Surprising opposition to food stamps

77 comments on “Surprising opposition to food stamps ”

• Comments are now closed

1. chris73 1

   18 August 2011 at 6:42 am

   Is this like Phil Goff ruling out CGT last Feb?
   • Bored 1.1

     18 August 2011 at 7:36 am

     Good morning Orcus Secuutus. Anything wise to add? Maybe not.
   • The Voice of Reason 1.2

     18 August 2011 at 7:39 am

     Nope, because Bennett is right now in power and implementing a policy that she personally finds repugnant. Goff never claimed CGT was intrusive, expensive and a removal of freedom of choice. Any other pisspoor lines you wanna try out, chris?
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.1

       18 August 2011 at 8:35 am

       chris73 needs another cup of coffee this morning before he wakes up.
     • chris73 1.2.2

       18 August 2011 at 4:44 pm

       Spin it whatever way you like but thats what most swing voters will think (as well as thinking Bennett screwed the pooch big time)
2. tsmithfield 2

   18 August 2011 at 7:30 am

   “Surprising oppostion to food stamps”

   What is “oppostion”, and why should I be surprised about it?
   • Bored 2.1

     18 August 2011 at 7:37 am

     TS, place brain in gear and think. Dont go too hard, it is best to start exercise slowly or strains result.
   • lprent 2.2

     18 August 2011 at 8:48 am

     Fixed the typo. Bearing in mind the time that post was entered I am unsurprised.

     Bu I see that you don’t want to talk about the content of the post. Kind of interesting that such a weak-arse policy does actually have opposition from within National’s ranks.
     • tsmithfield 2.2.1

       18 August 2011 at 9:20 am

       Unlike Labour, people in National are allowed to have their own thoughts.
       • bbfloyd 2.2.1.1

         18 August 2011 at 9:33 am

         look ts…look! the sky is falling in wellington!!! that wasn’t an eggshell tat hit you on the head… it’s reality!!! oh no…… the sky is FAAAALLINGGG.
       • The Voice of Reason 2.2.1.2

         18 August 2011 at 10:51 am

         “Unlike Labour, people in National are allowed to have their own thoughts.”
         And the amazing ability to change them to the exact opposite as soon as they are told to do so by John Key. I imagine the conversation inside Bennefit’s head was not unlike the announcements in Orwell’s 1984:
         We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. I repeat, we are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
         
       • aerobubble 2.2.1.3

         18 August 2011 at 12:55 pm

         National ideology says government bad so government should only concern itself with staying out of the private sectors way.

         Then surprise surprise a bureaucrat PM decides to blame the poorest for their lack of jobs.
         Much like any bureaucrat who doesn’t believe in doing their job and so blames the victim
         of their poor management. A victim who has neither the policy advisors, power, or
         influence even to knwo there is a problem.

         The youth poor are not responsible for the massive debt, they could no more buy alcohol
         legelly than take on debt legally (except with WINZ).

         So its arrogant and hypocritical for government to justify itself when it ran into
         government wanting to stop the loss of choice over which light bulb I can buy.
         Oop, light bulbs not covered by the food card? Could be traded for grog.

         So you see its sticks in every National voters throat, Key blaming them for the lack
         of jobs, because many of them are fearing losing theirs, or have lost theirs.
       • lprent 2.2.1.4

         18 August 2011 at 1:03 pm

         I hadn’t noticed. Of course I do tend to mostly see them (party members) here. It usually seems to me that they are like Paula B – their opinion depends what John Key said last.

         The problem I see is that almost all of the National MP’s that I had a modicum of respect for appear to have left parliament. What we appear to have left are the brown-nosing sycophants troughing it like Murray McCully.
       • mik e 2.2.1.5

         18 August 2011 at 4:53 pm

         TsThey obviously aren’t very good ones so do your self a favor and keep them to your self. or come up with something original like the politics of envy.
       • RobertM 2.2.1.6

