A quick question

81 comments on “A quick question ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kiwi_prometheus 1

   29 August 2012 at 11:49 am

   They go clean on their own or via a program, no more drugs, they get some of my hard earned tax money again.

   If the useless good for nothings decide to keep taking drugs, they can do it on their own dime. Probably facing prison sometime, at this point I don’t really care.
   • mike e 1.1

     29 August 2012 at 11:52 am

     gangs that are already flourishing with high unemployment will ‘grow’ exponentially.
     • fnjckg 1.1.1

       29 August 2012 at 3:58 pm

       Yep! Shes’ Mighty
     • kiwi_prometheus 1.1.2

       29 August 2012 at 6:26 pm

       Dismantle the gangs. They are a cancer on civil society. They have become ever more wealthier and more sophisticated under Left and Right – business, accountants, lawyers etc. Destroy them.

       Lock em up forever, or death penalty after a few months amnesty to give up their patches, and dissolve.
       • marty mars 1.1.2.1

         29 August 2012 at 7:13 pm

         I have some tinysmall sympathy with your view that business, accountants, lawyers etc. Destroy them. Lock em up forever, and all the rest – but you are being a bit harsh – they are people too you know and sure they are leeches but that’s the system they are trying to survive and prosper under – you are part of and helped create and maintain that system and can you truthfully state that you’ve never used business, accountancy or legal ‘services’ – but sure they got their degrees on your hard earned taxes.
       • mike e 1.1.2.2

         30 August 2012 at 12:06 am

         KP How many Rednecks have tried that BS line.
         1987 Ropa report came up with solutions none of them have been acted on.
         So how are you going to stop gangs kp loud mouthing which is all your good at.
   • QoT 1.2

     29 August 2012 at 12:23 pm

     I understand it’s actually a lot easier for addicts to “go clean” when they’re homeless and starving. Trufax.
     • kiwi_prometheus 1.2.1

       29 August 2012 at 6:27 pm

       I mentioned programs, Miss QT.
       • QoT 1.2.1.1

         29 August 2012 at 6:29 pm

         Drug programmes now offer housing and support for entire families? Wow. Are these programmes funded by your magical TAXPAYAH DOLLAHS by any chance?
         • kiwi_prometheus 1.2.1.1.1

           29 August 2012 at 6:41 pm

           Sorry cupcake, breaks over gotta get back to the grind, unlike your little dope head bludger pals. 🙄
     • aerobubble 1.2.2

       30 August 2012 at 11:11 am

       The problem with the policy is it discriminates, as people who work under the influence
       of drugs will not lose family credits, people who drive drugged will not lose their tax rebates,
       only people – many the poorest – will be forced to give up or lose basic income social security.
       When applying for a driving license will you have to under go a drugs test?

       But the worst aspect is that a person, not on a benefit, has the choice not to accept a
       job where a drug test is mandated, and will never be threatened with starvation.

       You can even imagine that the unemployment grapevine would see that addict
       would immediately claim to have an offer for a job whenever a timber company offers
       open positions.

       But worse! What is an addict does go cold turkey, gets the job and then restarts, only
       then to have an accident and end up on ACC???? Or even worse, just ups their criminality
       to cover the loss in benefit and ends up in jail (at 10x the cost to the taxpayer).
       • gnomic 1.2.2.1

         30 August 2012 at 10:45 pm

         “When applying for a driving license will you have to under go a drugs test?”

         Yes, that’s the way it’s heading under BrighterFutureUnderNationalWorld.

