NBR: ‘Welfare reform to be made election issue – Key’ (

31 May 2011

www.nbr.co.nz/article/welfare-reform-be-made-election-issue-key-nn-94448#comment-132696

Welfare reform to be made election issue – Key

Prime Minister John Key says proposed reforms of the welfare sector will be rolled out in the lead up to the general election, but changes will mean that if people can work, they must.

The Welfare Working Group’s final report, released in February, gave the Government 43 recommendations to reform the welfare system into a work-focused programme.

Mr Key said the Government had ruled out one of the more radical recommendations, that solo parents look for paid work when their second child turned 14 weeks, saying he was “uneasy” about the short length of time.

The Government had expected to announce a package in response to the group’s recommendations before the election but was pushed aside by the Canterbury earthquake.

He had now asked ministers to look at the group’s recommendations and develop a comprehensive package of welfare reform.

The Government would announce policies in due course and campaign on them.

“It’s important we to signal to New Zealanders that if we are afforded a second term that there will be reform in welfare.”

However, while ruling out the one recommendation he had earlier indicated was unpalatable, he would not go into detail on the remaining 42 recommendations.

Mr Key said it was unacceptable that the proportion of working age population on benefits had increased from 2 percent in 1970 to 13 percent today.

The welfare system should send a clear message that if you could work and support yourself, then you must, he said.

It was not doing enough to send that message, which was not fair on taxpayers, not affordable and not fair on beneficiaries who fell short of their potential, he said.

It was also not fair on the approximately 220,000 children growing up in welfare-dependent households.

Mr Key said the proposals would not mean instant reform of the welfare system but that more workers would be needed as the budget anticipated 170,000 jobs created over next four years.

The welfare group’s February report said the cost of welfare would go from $47 billion to $34b by 2021 if its reforms proceeded — cutting the 360,000 on welfare by 100,000, by putting work obligations on them in exchange for support such as childcare.

It said the Government should set clearer expectations for people on the welfare system to look for paid work, and if recipients do not meet their obligations, they should face gradual reductions of assistance.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett will lead the group of seven ministers going over the recommendations to develop the Government’s policy.

Back to NBR homepage

Comments and questions

4

Where is the Government review of corporate welfare beneficiaries – the numbers of consultants and private contractors employed across all state sectors doing work that used to be carried out by in-house public servants?

Isn’t it time to CUT OUT THE CONTRACTORS?

Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Penny Bright | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – 10:11am

• reply

In response to Penny Bright | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – 10:11am

Granted that some contractors are likely taking more than the value they’re providing to government (likely all those employed by the previous government). However, lets not confuse these people with the use of outsourced talent, who invariably are more in touch with the real world (because that’s where they derive their livelihood from) than academic bureaucrats who have never had to make a business decision and always got their paychecks just from turning up to their bloated office environments, which regularly achieve … absolutely nothing. Roll on the downsizing of government. Let’s use our taxpayer dollars wisely.

Kevin Pitfield | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – 10:40am

• reply

About time too.

NZ does not need beneficiaries becoming even more dependant on the State for their survival – so I’m pleased to hear National will not be offering election “bribes” and lolly scrambles like Labour have done in the past with their student fees, Family Welfare populist bribes and such like.

Our government should be doing everything possible to encourage people to be able to stand on their own two feet and be accountable for their own actions and situation – and provide a “leg up” to those wanting to better themselves and are prepared to do what ever it takes to educate / better themselves.

Election bribes and “vote for us for free hand-outs” are not only unjust to the individual by encouraging them to be more reliant on the state through apathy and “easy money” but it also denies that individual the opportunity to fully develop their own self ability for increased mana and self esteem, better education and opportunities throughout life.

Shackling entire demographics to more and more hand-outs via election promises is not only costly for us tax payers, but it should also be seen as a form of political corruption by those in “power” preying on the most vulnerable. Wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind. Yet it’s far more insidious than that, with the future of entire younger generations at risk because of certain politicians promising “more free money” for nothing instead of encouraging and motivating individuals to achieve a better life for themselves and their dependants through hard work, application and education – not free hand outs.

MooseKnuckle | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – 10:46am

• reply

In response to Kevin Pitfield | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – 10:40am

Where’s the ‘cost-benefit analysis’ which PROVES that the use of consultants/ private contractors is a more cost-effective use of taxpayer monies than former ‘in-house’ provision’?

Where are the FACTS to back up the MANTRA that ‘public is bad – private is good’?

Where also are the transparent, publicly-available ‘Registers of Interest’, which can be used to double-check for ‘conflicts of interest’ between those who grant and those who receive these public contracts?

Where, (while we’re at it) is the publicly-available ‘Register of Lobbyists’ – so the public can check ‘who’s meeting the Minister’ to push for particular legislative changes?

Where is the publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for those policy analysts who provide the advice for Government Departments/ Cabinet through the mechanism of ‘Regulatory Impact Statements’ – and the like?

With whom are these policy analysts consulting, and what are their connections with whom they are ‘consulting’?

Or is this where the form of grand corruption known as ‘State Capture’ occurs in ‘clean, green New Zealand’ – perceived to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’?

‘State Capture’ being where vested interests ‘get their way’ at the ‘policy’ level – before legislation is passed.

I learned about ‘State Capture’ at the 14thTransparency International Conference which I attended last year).

Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Penny Bright | Tuesday, May 31, 2011 – 11:43am