         18 August 2011 at 6:36 pm

         Very unlikely considering the stagemanaged conferences. Independence for \Nat members ceased about the time of Muldoon. Since then its largely been a conservative, fundamentalist party with a few weak Kneeded catholics like English and Finnalyson.
         The benefit and food stamp card idea is of course popular with the Labour redneck crossover vote from Labour. The problem of 16 and l7 year olds on unemployment or health benefits is really a distinct problem from the rest of benefiicary issue economically and socially. I don’t neccesarily have any problems with healthy 16 and 17 year old females getting married or breeding after all Keisha Castle Hughes did and so did many Generals wives as recently as WW2. Film stars often married 16 year old including Charlie Chaplin, who married my grandmothers namesake the other Mildred Harris,16 before l920. My grandmother also a Chaplin siren, advertised in the British Press she was not the Mildred Harris marrying Chaplin.
         But really the male 16 and 17 year olds should be in school, in vocational training or locked up.
         Discipline in classes should be enforced. most as in Europe should learn foreign languages-French, German, Chinese, japanese or Indonesian and that requires quiet disciplined classrooms. For the dumber half even corporal punishment may be necessary. THe PPTA attitude that its desirable to keep disruptive pupils and bullies in school is nonsense, they damage many others chances. So I don’t think their should be a dole or benefit for those under 18, possibly just a $100 allowance for those doing vocational training. Real criminals should be in jail from the age of 14.
         • Vicky32 2.2.1.6.1

           18 August 2011 at 6:44 pm

           Robert, I don’t know where to start! You’re the guy with a yen for sex with teens, aren’t you? Hence the rage against religion…
           It may surprise you to know that if you’re 50+ (and internal evidence suggests you are) you’ve got no chance of getting a 14 year old girl to want to have sex with you, even if you have locked up all the 14 year old boys! 
           Stop typing one-handed, and address the point of the post.
           • RobertM 2.2.1.6.1.1

             18 August 2011 at 8:16 pm

             Outright slander. Ive never had sex with anyone under 18 and would not be comfortable unless their 20. I have long thought Vicky 32 should be banned from all left sites- she would fit in much more comfortably with the National Front or some extreme fundamentalist organisation.
             • Vicky32 …

               19 August 2011 at 4:53 pm

               I have long thought Vicky 32 should be banned from all left sites- she would fit in much more comfortably with the National Front or some extreme fundamentalist organisation.

               Issues much? Your sick remark about putting 14 year old boys in prison shows where you’re coming from. I am a leftie, you’re not. Full stop!
3. mickysavage 3

   18 August 2011 at 7:38 am

   You guys (Chris73 and TS) are up early today.  Feeling a little sensitive?

   And tell me, why should matters of principle not apply to 16 and 17 year olds. 
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     18 August 2011 at 8:37 am

     Well if they were 16-17 year olds of rich parents living in nice families and nice houses, then matters of principle would certainly apply.
     • Tigger 3.1.1

       18 August 2011 at 9:15 am

       They’re sensitive because every right winger I know thinks this idea is further proof that John Key is now leading they Nanny-tional Party. They can’t use the whole Nanny State dog whistle against the left now – and it’s killing them.
       • Marjorie Dawe 3.1.1.1

         18 August 2011 at 3:59 pm

         I object to the nanny state comment Tigger. I look at Nannies as being kind and benevolent whereas Daddies are usually the ones who mete out the tough punishments. I wouldnt like to insult Nannies at all and would prefer the term “Daddy State” which truly reflects the harsh and “Daddy is the boss” nature of this policy. LOL
   • chris73 3.2

     18 August 2011 at 4:41 pm

     Sorry to give such a boring reply but I started work early this morning so I got up earlier then normal so I jumped on the net early as well
4. ghostwhowalksnz 4

   18 August 2011 at 8:06 am

   5 months ago Paula was opposed to nanny state, but now she has been rolled in cabinet she merely has to make sure her lips move at the same time as the ventriloquist
   • mickysavage 4.1

     18 August 2011 at 8:14 am

     She could at least have the decency of being embarassed.  But I guess when you operate in a principle free zone changing your mind on issues is not a big thing.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       18 August 2011 at 8:41 am

       Like all female National Cabinet Ministers she is told what to think and when to think it by the men.
       • Bill 4.1.1.1

         18 August 2011 at 9:21 am

         I reckon you’re being a tad unfair there CV.

         While what you say probably has some truth to it given the gender (im)balance in National, it’s a fucked up outcome of heirarchical organisations that, in an attempt to appear unified, quash dissent and impose ‘party lines’.

         No dynamism. No creativity. Just plodding fucking dinosaurs that won’t die.

         And it applies to the parliamentary left as much as the right. And the scores of ‘authoritarian’ left sects that (unfortunately, to my mind) continue to pepper the landscape.