         The totalitarian state will protect you if you are compliant.
   • Hayden 1.3

     29 August 2012 at 12:24 pm

     So now you’re paying not only to feed and house them, but to guard them as well? I’d care about that.
     • kiwi_prometheus 1.3.1

       29 August 2012 at 6:30 pm

       I think most of them would clean themselves up. Probably the first time in their lives they actually get a signal that what they are doing is wrong. They definitely aren’t getting the message from the Bleeding Hearts Brigade.
       • Carol 1.3.1.1

         29 August 2012 at 6:33 pm

         Ah Bleeding hearts…. a term I heard by Nat MPs in parliament today – current term to cover for a lack of real answer to humanitarian arguments re-poverty?
       • North 1.3.1.2

         29 August 2012 at 8:51 pm

         It’s “they they they they they……..” is it Ki’ Pro’ ?

         Brilliant !

         Just what Key and Bennett want.

         In a move with some very worrying fish hooks in it according to some pretty powerful authority,
         Key and Bennett have got a bunch of righteous wankers sneeringly muttering “they they they they they”.

         In the meantime Key forges ahead on behalf of Wall Street/City of London, him and his in other words.

         So biddable Ki’ Pro’. And a good sprinkling of the bully as well.
   • vto 1.4

     29 August 2012 at 12:54 pm

     kiwi-prometheus “If the useless good for nothings decide to keep taking drugs, they can do it on their own dime. Probably facing prison sometime, at this point I don’t really care.”

     kiwi-prometheus, you illustrate perfectly the great con and lie that is being pulled here. You have been sucked in.

     Think about it – this policy is about impairment in the workplace. But you have taken it to mean what people do with their entire life. It is not about what they do outside work hours. Bloody wake up you fool. You have been conned.

     On top of that, try thinking about this. The drug tests do not even test impairment in the workplace. Conned again.

     wake up.
     • kiwi_prometheus 1.4.1

       29 August 2012 at 6:39 pm

       Me sucked in?

       All the Feminist on here are busy spending their time sticking pins into Assange voodoo dolls. The CIA tools.

       If you’re getting my hard earned taxpayer money, don’t spend it on drugs.

       I doubt genuine job seekers would care, I certainly wouldn’t, I have to do tests when applying for work in the field I’m in.

       While I am all for welfare, I’ve seen too many good for nothings milking the system – fucking it up for EVERYONE ELSE. And no one Left or Right deals with it because its all terribly PC – ooohhh think if the children boo hoo!
       • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1.1

         29 August 2012 at 7:33 pm

         Me sucked in?

         Yes, you’ve been sucked in. Possibly as much as 2% of beneficiaries use drugs and that includes alcohol. This program will cost far more than it will ever save, it isn’t going to get any one into employment simply because there isn’t any jobs and it’s also one more step on the road to totalitarianism that this government is taking us down.

         I doubt genuine job seekers would care

         And I suspect that you’re wrong about that. It’s not the governments nor the employers right to say what people do in their own time. It only becomes their right when what they’re doing interferes or endangers others at which point they would have the right to do a drugs test.
       • vto 1.4.1.2

         29 August 2012 at 8:20 pm

         Kiwi prometheus, you didn’t even read my post did you because you have just gone and done it again. i.e. remain sucked in.

         Please re-read my psot and see if you can understand what it says.
         • fatty 1.4.1.2.1

           29 August 2012 at 8:27 pm

           If we were wondering about the effectiveness of this policy, Kiwi prometheus provides evidence that it works. Its difficult not to be amused by KP’s reaction, but at the same time its also scary…how many other people have this kind of reaction?
           • Mike 1.4.1.2.1.1

             29 August 2012 at 11:30 pm

             I was amused at first, but the more posts of his (assume) I read, I actually feel pretty sad that there are still so many like him with similar attitudes and so easily manipulated. I’m positive we’re devolving as a species.
       • vto 1.4.1.3

         29 August 2012 at 8:28 pm

         In addition, mr nothink, when you provide this reason “If you’re getting my hard earned taxpayer money, don’t spend it on drugs.” then you had better apply it to everyone who receives a taxpayer-funded benefit e.g. Pensioners, families receiving WFF, solo mothers, sickness beneficiaries, all politicians. Otherwise you look pretty empty and judgmental and nasty.

