can we get a student to do that?”, always looking for the cheapest solution to fix highly complex problems. I’ve nothing against students, but we were laying off some real gun workers. As I said, we just ended up with burnouts and layoffs. Including myself.
I guess being insistant and not afraid to get up the noses of people who had no clue on what they were managing didn’t make me appeal to the Managers, but I happened to view critical infrastructure as a bloody important investment, especially when we would have rural Dr’s going mental because we couldn’t give them the appropriate technology resources to help them get on with their jobs in difficult to reach areas and the like. And I always viewed people who didn’t have a clue about it as the last people to be making the critical decisions on the support thereof of such technology and systems.
.
.
= fs =
Paula Bennett shows NZ how to take responsibility
.
.
Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett has been issuing edict after edict, demanding that welfare beneficiaries “take responsibility for their lives” and accept certain ‘obligations’ in return for receiving their welfare benefits,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And not forgetting Dear Leader’s own 5 cents + 15% GST worth,
.
.
It’s very ‘helpful’ when a multi-millionaire explains to a person living in poverty, how to budget to buy food…
Bennett and Key expect a high degree of personal responsibility and expect obligations to be undertaken.
How does Paula Bennet, Minister for Social Welfare compare when it comes to taking personal responsibility and meeting her obligations to the public?
Let’s put it to the test, shall we?
When problems surrounding WINZ job-kiosks hit the headlines, and quickly became apparent to be the biggest leak of information in this country’s history, did Paula Bennet step up and take responsibility?
.
“At the end of the day I have a level of responsibility and certainly accountability. What I can’t be held to is to blame for something I have no control over.
“I set high standards for the ministry. They have not lived up to them in this case and I want … to be sure it will never happen again.”
.
Short answer: no.
It’s someone elses’ responsibility.
Which begs two questions,
- Can welfare beneficiaries be “held to blame for something they have no control over” ?
- Just why is Bennett collecting her ministerial salary of $257,800 p.a. plus perks and allowances?
Paula Bennett, Minister of Hypocrisy and Double standards.
.
*
.
Highly recommended
Gareth Morgan: Belt Tightening Won’t Reduce Unemployment
Sources
Parliament: Salaries payable under section 16 of Civil List Act 1979
NZ Herald: Bennett: Winz security process ‘atrocious’
TV3: Staff cuts blamed for WINZ computer woes
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 20 October 2012 – Online now!
.
Citizen A
.
– 20 October 2012 –
.
– Chris Trotter & Selwyn Manning –
.
.
Issue 1: Is a WINZ kiosk less leaky than a GCSB staff meeting? What to make of the security lapse at the Ministry of Social Development?
Issue 2: Where does the Kim Dotcom case end?
and Issue 3: Government tells Maoridom to get lost over the sale of Mighty River Power – what now for the Maori Party and asset sales?
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Paula Bennett – massive *facepalm*
.
.
As Bennett laments,
“People buy 10 cooked chickens and then go and sell them in the carpark.
I can’t stop what individuals do. All I can do is try and put the right security around it.”
And no one – not one person in Bennett’s office; the Ministry of Social Development; or WINZ – guessed that this might happen?!?!
Such a system was bound to be easily circumvented, and once again National has wasted millions of our tax-dollars on a pointless exercise, rather than getting to the nub of the problem: job creation.
Where are the jobs, Mr Key, Ms Bennett, et al?
Idiots.
.
*
.
Other blogs
No Right Turn: WINZ doesn’t care
.
.
= fs =
5 October: Protest against Govt harrassment of the unemployed and solo-mums
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 5 October 2012 – Today marked a National Day Of Action Against Welfare “Reforms” around the country against National’s ongoing harassment and demonisation of unemployed, solo-mothers (but never solo-dads), and others receiving welfare assistance.
Dunedin: ODT – 150 protest welfare reforms in Dunedin
Christchurch: The Press – Protesters angry at benefit moves
Auckland: NZ Herald – Welfare protestors march on MP’s office
Hamilton: Waikato Times – Solutions sought to poverty
Wellington: Dominion Post – nil coverage
Radio NZ: Welfare reform protests held throughout country
The protest in Wellington was held outside the WINZ offices in Upper Willis St, on a cold, blustery day, and was attended by around 100 people,
.
.
The protest was joined by members of the CTU, who had been at a Conference, nearby,
.
.
The crowd swelled from around thirty, up to about 100,
.
.
.
.
Radio NZ and TV1 media were present to cover the event, and several folk were interviewed by the RNZ journalist (not in picture),
.
.
Heleyni and Michelle, voluntary advocate-at-large, addressed the gathering. Michelle had come from Napier on business, and had been keen to join the picket in support of beneficiaries.
Michelle was particularly scathing about National singling out welfare recipients with demands to undertake various “social obligations”,
“They should be reaching out to every parent. If they [National] want to interfere in our lives it should be across the board and be fair about it. So I’m here to support any beneficiary that’s having a headache with this department. But it’s the politicians that need to get a clear message in their heads.”