         It all results in disempowerment – a hi-jacking of political discourse – and the de-politicisation of the majority of people who, lets face it, don’t have a natural inclination to walk in lock step.
       • jackal 4.1.1.2

         18 August 2011 at 9:46 am

         National has female MP’s… Which ones?

         Administration = $24 m ÷ 1,600 = $15,000 ea. Is that value for money?
         • mik e 4.1.1.2.1

           18 August 2011 at 5:00 pm

           They could set up a scheme like in Onehunga and get them all transitioned into a job at that price .But then they would have no one to scape goat and punish to get the Redneck hairs standing up.Joyce lord HAW HAW is behind this knows theirs vote to be had .
       • Vicky32 4.1.1.3

         18 August 2011 at 4:12 pm

         I agree, CV!
     • bbfloyd 4.1.2

       18 August 2011 at 9:36 am

       mind?? bennett??? now i am confused..
5. Bill 5

   18 August 2011 at 8:36 am

   Maybe during the five months some ‘bright spark’ reckoned they’d figured out a way around the administrative problems? And was convincing enough for a pilot scheme to be launched?

   The rest of what Bennet said appears to be ideological kneejerks.

   Supermarkets already deal with food cards. It is already the case that neither alcohol nor cigarettes can be bought with them. (And that might work simply by informing check-out operators that they don’t sell cigarettes or alcohol to anyone under age or to anyone with a green card.)

   The only difference being suggested is that a dollar amount is loaded onto the card every week instead of when a beneficiary claims to have no money left for food due to having had to spend their money on other things.

   And it is already the case that the card can be loaded via telephone. (I don’t know quite how that works, but imagine that if it would be a small step to hook ‘registered’ cell phones and some text scenario into the scheme of things).

   As to why such a scheme is attractive? Savings for WINZ that are somewhere north of the $80 million per year mark. (And damn the effects on people).

   So two ideological standpoints were in contradiction to one another and one had to prevail. And cuts in public spending is more fashionable than (so-called) freedom of individual choice at the moment.

   edit. As for GST. Beneficioaries tend to buy frozen veg. Not fresh. And 15% won’t alter that.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     18 August 2011 at 8:43 am

     As to why such a scheme is attractive? Savings for WINZ that are somewhere north of the $80 million per year mark. (And damn the effects on people).

     That’ll fund a tax cut of $80K p.a. to the thousand richest people in NZ! Awesome!
   • just saying 5.2

     18 August 2011 at 9:57 am

     As to why such a scheme is attractive? The electoral advantages shouldn’t be overlooked. The hate campaign against those beneficiaries who are not on super, or getting WFF is a foundational part of National’s election strategy, and it’s all win-win.

     Every time National makes this kind of move, and Labour doesn’t protest, it moves Labour further to the right, further alienates the poor and social democrats from the party, solidifies the hatred vote (and that’s a small sub-section of those who would agree with the move). And very importantly too, makes Labour look weak, as only a leader too afraid to stand up for one of its own from bullies can look. Labour is forced to collude in a kind of secondary victimisation, that makes it incredibly hard for them protest when such an action is inevitably ratchted up a few more and a few more notches.

     This kind of strategy allows National to publicly position Labour where it wants it, and debase it in the process. Handbag poodles spring to mind. Not a good look in an election campaign.
     • Bill 5.2.1

       18 August 2011 at 10:15 am

       I think Labour doesn’t protest because they kind of agree with the shit.

       You’ve pointed it out in previous comments, as have I and others, that Labour showed by its actions that it didn’t give a toss about beneficiaries.

       However, given the vague public perception of Labour (that it ‘cares’) and the mileage they get from that perception – or myth – they can’t go around overtly hammering beneficiaries. Their duplicitious covert attacks on the financially weakest was pretty evident though in their wff policy and their (almost) under the radar implementation of Temporary Additional Support.

       They’re happy for National to make hay on the benefits front but only because they themselves couldn’t have taken the hit it would have entailed for them had they done it. (Different constituencies/expectations).
       • just saying 5.2.1.1

         18 August 2011 at 10:52 am

         I agree that those with power in the Labour Party, and certainly most, if not all of its parliamentarians don’t care. The poor in genreal, and beneficiaries in particular became “acceptable collateral damage” to them a long time ago. But the membership and Labour supporters by-in-large either care or like to think that they do. There are many Labour supporters here who I believe care deeply. It’s the Labour Pary movement that I was talking about, activists and all, that I was talking about as being pushed to the right.