         Plus you will need to apply alcohol to that as well because, if you recall, this is about impairment in the workplace. You cannot be under the influence of drugs, and nor can you be under the influence of alcohol. So following your brainless logic anybody under each of those above groups who has a drink at any time gets their WFF, super, dpb, salary, etc docked.
   • weka 1.5

     29 August 2012 at 1:00 pm

     “They go clean on their own or via a program, no more drugs, they get some of my hard earned tax money again.”

     How many beneficiaries take drugs and are not addicted?

     And presumably the people that grow their own drugs will be exempt, as there is no cost to the taxpayers.
   • MarUnoTre 1.6

     29 August 2012 at 2:03 pm

     What do you think happens when you mix survival instincts with drug dependence? Its not a happy outcome for society.
   • fnjckg 1.7

     29 August 2012 at 4:00 pm

     not at all actual-factual; having the best time of my life. Praise God brother
     so, im giving up soon any way so na na, ni na na….
2. Peter 2

   29 August 2012 at 12:11 pm

   When I read the policy there was no mention of a total benefit cut – it’s 50% penalty.
   • framu 2.1

     29 August 2012 at 12:33 pm

     despite the fact that you can get your benefit cut completely. were talking a 50% cut from an benefit level that is already 20% lower than what is required to survive.
     • fnjckg 2.1.1

       29 August 2012 at 4:02 pm

       We all know whu this is targetting bro,
       just cant pull down that fence or remove that beam, can they
   • mike e 2.2

     29 August 2012 at 12:44 pm

     failure to provide a clean sample the third time will lead to a complete cut.
3. shorts 3

   29 August 2012 at 12:21 pm

   from watching the TV3 news coverage last night they said that if the test was positive they get a warning, another test a month later lead to a 50% reduction and one more positive a month after that was 100%, ie loss of benefit

   as cannabis can stay in your blood for up to 3 months (heavy users)… that first positive test could lead to a loss of benefit regardless of any behaviour change, I assume

   harsh… not if you switch to meth
   • framu 3.1

     29 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

     also – what the right of appeal like with this? is there even one?

     false positives, etc etc

     there must be a way to question a result (surely thats a legal requirement if the govt is using it to sanction people) – which will lead to every single failed result being appealed. And they cant cut your benefit while a case is under appeal.
     • lostinsuburbia 3.1.1

       29 August 2012 at 3:40 pm

       And probably use the lowest bid lab test service, which will give how many false positives I wonder?
   • infused 3.2

     29 August 2012 at 2:27 pm

     That heavy use stay in your blood is bullshit. I know this for fact. Back in 2001 I went for a factory job. Being young, I smoked it most days. I stopped two weeks before my test. Passed.
     • framu 3.2.1

       29 August 2012 at 3:19 pm

       staying in blood – your probably right, but it can and does stay in your fat cells for several weeks – and it is possible to pick that up on a test. Just cause you passed doesnt make it bullshit
       • shorts 3.2.1.1

         29 August 2012 at 3:44 pm

         I got the heavy use term from wiki… I’d rather trust that as a source of information that what happened to you infused – no disrespect.

         I’d imagine that it differs from person to person… as does what constitutes heavy, mild or light use and the potency of that smoked or ingested as part of that usage and how long it resides in blood cells and/or fat tissue
     • fnjckg 3.2.2

       29 August 2012 at 4:04 pm

       woteva
     • Mike 3.2.3

       29 August 2012 at 11:44 pm

       If you are a heavy pot smoker then the THC metabolites will usually stay in your fat cells for a lot longer than 2 weeks. (up to 90 days for some)

       Occasional users can pass after 2 weeks or less most of the time. When you say you smoked it most days, how many joints per day? If you were a heavy user as you say, and were smoking for say a year before the test, then it is very doubtful you would pass a urine test after just 2 weeks without any pot.

       On a side note, what’s “being young” got to do with anything? Sort of insulting to young people.

