National’s benefit sanctions – the wolf is not your grandma
The tories seem to have found a new angle on the government’s removal of benefit sanctions that punish the children of beneficiaries who […]
The tories seem to have found a new angle on the government’s removal of benefit sanctions that punish the children of beneficiaries who […]
Beneficiaries are not getting the support that they are entitled to. NZ is beset by rising poverty, its associated diseases, homelessness, and suicide. I wonder if these facts could possibly be related?
Most people would be shocked to learn that each WINZ case manager is assigned the target of getting a certain number of people off the benefit every month. This is one of the reasons why we have such a punitive and aggressive welfare system. Fewer than half of those removed from the benefit go to jobs. The Nats neither know nor care what happens to the rest, but links to the rising number of homeless and our shocking suicide statistics should be investigated.
The political hills are echoing with the aftermath of Meteri Turei’s confession of lying to WINZ, and Paula Bennett’s conciliatory and very precisely worded claim of not having done so “deliberately”. A good time to revisit the topic of benefit fraud vs white collar crime / tax evasion.
The Ministry of Social Development illegally penalised a woman who refused to name the rapist father of her child. The case shines a spotlight on an issue that needs fixing.
Bill English has co-opted the old term “social investment” to replace another old term “targeted welfare”. Simon Wilson (writing at The Spinoff) has bought into the spin and written a deeply confused piece about it.
NZ under National is being used internationally as an example of a bad welfare system.
Do we care? Are we going to fix it?
Anne Tolley has conceeded that the Nats will not meet their objective of getting 65,000 people off the benefit in the next two years. Good. It is the wrong goal.
TV3’s excellent current affairs show, The Hui (Mihingarangi Forbes) just screened a special report on poverty. What happens to people who are kicked off a benefit?
Why does it take a volunteer organisation like Auckland Action Against Poverty to help people get the benefits that they are entitled to?
“More than 2400 benefits suspended since 2013”. I have a quick question…
Bennet’s proposal to incentivise / coerce state housing applicants to leave Auckland for housing elsewhere seems to have hit a snag…
John Key has tried to deflect from his government’s appalling record on child poverty with some throw-away nonsense about drugs. There are just three teeny tiny problems with that line…
We need a welfare system that acknowledges the realities of cancer and other major medical conditions. That isn’t “special treatment”, it is basic human decency.
I guess it’s not exactly news that WINZ is dysfunctional, but its interesting to have some actual data on one of the symptoms. Bonus feature – one of the Nats’ worst excuses ever.
As the Nats celebrate “falling” benefit numbers it turns out that almost half who leave the benefit are not going in to work. So what happens to them?
The government has awarded itself a nice report card. Let’s take a closer look.
An increase to the base rate of benefits is welcome, but it comes with nasty fishhooks. As the Nats are forced to address leftie / progressive issues – a capital gains tax, Auckland housing, poverty – we the people need to keep the pressure on.
Unbelievable.
In times of trouble for the National Party, you can always rely on them to raise the rallying cry of “Personal responsibility!!!”
Falling numbers yes, but falling through the cracks.
The Government canned a report on the costs of various kinds of economic crime. RNZ obtained a copy under the OIA, and we can see why the Nats would never have wanted it released…
Thanks to Radio New Zealand, we now know that National got no real plan to address poverty, but also that they really, really don’t want to be honest about it.
With the latest poll results it’s basically a coin-toss whether a vote for National gets you Colin Craig and his extremist mates at the Cabinet table.
One of the most dishonest arguments the right ever put forward on the subject of poverty is around one of the simplest things in life: a bowl of Weet-Bix.

The Nats have created a beneficiary bashing culture so rigid and so nasty that crazy stuff happens. They cry some crocodile tears about it – but only for cases publicised by the media.
The Nats used to make a career out of faux “nanny state” hysteria. Now they want to ID number and track beneficiaries’ kids in pre-school. Paul Little warns of “the surveillance state that we are becoming”.
The Nats resent every cent spent on welfare. They want our consent to keep “culling” people off it as fast as they can. They hope that they can get our consent by re-framing New Zealand’s social safety-net as – quite literally – a dangerous addiction. It is a ludicrous framing, equivalent to blaming the bandage for the wound.
I must have missed the memo on the beneficiary dress code.
National, the party of beneficiary bashing that has lead a crusade against parents on the DBP, appears to have triggered a surge of new births to DPB parents.
National’s constant beneficiary bashing has borne predictable fruit – beneficiaries are now perceived as the most discriminated against group in the country.
“When you take a long-term model, there’s no place to hide”. Interesting, don’t you think, the issue – the only issue – that the Nats have chosen to take a long-term model of?
Bennett (playing the distraction card) is pushing her drug testing policy again. I have a question for the supporters of this policy which remains unanswered…
One law for the rich, another for the poor.