         Those with power within that movement are becoming less and less constrained by the desire to appear to care. The mythology you mention is unraveling and Labour is repeatedly exposed by National in policies such as this one, as standing for nothing more than the mere possibility that they might do less harm. This looks weak because it is weak.
     • mik e 5.2.2

       18 August 2011 at 5:05 pm

       NO they don’t they want young people working .Labour has always done better employment. just look at the stats going back to the 1930s labour has had lower unemployment except for the second term when that left wing bastion Roger Douglas was in power!
   • Vicky32 5.3

     18 August 2011 at 4:21 pm

     As for GST. Beneficioaries tend to buy frozen veg. Not fresh. And 15% won’t alter that.

     I assume you don’t know why? Because it’s cheaper, at least that’s why I buy frozen veges in preference to fresh. Cauliflower $2.78 for a half, frozen mixed veg (on special) $3.99. The cauli might last me 2 meals but the frozen veg will last for 6+… 15% might alter that, because I vastly prefer fresh, broccoli for choice…
6. mickysavage 6

   18 August 2011 at 8:40 am

   I have an alternative spend for the $24m needed for the policy that I believe will have a much more beneficial effect for our society.  Spend it on breakfasts for poor primary kids instead.  By my calculations it could pay for 50,000 kids school breakfasts each year.  Imagine the improvements in behaviour and learning this would cause.
    
   Way better than trying to administer teenagers into jobs that do not exist.
   • Bill 6.1

     18 August 2011 at 8:52 am

     Better still. Allocate the $24 million (and then some) to increasing the levels of core benefits.
   • vto 6.2

     18 August 2011 at 9:01 am

     Yes, agree 1,000%
   • Pete George 6.3

     18 August 2011 at 9:06 am

     Wouldn’t it be better addressing the core problems rather than just resorting to band aid solutions?

     The state should not have to spoon feed breakfast to kids.

     Providing food for children is a pretty basic role of parenting. Is it known how much of it is due to lack of parenting and how much is due to lack of money?
     • mickysavage 6.3.1

       18 August 2011 at 9:33 am

       The last time I checked the best way to address the core problem of kids not having enough to eat was to feed them.  It ain’t a band aid, it solves the problem.  It lets kids learn better and improves their health.

       If the state should not spoon feed breakfast to kids then why should it spoon feed money to teenagers and tell them how to spend it?

       Who cares why it happens.  It does.  Something should be done about it. 
       • Pete George 6.3.1.1

         18 August 2011 at 9:40 am

         Feed them lunch and dinner as well? What about the weekends. Free happy meals?

         The most basic responsibility of a parent is to provide food for their children. There is something very wrong if that’s not happening. Should the state change nappies as well? Provide wet nurses? That would be real nanny state.

         A lot of poor parents manage to make sure their children are fed, that’s, like, a bit of a priority.
         • jackal 6.3.1.1.1

           18 August 2011 at 10:09 am

           I take it you don’t approve of National’s Nanny state agenda Pete George? You might not be aware that many kids aren’t getting food because many parents have to decide whether they pay the rent and bills or buy food each week. Being that you cannot receive the dole if you do not have a place of residence, the priority is keeping a roof over your families heads.

           According to a recent OECD report, New Zealand rental properties are overpriced by 43%. That means the majority of peoples benefits go to the landlord. A recent BRANZ study puts the amount of NZ houses that are not maintained properly at 59%. That means people are paying too much for their badly maintained rental properties that are cold and damp and make them sick.

           I know there are parents who do not look after their children properly, but when you factor in high inflation on food, huge rental costs, increases to power prices, gas prices and pretty much everything that people have to purchase to survive, then one can conclude that many parents are not looking after their children properly because they simply cannot afford to.

           It seems to be a favourite pass time of RWNJ’s to stigmatize beneficiaries and say they do not prioritize their finances, but my question to you is to provide relevant data and/or studies that show beneficiaries are not spending their money properly? The simple fact of the matter is that they do not have enough money to begin with, that’s why their children go hungry.

           Is it any wonder that we have social dysfunction when poor families are getting such a shit deal?
           • Pete George 6.3.1.1.1.1

             18 August 2011 at 11:01 am

             You may have missed my question a few posts up.