       Then again, I think you’re probably full of shit. Sorry, I just say it how I see it.
4. Frida 4

   29 August 2012 at 12:21 pm

   Good question, Rob. I’ve often wondered the same thing and asked it of friends and family who come out in favour of policies like this. I’ve never had a satisfactory answer, just more chest-beating.

   If a 50% penalty is indeed the answer, then it’s not satisfactory either (given the recently published findings on the gap between rich and poor and the way so many of the latter are struggling to make ends meet).

   So, I endorse your question and await a response as well. What happens to such people when they can’t pay rent, can’t buy food etc etc? We just turn a blind eye?! Is that the society we’ve become??

   As people have said today in another post, reverse the bloody tax cuts. I also never wanted it, don’t need it and would give it up tomorrow to see a return to more egalatarian NZ
   • Mike 4.1

     29 August 2012 at 11:50 pm

     I’m not a right winger or Nat supporter, but I can tell you.

     Firstly, they stop paying the rent so landlords miss out on their subsidy and have to wait 90 days to get new tenants in.

     Then they either:

     – Get clean, apply for another job and get the job. (not very likely and no jobs currently anyway)
     – Spiral downward into petty crime to fuel their addiction, becoming a real burden on society.
     – Become drug dealers to get an income.
     • fatty 4.1.1

       30 August 2012 at 12:18 am

       Their best option under this policy would be to start using drugs heavily to the point that they are considered ‘addicted’ and get on a sickness benefit. That’s what I would do in that situation…its the logical option
5. Dr Terry 5

   29 August 2012 at 12:23 pm

   In the end there IS a total benefit cut. Let us never associate the National Government with any genuine kind of “care” toward human beings. Their only care is to “balance the books”, i.e. money.

   Again, I suggest that Bennett introduce drug testing for employers (and politicians?). We could see some interesting results!
6. Bored 6

   29 August 2012 at 12:34 pm

   Some scenarios here:
   * The spin doctors in National are garnering the RWNJ vote because we Kiwis are well know punitive sorts who like kicking those already on the floor.
   * Bennett actually believes what she is saying (maybe given she would be unlikely to be within 50% of a MENSA qualifying score).
   * Something big and nasty is going down, Paula is the smokescreen (or a very large obstruction in line of sight).
   * Keys mob are totally out of control and the Shonkster has failed dismally to manage them.

   Fekked if I know which it is.
   • Newt 6.1

     29 August 2012 at 1:51 pm

     My money is on “All of the above but they will crow loudest about whichever looks to work best”
7. vto 7

   29 August 2012 at 12:45 pm

   .
   But the drug tests do not test impairment in the workplace. All they do is test whether people have taken drugs any time over the previous up to 3 weeks.

   So in all fairness then anyone who has had a bit too much to drink in the previous up to 3 weeks must also face these sanctions. It is all about impairment in the workplace, isn’t it?
8. vto 8

   29 August 2012 at 12:49 pm

   .
   On top of the lie that is this policy, the penalty will have no effect on aything to do with employment.
9. Tiger Mountain 9

   29 August 2012 at 1:01 pm

   To answer Anthony: it would appear they don’t care. That is why extra prison beds are on the way. And why newly cut off bennies and their kids will further populate gargages, vehicles and sofas around the country. WINZ wants people off the books pure and simple even if some eventually ‘churn’ back onto a benefit weeks or months later. It looks good for a little while.

   Capitalism requires a reserve pool of labour to help keep wages low. ‘They’ indeed do not care.
   • fnjckg 9.1

     29 August 2012 at 4:07 pm

     Indeed not!
10. weka 10

    29 August 2012 at 1:12 pm

    What I don’t understand is why National even care if poor people take drugs. What does it matter?

    According to r0b’s link, WINZ have a list of jobs that require drug testing (40% of jobs). Does anyone have that list?

    “She said the crackdown would involve up to 1300 beneficiaries a year getting treatment for drug dependency.

    …Some people on prescribed medicine will be exempt and people with addiction will be supported with their dependency.”

    Right, because access to recovery services is working really well for drug users already 🙄 Is the subtext there that they will leave addicts alone?

    It also begs the question of what they are testing for.
    • Tiger Mountain 10.1

      29 August 2012 at 1:25 pm

      They are mostly testing reactions I reckon and running the diversion tactic.

      The nats are vote herding by using the fear and loathing of certain groups towards benefit recipients. Unfortunately low paid workers and self employed workers are some of the worst bennie bashers going due to “last place aversion”.
      • The Woodpecker 10.1.1

        29 August 2012 at 2:17 pm

        ” last place aversion” I don’t dissagree with you TM, but I sure as hell don’t understand it either.
    • mike 10.2

      29 August 2012 at 2:05 pm

      “What I don’t understand is why National even care if poor people take drugs.”

      They don’t. National couldn’t care less about what poor people do, nor they problems. This is about:

      a) Keeping benes demonized to justify this welfare cut and future welfare cuts. Thus helping to maintain a large group of people desperate to work for low wages.

      b) Dog-whistling to core Nat voters who have been conditioned to hate ‘druggies’ and ‘dole bludgers’, a winner of a dog-whistling combo.

      c) Distracting people from focusing on things that actually matter, like the damning child poverty report that came out on the very same day, or the stumbling asset sales that don’t make any sense except from a rob the poor and give to the rich standpoint, and that even Nat voters don’t want.
11. BernyD 11

    29 August 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Paula Bennet is using the Phase “Recreational Drugs” a lot.

    The fact is these people are taking drugs because they are sick, wether they realise it or not.
    A drug test wont answer that question at all, and realistically those people will just get sicker with this policy.

    People take drugs because they are in pain, it makes them feel better, so they keep doing it.

    If they had respect for doctors and other people in authority they may come to realise that they are sick in a “Civilised” sense, the rest will just keep taking it no the chin.
12. Bastables 12

    29 August 2012 at 2:24 pm

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple

    The funny thing is bashing the poor seems to be a right wing thing. American experience has actually shown drug use to be lower for poor/onwelfare than the general population. It’s also shown to be an expensive program.

    And of course the argument has to be made when can we expect Members of parliament to prove they’ve not been taking drugs while being paid in public funds and representing the Crown.

    P Bennet needs to pass a RFL/Required fitness level and a drug test, much like the cops and the defence force I think.
13. tracey 13

    29 August 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Given drug use is illegal, why noy make drug testing compulsory in all workplaces punisheable by dismissal… Any company directors testing positive get criminally charged…
    • mike 13.1

      29 August 2012 at 4:06 pm

      Given that Paula B has a history of releasing confidential information on political opponents, why should she be trusted with the results of these degrading drug tests?

      Are there any legal minds here who have any thoughts on whether or not being drug tested to qualify for a public service is a violation of human rights?

      And to answer your question Tracey, (and yes I know you’re not serious), because we live in a free society where what you do in your own time is your own f*cking business as long as you’re not bothering anyone else.
      • Tracey 13.1.1

        29 August 2012 at 4:31 pm

        That’s what I thought, except if you are “poor”. I also wouldn’t trust Ms Bennett with my drug test results, afterall I’m not sure she can even sit on a toilet seat the right way round
    • Richard Down South 13.2

      29 August 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Can we test those in Parliament at random please?
    • Mary 13.3

      29 August 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Perhaps every employee should lose their job, and every beneficiary lose their benefit if they break any law? That makes sense, eh? Ooh, I shouldn’t be saying such things in case it gives Labour ideas.
14. Feargal 14

    29 August 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Paula Bennett is a brilliant minister, drug testing Beneficiaries is a scientifically proven way of creating more real jobs. Next year she is going to bring in witchcraft testing for beneficiaries. And we all be fully employed
15. Roy 15

