govt beneficiary bashing already

[Lilith7]

Didn't take them long.


Jack Tame  interviewing Louise Upston."National, report last time they were in govt shows they said trial periods of 90 days was fundamentally wrong"... & she hasn't read it.
Traffic light sanction system for beneficiaries..."Little evidence sanctions work"

She won't say what happens to those  whose benefits are cut altogether....the report says that compounds social harm.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/3501789...s-benefits

"It is the first week of a brutal four-week sitting block and the House is sitting under urgency to get through the National-led government's agenda, which means legislation does not undergo scrutiny in a select committee. 

• The House has been debating a change in legislation that will tie benefit increases to inflation rather than wage growth. Opposition MPs say the change will leave beneficiaries worse off and increase child poverty.
  
• Parliament this morning repealed the Three Waters legislation, but the Opposition says the Government's alternative plan Local Water Done Well will cost people more. "
  

'Our whānau deserve better': Opposition MPs slam National's changes to benefits

Social Development Minister Louise Upston this morning introduced her bill to increase main benefit rates in line with inflation. Opposition MPs have argued this will leave beneficiaries worse off, because inflation is now lower than wages.

Benefits are adjusted every year, but in 2022 main benefits were linked to the average wage when wages were rising faster than inflation.  At the time, Chris Hipkins said it was a practical solution to ensure those being supported by the Government didn’t fall behind. Inflation at the time was at a 30-year peak of 7.22%. It has since dropped to 4.7%, according to Stats NZ and is now lower than wage growth, set at 5.3%. 


Upston, in a press release, also said linking benefit adjustment to inflation will save taxpayers $669.5 million over the forecast period through to 2027-28.

“These changes will protect the real incomes of benefit recipients and low-income working families for years to come, while also making sure the cost of the benefit system to taxpayers is sustainable and manageable in the long-term.”
Labour and Green MPs gave blistering critiques of the bill, which they say will worsen child poverty and embed inter-generational poverty. 



Labour's Carmel Sepuloni, the former social development minister, said it would effect Māori, women, Pasifika and disabled people the most.
"They should be ashamed of themselves," she said.
"That the minister stands up in the house and says they will continue to increase benefits; we know that the minister is being disingenuous.
"Is it sad [that the] the only reason they are doing it is they went into an election campaign promising tax cuts with no actual plan for how they were going to actually be paid for.

"But where is that money coming from? It is coming from the poorest New Zealanders who are struggling more than anyone else in this country during a difficult time with the cost of living, and they feel no shame about the fact that they are doing it?"



Labour's Willow Jean Prime said it was a "mean-spirited change" and pointed out that advocates including the former Children's Commissions Judge Andrew Becroft, supported Labour's moves to index benefits to inflation, not wages. 

She pointed out how women, Māori, Pasifika and disabled would be more effected. 
"Women make up 55% of those receiving main benefits, approximately 39% of people on a main benefit are Māori compared to being only 17% of the population," she said.


Dr Vanessa Weenink then asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment about "the predicted and actual amount of time people spend in receipt of benefit payments?"
Louise Upston said the average amount of time was 13 years on the benefit. She said NZers deserve the opportunities and choices that come with employment. "

[Lilith7]

Offcials have warned that as many as 13 thousand children will be experiencing poverty by 2028. Surely,even their most devoted followers must be able to comprehend that this will do great damage - & mostly to children, so why did they vote for these greed crazed prickles, who are clealry hell bent on creating hard times for all but the well off.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/o...KR5RILKGM/

"Officials have warned the Government the number of children living in poverty will likely increase by 7000 in four years as a result of benefit changes being rushed through Parliament.
One estimate warns that as many as 13,000 extra children will be in poverty by 2028 thanks to the Government’s changes.

The former government made changes to the way benefit rates are calculated each year. Previously, they were increased in line with CPI inflation, which meant beneficiaries’ incomes tended to fall behind those of other households, whose incomes rise with wages, which historically rise raster than CPI.
The 2019 Budget included a change that meant benefits must now rise with wage growth each year, unless the Government decides to make one-off increases above that rate.
The new Government plans to go back to the old system, which will see benefit rates grow at a slower rate overall.

A supplementary analysis report - a term for a regulatory impact statement prepared in a hurry - showed officials had modelled some of the impacts of the changes.
Over the next four years, the switch will save the Crown $669.5 million, but it will mean far lower benefit rates, particularly towards the end of the forecast period.

On current forecasts, this would mean someone on a jobseeker benefit would be $18.15 a week worse off under the changes by 2028, a person on single parent support would be $25 a week worse off. Someone on a supported living payment, received by people who are disabled or caring for disabled people would be $35.11 a week worse-off.

However, these figures are based on underlying assumptions from HYEFU that have since been updated. During the bill’s Committee Stage, the Government confirmed that the coming year’s adjustment would come in lower than if the adjustment had taken place under the old system. It means the disparity between the two methods of calculation will be even greater than presented in the report."

[Lilith7]

Their comments on govt beneficiary bashing at about 1.14.44


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrQ4P8mUj2o

[Lilith7]

And again.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...olicy.html


Former members of the group, which produced its final report in February 2019, told RNZ National's claims did not match up with the report's findings.
This included social policy researcher Charles Waldegrave, who said what Upston was referring to was a summary of evidence - and the support for sanctions was a small minority.
"What she's referring to was definitely a minority of the views that were put forward. By far the majority of research on sanctions has shown that it's counterproductive when you use it with low-income families."

**Waldegrave said sanctions "humiliated" people on benefits, and often meant they could not get work.

"Especially if you have stand-down period, I mean, it basically means people go, and children go without income in that household.
"There's a lot of costs in actually getting a job and people need that opportunity, and most of the families that we see actually, really, really struggle - want to work and really struggle."

Another group member, Child Poverty Action Group's Innes Asher, said National's policy was "an awful thing to be doing, because it'll harm children".
She said Upston had taken a single line out of context, and most of the report disagreed with National's approach.

The WEAG report mentions sanctions dozens of times, saying:
That the "empirical literature provides no single, overarching answer to whether obligations and sanctions in welfare systems bring about the desired forms of behavioural change" (page 41)

There was "even less evidence that non-work-related obligations and associated sanctions achieve the stated aims of intended behavioural modification" (p41)

The "application of obligations and sanctions in New Zealand (and elsewhere) is problematic" (p41)

That it did "not support the continued use of a financial sanctioning regime" beyond 10 percent financial loss

That there was "little evidence in support of using obligations and sanctions (as in the current system) to change behaviour; rather, there is research indicating that they compound social harm and disconnectedness"

Sanctions over time had "contributed to the hardship faced by many in the welfare system".
"A high number of obligation failures are disputed (46 percent) and almost all (98 percent) of these disputes are upheld with the failure being overturned," the report said."

[Olive]

Interesting use of language by Upston at the press conference this afternoon.  While Luxon was pretending to be caring about beneficiaries in dire need, she was using expressions like "the *threat* of sanctions" and "the new *regime*".  If she wasn't being the bad cop she could have said "the *prospect* of sanctions" and "the new *approach"*.  Obviously aiming to appeal to the cruellest of the coalition's donors.

[Lilith7]

Interesting use of language by Upston at the press conference this afternoon.  While Luxon was pretending to be caring about beneficiaries in dire need, she was using expressions like "the *threat* of sanctions" and "the new *regime*".  If she wasn't being the bad cop she could have said "the *prospect* of sanctions" and "the new *approach"*.  Obviously aiming to appeal to the cruellest of the coalition's donors.

And sadly, there's no shortage of Nat supporters eager for a metaphorical witch burning & who seem to lack any understanding of life on a benefit. 

I'd like to see all MPs who advocate things like this obliged to exist on the lowest benefit over winter, every year they're in parliament.

If they go ahead with this - & there's no reason to doubt that they will - then they're knowingly causing hardship to those least able to defend themselves, & who are mostly unable to fight back. 
And this from a  party with an allegedly christian leader...

This sheds some light on the reality of the situation.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/...ticle_link

"Fairer Future campaigner Max Harris joined AM on Monday morning to give his view on Luxon's speech. 
Harris told AM when Luxon said "My team has your back", the people he works with didn't believe him.  
"I was pretty concerned by some of what I heard and I talked to some of the people in our team who are on income support, they felt like this was a speech that didn't value them, that wanted them to be something that they weren't," he said.  

"They were pretty frustrated as well and said, if Christopher Luxon wants people to get into work, he needs to create a much more supportive environment at WINZ and MSD that actually helps people get into jobs rather than piling people with paperwork and leaving people with lots of delays. 

"I think we should be really careful about the language that we're using. So I talked to one person, who's an amazing woman who has a disability, and she said, 'I heard that speech, it felt like, there were arrows being sent into me, it felt like I wasn't being valued for who I am'." 

Harris believes the Government has taken a step back to the 1990s and described parts of Luxon's speech as "beneficiary bashing". 
"I thought we were past this as a society. I don't think we do have a problem, I think we've had extreme hardship in the last few years," he told AM co-host Lloyd Burr.  
"I think we've had an increase in population growth. We've had a pandemic with people approaching sickness in new ways, some people with long COVID and I think it would be understandable that you'd see an uptick in the number of people on benefits." 

[harm_less]

[Lilith7]

That sums it up. 

Every time this lot are voted into govt, they invariably appeal to the worst type of ill informed,vindictive plonkers to firstly, vote for them & then stand by feeling - what? 

What exactly do people like this feel, when ever harsher measures are dished out against those who are worst off, & often unable to defend themselves, is it a sense of justification, or a feeling of relief that it isn't them & their family?
Or do they not see those being 'punished' for being 'bad' as actual people....

---

https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/19/govts...QUfZFuH9oY

"The Government says the changes so far are a precursor of a "wider reset of the welfare system" - based on pre-election National Party policy.

'Politics of cruelty' - Greens

Green Party social development spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March called today's announcement "cruel".
“Sanctions do not work. They do not support people into meaningful employment, nor support them to participate fully in their communities. Taking away people’s incomes only makes it harder for people to get by."
He added: "For years, successive governments have been imposing requirements that make people’s lives harder - instead of the tailored support people need to find a job or retrain.
"After more than a decade of running work-readiness workshops, there is no decisive evidence to show they actually support people into good employment.
"Penalising people who are struggling does nothing to create decent jobs."

Meanwhile, Labour's social development spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni said: "The Prime Minister has spoken down to people on benefits before and today was no different.
"Unfairly assuming jobseekers are not wanting to embark on employment education or training pathways is unfair and out of touch."

[alpha111]

Yes the Government is moving from 3 waters to the 4 P's ~ their Proudly Promoting Poverty Programme.
As a former Solo Mother Louise Upston knows that hardship develops resilience and character.

[Lilith7]

Yes the Government is moving from 3 waters to the 4 P's ~ their Proudly Promoting Poverty Programme.
As a former Solo Mother Louise Upston knows that hardship develops resilience and character.

Given her experience - albeit just six months on a  benefit - she might have managed considerably more understanding.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...by-example

"For me it's about individuals, who have challenges, and how do we support them, and give them opportunities and enable them to make choices and have a brighter future."

Her work in Government exposed her to "very raw and brutal challenges that some New Zealanders are dealing with".


Clearly she thinks that the best way is to impoverish people. There really is no understanding some people..