             Is it known how much of it is due to lack of parenting and how much is due to lack of money?

             And I’ll add – how much is a lack of money due to a lack of good management of money.

             Many poor parents manage to care for their kids very well on limited budgets, they make sure they have the necessities. Some don’t. It would be useful to know how many.
             • jackal …

               18 August 2011 at 6:06 pm

               I did previously see your comment Pete George.

               My point is that there’s no relevant data and so the assumption of RWNJ’s that people on benefits are spending all their money inappropriately is exactly that, an assumption.

               Stigmatizing all beneficiaries without proper information is like saying all rich people are money grubbing arseholes who care only about money. Generalizations are not helpful in finding solutions for what is a problem that cannot be ignored.

               Many poor parents do indeed manage to look after their families adequately. They often manage to bring up healthy and well rounded adults that are not stigmatized because of a lack of funds. They are lucky and buck the trend of impoverishment normally leading to social dysfunction and jail.

               A percentage of families do not manage because benefits are very low in comparison to the cost of living, and their circumstances do not allow them to feed, clothe, school and meet the emotional requirements of their children properly. We can blame them or the system for 20% of New Zealand children currently growing up in poverty.

               Personally I think it’s the system that has disadvantaged people and trapped families in poverty. Can you honestly argue that anybody would choose to live in squalor and not be able to feed their offspring properly? They have been disadvantaged, and the cost of repairing that mistake is going to be huge and ongoing. National’s delay of not addressing the problem will compound that cost.

               It’s my contention that the amount of families that fall through the cracks so to speak, because of their own decisions are very few. Nobody chooses to be poor, and under normal circumstances they do not chose to starve their children either. A stupid card will do nothing to remedy the underlying dysfunction the system has caused.
         • mickysavage 6.3.1.1.2

           18 August 2011 at 10:12 am

           Geez Pete

           You are all for spending huge amounts of money making sure a few teenagers do not buy fags but totally against spending the same amount of money making sure many more kids get breakfast.

           You on the one hand say that teenagers have to be controlled but on the other hand are saying that it is ok to let kids starve.

           Who cares what the problem is, whether it is poverty or “lifestyle choices”.  Why not feed the kids?

           If it allows good parents a bit extra cash and at the same time allows delinquent parents to buy more alcohol then so what. 
           • Pete George 6.3.1.1.2.1

             18 August 2011 at 11:07 am

             You must be mistaking me for a “support everything a party proposes” drone. I’m not sure about National’s approach to welfare, they’ve only released a smal amount of policy so far.

             I think you misjudge a widespread sentiment – it really grots a lot of people off to see children poorly treated by parents who waste taxpayer money on booze, fags and pokies.

             It’s a complex issue, and it’s very difficult finding workable solutions, but one approach that no government has or will support is just handing out more and more money. It always has been targeted to an extent, and it needs to be better targeted and it will help those children and parents in real need if some didn’t waste a lot of assistance.
             • Colonial Viper …

               18 August 2011 at 11:18 am

               You must be mistaking me for a “support everything a party proposes” drone.

               No, but you are a drone, and that is also exactly what you do in your comments.

               Pete George = a Man of the People for the People (spew)
             • Vicky32 …

               18 August 2011 at 4:37 pm

               it really grots a lot of people off to see children poorly treated by parents who waste taxpayer money on booze, fags and pokies.

               That these parents “waste taxpayer (sic) money on booze, fags and pokies” is your assumption, not a proven fact. I am reminded of this close-to-obese bus driver who forced to endure his paean of praise to John Key when I was on  my way to Parnhell a few months back. He spent the trip in equal parts praising NACT and whining about how much he hated his sickness beneficiary brother who (he thought) was a malinger! (I doubt this git had even finished high school). If I was as good at cutting people down to size as my son is, I’d have asked him what medical school he’d graduated from that he knew his brother was swinging the lead!
             • mik e …

               18 August 2011 at 5:09 pm

               PGThis is nationals employment policy borrow hope and bash {brash]
       • Bill 6.3.1.2

         18 August 2011 at 9:51 am

         When I was a kid everybody got school meals. (Can’t remember ever seeing a ‘packed lunch’). Those kids whose parents were on low incomes didn’t pay. Yes, there was a stigma attached to those kids, but those kids wouldn’t have been known if a slightly different collection system had been used. I remember that it was the teachers who collected the dinner money from us kids at the start of the week in primary school by calling our names in class…which made the free dinner kids stand out like dog’s bollox. Totally unnecessary if unintentional (not) name and shame.