    29 August 2012 at 4:17 pm

    I think that if this is introduced, it should apply to MPs, Police and superannuatants as well.
    • Bastables 15.1

      29 August 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Police are drug tested when they’re at the police collage. Or do you mean regular drug testing for police ( and MP’s/superannuatants).
      • Roy 15.1.1

        30 August 2012 at 12:23 pm

        Yes.
16. fnjckg 16

    29 August 2012 at 4:21 pm

    Wow! Dig This!
    Disease accounts-bodily abnormalities-biomedical/physical interventions

    Illness accounts-centred also on body but also on ones’ social/community interactions

    Disorder accounts-without neglect to either body or social/communal, also attends to one’s relationship with world at large (sphere)(ok, sphere is i) Experiences as out of order
    The recovery of well-being in this case-putting the world back together

    Robert A. Hahn’s ‘Sickness and Healing: An anthropological Perspective’.

    ya gotta luv the Word
17. fabregas4 17

    29 August 2012 at 4:55 pm

    What if you work steadfastly for 30 years – lose your job through no fault of your own – can’t find another – need some help- is it treating folk with dignity to firstly head them off for a drug test?
    • Tracey 17.1

      30 August 2012 at 8:10 am

      Stop describing the majority of beneficiaries , you’ll crush a tired myth.
18. Bryan 18

    29 August 2012 at 6:04 pm

    I look forward to random testing of the ultimate beneficiaries – MPs.
    I understand a drug of choice is alcohol – random urine testing so that those with alcohol in their system are not allowed in the house. Ethyl glucuronide and %CDT testing to identify those with ongoing booze problems.
    But most definitely stop their bloody benefits.
    In fact let’s close the bars within parliament so these beneficiaries don’t drink during work time.
    and cut out the flow of alcohol at state functions.
    We can issue them with WINZ monitored cash cards so that they try to spend any of their benefits on cigarettes or potato chips etc etc the funds will be stopped.
    GPS bracelets FOR OUR SERVANTS so they can be located at all times that they are on our (taxpayer) payroll.
    Tracking also may be useful to spouses/partners who suspect the kind of tawdry cheating that goes on in the hotbeds of power.
    • Roy 18.1

      30 August 2012 at 12:25 pm

      Good ideas, all of them.
19. feijoa 19

    29 August 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Unemployed people who have had the benefit cut completely probably have only 2 choices
    -begging
    -crime

    welcome to Nationals brighter future

    Don’t forget the unemployed are not the cause of our economic woes, they are the RESULT
    • kiwi_prometheus 19.1

      29 August 2012 at 9:42 pm

      “Don’t forget the unemployed are not the cause of our economic woes, they are the RESULT”

      Sure, but there are a whole lot of no hopers too.

      I don’t see any problem with targeting those ones, compelling them to clean up their act. Drug free is the way to go.
      • Tracey 19.1.1

        30 August 2012 at 8:38 am

        So you are happy for your hard earned taxpayer money (as you call it) to go on creating a process (expensive), testing (expensive – and you can say you will take the costs from the benefit but frankly that’s a nonsense because you can’t get blood from a stone) will be paid upfront by the taxpayer, enforcement will cost, and treatment programmes (costly). Now this is for a similar number of people to the number who avoid tax each year… I haven’t noticed a similar regime against the later.

        Going to attampt to hit you with some facts

        “1. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can get a job.

        No, they can’t. In the last two months of 2010, the number of people receiving the dole rose by 4,536 to 67,084, and rose again in January to 68, 087. The number of people out of work stands at 158,000. One in three of the people currently on the dole were over 40 years of age – and many of them suffer from age discrimination in the job market. (There were 112,865 people on a domestic purposes benefit at the end of December, 85,105 on an invalid’s benefit and 59,988 on a sickness benefit.)”

