Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Invalid benefit cuts the real reason...

The Arms of Her Majesty in Right of New ZealandImage via Wikipedia

Invalid benefit cuts the real reason...



About 80,000 people now on sickness and invalid benefits could be shifted on to the unemployment benefit under radical welfare reforms proposed by the Treasury.





A Treasury report to the Government's welfare working group recommends reclassifying all 144,000 people on sickness and invalid benefits into three categories based on their ability to work, shifting those with some capacity to work in the near future on to the unemployment benefit.







It also recommends requiring sole parents to look for paid work before their youngest children turn 6, and contracting out most welfare services to private companies or charities.







But its hard line is softened by other proposals to extend sick leave and parental leave entitlements, and to let sickness beneficiaries earn more from part-time work before having their benefits cut.







The welfare working group, chaired by economist Paula Rebstock, has been given until next February to come up with proposals to reduce long-term benefit dependency.







Ms Rebstock said yesterday that the Treasury paper, presented at the group's latest meeting on September 3, was "just one of many inputs that the working group is getting".





"It was useful input but it would be premature as to what the welfare working group might be recommending," she said.







However, the 38-page paper provides the first concrete set of public proposals from any official source in the working group's review.







It draws heavily on recent reforms in Australia and Britain, which have both moved work-ready people off disability benefits on to the unemployment benefit. In Britain, the paper says, 69 per cent of previous disability beneficiaries were classified as "fit for work" and moved on to the dole.







"On the basis of the recent UK reforms, the reclassification of all sickness and invalid beneficiaries could result in more than 80,000 New Zealand beneficiaries moving on to the unemployment benefit," it says.







The move would make no difference to benefit rates for sickness beneficiaries because they already get the same as the dole. But the adult invalis's benefit of $243 a week is $49 higher than the $194 adult dole.







Shipley rides again!


Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The economy, housing, jobs and a clueless PM John Key and his rusty lock administration...

John Key, leader of the New Zealand National PartyImage via Wikipedia

The economy, housing, jobs  and a clueless PM John Key and his rusty   lock administration...


My guest blogger  today:  Frank Macskasy


In the last seven days a triple-conjunction of political portents has publicly demonstrated just how bankrupt of imagination and policy this current government truly is. The lack of direction and paucity of creative ideas is breath-taking. A “caretaker-government” would be a polite euphemism in this context.



JOBLESS



Unemployment rose 19,000 during the June quarter to 159,000 – a rise from 6% to 6.8%. There are over quarter of a million jobless Kiwis (the unemployed plus those who have given up actively looking for a job) and another 100,000 who want more hours than they can get. The effects of the Recession are still being felt, and is taking its toll amongst workers and their families.



Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett’s response?



”No-one wants to see a jump in unemployment. And I think that we have got to put it in perspective – where it’s 7.1 per cent in December last year and now it’s 6.8…We’d sort of see it as an evening out now.”



This government’s response thus far to our growing unemployment? That would be… the cycleway.



Total number employed under this project: a staggering… 70.



Instead of addressing this worsening situation, this government has spent tax dollars on a “working group”, led by former Commerce Commission head Paula Rebstock.



It’s conclusion? “Most people on a benefit have little or no focus on paid work, with a growing number “locked into” the system for years. ” And, according to Ms Rebstock, “we have concluded the current benefit system ignores the importance of paid work to the well-being of New Zealanders,”



When in doubt; when there’s nowhere left to turn; and when embarrassed by lengthening dole queues – reset National Government Default Setting #1: blame it on the “dole bludging beneficiaries and solo-mums”.



In the last twenty years, National has found iself taking office during two full-blown recessions; 1990 and 2008. Their knee-jerk reaction on both occasions was/is attack the beneficiaries. (Most of us remember the cruelty of Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of all budgets”.) True to form, this government attacks those New Zealanders who – until a couple of years ago – were employed in enterprises from Kaitaia to Bluff; earning money to feed their families; and not foreseeing that, because of events in Wall Street, they would soon be losing their jobs. I struggle to understand how workers in New Zealand were able to effect the collapse of Lehmann Bros on September 15, 2008, thereby sparking the worst recession since the Depression of the 1930s. And by causing that Recession, destroying their own jobs in some Lemming-like pursuit of a dole-funded Nirvana.



The Rebstock report is not a re-analysis of how social welfare works in this country. Instead it is little more than a none-too-subtle attempt at blaming beneficiaries for this current government’s laziness and ineptitude in addressing increasing growing numbers of unemployed.



Remember that prior to the Recession, our unemployment rate was a mere 3.9%. And while no one is blaming National for the Recession that nearly doubled that figure over two years – they are responsible for their abysmal response to it.



Remember: we have 357,000 people who are looking for work.



This government is sitting on it’s collective, well-padded backside; on equally well-padded ministerial seats; fiddling with dubious reports whilst our economy burns to the ground.



Which brings us to…



HOMELESS



Yet another government quango, established by Housing Minister Phil Heatley, has complained that “22,000, or 32 per cent of Housing New Zealand tenants, had been in the same state houses for at least 10 years.” They were evidently portrayed as taking up room – room required by just over 10,000 people on Housing NZ’s waiting lists;



Current Housing NZ waiting list:



As at 31 July 2010 there were 10,153 people on the waiting list. Of this:



* 334 were A priority (severe housing need)

* 4,160 were B priority (significant housing need)

* 3,093 were C priority (moderate housing need)

* 2,566 were D priority (lower level housing need)



Ten thousand-plus people on a waiting list. What does the government do? What policy does it embark on? The following is a multi-choice option:



A. Build more houses?



B. Criticise New Zealanders for daring to live long-term in their homes?



It is with considerable unease that I note that Housing Minister Phil Heatley (who has his accommodation paid for by the taxpayer) said, “We want to ensure this significant asset is utilised to the best effect. We also want the system to be fairer and to work better for those families most in need.”



This government’s idea of “fairness” seems predicated on the suggestion that one family is booted out, to allow another to take up residence.



By no stretch of the imagination can such a policy be even remotely seen as imaginative or creative. Or fair.



It is an undeniable fact that there are many families in dire need of decent, affordable, accommodation. But rather than evicting families, and uprooting them from their communities (which in itself would create even more dire social problems), it strikes me that this government has alternatives it has not bothered to consider…



CLUELESS



Fact #1: we have 255,000 jobless fellow New Zealanders, looking for work and a further 100,000 needing more work.



Fact #2: we require several thousand new NZ Housing units (commonly referred to as “homes”) for people in need.



Fact #3: the economic recovery has been uneven, and has mainly benefited exports such as dairying and unprocessed logs. The rest of the economy has not picked up – evidenced by the sharp rise in unemployment. Indeed, ANZ New Zealand chief executive officer Jenny Fagg said that “the New Zealand economy has stabilised in a number of areas although the recovery is somewhat uneven at this early stage. There are signs of a lift in business conditions although growth remains subdued.”



Taken in conjunction, the three facts above would seem to point to an obvious conclusion. The answer is not to bash beneficiaries for daring to accept tax-payer support in feeding themselves and their families. The answer is not to evict families from their state homes. Nor is the answer to guilt-trip solo-mothers or those with disabilities who haven’t a hope in hell in competing with 159,000 other unemployed people to scramble for non-existent jobs.



The answer is to utilise the resources we have and by doing so, give people the opportunity to find work.



In case I need to spell it out to this clueless government: build more bloody houses!



The flow-on effects of a crash building-programme to build five thousand new state houses would create thousands of new jobs – not just 70. There would be a demand for architects; builders; electricians; plasterers; roofers; drainlayers; glaziers; tilers; apprentices; and other tradespeople; raw materials purchased from building retailers; additional staff at each retail outlet; transport operators; increased demand from the timber industry, creating new jobs in forestry; and support businesses every step of the way. Each tradesperson; truckie; forestry worker would take home a wage. That wage would be spent at local supermarkets, which would then have to hire one or two extra staff-members as well as purchase more stock. Even the companies that rent out jumbo-bins to cart away the detritus from building sites would find their turn-over increasing. Or the local pie-shop that would sell food to nearby building-sites. That is what flow-on is.



The government would recoup much of the outlay for the building programme by way of GST, PAYE, ACC, and provisional tax receipts; rent collected from the new homes; and less spent on unemployment benefits.



This is the sort of bold initiative we require from a government with any claim to having a vision.



Instead, we are seeing a cruel bullying and calculated persecution of those at the bottom of the heap.



If this is the best that National can offer us, then it is simply not good enough. We deserve better than a caretaker government.


Acknowledgements:  Frank Macskasy


Also http://anzacbloggersunite.blog.co.uk/     Anzac Bloggers Unite


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 15, 2010

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

United States President Bill Clinton meets wit...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