         And school meals were the norm right on through secondary or high school too.
         • Pete George 6.3.1.2.1

           18 August 2011 at 10:05 am

           Totally different to my experience, except for a while milk was provided.
           I presume you are talking about lunch and not breakfast.

           It’s a bigger problem if pre-schoolers and babies are not getting sufficient decent food and nutrition. The real problem can begin at birth – or before. That’s where the most atention should be given, and if it can be rectified in the first 1000 then ithere’s far less a chance of it being a problem by the time the kids get to school.
     • bbfloyd 6.3.2

       18 August 2011 at 9:44 am

       exactly….. so why aren’t your heros doing a fuckin thing about those “core” problems??

       or are you another numbnuts who thinks that all these people are just too lazy to find those THOUSANDS of jobs that they created? therefore deserve to be treated like cattle..?silly question really…. we know you are..
7. Craig Glen Eden 7

   18 August 2011 at 8:55 am

   Exactly Mickey $24m being spent on big stick measures. This from the party that believes in individual responsibility supposedly . How does more state control assist individual responsibility in in these 16=17 year olds. This is desperate politics from a party that stands for nothing and has no idea on how to address the issues facing the Nation.

   Time for John the con to RUN off on holiday for a very long time, his game time has come to an end.
8. vto 8

   18 August 2011 at 8:57 am

   I really do not know how politicians do this shit.

   It is no wonder they end up with wringing hands, sweaty brows and twithces and tweaks. Benson-Pope had a good one of those.

   I guess what that shows is that you need to be very very very very good at not telling the truth.
9. Tangled up in blue 9

   18 August 2011 at 9:05 am

   To me it seems that she wasn’t talking in the context of it applying to 16-17yr old only.

   But nonetheless the card is a pragmatically useless election stunt.
10. dave brown 10

    18 August 2011 at 10:01 am

    Micromanaging youth is designed to discipline them as a potential threat to social order. It will have the effect of criminalising them as they inevitably rebel against this discipline and so create an ‘anti-social’ target for the rednecks to villify while the banskters rip off the rest of the nation’s assets. Keyword ‘fascism’.
    • Pete George 10.1

      18 August 2011 at 10:09 am

      The poor hungry people are dripping in the class war sandwich.
      • mik e 10.1.1

        18 August 2011 at 5:16 pm

        Parental Guidance If Your lots community spirit was as good as your lots scathing venality . Maybe we wouldn’t have so many young people out of work.
11. weka 11

    18 August 2011 at 10:39 am

    Here’s a copy of the letter (copied off the tv3 video)
     

    Dear [      ],
    Thank-you for your email which I received in my office on 22 February 2011 about a special credit card payment system for all people receiving a benefit. You suggest that alcohol and tobacco be forbidden purchases.
    You may be unaware that there is already a payment card in place where for any food grant that is made alcohol and tobacco are forbidden.
    I would like to explain that a  key principle of the benefit system is that benefit payments are payable to the individual who qualifies for that assistance. Youre suggestion would require the Crown to make moral judgements about the appropriateness of each decision. Such oversight by the Crown would be highly intrusive and rob individuals of their freedom of choice. Spread across the entire benefit system, this kind of oversight would impose an enormous administrative burden and cost upon Work and Income. Most people do not receive a benefit for a long period of time and move into work as soon as they can.
    It is most unfortunate that there is a small minority of income support recipients who do not use their monies prudently. I cannot agree that this should change the way welfare is paid or assessed. These people are generally well known to Work and Income and are often under the watchful eye of other organisations such as budgeters and welfare groups.
    Thank you for taking the time to write. I am always interested in receiving suggestions.
     
    Yours sincerely
     
    Paula Bennett
     

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Bennett-backtracks-on-benefit-card/tabid/370/articleID/222515/Default.aspx
    • freedom 11.1

      18 August 2011 at 12:52 pm

      “It is most unfortunate that there is a small minority of income support recipients who do not use their monies prudently. I cannot agree that this should change the way welfare is paid or assessed.”

      even if placed specifically and directly onto the 16-18 year olds currently being sent through the dock-yards for tagging, this letter shows she has done a sweet 180 on her values in five short months.
    • Vicky32 11.2

      18 August 2011 at 4:58 pm

      That letter goes to show that some “concerned citizen” wrote to Petulant Bean, suggesting some ideas he had for further benny-bashing..
      I wonder if he is the kind of person who has the WINZ ‘allegation line’ on speed dial?
12. randal 12

    18 August 2011 at 10:46 am

    I guess she is now a believer in what mathew hooton calls “rebstocks theories”?
    • Bored 12.1

      18 August 2011 at 2:46 pm

      Go wash you mouth out Randall, mentioning two nasty things in one sentence…unclean, unclean.
13. Red Rosa 13

    18 August 2011 at 12:32 pm

    OMG – if pensioners are denied their booze, there really will be a riot…;)
14. Treetop 14

    18 August 2011 at 3:20 pm

    I have done a bit of detective work to find out what is currently available through WINZ to pay for weekly expenses before a person receives their benefit. I was unable to find the following form in the download section for WINZ forms, but could find the Appointing of Agent Form.

    Redirection of Benefit Payment
    V19 – Jan 2011.

    Before I go into the contents of the form I do not know if it is a new form or an updated form or if there was a print run of the form in Jan 11.

    Redirection of benefit payment is where part or all of your benefit is paid to another person or organisation; please complete this form if you want this to happen. Requests will only be approved in special circumstances and for good reaon.

    You will need to show us why you need Work and Income to pay part or all of your benefit to another person or organisation, and why you can’t use other options, such as paying by direct debit or using your bank’s automatic payment service.

    The other person or organisation who receives your payments doesn’t have any power to act on your behalf in relation to the rest of your benefit or other dealings with us. If you want to give extra powers to another person or organisation, such as letting them access your Work and Income file or having them act on your behalf with Work and Income, you will need to complete an Appointment of Agent Form.

    When you apply for a redirection of benefit payment you will need to:

    Complete this form, including giving the reasons why you need to have part or all of your benefit paid to another person or organisation and what alternatives you have tried.

    Attach proof to support your application, for example, a recommendation from a doctor or a budget advisor, a tenancy tribunal decision, or proof from a bank that they will not provide the service you need (such as not allowing you to open an account or set up automatic payments).

    Attach proof of the bank account of the person or organisation that you want to receive your benefit payment.

    Have the person (or a representative of the organisation) who will receive part or all of your benefit to sign this form to show they agree to the redirection.

    Some of the questions in the form would deter most people from using a Redirection of Benefit Payment form e.g:

    3. Why do you need part or all of your benefit paid to another person or organisation?
    On the side Q3 note: You need to have good cause for this, for example, you are ill and unable to manage your own affairs, or you are having major problems managing your finances.

    4. Please explain what efforts you have made to find an alternative to Work and Income redirecting your benefit payments (ie, using automatic payments or direct debit).

    Bennet can quite easily tweak this form so that people can use this option if they CHOSE to.

    Does Bennet even know that there is such a thing as a Redirection of Benefit Payment form?
    • Descendant Of Smith 14.1

      18 August 2011 at 6:57 pm

      See my post yesterday re this.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/the-pernicious-food-card/

      “Requests will only be approved in special circumstances and for good reason” is there to ensure there is a high threshold before doing this.

      This part of the legislation is the same as in the 80’s when we fought for people’s rights to control their own money.

      Landlords would love you if all it required was simple tweaking:

      Nah I’ll evict if you don’t pay her benefit to me – nope piss off and exercise your legal rights that exist now

      Doctors – No more medical treatment if you don’t pay $10-00 per week

      Childcare providers – no more childcare if you don’t pay up

      Power companies – no more power if you don’t give me $50-00 per week

      Butcher, baker, candlestick maker.

      Wait who’s money is this again?

      And these people have paid taxes – they pay their tax every-time they spend money, every time they go to work, every time they do a part-time job. If they are young their parents did – I pay tax so there is a welfare state for young people, including my own children if they need it, or they will be future tax payers.

      I detest those wankers who somehow think if you lose your job, or if your husband buggers off, or if you become unwell that you are suddenly not a tax payer – you somehow magically move from pillar of society to leech.

      people can use this option if they CHOSE to

      You only refer to the illusion of choice. If you can’t get a tenancy unless you do this what choice do you really have? If you doctor won’t treat you or your counselor won’t see you what choice do you really have?
      • Treetop 14.1.1

        18 August 2011 at 7:38 pm

        I did read what you and HC had to say yesterday and have no issue with the comments.

