Handouts to make them go away

Written By: - Date published: 12:25 pm, May 7th, 2014 - 9 comments
Categories: election 2014, Judith Collins, national, same old national - Tags: , ,

The announcement from National that they’d bribe unemployed beneficiaries to go to Christchurch was “An empty grab for headlines” as No Right Turn eloquently put it. It looked more like an attempt to divert attention away from the continuing disaster of Judith Collins.

National has announced that they’ll pay beneficiaries $3,000 to move to Christchurch to take up work. Superficially it seems like a good idea, and that’s the point: to grab a cheap headline. Meanwhile the details of the policy make it clear that they don’t actually expect anyone to take them up on the offer.

His enumeration of exactly how National has made it a completely useless gesture are in his post. But I suspect that he is completely correct in saying:-

Which is a shame, because the idea of WINZ paying people’s relocation costs to get them jobs in areas which need workers isn’t bad. But it needs to be their actual relocation costs, not some pittance, and it needs to be risk-free for them. Relocating to another city for a job is risky enough, and WINZ should be trying to reduce that risk, rather than pile more on top of it.

I’d just also point out that anyone who has dealt with WINZ knows that they have a great deal of ‘difficulty’ whenever anyone moves. Their computer and filing systems appear to have a inability to span the country or in many cases even a single city. To move is to have your files lost and any expectation of getting promised money from them dissipates in a haze of bureaucratic waffle and stand downs. So good luck on them remembering to pay people who fulfill the impossible conditions – like even finding a place to rent in Christchurch.

National should have followed their rumoured model for getting rid of their unwanted MPs. Awash with money from selling the time of their Ministers, there has been a whisper that those the hierarchy want gone can get about a quarter of a million dollars covered by a nasty confidentiality agreement to just announce their early retirement. One way to get a renewal. But they often appear to wasting the slots they create.

Perhaps if National used those ill-gotten gains on bribing WINZ beneficiaries at a higher rate then they’d have replaced some of their disappearing constituency in beleaguered Christchurch under czar Brownlee.

9 comments on “Handouts to make them go away ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    7 May 2014 at 12:58 pm

    is there high demand for the skills of the unemployed in christchurch?

    • Wonderpup 1.1
      7 May 2014 at 1:18 pm

      Speaking as someone living on the east side of Christchurch with a few under-employed people, no, no there is not. In fact, rumour has it there are quite a few chippies and sparkies over from the UK and Ireland going unemployed as well. The YMCA is housing a few of them, if any enterprising journos want to find some.

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 10:48 am

        sadly, not many in oppositon calling bullshit on this one… labour still scared of scaring off their imaginary middle voters?

  2. just saying 2
    7 May 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Dog whistle pure and simple.
    Plenty of jobs for those that want them etc., get them off their lazy arses etc.

    Meanwhile, like with education, the privatisation by stealth agenda at WINZ is continuing to progress with clients being referred to various kinds of private consultancy companies, more and more of which seem to be springing up to profit from this particular human-misery industry.

  3. Will@Welly 3
    7 May 2014 at 7:31 pm

    At the time of the earthquakes, many employers wanted a trade training scheme implemented in Christchurch, because many could see the looming shortage in tradies. Did the Government listen? No, thicko Gerry – too busy eating all the pies !!
    There was a willingness in Christchurch to take on staff if there had have been a subsidy available, simply because many businesses did not know what their immediate future was.
    Given the Government’s dysfunctional approach to the people of Christchurch, is it any wonder the relationship is far from harmonious? And why should those who are looking for work, trust anything this Government offers, particularly with it’s draconian “fire at will” policy, which offers no guarantee of employment whatsoever.

  4. Chooky 4
    7 May 2014 at 8:31 pm

    +100 Good Post …pathetic throw away idea from John Key

    and from Martin Bradbury…”Dear dirty filthy bludgers, For just $3000, you too could be homeless in an earthquake zone!”

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/07/stagnant-unemployment-rate-suggests-rockstar-economy-out-of-drugs/

  5. tc 5
    8 May 2014 at 8:07 am

    Another example of the MSM doing a PR job for the govt, zero questions for paula, no critical analysis just publish and get a pat like a good media lapdog.

  6. Treetop 6
    8 May 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Job offer has to be for more than 30 hours a week and longer than 91 days. Without a sufficient reason for going back onto a benefit under 3 months the money has to be repaid.

    Stranded and left in debt if the job goes bellyup.

    The government would have been better off kick starting apprenticeships.

  7. MAd HAtter 7
    8 May 2014 at 1:00 pm

    This scheme was an idea thought up by comfortable people who own their own home, have never had to rent, or travel light, or pay the full cost of anything. It’s also possible they never even owned a pet dog. The abstract idea of relocating people to a place that needs manual labourers sounds useful. Unfortunately that place is not Christchurch, since employers admit they now need skilled workers, and shortly after having the political idea every other idea departed further and further from reality.

    If you’ve ever packed a bag and hitched, or caught a bus or train down south from the North, across the strait, then across country, in winter, then tried to set up again with a roof rather than a tarp, to a set deadline, you’ll know that $3000 won’t do it. Take a car, ship and store your possessions, expect to rent a place with plumbing and electricity, and the suggestion of $3k will just make you laugh. As the info in the original post shows, earthquake inflation makes it even more impossible.

    So one of two things are the result. Everyone laughs and doesn’t believe it as they say it – which is what John Key did on the news. Or Key announces NZ now entering Depression Era employment status, with bands of guys wandering around looking for any work and sleeping in fields. Better to laugh it off, I think.

    JK both announced and killed the idea dead at the same time by saying that the unemployed would lose their “support structures™” if they took up the offer and that it would be “dangerous™” for some. Imagine the coaching he would have to have had to make that strained face of compassion. The “Support structure™” JK refered to was an admission that WINZ, and anyone remotely of the “The Unemployed are Lazy Bludgers” mindset, do not know the true cost or reason for unemployment and welfare, or the true numbers of those forced to live off the radar, and the cost has never fully been seen by taxpayers or openly admitted by government. If they knew the true reason, certain attitudes and policies would disappear from our culture overnight. If for no other reason than the truth that bene-bashing is an art of the highest ignorance. Somewhere in the government circles, someone knew what would be exposed… and if you’ve ever done the above trip, you’ll know just how “adventurous™” it is even under favourable conditions.

    Meanwhile, Paula from Hobsonville stands beside him smiling like the Cheshire Cat. Why, I don’t know. I think she may be finally, uncontrollably, loopy.

    On the upside though, ask yourself… didn’t JK speak like a normal person when he first appeared on the scene? So why the strange accent now? What is with the lisp? Is it stress induced or has market research found it appeals to a certain group of well-moneyed people?