NZ PM Key puts pressure on Australian social security provisions...

NZ PM Key puts pressure on Australian social security law provisions for Kiwis living in Australia.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key talk after PM Key addressed the House at Parliament, Canberra.



Prime Minister John Key has increased pressure on the Australian Government to change a social security law denying welfare payments to thousands of New Zealanders living there, reports say.



The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2001

categorises New Zealanders who arrived in Australia after February 26, 2001 as non-protected visa holders.



That makes them ineligible for many social security benefits.



More than 175,000 people - or 47 per cent of the New Zealanders living in Australia - are thought to be affected by the law, which has been labelled "discriminatory" by campaigners.



It was recently used to cut off disaster recovery payments to thousands of Kiwis caught up in the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi.



A report in The Australian said Mr Key had raised concerns about the law during recent meetings with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.



The topic was an area of "mutual concern and interest" and would be discussed, a spokeswoman from the Prime Minister said.



Foreign Minister Murray McCully has also confirmed the New Zealand High Commission in Canberra was raising "discrepancies" caused by the law with Australian federal authorities.



In a letter to Christel Broederlow, a New Zealander living in Australia, he said it was also encouraging to see cases had also been brought before Australian state governments over New Zealanders being denied employment opportunities and services.



He earlier told the Herald he was "concerned" about New Zealanders being denied social security payments.



There was no similar non-protected visa status for Australian immigrants in New Zealand, he said.

"No doubt this is a matter we will discuss with our Australian colleagues in due course."



Campaigner David Faulkner welcomed political pressure over the law he believes is discriminatory and "racist".



He was hopeful it would add impetus to his campaign to change the way New Zealanders are assessed for social security in Australia.



"It's not every day that the New Zealand Government officially complains that its citizens are being discriminated against."



Mr Faulkner has won a race discrimination complaint against an insurance company which denied him cover on the basis he was a non-protected Visa holder.



He is also supporting an anti-discrimination suit lodged against the Queenland Government by the Toowoomba-based Campbell family.



They are suing over its decision to deny disability support to 19-year-old Hannah Campbell, who suffers from severe cerebral palsy and needs 24-hour care.



Australian social security rules:



Protected visa holders: Kiwis who have been living in Australia since before February 2001 or who lived there for a year in the two years prior to that date qualify for protected Visa status. They are allowed to claim social security.



Non-protected visa holders: New Zealanders who were not in Australia on February 26, 2001, or who did not live there for a year in the two years prior to that date , are issued a 'non-protected' Visa. They are ineligible for many social security and disability support payments, along with services such as public housing. They are not able to become Australian citizens unless they are granted a permanent Visa.



Acknowledgements: NZ Herald

Anzac Bloggers Unite

The final disembowelment of the NZ Welfare State? Maybe, maybe not...

Image via Wikipedia

The final disembowelment of the New Zealand welfare state? Maybe, Maybe maybe not!

 Last week's release of the Welfare Working Group's report and the Government's intention to set up another working group on compulsory superannuation signals one thing - that the last edifices of the welfare state are being smashed.



Ever since the time of the Ballance-Seddon Liberal governments and the First Labour Government of 1935-49, New Zealanders have (more or less) been able to access the support offered by the state in times of need. Not only that, the state has previously fully supported people raising families and individuals in their old age. The welfare system created a sense of social solidarity and equality, something that has gradually diminished since 1984. It also gave people an expectation that they could enjoy a minimum standard of living, even in the hardest times. As the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security commented, the welfare system enabled even the lowest income earning New Zealanders to participate within their society through, for example, having some money to buy birthday presents or go out occassionally.



In 1990, that ideal was smashed by the Fourth National Government's benefit cuts. Jenny Shipley and Ruth Richardson, ideological diehards both, attacked the welfare system with a viciousness not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Benefit rates were slashed while entitlement criterion were tightened. This impacted on the most vulnerable groups in society, namely, the unemployed, sick, those living with disability and single parents.



It now appears that the current National Government wants to finish the job. Last week's report of the Welfare Working Group, chaired by former Securities Commission head Paula Rebstock and stuffed with neoliberal sympathisers like former Act president Catherine Judd, made some hysterical assertions about the costs of the welfare state. The group estimated that if every New Zealander currently on a welfare benefit (like me) were to stay on it for a large chunk of their lifetimes, then the welfare system could cost up to $50 billion a year by 2025.



This $50 billion figure was designed to whip up a sense of 'crisis' about the system. Deliberately creating crises has always been a favourite tactic of the New Right. This was based on many assumptions and one is that most people on a benefit tend to stay there. True, there are issues around long-term receipt for people on sickness and invalids benefits but I would contend that has more to do with discrimination against disabled people in the labour market than anything else. Another thing is that many long-term ACC clients who were culled from that system during the 1990s (who are collectively known as 'the tail') were placed on sickness and invalids benefits. Furthermore, more disabled people and those with health issues are likely to be laid off in recessionary times like these (as happened to me) and the best place to go if you want to survive is onto an invalids benefit. But that is not to say that me and other disabled people might stay there forever. In my own case, once I have completed my Masters degree (and given that I have a work history), I will probably be more employable. However, recent research undertaken by Workbridge and CCS Disability Action also shows that many well qualified disabled people have the same job placement rate as those who are unskilled - which is pretty low. And I personally know of many well qualified disabled people who have found the job search process extremely difficult.



All these issues show that there are more complex issues involved. But the National Government and their big business allies aren't prepared to listen to these. They simply want to destroy the welfare state in order to further alleviate the tax burden on their wealthy mates. That's why they want results pretty soon.



I can't help but think too that the desire for further welfare reform is being driven in tandem with proposed labour market reforms. Wait, hasn't this happened before? Yes, it was in 1991 when both the benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act were both introduced at around the same time. This was in accordance with neoliberal supply-side theory which holds that to create 'incentives' to encourage beneficiaries into work, you have to lower wage rates and attack working conditions. This, in turn, creates an oversupplied labour market where the price of labour is further reduced, thus lowering employer costs and raising their profit margins. Now, it all makes sense!



In fact, if you think I'm being conspiratorial about this, I'm not. In one part of their report, the working group looks at a scheme designed to get long-term ACC recipients into work. It mentions, as part of this example, that relatively high benefit levels as well as personal grievance and minimum wage laws essentially 'hurts more than helps' the most vulnerable people in our society. This assertion was not supported with any empirical evidence and is merely being used to create a justification for scrapping both protective labour and welfare laws.



And as for the cost of superannuation, yes, I believe in the need for some contributory super scheme but it should remain voluntary. In fact, we have KiwiSaver and the Cullen Fund right now. Even so, I saw a report from an economic think tank the other day which held that even with a dramatic increase in the over 65 year age group population, superannuation will still be affordable given that there will fewer young people requiring an education or even appearing before our justice system. Therefore, this will create savings that could be put into paying for additional superannuation payments.



Right now, the John Key National Government is popular. They are supposedly presenting a 'centrist' image to the electorate but, yet, they are planning to implement extreme right-wing policies in a piecemeal manner. No more the blitzkrieg approach adopted by Sir Roger Douglas or Ruth Richardson in days gone by. Getting the electorate to placidly swallow things is electorally better for National and makes it supposedly more difficult for opponents to pin the Tories down. But we on the left can see the benefit and superannuation working groups for what they are - a mere prelude to a welfare state massacre that even Jenny Shipley would blush at!

That would be true if the situation of a year ago still existed; but I believe that things are slowly going to custard for John Key and his Rusty Lock administration. Everybody has forgotten wily Winston Peters and his lost 4.5% of the vote in the last election campaign; something National didn't have and wasn't  utilised - the government was decided on 95.5% of votes cast.

Acknowledgements:  Voxy.co.nz

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who is Eligible for Welfare in the United States? (brainz.org)
• Unemployment can pay more than low income work. Tough love needed. (politics.ie)
• Whose Welfare is It Anyway? (socyberty.com)
• Michelle Chen: News Flash: "Marriage Promotion" in Welfare Doesn't Work and Race Still Matters (huffingtonpost.com)
• The predictable ranting over welfare reforms may be misplaced (libdemvoice.org)
• Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reform deserves support | Kate Stanley (guardian.co.uk)
• Is the Social Welfare System creating (politics.ie)
• WA gov announces $51M in cuts to state welfare (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• A Welfare Check and a Voting Card (nytimes.com)
• $51M in welfare cut (theolympian.com)
• The U.S. as welfare state (stat.columbia.edu)
• "Perhaps the only topic that entertains more myths than the federal deficit is welfare. Reagan once..." (ihatethismess.tumblr.com)
• The myth of the welfare queen (newstatesman.com)
• Welfare states & public debt (stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com)
• Reports of protesters shot in Bangkok as chaos erupts (dailycaller.com)
• 3 reviews of Captain Insano (rateitall.com)
• Taxpayer's Alliance: take from the poor to give to the rich (liberalconspiracy.org)
• The US Welfare State in Comparison (crookedtimber.org)
• Budget 2011 & Unemployment (politics.ie)
• 4 reviews of I fought the Law (and the Law Won) - Bobby Fuller (rateitall.com)
• 4 reviews of "I eat more chicken than any man ever seen." (rateitall.com)
• Video: Behind the scenes at our pastry chefs shoot (timeoutny.com)
• For Sentimental Reasons... (hustleknockin.com)
• Listen now: Kid Cudi, Best Coast and Rostam Batmanglij at Music Hall of Williamsburg (timeoutny.com)