Bennett has never answered a simple question; if social obligations (such as compulsory early childhood education; school participation; enrollment at a doctor’s clinic) is such an excellent idea for beneficiaries – why has this policy not been rolled out for all New Zealand families? Why not have compulsion for everyone?
The answer, I submit, is fairly obvious.
Michelle said that she had kept Jenny Shipley’s “Code of Social Responsibility” booklet that National had mailed out to every household in the country in 1998. Michelle drew parallels with that taxpayer funded exercise to smear welfare recipients as the cause of society’s social problems – with current policies to achieve similar ends.
.
.
“On a current case that I’m advocating for in my home town, is a young guy who was the top apprentice in the course; was working; his boss laid him off, and it’s taken 13 weeks to get his unemployment benefit on. In the meantime he’s had no money; he’s absolutely depressed , he did all that training, he did everything right, and he ended up in the dole queue where he’d never been before actually.
And he is absolutely distraught because there are not enough jobs, let alone qualified ones around.
It’s jobs that the government need to be held to account to create. That’s the problem. It’s not about fault with WINZ. I did eleven years on DPB, worked part time, took me that bloody long to get of my benefit . I trained my way out of it and I’m really lucky now that I never have to go back to it. Who’s to say that one day I might not have to though. And that’s why our government needs to hear that we need the safety net and we need to have everybody treated with respect.“
.
Michelle
.
David shared his experiences with WINZ, with this blogger. His WINZ caseworker suggested that his mental disability was not a true disability, even though he “had been in and out of the mental health system since the age of 13”. He had been hospitalised four times for overdoses, and has self-harmed.
David showed me the angry-red scars on his wrists.
He described how the mental health system had let him down, and his subsequent contact with police and the justice system. (Unfortunately, David’s story is not that uncommon. See: Radio NZ – Suicides amongst mental health callouts – police )
David said he was worried about being taken off his invalid’s benefit and not having his mental condition taken seriously,
” Basically, because I was able to bike down to the WINZ appointment, my mental health is not that severe…
She saw me on one of my good days. She said because I’d been job hunting; because I do one paper a semester at University; which actually is part of my care-package to keep me going, and keep me engaged, instead of stagnating, then she looked at those two things and how I presented and wrote it all of.”
He added,
“They are looking at taking me of my invalid’s benefit.”
.
David
.
This gentleman arrived at the protest well prepared. He carried ‘urine’ samples to present to WINZ,
.
.
.
If the contant tooting of passing traffic car horns was anything to go by, there was strong support from the public for the protestors. Perhaps the public are starting to weary of constant job redundancies, rising unemployment, lack of movement on job creation – and in the meantime, National blaming beneficiaries for poor economic performance and indicators.
A government can fool people for only so long…
.
.
Green MP, Jan Logie, addressed the protest and cited National ‘s failure to create the jobs that unemployed needed to get of benefits,
“Kia Ora katou, I’m Jan Logie, I’m the Green Party spokesperson for income support. And I’ve gotta say it’s great to see the crowd out today, people who are in paid work, and those of you who are brave enough not to be in paid work and be out here today, because I know [wind noise].
I’m here because the Green Party believes in a society that we can all participate in. And this government is creating a society that is actively excluding many of our most important people; our parents, our thinkers, our artists, the soul of our society, which is you and every other person accepting income support. I’ve been on income support, most people in this country have been on income support at some stage in their life. And this government which is in deep denial, is creating a perception that it is only slackers and losers who are in need of any government support. Well, shame on them! [car honking background noise]
The chances are, the way they’re setting up the world, they’re going to have enough money to be able support their families for generations. Because they’re creating a divided country where the rich are getting so much wealthier and everyone else is just being bloody well left out. And that’s not a country I was brought up to believe I was part off. That’s a country that I looked at overseas and thought, ‘you poor people, to have a government that treats people and excludes people like that’. That is not the country I know, and that’s not a country I want to be part of.
So I’m so glad that this is a start of a fightback, a start of a fightback for a society we can all be part of. Kia ora katou.”
.
.
This woman had her own story to share with the crowd,
“Due to circumstance in our lives – I’m partnered – we had to ask for benefits. Just for two months as it turned out, my partner go a job. But when I came to ask for benefits, we asked not for a free hand out, but for a loan . A loan of $200 to buy our brand new baby clothes. You know what I was told? – “No”.
D’you know why? Because they said my baby wasn’t born yet and just in case something happens, that … what would the loan be for? [wind noise] They did not give me the loan. So this is the kind of system that is systematically telling us that our children aren’t worth anything, our lives are not worth anything. Anything can happen to you and fundamentally “we do not care”.
So this is what I’m standing against. I’m standing for human rights and against people who say “you don’t matter”, “your unborn child does not matter”… I’m standing against that; my child matters [car & wind noise] So thanks very much for nothing, Mr John Key.”
.
.
Solo-mum and Parliamentarian, Jan Logie (green scarf). The contrast between Ms Logie and Welfare Minister Paula Bennett is stark.
Considering Bennett’s own background as an ex welfare beneficiary, when will she stand with the unemployed, powerless, and dispossessed, on protest lines like these?
Bennett enjoyed full access to state social services; DPB, free tertiary education paid with the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett closed down), and even bought a house using WINZ assistance.
The people here today simply want what Bennett received, to get out of the poverty trap as she did,
.
.
Others had the opportunity to express their feelings and thoughts on issues surrounding beneficiary-bashing, lack of jobs, and Paula Bennett’s behaviour,
.
.
This protestor knew precisely where to sheet home responsibility for ongoing economic problems,
“There’s a lot of talk right now about debt and financial burden… This is actually scapegoating. The bulk of debt in this country is private debt, it’s not government debt…. By attacking beneficiaries, the poorest people, it’s a way of actually making people insecure and making people blame those who aren’t causing this problem. The people who are causing this problem are capitalists and banks. .. and we should not blame beneficiaries for causing this problem.”
.
.
A petition was passed around. It made a simple request,
.
.
This woman demanded to know how she could meet Bennett’s “obligations” to find work when employers preferred to hire able-bodied people rather than someone with a disability.
She said she couldn’t even speak to some at WINZ’s reception, at eye-level, because her line of sight was blocked by the reception-counter,
“I’ve been to this WINZ office.And I went up to the Counter. And unfortunately it was the Counter I saw. Because it is so inaccessible. I couldn’t see the staff – I could see the counter. I think it is disgraceful that Work and Income is so inaccessible … and that is discrimination. Do they not deal with disabled people? Perhaps some disabled people might be on a, I don’t know, an in-valid benefit. Perhaps they might be on a sickness benefit. Perhaps they might be receiving super. I don’t know… there may be the occassional disabled person coming to work at Work & Income And yet, it is inaccessible!”
She added,
“Social responsibility does go both ways. And this government must must get it’s act together.”
.
.
Protestors enjoyed a moment of spontaneous entertainment and humour when a streaker from the nearby university hostel, ‘Ustay’, ran across the street; back again; through the protestors; and back into the hostel-building.
He had guts (and lots of skin). The wind that blew up and down the street was bitterly cold.
Unfortunately, he was too quick to catch on-camera (his streaking was suitable for the Olympic 100m dash), but the reaction from the crowd is plain to see,
.
.
This particular sign perhaps says it all; whilst National demands that unemployed, solo-mums, etc meet certain “obligations” – where is National’s obligation to create the 170,000 new jobs they promised us during last year’s general elections?
Are obligations a one-way street?
Has National abrogated it’s obligations, and thrust responsibility for their job-creation policy-failures, onto the unemployed?
.
.
And finally, this shot of WINZ’s interior says a lot. It is emptly, save for the security guard lucky enough to have a job,
.
.
The reason that unemployed are not queuing up at WINZ offices is mind-numbingly simple; there are no jobs to be had at WINZ.
Instead, the unemployed, solo-mums, and other beneficiaries queue where the jobs are,
.
.
See: Employment-Unemployment Fact Sheet #1: Queues for Vacancies
.
Addendum 1
More images of the Protest action here.
Addendum 2
Right wing blogger; ex ACT candidate; critic of solo-mothers; and self-proclaimed “expert” on New Zealand’s welfare system, Lindsay Mitchell, had this to to write about today’s day-of-action,
” WELFARE REFORM PROTESTS ALARM BENEFICIARIES
Friday, October 5, 2012
The language protesters are using to describe ongoing welfare reforms is unnecessarily frightening people on benefits, according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.
“Welfare reforms are being described as ‘cruel’, ‘punitive’, ‘brutal’, ‘vicious’ and ‘violent’ prompting beneficiaries to fear the worst – that they will lose their income. “
See: Welfare reform protests alarm beneficiaries
Mitchell did not name the mysterious people being “unnecessarily frightened”. Of course not. Mitchell does not move in circles where she would come into contact with the unemployed, solo-mums, and other such “riff-raff”.
She was merely interviewing her own keyboard. Making it up.
Mitchell went on to write,
” The reforms are focussed on getting more people into work and on creating better outcomes for children.”
Mitchell is deluding herself. The reforms are not “ focussed on getting more people into work“. The “reforms” will not create one single job. That is not the purpose of said “reforms” – which she well knows.
The actual purpose is to push people of welfare and make unemployment stats look better for National.
National has no policy on job creation and has stated on numerous occassions that it believes that only the private sector can create jobs – not government,
“Nothing creates jobs and boosts incomes better than business growth. For New Zealand to build a more productive and competitive economy, we need more innovative companies out there selling their products on the world stage.” – John Key, 24 August 2012
Now in her dotage, Mitchell is little more than an apologist for National’s nasty beneficiary-bashing agenda. Her views on social welfare are stated with crystal clarity on her blog,
” This blog intends to debunk the myths surrounding the welfare state. The government is not caring and compassionate. It cannot replace families and community. The welfare state is unsustainable economically, socially and morally. “
Yeah, far better to let people sleep in alleyways and die in gutters. If it’s good enough for the slum-dwellers of Mumbai and Soweto…
Interestingly, the one response she had on her blogpost was an Invalid Beneficiary who was unashamedly honest in demolishing Mitchell’s bullshit.
.
*
.
Other blogs
Leftwing
The Standard: National Day of action against Bennett’s welfare reforms
Rightwing
Lindsay Mitchell: Welfare reform protests alarm beneficiaries
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- For non-commercial use, images may be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
National ramps up attack on unemployed and solo-mums (part rua)
.
.
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,
.
.
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,
- 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”?
- 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)
- How accurate is the report?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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,
.
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;
- 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?
- 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?
- 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 MacskasyBloggerPS: 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 =
Paula Bennett: one strike and she’s out.
.
.
National’s diversionary strategem of inferring that our high rate of unemployment is a deliberate life-style choice, and the fault of the unemployed, continues unabated. In large part, with few exceptions, this strategem of Divert & Deflect, is aided and abetted by a compliant media.
People like Fairfax’s Tracey Watkins, and NZ Herald’s John Armstrong and Fran O’Sullivan, have been unquestioning in their slavish “reporting” of National’s assault against the unemployed.
The latest from National Politburo member, Comrade Bennett, is a new diktat imposed upon the unemployed that ” cancels payments for those who refuse [an] offer of ‘suitable’ job “,
.
.
To repeat and quote Bennett, when she stated on TVNZ’s Q+A on 29 April,
“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. “
See: TVNZ Q+A: Transcript of Paula Bennett interview
.
#1 – Where are the jobs?
.
Where are the jobs – especially the 170,000 that Dear Leader Key promised us last november?
This is not just a rhetorical question – National was re-elected upon their (undeserved) reputation as “prudent stewards of the economy”. And a pledge to create 170,000 new jobs.
That they have failed to produce these new jobs, is an understatement. Unemployment continues to rise.
See: Unemployment rate lifts to 6.7pc (May 2012)
See: Unemployment rises: 6.8pc (August 2012
And redundancies continue on an almost daily/weekly basis,
- ANZ; 1,000 redundancies
- Wire by Design, 55 redundancies
- Hakes Marine; 15 redundancies
- Telecom; 400 redundancies
- Brightwater Engineering; 40 redundancies
- Pernod Ricard New Zealand; 13 redundancies
- Depart of Corrections; 130 redundancies
- Summit Wool Spinners; 80 redundancies
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; 80 redundancies
- Cavalier/Norman Ellison Carpets; 70 redundancies
- IRD; 51 redundancies
- Flotech; 70 redundancies
- NZ Police; 125 redundancies
- CRI Plant and Food; 25 redundancies
- Te Papa; 16 redundancies (?)
- PrimePort Timaru; 30 redundancies
- Kiwirail; 158 redundancies
- Fisher & Paykel; 29 redundancies
- Goulds Fine Foods; 60 redundancies
- Canterbury University; 150 redundancies (over three years)
- Solid Energy; 363 redundancies
- Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter; 100 redundancies
- Axiam Metals; 44 redundancies
- Norske Skog; 120 redundancies
- Goodman Fielder; redundancy numbers t.b.a.
- Dunedin City Council/Delta: 30 redundancies
- Blue Sky Meats; 100 redundancies
- Kaipara Ltd/Stockton Alliance; 63 redundancies
- Wainuiomata New World; 44 redundancies
- Nuplex; 64 redundancies
- Newmont Waihi Gold; 20 redundancies
So, where are the jobs, Comrade Bennett?
Never mind turning down one job – with 162,000 unemployed all competing for a small, limited number of jobs – most jobless people will not even have the luxury of one job offer.
This blogger has a sneaking suspicion that Comrade Bennett is referring to pseudo-“jobs”,
- telemarketing (best done at dinner time)
- door-to-door salesperson (households love to greet strangers on their doorstep, flogging vacuum cleaners)
- prostitute (highly skilled/motivated to satisfy clients’ needs; someone with passionate people-skills)
- chimney cleaner (for small-builds, to facilitate easier access up chimneys)
- rent-a-womb (for rich, childless couples – males beneficiaries may be excused from this, at WINZ discretion)
- fruit picker (traditionally seasonal work – but still doable in winter time, lack of fruit is NO excuse!)
All growth industries, no doubt.
.
#2 – An alternative to the ‘One Strike’ policy?
.
The WINZ Charter, as follows,
What you can expect from us
We will:
- give you prompt and efficient service
- let you know about our services and how we can help
- give you information that is correct and easy to understand
- give you the assistance you are entitled to
- explain your rights and obligations
- explain why we ask you to do certain things
- listen carefully so we understand what you are telling us
- be understanding and caring about your needs
- be respectful, friendly and professional in the way we serve you
- tell you who may be able to help if we can’t.
You have the right to:
- be treated with courtesy and respect
- cultural sensitivity
- use any of our services
- be given information about the services we offer
- be given correct information and entitlements
- be listened to
- be given fair, non-judgemental service
- have your information kept private and confidential
- have any decisions we make explained to you
- have a support person there whenever you deal with us
- make a complaint or ask for a review if you disagree with us.
So that we can help, you need to:
- give us the information we need to assess your entitlements
- make sure any information you give us is correct
- tell us about any changes in your situation
- keep any agreements you have made with us
- attend and be prepared for our meetings
- tell us if you’re unable to keep an appointment
- treat our staff with courtesy and respect.
See: WINZ – Our Service Charter
I propose a minor amendment to the above Charter with one addition,
Our prime obligation to you:
- we are committed to honouring the Prime Minister’s pledge to create new 170,ooo jobs
- we will have one chance to provide suitable work from one of those 170,000 new jobs; at decent pay-rates; within reasonable travel time/distance
- failure to comply will mean that the Minister of Social Welfare will have her Ministerial salary docked at the rate of unemployment benefit, for each week that you remain unemployed
- if, after one year of failing to honour our committment to you, and you are still unemployed, the Prime Minister will personally apologise to you, and will either provide a meaningful job for you, or support you into retraining at a nearby polytech or University, to be paid out of his own $50 million bank account
I think that amendment is fair, and puts the onus on to John Key and Paula Bennett to fulfill their obligations to us, the public, and to those people who voted National on the basis of creating 170,000 new jobs.
Let’s see National meet their obligations: 170,000 new jobs, as promised.
.
.
*
.
Other Blogs
Why politicians like the beneficiary debate
.
.
= fs =
ACC – A Complete Cock-up
.
.
Revelations unearthed and made public by the Green Party, that ACC paid bonuses to their staff to ‘bump’ long-term clients from their books comes as no surprise. Only the most naive would still believe that everything was hunky-dory at ACC.
See: ACC bonus pay for claimant cull
Faced with the revelations, ACC Minister, Judith “Hugs’n’Crushes” Collins belatedly admitted that ACC staff are paid bonuses, and tried to justify the payments as “a good thing” because ‘it gets the clients back to work’.
Yeah, right.
Nice spin, Minister.
Then ACC’s departing chief executive Ralph Stewart chipped in, rejecting accusations that bonuses were made to bump clients of ACC’s books,
“No one can leave ACC until they are rehabilitated. There are two clear steps. The rehabilitation step’s first, leaving the scheme second – it’s not the other way around.”
See: ACC claimants removal motive denied
Let me put this as delicately as I can: bullshit.
This blogger is aware of at least one person in the late 1990s, who was bumped from ACC’s books and onto a WINZ invalids benefit, after a work-related back-injury. ACC actually paid for the client to be flown from Dunedin to Auckland, to be “assessed” by one of ACC’s “independent” consultants.
Result; she was taken off ACC’s books and made a WINZ “client”.
If anyone wonders why the numbers of invalids and sickness beneficiaries have risen in past decade – whilst ACC’s long-term clients have reduced – wonder no more. This is where invalids/sickness beneficiaries have come from.
This is backed up by a 2007 report on ACC clients removed from ACC’s books, showing 46% were out of work, with nearly 25% on the unemployment benefit.
See: Long-term ACC client list pruned
.
WINZ Beneficiaries
.
.
ACC long-term clients
.
.
The woman in question received no rehabilitation and her back injury persists to this day. “No one can leave ACC until they are rehabilitated” – therefore rings hollow in this blogger’s mind.
It is a bit rich for Ralph Stewart to be rejecting that bonuses were made to reduce long-term ACC clients – whilst at the same time admitting,
“Mr Stewart said long-term claimants have dropped by about 1200 since November, to about 10,400-10,500, but denied he was put in the job to move on claimants.
He said only 20 percent of staff incentives relate to rehabilitation.”
This is the same man who,
- oversaw ACC’s accusations of extortion levelled against Ms Pullar and laid a complaint with the Police;
- during the police investigation had listened to Bronwyn Pullar’s taped conversation of a meeting held between ACC staff; Michelle Boag; and herself;
- and yet stayed silent at a subsequent media conference that the taped conversation actually proved Pullars innocence!
.
ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart and Chairperson John Judge
.
Aside from the very real possibility that ACC’s executives may be guilty of the crime of wasting Police time (see: The Jackal: ACC’s false police complaint against Bronwyn Pullar), why on Earth should we believe anything that escapes Ralph Stewart’s mouth?
Ralph Stewart is not averse to mis-representing facts when his suits his agenda. He has already demonstrated that his word cannot be taken at face-value.
The evidence is compelling: ACC is mis-using Corporation funds to pay it’s staff bonuses to push long-term clients off its books.
Next question: what is Judith Collins going to do about it?
.
*
.
Additional
ACC minister put pressure on bosses to make complaint – Labour
TV3 Sixty Minutes: The Eye of the Storm
Gordon Campbell on the incentive payments at ACC
.
.
= fs =
Three Jokers and an Ace
.
.
This has been one of those strange weeks that only a National-led government can give us. Part of that strangeness has been described in a previous blog, with the antics of Paula Bennett, Pita Sharples, and a slow train-wreck called ACT.
See: 20 May: End of the Week Bouquets, Brickbats, & Epic Fails
But before the weekend was over, there was more neo-liberal nonsense to follow. One thing you can always count on with the Nats – they’re good for a facepalm on a regular basis…
First Joker: David Carter
Local Government Minister, David Carter’s performance on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 20 May, was an exercise in National’s ‘Daddy State‘ policies revving up several notches.
Not content with forcing assets sales, fracking, and deep sea drilling on us – the NPPB (National Party Politburo of Bunnies) is now issuing diktats from on-high to local body councils.
Firstly, Kommissar Karter instructed local bodies what was acceptable “core services” by local body councils,
” GREG
Okay, core services – what on earth are core services? Because there seems to be a lot of scope in what a core service is and what a council should be taking care of.
DAVID
Well, it’s certainly clear what core services are, and they are rates and rubbish and water, et cetera. But this legislation’s not about saying to councils, ‘You can only embark on core services.’ It is still the responsibility of the council to engage with its community and find out what services that community wants. But we want that debate to be far more transparent than it has been in the past.
GREG
Well, hold on. It sounds like the Government’s wanting a bob each way in this. They’re wanting to say they keep in touch with what’s happening with the rates, but they’re only to go and do core services at a local level or not. Which way is it to go?
DAVID
We are not saying that councils can only do core services. If you take my Christchurch City Council, for example, and it runs the Ellerslie Flower Show in Hagley Park. You could argue that’s not a core service. The council has determined that there is value in delivering that show for the people of Christchurch, and, frankly, I meet a lot of people on planes who are travelling from all over New Zealand to come to that. The council’s decision is to run the Ellerslie Flower Show, and that is a decision for the council to make. It’s certainly not a decision for central government to make or for myself as minister. “
Then the Minister advised the Great Unwashed what was not acceptable “core services”,
” DAVID
We’re certainly going to get local government to be far more focused on what activities it undertakes. In the past, some councils have stepped too far and undertaken activities, Hamilton city, for example, with the Grand Prix racing. I think that was an activity that went far beyond where local government should have gone. It cost local government in that area a lot of money. We’re not saying you cannot run race cars; we’re saying you need to think very very carefully before undertaking that activity. And by putting these financial management tests in place, I think councils will think more carefully about some of those longer-term extraneous activities they’re undertaking than they did in the past. “
So according to Kommissar Karter,
- V8 car races – out
- Flower shows – in
- Asset sales – in
- local democracy to choose our own expenditure: out
- centralised, National Party control over expenditure: in
- core service by councils – tba
The Minister then added, for good measure in case the proles had not understood his Diktat from On High,
” DAVID
You’re hitting on the essence of the relationship that should be between local government and central government. It has to be truly a partnership, but it’s not on for local government then to step into the space which is clearly central government’s role. And it is central government’s role to establish the education system in this country. It is central government’s role to establish parameters of measuring the success of that. We can then work with Len Brown and his council, particularly as he tries to develop solutions to some of the social problems in South Auckland, and we’re happy to work with him in a partnership. But the core responsibility still remains with central government. “
Which, if implemented, would mean that Otorohanga’s Council-led and community-based initiatives – which has seen unemployment and youth problems plummet – would not be a core Council responsibility?
.
.
Had National’s policy of curtailing Council activities been in full-force, youth unemployment and associated problems would remain unchanged, or probably much worse in that small town.
See also: Youth unemployment a growing problem
Or was the Minister expecting Otorohanga to wait for Central Government to address the worsening crisis of youth unemployment? Youth unemployment which has rocketed from 58,000 to 87,000 this year?
How would National’s policy, to “reign in” local Councils, impact on other towns and cities that attempted to take steps to address our growing social problems? Would Auckland prohibited from pursuing a programme similar to Otorohanga?
.
.
David Carter’s performance on Q+A was simply breath-taking. If anyone thought that Labour was guilty of creating a “Nanny State” – they had to watch Carter to see National go several steps further. In effect, central government will be dictating to local bodies what they can or can’t do.
Democracy? Not in our towns or cities, according to Minister Carter.
National is taking over. Curfew at 7PM.
See transcript: Q+ALocal Government Minister David Carter interview
See video: Q+A: Local Government Minister David Carter (15:28)
The irony here is that whilst National stands by and watches unemployment soar, local communities, through their elected representatives, are taking steps to address this growing problem.
Meanwhile, National’s response to unemployment is not to implement job creation programmes – their response is to fiddle with welfare.
Which leads us to the next issue…
.
Second Joker: Paula Rebstock
Q+A’s interview with Paula Rebstock – appointed by Welfare Minister Paula Bennett to head a board to oversee the implementation of National’s welfare “reforms” – is continuing National’s mission to demonise the unemployed; widows; solo-mums (but never solo-dads), and others who rely on social welfare to survive.
Since National has no job-creation plan, Dear Leader and Paula Bennett are shifting responsibility for lack of jobs onto welfare beneficiaries. (Because we know that welfare pays for the mansion, limousine in the drive-way, and the beach house in Hawaii. Oh, wait, no, that’s John Key.)
It is a most pernicious form of scape-goating.
It is shameful, and panders to the nasty prejudices that reside in the dark depths of our vestigial reptilian hind-brain. For the Working and Middle Classes, who have always had the sneaking suspicion that welfare offers an opulent lifestyle – until they themselves are made redundant – only to then discover the true nature of just how paltry welfare actually is.
To put this issue into some context, New Zealand’s unemployment doubled after the global financial crisis and resulting recession,
.
.
Rebstock headed the infamous “Welfare Working Group” in 2010. Some of the recommendations of the WWG were so punitive and inhumane as to return to the Victorian Era. Even John Key was moved to reject many of Rebstock’s extreme proposals.
In November 2010, Rebstock was interviewed by Paul Holmes on Q+A,
” PAUL
So that means a bit of government intervention, that means government providing these [jobs], presumably.
PAULA
Well, I don’t know if it does, and I think this is a really important point. If we look at how the labour market in New Zealand has performed, it is true we’ve been in a recession and we’re now moving into a slow recovery and jobs have been an issue, but since 1986 this economy has created more than 500,000 jobs. Now, it responded as well as almost any economy in the world to the economic environment. We had one of the highest employment rates in the OECD. I think that it is a little bit of a cop-out to say that we can’t deal to some of the issues around long-term benefit dependency because of the job market.
PAUL
Oh, come on, Paula, the jobs simply aren’t there. I mean, if you look at 2006, there was a 30,000 net gain of jobs. In 2008 it had gone down a bit – 9,000 net gain. God knows what it is this year.
PAULA
We actually are experiencing a gain in jobs. The labour statistics that came out last week show that. I’m not saying that we haven’t been in a recession, Paul, but this is the time right now to prepare people for the recovery. They need to be ready to take the jobs that are there. “
See: Holmes interviews Paula Rebstock (15 November 2010)
Unfortunately for everyone, the jobs were not “out there”. With the recession is full swing, exports were down, and companies were laying off staff in their hundreds.
Unemployment in November 2010 was 6.4%. By January 2011, it had reach 6.8%. The rate moved up and down, and currently sits on 6.7%.
See: Unemployment rate lifts to 6.7pc
Fast forward 18 months, and despite the economy continuing to stagnate, National is pursuing it’s scape-goating of unemployed and solo-mothers (but never solo-dads), and Rebstock and Bennett are both still ‘singing the same song’.
On 16 May, Bennett said,
” The cost of today’s total number of beneficiaries is estimated at $45 billion. It makes good economic and social sense to provide targeted support up front to get more people into work sooner.
This new approach will be embedded at all levels of the welfare system and the board will be responsible for ensuring accountability and overseeing the delivery of reforms that will see fewer people on welfare for long periods. “
See: Minister defends new welfare board
Not. One. Word. About. Job. Creation.
National is displaying an almost Obsessive-Compulsive antipathy on welfare issues. Their sole focus is on welfare and welfare beneficiaries.
As if 80,000+ New Zealanders decided to chuck in their jobs in the last few years, and instead live the life of luxury on $204.96 a week (net).
See: WINZ Unemployment Benefit (current)
Yet, not too long ago (29 April), Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett actually admitted,
PAULA
No. 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.
See: TVNZ Q+A: Transcript of Paula Bennett interview (29 April)
So why is National spending $1.1 million on Rebstock’s ‘Work and Income Board’ to oversee WINZ – when it ain’t welfare that’s broke. It’s the job market that is 160,000 jobs short?!
See: Rebstock to head welfare watchdog panel
Bennett goes on to say,
” I’ve got fantastic frontline staff, I’ve got fantastic upper and middle management that are working hands on with policy changes and implementing that frontline. “
“Fantastic front line staff”.
“Fantastic upper and middle management”.
“Working hands on with policy changes”.
But no jobs.
.
Third Joker: John Key
National’s “Gateway” scheme had its origins during the Mana by-election, in 2010. As some will recall, it was National’s grand plan to beat the Labour candidate, Kris Faafoi.
National’s candidate was… Hekia Parata – the current Minister for Education.
Ms Parata lost by 1,406 votes to Labour’s candidate. (The margin widens when adding centre-left votes for the Greens and Matt McCarten.)
It appears that the “Gateway” scheme was little more than an election bribe for Mana voters; a “lolly” to entice people to vote for Parata. National lost, and were stuck with fulfilling their policy pledge.
(Damned inconvenient when that happens, I guess.)
.
.
Heatley touted the scheme, grandly proclaiming,
“It is important the government provides opportunities for people to move into home ownership. Affordable homes schemes such as Gateway is another way we can assist more people into a home of their own.”
But by May of this year, it seems that it was ‘no longer important the government provides opportunities for people to move into home ownership’.
John Key announced it’s cancellation last week.
For a man who was raised in a taxpayer funded, and subsidised, state home with his siblings and widowed mum, and who benefitted from a societal value that decent housing was a basic human right – John Key has some very strange attitudes toward providing shelter for the poor and vulnerable,
.
.
The Gateway scheme details,
GATEWAY SCHEME
* For first home buyers earning under $100,000 a year
* They can get a mortgage to build or buy a house on state land
* Must have at least a 10% deposit
* Have 10 years to buy the land
It’s interesting to note that Key is unable to deliver “low cost” housing for couples earning under$100,000 and says,
“The Government has looked at that programme and decided that’s now not the most effective way of going forward.
So we think the capacity for lower income New Zealanders to own their own home is greatly enhanced by the fact interest rates are lower.
“If you have a look at the average home owner in New Zealand, they are paying about $200 a week less in interest than they were under the previous Labour Government.” – Ibid
His comments raises several issues,
- It says a lot about Key’s impression of what constitutes “lower income New Zealanders” when the threshold is up to $100,000 per couple. Perhaps by his multi-million dollar standards, a couple on $100,000 is “poor”?
- Derides the previous Labour government and claims credit for lower interest rates, by stating “they are paying about $200 a week less in interest than they were under the previous Labour Government“. As if current low interest rates are a result of National’s intervention? (Interest rates are determined by the Reserve Bank, and are currently low because our economy is stagnant. National can take credit for the latter, but not the former.)
- How can providing decent, affordable housing for low income earners be “not the most effective way of going forward” ?
- Key is living in a millionaire’s fantasyland if he seriously believes that “ the capacity for lower income New Zealanders to own their own home is greatly enhanced by the fact interest rates are lower“. Dear Leader doesn’t understand that the interest rate can be irrelevant if people can’t afford to buy a home in the first place.
If ever there was ever an instance of the Silver Spoon mentality – look no further than our current Prime Minister, the Rt Honourable John Key.
New Zealanders are deluded if they think this man can relate to their ordinary, everyday, lives.
.
The Ace: John Tamihere
As mentioned in a previous blogpost, John Tamihere is hosting an excellent, low-key, intelligent, current affairs chat show on TV3 (Sunday mornings) called “Think Tank“. Last Sunday’s (20 May) episode focused on child poverty in New Zealand and what practical steps were required to address this growing social crisis.
Last week, it was pokie machines and their effects on communities.
As the show’s name suggests, the goal is not just to look into critical social issues – but to come up with solutions. The show’s panel of four people offers solutions; and the guests scrutinises each suggestion.
It’s a chat show for sure – but instead of superficial inanities, the conversation is serious and fit for adult consumption.
This is good television. This treats the viewer as intelligent and capable of considering complex issues.
This blogger can only live in hope that this is the turning point of 21st century television, and we are seeing an end (or at least slow reduction) of the execrable rubbish we have been served up, since commercialisation and dumbing down became the norm for broadcasting in this country.
John Tamihere is perfect for the role of host for the show. Not a polished or trained media front-person, John Tamihere has walked the hard yards in life and has moved from the tough neighbourhoods of South Auckland to the halls of power in Parliament. He’s lived life. He’s seen things that Middle Class New Zealand has no wish to see or experience, outside of comfortable television shows.
This blogger’s only criticisms revolve around scheduling and lack of promotion.
Scheduling “Think Tank” on Sunday mornings ghettoises the show. It relegates it almost as an ‘after thought’. It would be an act of naked political subversion to broadcast it during prime time viewing. (That should give National’s/NZ on Air’s, Stephen McElrea something to howl about!)
The show also needs more promo on TV3. This blogger discovered it only by sheer fluke. Not promoting it leaves us wondering if TV3 doesn’t really want to draw attention to it? Perhaps doesn’t want to draw the ire of certain National Party ministers?
One hopes not.
TV3, as your print-media colleagues used to say, Publish and be damned !
It’s a good show.
Be proud of it.
.
*
.
Media sources
Loans for housing on crown land
Holmes interviews Paula Rebstock (15 November 2010)
Council goes solo to help young jobless
Key backs cut-off for cheap homes plan
Minister defends new welfare board
TVNZ Q+A: Local Government Minister David Carter (video)
Reserve Bank to keep OCR unchanged though hikes flicker on horizon
References
Official Cash Rate (OCR) decisions and current rate
Previous blogposts
Fear and loathing in the Fascist State of New Zealand
Bennett confirms: there are not enough jobs!
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