        “2. People on welfare commit a lot of benefit fraud, at the expense of hard-working people

        The evidence for the existence of widespread benefit fraud is paltry to non-existent – despite the fact that a special fraud intelligence unit was set up in the Social Welfare department in 2007 to detect it. Last year, the department checked 29 million records, and found the benefit fraud rate (as a proportion of the total benefits paid) was a miniscule 0.10 per cent. A declining number of prosecutions – from 937 in 2009 to 789 last year – resulted.

        Of the $16 million in benefit fraud detected last year, a proportion was carried out by social welfare staff – ten of whom were sacked last year for ripping off the system – and not by beneficiaries themselves. While any level of benefit fraud is unacceptable, the $16 million a year currently being incurred is hardly an intolerable burden. Currently, New Zealanders spend $16,1 million a day on impulse purchases.

        Moreover, other forms of unacceptable behaviour leave benefit fraud far behind in the dust without attracting the same negative stereotypes. The major foreign owned banks for instance finally agreed in late 2009 – and only after being pursued at great expense through the courts by the IRD – to cough up $2.2 billion of what they owed in unpaid taxes. Meaning : the settlement figure this case alone was about 140 times greater than the total amount lost in benefit fraud last year.. ”

        “5. Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers – many of them teenagers – who have extra children so that they can get more money

        This is a hoary old myth that combines the resentment of beneficiaries in general, with prurient resentment of the sexy young having too much sex. In fact, the US and New Zealand evidence is that young people are having less sex, later than their parents’ generation.

        The Salvation Army’s recently published State of the Nation report contains similar positive findings for New Zealand :

        Teenage pregnancies and abortions have fallen during 2009, which is perhaps welcome news that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. The number of 11–14 year olds giving birth or having an abortion dropped from 122 in 2008, to 108 in 2009….Although this decline is on a very small base, this number of pregnancies is the lowest in at least eight years. For older teenagers aged 15-19 years old, there was a 10% decline in the rate of pregnancies between 2008 and 2009

        Such figures help contradict Key’s scaremongering use of the young as a pretext for welfare reform. More to the point, the NZ figures on DPB recipients do not bear out Key’s specific assertion about ‘significant numbers of very young women going onto the DPB and staying there for a lifetime.”

        “In fact, only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age – and that figure has barely flickered since 2005, when the figure was 2.9 %. Put another way, 97% of the people on the DPB are NOT the ‘very young women’ of Key’s lurid imagination. There are in fact, significantly more people on the DPB over 55 years of age (5.6%) than there are ‘very young women’ receiving this benefit.

        The vast bulk of DPB recipients (nearly 75%) are what you would expect : they are aged between 25 and 54. Some 61% of them are caring for children six years or under – a figure that, again, has barely changed since 2005. Nearly half are caring for two or more dependent children. ”

        ” Lots of people are on welfare for years and years, and then their children and grandchildren become welfare dependent.

        This myth is based on stereotypes about the chronically shiftless and teemingly fertile poor. Lets stick with the DPB for a moment. Since the DPB involves the care of children who are dependent at least until they are 18, you’d think it would reflect lifetime dependency very strongly. Yet instead, over two thirds of DPB recipients (67.7%) are on the DPB for less than four years. More than a quarter of them (26%) are on it for less than a year, even during the recession. If this is a lifestyle choice, it is hardly a fashionable one.

        Looking across all forms of benefits, 61.4 % of recipients are benefit dependent for four years or less. Only 14.3 % are on benefits for more than ten years – and since those figures include people with chronic physical and mental disabilities, the ratio of those staying on benefits because it is a “lifetime, lifestyle choice’ is lower again. In an excellent piece last year, Tim Watkin made much the same point :

        Of the 28,701 people who have been on the sickness benefit for a year or more, 40% of them have psychological or psychiatric conditions. Given that we have to run ad campaigns to reassure New Zealanders that even people with depression, let alone more serious mental health issues, can be good workers, does that number seem outlandishly large to you?

        Again, people who are temporarily in need of assistance – and who are using that help and moving on as quickly as most of them can – are being stigmatized in the cause of fixing what is virtually a non-existent problem.”

        see myths of welfare by werewolf Gordon Campbell

        K Prometheus, repeating a nonsense until it is believed and then repeating it with the passion of a believer doesn’t turn nonsense into fact, just widely believed nonsense. The Emperor has No Clothes was a basic story for children. Many adults need to re-read it.
20. Herodotus 20

    29 August 2012 at 7:41 pm

    What ever requirements the Government imposes on the masses the same should apply to the law makers. Love to see a drug and alcohol testing program being applied to all in parliament. And should they not be in parliament then like WADA have roving testers when MP’s are on the clock. Whats good for the goose ….
    • Tracey 20.1

      30 August 2012 at 8:41 am

      Conveniently though, one of the worst “drugs” in our society is legal… alcohol. The hypocrisy abounds…
21. Jenny 21

    29 August 2012 at 8:01 pm

    A better question for the Nats might be this:

    If I pass this test will the government guarantee me a job?
    • Tracey 21.1

      30 August 2012 at 8:40 am

      1++ very well done
    • Augustus 21.2

      30 August 2012 at 10:58 am

      Concur, Jenny. A drug test before starting a job makes sense, if the drug test is the last remaining barrier between the applicant and the job. If there is one job and 30 applicants, only one needs testing, the one who would be impaired when doing it.
      Everything else is harassment. IMO you can’t test hordes of people for one job, especially if the result leaves unsuccessful candidates seriously disadvantaged.
      How many people does WINZ send after one job?
    • gnomic 21.3

      30 August 2012 at 10:58 pm

      Not a ghost of a chance; not the business they’re in. After all, the destruction is constructive. You don’t want to be mollycoddled by the nanny state surely? There are no guarantees. Life wasn’t meant to be easy.

      “I was a merchant banker; what can I say?” The smirking weasel disclaiming ever having earned an honest living.
22. Julian 22

    30 August 2012 at 9:15 am

    My pot smoking has not killed or harmed anyone yet?
    Assholes like ‘kiwi_prometheus’ are more of a cancer on our fair society that a little weed in your system!
    • felix 22.1

      30 August 2012 at 12:07 pm

      kiwi_prometheus is a crack head. Best ignored.
      • lprent 22.1.1

        30 August 2012 at 1:29 pm

        Nah. Reckon that he is addicted to talkback radio. Once you strip away the polished tones then you hear them appealing to that same idiotic group. It is either that or a evangalician cult. Once you strip away the…

        Addiction to other drugs is either in is past or in his future. He is at his brightest right now.
23. gnomic 23

    30 August 2012 at 11:43 pm

    k_p is without doubt a troll, and not in any way a person interested in discussing ideas. It may even be a bot, they probably have artificial intelligence that can spew out this sort of rubbish.

    Or perhaps k_p is Lee Kuan Yew. I claim my $50 million $ Singapore.

    The next step in the evil agenda is presumably to ape the USA and ban felons from voting and enjoying any benefits from the state such as subsidised housing or educational assistance. Likewise residents in subsidised housing will also have to satisfy the state there is nothing bad in their bloodstream. Rebstock could be the conduit for this particular strand of neo-fascism, Bennett’s brain so to speak.

    Not quite sure what the objective is in producing a group of homeless and hungry people whose crime was smoking ganja. It is after all a medicinal herb. Probably good to have some bad people to scapegoat, and perhaps imprison. Why not confiscate any property they may have as well.

    Just as well technology will soon make it possible to sniff out the miscreants amongst the sheeple from a distance as they trudge along the pavements or log in with their biometrics. The war on drugs will finally end in victory, unless you’re talking about the synthetic products of big pharma required to alleviate the diseases induced in the population by the pseudo-foods churned out by the agri-chemical complex.

    Why not an open prison surrounded by the sea with the serfs wearing invisible fetters?

    Any other questions?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS