At least she has the nous to know that she's being messed around. I've been quite shocked at the way the goalposts have moved at WINZ without the?

[nothing that isn't heat]

Well, I might say that having just held my 14 week old nephew, the thought of him being torn away from his mother is an extremely serious one.

Where she works, and who she works for, gives her a lot of knowledge. It doesn't help her get treated any better, but she at least knows how to determine her entitlements and ask for them. It's?

Believe it or not, I actually agree with this to a very large degree. People of productive capacity should be contributing to society. But since state provision?

Also?

Welfare is a saftey net?

And [[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10707887|Peter Milne is just the tip?

As Campbell says:

It is a very odd situation. The same politicians who have been unable to manage an economy so that it employs people, are now blaming people for?

And that?s something Bennett could actually do a real public service by sorting. I didn?t want to be on a benefit, and it was profoundly unhelpful (to put it?

Thank goodness we're running at full employment for the healthy though, right?

National is effectily trying to move the states responiblity for sick people on to employers. There are plenty of abled bodied people who are looking for work so there is not?

Also, you?

I have noticed ironic humour coming back, for better but mostly worse. 1991, all over again.

That's a deliberate design feature, a deterrant to?

I know a guy who can only work 30 hours a week due to a chronic illness. He's lucky that he has a good?

I share Russell's reservations about the system's current capacity to work with disabled job-seekers. I particularly lament the lack?

It was also expected to recommend that women who had more children when they were already on a benefit be required to go back to work when the baby was 14 weeks old.

"Personally I feel?

I think the 14 weeks policy?

is it cynical to think 14 weeks is in there there so the government can seem benevolent when they set it at 3 years?

With you on that. I considered the bait-and-switch angle, but I think it?s really?

It was also expected to recommend that women who had more children when they were already on a benefit be required to go back to work when the baby was 14 weeks old.

I want to know where the recommendations for making contraceptives cheaper and abortion more accessible are. Otherwise,?

Well, to be fair Russell, I don?t think Helen Clark was given to rubber stamping every politically untenable recommendation that crossed her desk. And despite what some folks will assert, I don?t think you could?

Enter the Craigbot.

.. and the people who selected the group's members

Bait and switch, my friends, bait and switch. Try not to get too incandescent too soon.

Well, that's what we assumed about mining in national parks, right? That some of the ideas were so insane that they were a blind for 'something else'? And instead they turned out to be?

please. wait until this arvo :)

Bait and switch, my friends, bait and switch. Try not to get too incandescent too soon.

Hahahaha jk?

We're not joking
Just joking
We are joking
Just joking
We're not joking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LliTqJNKJrM

Craig, snap.

"It was good enough for Helen Clark so it must be good enough for Key"

I'm pretty sure Craig would have wanted better than that from Key

I'm pretty sure Craig would have wanted better than that from Key

So this a thread for trolling Craig? He can speak for himself, you know? As you well would know if you've been here longer than five minutes.

Anecdotal accounts I've heard, I think from a newspaper article, are that case managers are now required to have no humanising touches to their offices (no toys, no photos, no keepsakes) and it's expected?

Call?

Since Nov 2006. 89 posts

That doesn't look like someone who came down in the last shower.

I want better from this government on all kinds of scores, and I don?t think I?ve been a shrinking violet about saying so here or anywhere else. But on the specific matter this thread is about, I might?

As an aside, it'll be interesting to see if Bennett holds on to Waitakere and if there's a backlash from beneficiaries in her electorate voting against her.

You do realise however that the published information is going to be in it, right? That's why it was leaked to the media. So whilst I?

That 14 weeks has to be a bluff. I used to work with a woman who went?

I'm in two minds about this. On?

I really don't think so – they chose it because its the duration of the paid parental leave. They're economists and they think they're solving the problem of long term benefit dependency by sending signals to influence behaviour.

And despite what some folks will assert, I don?t think you could fairly say the Fifth Labour Government appointed nothing more than cronies and sycophantic arse-lickers who were handed a script and told any ideological deviationism would be looked upon most unkindly.

Agreed, but I got a totally different sense?

? and the people who appointed the people who made it.

This is fundamentally the point about bait-and-switch: the govt has no input into the WWG?s findings, so it didn?t issue an instruction to?

Sure. I don?t have Net Nanny privileges around here, so everyone can talk about what the hell they want until Russell brings out the moderation mallet. (I?ve also long lost the naive idea that folks around here?

Get something waaaay to extreme injected into the report so you can say it?s a step too far (hinting; look at me, I?m a nice guy) and go for the ?middle? ground ?- which happens to be exactly where you wanted to go?

Her win was pretty slim in '08, and the West is heavily populated with the working classes who've been hit hard by the recession. Voting for a stroppy Westie chick who lays claim to her beneficiary?

I think good faith has to be earned, and it's not as if National doesn't have a track record in these matters.

Much, much bigger. Super is, by over 100% (nearly $8b vs somewhere around $3b), the largest single part of the overall welfare bill. WFF is next. But since those two are ruled out of the WWG's terms of?

Its key recommendation is scrapping all existing benefits, including the Domestic Purposes and Sickness Benefits, and replacing them with a single Jobseeker Support payment.

That payment would be administered by a single Crown Agency – Employment and Support New Zealand – standing at "arms length" from the Government.

Under?

Recommendation 11: Addressing incentives for parents to have additional children while on welfare

a) The Welfare Working Group recommends that ready access to free long-acting reversible contraception be provided for parents who are receiving welfare.

Fair dos, I wasn't expecting that.

Yes. Credit where due. Free contraception is good.

Look no one is suggesting this be made compulsory...yet...

And if everything I say on threads like this is going to be dismissed as lying partisan "CraigBot" hackery, I'll stick to chuntering on about arty-farty crap. Oh,?

Free contraception for everyone is better, and de facto sterilizing the poor/beneficiaries may be well-intentioned but still creepy. Seriously, Russell, how do you think you and Fiona would take being asked by a WINZ caseworker if you'd like a chit for subsidised?

You said 'light', right?

Methinks this topic almost precludes that by definition. I was looking for the irony tag at the bottom of your post. Think I'll sit this one out.

Holy fuck! Let's just control people's fertility. Those stupid poor people – they shouldn't be breeding, at all. And while we're about it, I wonder if we can get?

The sad fact is, ladder-kicking is in?

Reduction in beneficiary numbers by 100,000 by 2021. Big. Fucking. Whoop. That'll happen without a single policy change, assuming the economy manages to recover of its own devices.

No, as far as I can tell they mean all beneficiaries, including sickness, DPB, disability, and unemployment. IIRC unemployment alone is 70,000?

agreed. If implemented the next thing we will see is incentives...get an IUD and will pay you 500 bucks. Then get stealised for 1000 bucks.... Meddling with peoples furtillity to save money is very very creepy

'There's nothing surer,
The rich get richer and the poor get children. '

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y041-eT6QrI

That said, I'm absolutely for universal free contraception, sexual and fertility health services, but singling out one group in society is highly disturbing.

A US advocate of such a programme was in the country not long ago and Dita De Boni fawned all over her in her column?

What Craig said. The potential long term results of a policy on free sterilisation (not quite mandated) for the un/under-employed is scary sh*t.

As a relatively young person, it looks very much like children are joining houses as something?

That payment would be administered by a single Crown Agency – Employment and Support New Zealand – standing at "arms length" from the Government.

So...the big plan is to eventually privatise social welfare ? Why else would a core government function be moved to an "arms length"?

Here. Money quote:

It was hard to see any kind?

Aucklanders ? the fight back against the worst recommendations in the Rebstock report starts now. Join us ? Auckland Against Poverty ? in a picket, 2pm today outside Work & Income, Sel Peacock Dr, Henderson.

I'm off to join her in a bit.

What worries me about this report is that the bullet points seem? not-completely-unreasonable? at face value. Eg, it?s a?

So...the big plan is to eventually privatise social welfare? Why else would a core government function be moved to an "arms length" entity?

Probably. But having something at arm's length also gives you more political space – you can distance yourself from the operations of the entity.

Unemployment right now is well north of 100k. Just getting all the people who have lost their jobs due to the recession back into the work force would be our 100k reduction.

Much the same recommendation as the 2025 taskforce report, that advocated ?greater self-reliance and greater use of family, community and market mechanisms for support?. Or, in standard English: "fuck?

Hell yes. The image of a poor case worker trying to actually deal rationally with an autistic person is rather amusing, but I'm sure the reality?

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but for the record; vasectomies are to be considered permanent. It may be possible to reverse one, but there's no guarantees for that.

Depo is definitely controversial, because it can have long-term irreversible effects on reproductive health and also fucks with the recipient. I watched a lovely, caring teenager turn into a narcissistic, manipulative bitch in a matter of weeks when she went onto?

Not really, it's still the overall vote percentages that count in the system – winning marginal seats doesn't mean getting more people in Parliament under most scenarios.

Oopsies. Your bigotry is showing through.

But as long as taxpayer money is being spent on publicity campaigns instead of supporting those in need, it's all good.

No expense needed – we can just reuse the one we had in 1998. It's not as if it made a lick of sense then either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQVU1LZsPJk

(I uploaded?

Say wha? An electorate seat is an electorate seat. There are 69 of them, and they're totally FPP. Winning a marginal seat absolutely gets you more people in Parliament.

Yes. Free contraception for everyone is good. Free contraception targetted just at the poor, aimed at preventing them from having kids smacks of C19th eugenics.

Good Day Mediaphiles!

Back to the Future, indeed. We've heard all of this before. Remember when Shipley tried to foist the Code of Social Responsibility onto us during the 97-98 recession?

Cause we were immoral then. And we're immoral again now. Stop breeding. Stop drinking! (unless you're in the Official?

And a tremble in Dunedin.

It's not how the system was explained to me, in that the overall makeup of Parliament gets substantially rebalanced according to the electoral vote. (I initially thought that 69 went FPP, and the rest proportionally, but I was disabused?

Winning a marginal seat absolutely gets you more people in Parliament.

No it doesn't. Those seats are deducted from party vote seats you might otherwise have won. Unless there's a wild divergence between your electorate vote and the party vote (eg Maori Party), and there aren't enough list vote MPs?

And ideologically, this is a report by people who think that government shouldn't be controlled by democratically elected and accountable politicians...

Nope. From Wikipedia:

MMP is similar to other forms of proportional representation (PR) in that the overall total of party members?

Nope. What determines the final numbers in Parliament is the party vote. Unless there is an overhang – unlikely with a?

Grow up and seek your destiny and stretch forth your hands for the tools of the western world to sustain you.
Turn your heart to the treasures of your ancestors, your plumage,
and place your spirit?

maybe they're?

Wait: what?

And why take ye thought for raiment?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow;
they toil not, neither do they spin:

And as I/S says, humiliating Bennett would be a great achievement all on its own. Shoving her onto the dole queue would be even better, but sadly I don't think National's support is going to crumble into?

Parents should never be forced to leave their children in care when they are not comfortable with the carers.

It's a recipe for disaster. I hate to do a Mrs Lovejoy but this is going to hurt children.?

(Also, yeah, the 'free contraception' thing? That's all about getting the inferior po' folks to stop breeding, eugenics styles. Don't be fooled, anyone.)

Thank Christ for that. There are things I'll do for my nation but, really...

To me it?

and since winz have in my past experience been incredibly bad at telling me what I'm eligible for benefit wise the?

The children are just the tip of the iceberg. Rebstock wants to transfer all 85,000 people off the invalids benefit, classify them as unemployed and then actively manage them back into the?

At the risk of Godwin, they do say "Work shall make you free". Of course, that depends on who you think "they" are...

cue HORansome ;-)

(I'm starting to feel like Butch and Sundance, because I'm asking "who ARE these guys?" in tones of horror so often.)

(I am not kidding. He actually thinks this.)

classify them as unemployed and then actively manage them back into the workforce, with financial penalties after six months if they?re still jobless.

So thats how Nacts are going to get the country out of debt? Here's my suggestion all people with income or assets of over 5 mill will?

And he's also an Glenn Beck type who's written what is tantamount to the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.

If people already in work see the alternative?

This from the readers feedback;

Saunders, if I can put this succinctly, is a nut job...To put it kindly, the book is a mélange of right wing paranoia, and Islamophobia?

I think they are using the next Governments Minimum wage figures. ;-)

thank you!
you made it simple, have been trying to explain my 'new future' situation to people and not being able to do it well. now I'm just using your description of my new life as an empowered no longer referred to as an invalid.

many invalids are?

Addendum..
On the other hand maybe they've let the cat out of the bag that they intend to usurp Labours campaign promise to raise the m/w to $15. It is the sort of disingenuous underhand skulduggery we expect from?

personally i see that as an encouragement not to even attempt working or to try and work more hours. On occasion i get above $80 a?

My relative in his early 60s with a chronic heart condition?

I do get somewhat concerned about lay people (Winz case managers) taking on the task of mental illness management. There are people where being susceptible to hyping up for work,?

I know someone with severe schizophrenia (invalids?

Doubleplusgood

I heard Matthew Hooton say something on RNZ the other day about employers deciding over?

Early in this Nat govt's second term the restructure of WINZ and a reduced cost of welfare will be coupled with the reform of the employment legislation – an outcome of which will be a?

Which is precisely the last thing we want. If we're supposed to be chasing Australian income and productivity levels, cheapening labour is completely counter-productive. Making it more expensive, along with a discouragement from dumping money into capital purchases that?

Re-categorise everyone as seeking work, get a computer to test their ability to work, et voila!

Actually, under the WWG it's a lot worse than getting a computer to test your ability to work. They get a private contractor who gets paid on their number of work placements to test?

indeed. rising employment during the noughties brought national productivity down, due to all the low-skilled people entering workplaces.

goes to show that productivity-measured-as-money-per-hour is a bit broken.

Depends how you measure the money. If it's output value, then not broken at all. If it's input cost, however...

Given the likely economic impact of the earthquake (especially to the local economy), and presuming the Key government continues it's hands-in-the-pockets-and-shrug approach to implementing policies that might improve economic growth, I foresee any attempt to follow the WWG recommendations?

Good analogy but you'd need to argue it more forcefully and widely?

It will be sold as an efficiency measure to cut state sector costs – to fix our private sector debt/productivity problems, you understand. Oh?

And the reverse dynamic has increased the "average" wage over the last year (as the media breathlessly echoed Key recently) – but by removing a heap of the lower paid from employment altogether,?

Making reference to Gordon Campbell?s Scoop article, which mentions the Tavita case where the Court of Appeal found that when considering a deportation the Immigration Department needed to consider the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the NZ Govt?

I think the increase?

that's rings true

It really must have been floss for?

Except that mean and median wages are measured gross, not net, in most calculations.
Also, don't mix up wages and incomes. Incomes includes?

i think if they're measuring it off the HLFS or iLEED it's "incomes" as opposed to salary or wages – meaning that they ask about or measure how much?

administrative data, so it's pretty accurate.

That's what I figured. Includes some of the grey economy, too, since not everyone who's getting income from illegal sources avoids paying tax. That's how they account for income from transfer payments, since IRD are the administrators of things like WFF.

Yeah, and that's a really, really bad look for StatsNZ. Relying on a single processing centre in an unstable city is stupid!

The myriad of uses for up-to-date statistical information, in the midst of a crisis and a recession...argh it just doesn't make sense.

However while I'd love to believe it is because they are not interested in facts intruding on their?

It was not clear what the cost of cancelling the census would be nor how much would be needed to hold it later. A decision was not likely before the May Budget. Bascand said they would meet any contractual obligations _ including paying temporary staff as required. The?

I suspect it's pretty much the same thing in effect, just done for legal/admin reasons to clear all the contractual obligations. Can't imagine them revisiting all the prep work again, just the data gathering and analysis in 2012.

If what I've inferred about the CHC processing centre being "it" for the country are accurate, then it's very much the?

They didn?t put it in Wellington for precisely that reason. It had to be Auckland or Christchurch for population reasons (pool of temporary workers etc) and Auckland is just too expensive for this type of operation for a government agency, in terms of ground rent, wage differentials,?

This = postponed to me; i.e. there will be a Census held before the next "scheduled" one in 2016. It just seems to have been easier for them to "cancel"?

I guess that would rule out Wellington for, well, pretty much anything critical.

I can say that the McGs are very happy the census has been cancelled...

That quote, from a friend, has to be the highlight of my day.

Ideally, yeah. Certainly anything unique and new. Having Parliament there is good only for jokes about getting rid of all the politicians, especially since all the agencies of the Executive have little choice but to have their?