        What I meant by tweaking the form was that no reason should be asked by the person (beneficary) who chooses to use it (redirection of payment form) and that it should not be mandatory to use the form or any other system such as a card.

        No other system is required as there is already a system which a person can use in order to ensure that their rent etc gets paid without interference by MSD. The SNG card appears to cover most of the other costs which a person may require.

        What I want to know is who introduced the redirection of payment form?
        • Descendant Of Smith 14.1.1.1

          18 August 2011 at 7:57 pm

          Dunno. The form didn’t exist in the 80’s as far as I can recall. As the legislation stood, and I presume still stands, however you couldn’t simply choose to have money re-directed – there has to be a good reason e.g. infirmity, intellectual disability, a history of not managing financially – hence needing support from a budgeter or social worker.

          Banks can do automatic payments, internet banking now exists, you can get off your butt and go pay em yourself, and so on.

          Why would you ever want the state directly paying your bills? It would increase dependency – not reduce it.
          • Treetop 14.1.1.1.1

            18 August 2011 at 8:28 pm

            Why would you ever want the state directly paying your bills?

            If at all possibly only the rent as some landlords banks are not in a lot of areas if you are away from home and not everyone likes to use direct debit or auto authority.

            The teal coloured SNG cards were an experiment and anyone who used the card were not informed as being a research participant.

            Chop the SNG card in two (remove the bar code and identifying number) and post it back to MSD and say you lost the card or a bomb fire night could be arranged in every town which has a Work and Income office.

            I do not like violence so any protest would need to be non violent. I also do not like a person’s rights being walked over.
            • Treetop 14.1.1.1.1.1

              19 August 2011 at 10:23 am

              I just want to be clear about my bomb fire night comment. A bomb fire down at the beach so that the teal/green card could be thrown onto it. If no beach a farm paddock and a fire permit.

              Also due to the tiny bank balance margin that those who struggle on, no one can afford extra bank fees.

              I don’t even own an eft pos card and I do not like internet banking.
15. Marjorie Dawe 15

    18 August 2011 at 4:04 pm

    This is going to create a whole new growth industry so which of the rich mates will benefit (oops freudian slip) this time when they get this rather large government contract. Will it be tendered openly on the market or will it just be allocated like so many other National contracts. After all, under this government the biggest beneficiaries are those getting corporate welfare.
16. Gina 16

    18 August 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Man, paula is now is now a Nanny on steroids. Get out of Kiwis fridges Paula.
17. Jimbo 17

    18 August 2011 at 8:21 pm

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/disadvantaged-children-shiver-through-polar-blast-4356380

    I think food stamps might have been of use here!
18. HC 18

    18 August 2011 at 11:05 pm

    My most humble and most urgent appeal to the MPs of the opposition in the NZ Parliament is the following:

    Keep hammering this hypocritical, obviously totally incompetent, repeatedly contradicting, over-paid, under-performing, insensitive “poodle” of the Prime Minister and Cabinet with questions about the letter she wrote months ago, her record as Minister, her performance, her bias against certain beneficiary groups, her presentation of figures about unemployment contradicting the interpretation of such by the P.M. and some statistics, and her total inability to treat the clients that her Ministry is supposed to assist in a manner that is most patronising, judgmental, unsupportive, divisive and unfair!

    We want the truth, we want fairness, reasonableness, respect, a fair chance for all, measures to provide both real training (Training Incentive Allowance for ALL courses), measures to help people into REAL jobs that pay a living wage or salary, not empty grand standing and hypocritical proclamations of no sense, no help, no value and no support.

    Paula Bennett is the most incompetent, most dishonest, most hypocritical of ALL ministers in this government, and she MUST go NOW!

    She is not delivering, not authentic, not honest, not integre to her department and the people she is supposed to help. She is a true liability to New Zealand and must be dismissed forthwith.

    Prime Minister John Key is asked to deliver on this challenge, and if he does not, he should himself resign, call an early election and face the anger of the voters in New Zealand.

    That is how I feel about all this and the rotten government we have tonight.

    Sleep well comrades and folk.

    HC

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS