No obscenities in the House - but OK for beneficiaries?
There was quite a scene in Parliament today when I dared to use the ‘f’ word not once but twice, when challenging the Government over the way some beneficiaries are treated by Work & Income staff.
The Speaker and MPs from other parties took instant umbrage when in the course of general debate I quoted a Rotorua Work & Income case manager who last week told a young mum asking for a food grant to ‘f… off’, with a big smile on his face as he did it.
I was of course required to withdraw and apologise for my use of the dreaded word. However,  I went on to point out that if MPs felt so offended at hearing this language in the House, how do they think a young solo mum might feel when addressed in this manner by a chap who has the power to grant or decline her very means of survival?
This Rotorua case is just the tip of the iceberg of course.  Some eight or nine  years after the demise of the Christine Rankin era of WINZ management it is way past time that MSD trained all its front line staff to treat beneficiaries with respect and dignity.Â
August 6th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Sue
I was watching the house today when you used that word, as far as I am concerned it was disgraceful, you had no need at all to use that type of language.
On the subject of the young mother (no doubt already on the DPB), I applaud the young man (if not his choice of language) I am sure he had a very good reason to tell this young mother to go away, he is after all the guardian of my tax dollars and we need more like him working for WINZ.
I don’t suppose you suggested the the “young mum” that she might like to get a job at all?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
One more thing, why on earth should the guardians of my tax dollars be forced to treat people who are ripping off the system with respect and dignity?
These people (WINZ staff) are experts in what they do, they can tell when somebody is deserving and when they are not, I would back the judgment of the young man in question over your judgment any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Ergh, i hate to say it but im with BB on this one.
If she didint have the means to support the child she shouldint of had one or should of put it up for adoption; the state shouldint have to support someones reproduction. having said that it needs to be insured that the child has equality of opportunity.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Sapient
Despite the claims of people like Bradford ALL children have the same opportunities in NZ, sadly not all kids have good parents but then there is nothing that can be done about this while we continue with a socialist government.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Did she not get her benefit, or was she asking for over and above the generous amount already provided by taxpayers?
If over and above, then it sounds like he was doing his job, although I certainly don’t condone the language and approach.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Hmm, that’s a nice simple answer Big Bro. Put the mother back to work and protect your tax dollars. But wait, I guess that means you’ll also be supporting universal free early childcare and early childhood education, extensions to flexible work employment provisions and and the Working for Families program for this woman who you are sending back to work.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Frog
Do you really want me to reply to that loaded question?
I would not support ANY more waste of my tax dollars.
This “young mum” should not be receiving one penny at all of my money, I suspect she is part of the baby factory that is a direct result of the DPB.
I repeat, the young man at WINZ deserves to be rewarded for his prudent action’s and outstanding judgment.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Here’s a link to the transcript of the oral question:
and here’s the speech to the house:
August 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
What on earth is wrong with WINZ staff pushing people off benefits and back to work?
Or does Comrade Sue think that it is the right of these low life’s to sponge of the rest of us simply because they cannot be bothered getting a job.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I don’t think you would find too many full time mothers who agreed with you that they ‘did not have a job’.
Big Bro, putting aside your apparent call for the sterilization of people who might end up on a benefit at some stage in the future, let’s assume the child of a mother on a benefit is already born and now hungry. Should he or she starve because his or her parent is refused a benefit in order to save you some taxes? That seems to be the gist of your argument.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Frog
The child of this mother will be on the DPB, if she cannot afford to feed the kid then that child should be removed from here immediately and put into care of offered up for adoption.
Sue Bradford seems to think that it is the job of the tax payer to provide an endless fund for these low life parents.
The receive enough of my money as it is and if they cannot manage on that then they are obviously not providing the necessities of life for the child and as such the child should be removed.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
big bro your attitude disgusts me. Whether or not the woman in question was ‘deserving’ by your selfish standards or not, she should be treated with respect by any public servant payed by my tax dollars. I patiently await the day when you arrive in the bread line cap in hand through no fault of your own, and are served a heaping helping of humble pie.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
well if she was trying to get more than the, already large, amount she is ‘entitled’ to then he was in the right. even the best can loose their cool when confronted consistently by whining bludgers.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
My experience of front-line WINZ staff is that they can be pretty incompetent. My partner and I were formally investigated once by WINZ goons - for being married! We never found out why WINZ had a problem with us getting less than we would have if we were both single.
I’d say, BB, that a child abandoned by one parent has enough problems with out being removed from someone who does care enough to stick around. However, I do agree with you that the Govt should pay childcare so solo parents can go back to work, if that’s what they want.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
sorry sapient, and blue peter. Your attitudes disgust me too. I didn’t mean to discriminate in my expression of dismay at your complete lack of compassion, let alone manners.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Sapient Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
> well if she was trying to get more than the, already large, amount she is ‘entitled’ to then he was in the right.
Under the New Zealand benefit system, the question of what one is ‘entitled to’ is often quite complicated. If the child had an illness or disability that led to long-term medical costs, the mother may have been entitled to a disability allowance and/or a child disability allowance to pay for it. If the mother’s car broke down and she needed it to get to a part-time job, she would be entitled to a repayable advance to pay for the repair. If she needed emergency dental work done, she may have been entitled to an extra grant to pay for that.
The benefit rate is set on the assumption that it is not enough to pay for things like that, so that people will actually have to ask for more money for those things. It’s not the beneficiary’s fault if she has to ask for extra assistance without knowing whether she’s entitled to it or not, and if the case manager doesn’t know either. The way the system is designed makes that almost inevitable.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
lol, well, caraka, you bleeding-heart liberals discust me too. besides who cares about manners? they are completly superfluous. and compasion is just as bad.
Though i do support everything in frogs post except the WFF.
If someone does not have the guarantied resources to raise a child then they should not have a child. its that simple. there is no reason why the state should sponser someone having children unless there is a shortage, and that is not the case.
Ever watched Idiocracy? its a somewhat comedic film, also a process that results from the society bradford advocates, probally what spawned you too…
August 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
K,
emphasis on the “‘entitled’”.
I advocate eugenics, you think i care about someone being ‘entitled’ to extra money cause their a F#$K up? I only even suppor the benifit cause it has socially positive results when implimented correctly.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Sapient - I hope that you end up standing in the bread line soon too, right behind - no, in front of big bro, (through no fault of your own), and also enjoying a heaping helping of humble pie. Then we’ll have a chat about compassion and manners you ungrateful sh*t. You don’t deserve the society you live in! I curse you to live in a society that cares about people as much as you do!
August 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
BluePeter asked: Did she not get her benefit, or was she asking for over and above the generous amount already provided by taxpayers? If over and above, then it sounds like he was doing his job…
BP, that’s not how it should work. Anyone should have the right to approach Work and Income and make an application for assistance. The application should be processed, according to the individual circumstances of the applicant (the facts) and the application of the legislation, regulations, Ministerial Directions and/or Ministerial Welfare Programmes in force at the time (the law) to those facts. A decision should then be made to grant or decline the assistance applied for. That decision should be communicated in writing to the applicant, and rights of review notified in case the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and wishes to challenge it.
That is what natural justice demands. Simply telling an applicant, however justified or unjustified their application may be, to “f… off” is not only incredibly rude and unprofessional, but also unlawful.
Sapient, neither you or I know anything about the circumstances of this woman when she had the child or children. For all we know, she may have been in a long-term relationship with a partner who was quite capable of financially supporting the child and who has since “done a runner”, or has died, or has abused her. Please do not judge without knowing the facts.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hey caraka your attitude disgusts me as well.
While the I do agree the WINZ worker shouldn’t of said Fuck Off to the women. A benefit is not a state entitlement it is a state privallege something the Thief Sue Bradford should do well to remember.
Hey if i ever got my way, the benefits would only pay for essential food, housing and essential clothing and education supplies for thier children, nothing else. The clothing would probably all be recycled second hand clothing too. Things beneficiary’s would not be able to spend my money on alchol, smokes, gambling, etc.
Everyone has to remember that it is not the beneficiary’s money that they are spending it is our money that they are spending and we should have a say in how that money is spent.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
lol,toad, in 2 of those 3 cases its her own fault, but then again you wouldint see it that way, and reguardless of case if she is able to generate an income then she should be able to work during the day and put the child in day care, as she should, and if she is unable to work she shouldint be getting a benifit or having a child in the first place.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I advocate eugenics, you think i care about someone being ‘entitled’ to extra money cause their a F#$K up? I only even suppor the benifit cause it has socially positive results when implimented correctly.
Frog, I really don’t see the point of allowing people to post like that on this blog. It turns this place into a debate dominated by reactionaries, and prevents meaningful discussion of the topic. I know that moderation of blogs is a tricky thing, but when I see discussions like the one on this page, I mostly think I can’t be bothered saying anything.
I doubt I’m the only one that feels that way.
I think toad’s last post summed it up pretty well. The issue here isn’t the validity of solo parents, it’s whether a public servant was doing their job properly and lawfully.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
A benefit is not a state entitlement
Actually current WINZ policy is now to use the term ‘entitlement’ themselves when referring to what beneficiaries can get. Special Needs Grants for food have certain criteria and if met then there has to be a good reason for someone to be turned down.
Irrespective of all that no-one deserves to be told to fuck off in that kind of situation.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
What an interesting debate.
Firstly why didn’t comrade Sue just say “F” off?, oh thats right she was trying to make a point in the house she has so much respect for, silly me.
Secondly I don’t think anyone can have any self respect or dignity when on the dole, that dosen’t mean they should be abused, but some of the crap that WINZ staff have to put up with must push them to breaking point quite regularly.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Sapient said: …in 2 of those 3 cases its her own fault, but then again you wouldint see it that way
The woman’s fault!!! No, I certainly don’t see it that way Sapient. Are you a mysogynist? How can it be the woman’s fault if her partner does a runner or beats her up and she then chucks him out, and she’s left on her own with the kids and no financial support?
Please explain!
August 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
akew - I suspect the excitement of the trifecta of Sue Bradford’s first frogblog post, the chance for some beneficiary bashing and naughty swear words just overwhelmed some people and they need to get it out of their system. I’m hoping normal transmission will resume tomorrow with some on topic and respectful debate.
It would be interesting to discuss for instance, putting aside one’s personal feelings about benefits and beneficiaries, how WINZ staff should be expected to treat people who come into their office to apply for benefits as they are currently legally entitled to do. And, should their primary consideration be customer/client service or saving money?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
What about the ones who won’t name the father or the ones who have a bloke on the quiet?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
What about the ones who won’t name the father or the ones who have a bloke on the quiet?
Yes, that’s really the relevant question here *rolls eyes*
It would be interesting to discuss for instance, putting aside one’s personal feelings about benefits and beneficiaries, how WINZ staff should be expected to treat people who come into their office to apply for benefits as they are currently legally entitled to do. And, should their primary consideration be customer/client service or saving money?
Couldn’t agree more, frog
August 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The manner of my posts seems to be progresivly deteroating into that of BB/Phil, its disturbing realy. Though akew should put a sock in it.
It is NOT the responsibility of state to provide for an individual past the point of aiding in their immediate survival so that they can get back to work.
If an individual chooses not to work and to instead be a stay at home parent (sorry phil) then that is all fine and dandy but they better hope they have a large fourtune or a partner to support them because it is not the duty of the state to suckle them!
I beleive the state should impliment a voucher system for daycare, then these people will have no excuse.
further more, increasing benifits and increasing benifit number accually makes it worse for the benificiaries as it decreases job availibility as ultimatly it means more tax and more tax meand greater marginal costs which means fewer jobs and ultimatly less cash to support the benificiaries who accually do deserve it.
Toad,
I shall explain then.
In both those cases the problem lies in the victimised partner having chosen the wrong person to make a partner. If they get beat up its partially their fault for being with someone who would beat them up in the first place. if they get left behind its their fault for chosing someone whos unreliable.
its called courtship, pretty mucht the whole point is to determe ow viable it is to procreate with the person, if one is stupid enough to make a bad choice its their fault.Theres no misogyny about it, the same goes if a male was the victim.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Frog,
Public servents should do what they are employed to do, there is nothing to discuss.
if they are employed to dish out benifits they should.
if they are employed to save money the should.
if they are employed to ensure that an indvidual receives the money they are legaly entitled to when certain conditions are met and not when they are not met then that is what they should do.
Sadly sue, the profesional victim, doesint tell us the situation so we cannot remark on that. so we are left to talk about the virtues of the system itself.
Everyone can blow their top, maybe they had a hard day, maybe the individual is a drug dealer who constantly tries to scam the system and bugs him 24/7. we dont know, we dont have the information. you always claim that public servants arnt ‘evil’, so how about just working with what we know and assume that he may have had a legitimate reason to blow his top like that.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
You’ve won some votes:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/08/06/distortions-i n-housing-market-remain-says-bollard/#comment-6409
and lost some [refer Comrade Sproutford]
August 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
A party pertaining to be primarily about the environment and (once was) Values should take more of an objective and balanced approach to an issue involving birth responsibilites, biology and evolution, family, social policy and incentives. Why other than naked selfish political ambition of far left-wingers does the “green” party have so many from the far left?
Thoreau anyone?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Gee there are some are spiteful little worms commenting on here aren’t there. Quite sad that there are such people in NZ.
Dudes, you know nothing about the woman. Secondly, there IS a safety net and it has been put there by democratic process.
Give the benefit of the doubt before frothing at the mouth with hate and stupidity.
Any public servant in customer service, who actually speaks to the public like that, should simply be sacked. Quite obvious for normal reasonable people really.
Try to think up some creative, compassionate and reasonable solutions, instead of miserable punitive drivel aimed at the most vulnerable, you pathetic miserable little worms.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Are we bashing beneficiary’s only on August the 6th or are we continuing onto the 7th as well and since its still the 6th here can i still bash beneficiary’s.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:52 am
As much as I hate seeing my tax dollars squandered on all sorts of loony projects by the current administration I think that Sue Bradford’s questions sounds entirely reasonable. No doubt Ruth Dyson will have the case looked into. If the young woman in question was not entitled to have her request met she is still entitled to a polite refusal. If she causes trouble then that is a matter for the security guards or police.
I think Peter Dunne needs to get over himself: when we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs regularly calling journalists ‘wankers’ then it is very precious to object to ‘fuck off’.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I think my comment went into moderation because I quoted Sue Bradfords quote and Winston Peters. Is the filter set to block ‘Winston Peters’
August 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
i see some sensitive are shocked at the levels of irrational abuse piled upon sole parents..by the rabid righties..
but you shouldn’t feel angry at them..
..cos’ their anger comes from their deep frustration..
..at being forever ‘uncool’/'un-hip’..
i
it’s an inferiority complex thing..
..and it may be hard to see..but under that foaming anger..
..those righties are hurting..
..(and do deserve our sympathy..eh..?)
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/in-hindsight-dr-smith-realised-the-man-could-n ot-have-been-a-young-nat-he-was-too-hip/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 7th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I don’t think the left in the Green party know much about “worms” frankly. A “green” party (other than green washed) wouldn’t stand at the advocacy level but at a more objective level as I stated above.
……………………………
Morning Report:
Boy was she angry: she’d already explained her financial situation but as that person was away she had to go over it again. She was so angry she couldn’t right her complaint down. She wanted him “sued! I mean fired!”. “If people do behave badly it’s his job to deal with it” (he should be able to put up with it)….. the customers always right..
The guy obviously lost his cool.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:01 am
BB, BP, Sapient, turnip28: “Bigot” is not a term I use lightly, but I think it quite appropriately describes the attitude you guys express here. Your attitude appears to be that it is okay to arbitrarily (and very rudely) decline a legitimate application for a beneficiary without properly investigating the circumstances - simply because she is a beneficiary. BB even goes as far, without any evidence, as to suggest she is “ripping off the system” (and by implication, all beneficiaries are).
Now, what would you guys think if a property developer approached their local Council to apply for a resource consent and was told to “f*** off”?
Or if a motor vehicle importer approaching an LTNZ agent to register the vehicles he had just imported was told to “f*** off”?
Or if a woman who wanted to lay a complaint of sexual assault against a policeman approached the Police and was told to “f*** off”? [Oops, that one did happen in a number of cases in the Bay of Plenty, didn’t it? Although not with such rude language].
This isn’t about the rights and wrongs of benefit eligibility - it is about public servants behaving in a proper and lawful manner in their dealings with members of the public.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Clap loudly Toad in some cases.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:13 am
jh, much as my guts tells me I would like to see some applications for resource consents being summarily dismissed (the Genesis Energy gas-fired power station proposal springs to mind), my brain tells me to accept that they have a right to a decision being made according proper and lawful processes.
If you start making exceptions to due process for one group of people, then it rapidly becomes an open slather law of the jungle.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:13 am
caraka
>>sorry sapient, and blue peter. Your attitudes disgust me too.
Fair enough. However, many WINZ jobs only exist because people DO abuse entitlements (translation: taxpayer generosity). I don’t have a problem providing for the genuinely needy, and I pay over and above what the state demands of me in charity. I do have a problem with people who abuse this generosity.
I don’t know what the case was here, however if benefit abuse was occurring, then he is simply doing his job. Like I say, I disagree with the method and language.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:20 am
toad
“That is what natural justice demands. Simply telling an applicant, however justified or unjustified their application may be, to “f… offâ€? is not only incredibly rude and unprofessional, but also unlawful.”
I agree, as stated in my post.
However, I think we can all imagine the type of people WINZ staff must deal with. Many will be legitimate, but there will always be a few who systematically abuse the system. Are you suggesting we roll over for these people so long as they produce a sob story? What precedent would that set?
It’s a shame we can’t allocate proportions of our tax. If the bleeding hearts want to fund every sob story, then they can pay a higher level of tax to do so. Those who feel they wish to provide a safety net with clear boundaries, can pay the lower amount
August 7th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Where is the child’s father? Where is the whanau/ family? Are there any able bodied people associated with this woman who couldn’t step in in the absence of the state?
SST has an article about how much tax we all pay; you forget about ACC petrol tax etc, etc.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:30 am
A few years back I went through the process of applying for Working For Families. I was reluctant to as it seemed demeaning for a working couple to have to interact with the welfare system but it seemed the only way we were going to see any of our tax dollars back. Better in our bank account than being squandered on broken down trains, homeopathy or ‘Hoodie Day’.
After dealing with the bureaucratic robots at MSD for several weeks I certainly felt like telling them to ‘f*** off you overpaid, robotic w******’ ( is that the correct number of stars??. We were turned down because although we met all income criteria etc we had too many assets i.e. be careful with your money and the government will take more off you to give to those who aren’t.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:31 am
“It’s a shame we can’t allocate proportions of our tax. If the bleeding hearts want to fund every sob story, then they can pay a higher level of tax to do so. Those who feel they wish to provide a safety net with clear boundaries, can pay the lower amount ;)”
Agreed!!!
August 7th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Toad
Come on, you can do better than label those who appose you as bigots.
In my case (and you can check one of my first comments on this topic) I said that I deplore the language the young man used however I applaud his actions.
WINZ need to toughen up, when people who are already receiving generous benefits come asking for more they SHOULD be put through the wringer.
If they want more (including a food voucher) they should have to account for every cent of the money they already received to prove that they are a genuine case and not simply a low life who has spent all their benefit on booze or drugs and now do not have enough to feed the children.
Toad you use the analogy of the LTNZ worker or the council worker who might tell an applicant to f off and they are good examples however if I approached LTNZ and asked them to pay for my vehicle registration as I have no money they would more than likely tell me to f off.
Going to WINZ for more of MY money is not dissimilar to going to the bank to ask for an overdraft, I cannot walk into the bank and demand one without providing proof that I need it or can service it.
I hope the young man is censured for swearing then promoted for acting in the best interest of the tax payer.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Toad,
“BB, BP, Sapient, turnip28: “Bigotâ€? is not a term I use lightly, but I think it quite appropriately describes the attitude you guys express here. ”
I think you use it quite lightly. I have never called anyone that name on this blog.
You also misrepresent me. I have stated that I do not agree with his use of language or his method. Personally, I think it is grounds for dismissal.
>>Your attitude appears to be that it is okay to arbitrarily (and very rudely) decline a legitimate application for a beneficiary without properly investigating the circumstances
Of course he should investigate the circumstances. That is his job. But what are the circumstances? Was she abusive? Was she systematically attempting to get more than she is entitled to?
This is the problem with the DPB. Giving money to some people who have no idea how to manage it. They then need someone to manage it for them (WINZ), which costs the taxpayer more still.
I would replace the DPB with a personal insurance welfare scheme. Everyone gets an account at birth, the government contributes, and the balance builds up. If you’re out of work for a time, you can use it as you see fit. If you never use it, you can pass it on to your kids.
If you drain it, then your CHILD goes on a voucher system. This voucher system would need to be monitored to prevent abuse (probably in the form of a debit card). The parent gets a standard unemployment benefit for a limited period.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Well said Blue Peter
August 7th, 2008 at 8:37 am
The language IS the action we’re talking about, no?
August 7th, 2008 at 8:38 am
That’s because a car is not necessary for survival, whereas food is.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Vouchers are an interesting one though…
August 7th, 2008 at 8:39 am
BluePeter said: Are you suggesting we roll over for these people so long as they produce a sob story?
No, BP. If someone is not entitled to receive assistance, then they should not receive assistance. All I am suggesting is that due process as set out in the law should be followed.
However, many WINZ jobs only exist because people DO abuse entitlements
Yes, there are a little over 200 staff employed in the Benefit Control Unit of Work and Income. They are specifically charged with preventing and detecting benefit abuse and fraud. The Benefit Control Unit saves Work and Income far more money in overpayments prevented and recovered than it costs to operate.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:44 am
and ..of course..the first question to ask these rabid nutters..
..who regularly pile abuse upon sole parents..and the like..
..is if they are sucking up any of that sweet sweet w.f.f. money..?
..that usually shuts them up/brings an ‘embarrassed’ silence..
(or a protestation of ‘none of your business’..followed by that embarrassed silence..)
(y’know..word-of-the-week..?..’
..’hypocrisy’..?)
..and really..this whole ‘debate’ can be brought down to that basic left/right divide..
..as a rough rule of thumb..cebntre-left thinks communally..
..the right is the individualistic/i don’t give a flying f*ck about anyone else..
that..combined with their inferiority complexes..
..pretty much explains their gibberings..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
..
August 7th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Agree with you totally toad,
BB,BP, Sapient and others, you are getting the “right to a benefit” debate mixed up with the personal misfortune of a person having to deal with the SYSTEM.
By all means argue about the system. But dont drag this unfortunate lady into the debate, she is taking a benefit based on the system NOW in place.
I have a tenant who is single with two kids on the DPB. We take an interest in her wellbeing (for business and personal reasons - we are surrogate grandparents to her kids).
Now the run around she gets from the worst WINZ office (Manurewa) is astonishing.
Benefit cut without notice and never back payed (usual reason is that she did not fill out a form posted the week before but that never arrive - a form that needs to be seen by the case officer for whom an appointment is at least three weeks minimum away), a 4 hour wait to see the duty officer who can only give out food grants due to hardship but not fix the non payment problem, rude and belligerent reception staff who treat the benificiaries like s**t, entitlements given to Maori and PI are not given to her (fuel for tangis is a classic), etc, etc, etc, etc.
Yes I think there is racism in WINZ.
Her friends with brown skin get their entitlements very easily compared to her.
Now go to the building itself. Walk in and small the adour, It stinks, no fresh air at all. No privacy, open plan offices mean the background noise is horrific, everyone can hear what is said.
No facilities for child minding (creche), no parking (the car park is now a park and ride for the new Manurewa railway station).
Our tenant has automatic payments set up for her bills but when the benefit does not go through, she cops fees from KiwiBank. To deal with KiwiBank she has to go to the local post office and talk to someone in Wellington? by phone. The tellers dont handle enquiries. Again in a public place with no privacy.
Because WINZ have casued so many banking problems with non payment of benefits, the only bank that will take her account is KiwiBank.
So my challenge to BB,BP Salpient and others is come and sit in the reception area of the Manureqwa WINZ office for a couple of hours and see how the SYSTEM treats beneficiaries.
I am on your side in regards that changes to the SYSTEM are required, but to argue that the benficiaries (DPB anyway) have an easy ride is pure hocum.
Another gripe with WINZ is that they dont publish a list of entitlements. These have to be weedled out of them and even if you know and ask for an entitlement you are due for, the case officer will flatly refuse. Cause to much trouble and your benefit will dry up for a week.
The case officers, being on a bonus to minimise payouts, have become incarnates of hitler. Hell has no more fury than a case officer who you have upset.
Leaving the benificiary totally helpless.
So are you guys up to the challenge and come down/up to the Manurewa WINZ office and see the SYSTEM at work, talk to the people whop have to deal with WINZ and get real feedback? Train stops right outside.
Then perhaps you change the SYSTEM, to what you want.
But remember the transition period from where the SYSTEM is now to where you see it’s final grand design.
Let me know what trerain you are on and I’ll meet you there. Then perhaps we go to the Papakura court to see hopw the rest of the SYSTEM works and how you will fix that and the transition from the existing to the new will happen.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
and ..of course..the first question to ask these rabid nutters..
..who regularly pile abuse upon sole parents..and the like..
..is if they are sucking up any of that sweet sweet w.f.f. money..?
..that usually shuts them up/brings an ‘embarrassed’ silence..
(or a protestation of ‘none of your business!’..followed by that embarrassed silence..)
(y’know..word-of-the-week..?..’
..’hypocrisy’..?)
..and really..this whole ‘debate’ can be brought down to that basic left/right divide..
..as a rough rule of thumb..cebntre-left thinks communally..
..the right is the individualistic/i don’t give a flying feck about anyone else..
that..combined with their inferiority complexes..
..pretty much explains their gibberings..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
..
August 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
BB said: …however if I approached LTNZ and asked them to pay for my vehicle registration as I have no money they would more than likely tell me to f off.
In most circumstances, I would suggest they should politely decline (not tell you to f off. However, there may be circumstances (for example if you are on the dole, have no money to pay for it, and have a job offer somewhere that you can’t get to by public transport) where they should pay for it, because doing so would get you into work and off the dole.
As I said above, each application should be considered according to its individual circumstances.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:01 am
The issue here (for me anyway) is twofold, one is that this woman feels she has the “right” to walk into one of the offices that I pay for and demand more of my money without having to justify why she needs it or what she has done with the money I have already given her.
The second is the deplorable actions of Bradford and her conviction that welfare is a bottomless pit that we (the 95% who did NOT vote for her) should keep paying into.
Despite the assurances of Toad to the contrary I have never seen or heard Bradford condemn benefit fraudsters, indeed all she ever seems to say about these people is that they should get more money for doing nothing all day.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
and um..!..
…how come sue bradford can use the ‘f’ word in its’ full glory in this forum..
..but if i try it..using an * in place of the ‘u’..
..it is sent to moderation..
..do the green mp’s have a special ‘curse/over-ride’/privilege..?
..is that one of the ‘perks’ of the job..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 7th, 2008 at 9:04 am
If anybody ever doubts that benefit fraud is widespread then you only need use Philu as evidence.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:05 am
are you..(or any of ‘yours’) sucking up any of that ’sweet sweet’ w.f.f. money..?
big bro..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
BluePeter said: You also misrepresent me. I have stated that I do not agree with his use of language or his method. Personally, I think it is grounds for dismissal.
Sorry, BP, reading back through the posts I now think I wrongly lumped you in with others with that categorisation. I acknowledge your earlier posts were much more thoughtful and moderate than some.
BTW, I recall an incident a number of years back when a staff member at what was then the Department of Social Welfare told a woman applying for supplementary assistance that she wasn’t going to get any more, and if she didn’t like it she should go and get a job in one of the parlours down in Fort Street (for those unfamiliar with Auckland, Fort Street is a red light district). Anyone think that one’s acceptable behaviour for a public servant?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Good point, Philu.
Fair points, Gerritt.
However, just to be crystal clear, I do not know the circumstances. If WINZ are at fault - and they certainly are in one respect, the use of inappropriate language - then they must apologise and put it right.
As for the system, it shouldn’t even be there. I’d disband WINZ overnight and replace it with a government supplemented personal insurance scheme.
If the world really does turn to economic custard, open-ended welfare will be the first luxury to go. It will be unsustainable.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:12 am
>>Sorry, BP,
Thankyou Toad.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:13 am
philu asked: …how come sue bradford can use the ‘f’ word in its’ full glory in this forum..
Suspect like most blogs, the filters operate only on comments, not on authors.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Hey philu, how does applying for WFF when one otherwise would not get any money back (like say, with a tax cut) make someone a hypocrite for criticising an aspect of the welfare system? Any rational person has to apply - would you still be saying this if everyone had to apply for October’s tax cuts?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Well toad since prostitution is now legal in NZ can WINZ take away someone’s benefit for refusing a brothel job?
Hey as of next week i’ll will be unemployed as I have quit my job here in the US and am heading back to Auckland, maybe i’ll head down to the local WINZ office when i get back and see if they will give me any money, I suspect once they see my bank account it will be a big fat no or maybe a fuck off.
But technically once i’m back in NZ i’ll be unemployed so that means i have to stop hanging out with BP, BB and all the other blog bigots.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I resent the WFF as well PhilU and I and my partner will not be able to get it once we are in New Zealand and working next year, Of course National isn’t going to scrap it anytime soon.
I happen to think the WFF was a classic example of government tax discrimination, since anyone with out a child was discrimanated against. why is it that someone with more children should pay less tax when they use more state services than the people with no children, doesn’t make any sense to me, then again sense and the New Zealand parliment don’t go well together.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Phul
No.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Someone ought to do a comprehensive Target on WINZ. White woman/ brown woman actors.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Gerrit- Thankyou for that. It’s nice to see someone who disagrees with welfare in general who still thinks beneficiaries deserve respect and care just like any other person.
Could the rest of you righties please stop banging on about how unfair and abused the benefit system is and actually spare a moment for the topic at hand- whether public servants have a right to be rude to the public?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Turnip28:
>>Well toad since prostitution is now legal in NZ can WINZ take away someone’s benefit for refusing a brothel job?
It appears you have already found an answer to your unemployment problem then. Good luck to you!
And, by the way, the system is designed to help people in financial hardship, not well-off people who quit their jobs. If you come back to New Zealand, need assistance finding affordable accommodation and a ‘tie-over’ until you get employment, I hope you can rock on down to your local WINZ and get the assistance you are entitled to. Otherwise I think you should let the resources be distributed to people who really need it.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I believe they’ve actually said they would NOT do that.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Incidentally, WINZ gave D-Vice the business start up grant, but now have a policy of no longer giving grants to the sex industry!
August 7th, 2008 at 10:19 am
or did he just loose his cool? you could spin it either way not knowing the individuals (ie you are loading an assumption regarding how unreasonable the public servant was in this case). I prejudged it as the former not helped by my impression of Sue Bradford as a surly advocate rather than a balanced policy maker. TV3 commented “and Sue Bradfords the wrong person to sell it” re the anti smacking bill… same thing here.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
turnip28 asked:Well toad since prostitution is now legal in NZ can WINZ take away someone’s benefit for refusing a brothel job?
No - see section 18 Prostitution Reform Act 2003:
18 Refusal to work as sex worker does not affect entitlements
(1) A person’s benefit, or entitlement to a benefit, under the Social Security Act 1964 may not be cancelled or affected in any other way by his or her refusal to work, or to continue to work, as a sex worker (and, in this case, that work is not suitable employment for that person under that Act).
(2) A person’s entitlements under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 may not be lost or affected in any other way by his or her being capable of working as a sex worker if he or she refuses to do, or to continue to do, that kind of work.
(3) In this section, refusal means a refusal to do this kind of work in general, rather than a refusal of a particular job or at a particular time.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
>>hope you can rock on down to your local WINZ
You see, some of us would not even see it as an option. Welfare should be for when one has NO other option, not just used because it is readily available and one has an “entitlement”.
Lack of pride destroys people.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:26 am
BTW - did you see the woman who joined the army, with her partner, on TV last night? Maori, 27 years old, 5 kids. Decided to take life into her own hands, and move her kids away from an environment of welfare-fuelled destruction.
I want to give that woman a medal.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Blue Peter
I watched that as well, one can only assume that she had to fight off hoards of social workers and left wing do gooders telling her that she was taking an awful risk.
The woman deserves more than a medal.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am
>>Lack of pride destroys people.
BluePeter. I will be the first to admit on this blog that I have been on the dole, twice. Both times, I had just returned from overseas, the first time I was on the benefit for less than a month, the second time it was less than two weeks (they didn’t even get time to get my payments running). Both times I found employment, the second time I had to move towns because even I could see that apart from working at MacDonalds there were no job opportunities.
I can state uncatagorically that at no time did I have any ‘lack of pride’.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Ari,
I dont disagree with welfare in general (though am more of the right wing then left persuasion) but would like the SYSTEM overhauled.
There should be a safety net. Just that the one we have is disfunctional.
However no staff member of WINZ should be rude to the public and in return no member of the public who is rude to a WINZ staff member should receive any service from a WINZ employee.
Every business i have worked in has always had the rule that any abuse will not be tolerated, either from staff or customer.
However we are all human beings and tempers will rise. Especially in a WINZ office. But why do they make the WINZ office so confrontational?
Maybe they need to restructure the bonus system so that they get bonusses on satified customers rather then how much money they have saved from not fullfilling the benificiaries entitlements.
And why is it so hard to find published entitlements for individual benefits?
Is there a benchmark for measuring customer satisfaction at WINZ and who does that audit?
Having berated WINZ, I must say that when my mother passed away, they did not ask for the two weeks pension she had been payed but then not really entitled to, to be returned. Even though I offered to.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Look, why don’t all you anti-collective responsibility individualists just accept that you are totally out of step with New Zealand’s social and political culture and move to somewhere more to your liking - India or Brazil or some other dump where people without a job and who can’t find charity or a supportive relative get to head off and die in the gutter?
New Zealand has a deep streak of collectivism, something developed over years and in response to the problems caused by individualistic social rules. This is at times problematic, but most kiwi’s still see it as better than the alternative. If you don’t like that, fair enough, but why sit here whingeing about it?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Sam
Did you apply the same “logic” to the anti smacking legislation?
Need I remind you that 82% of the population did not want it or are you simply being a hypocrite?
Kiwi’s (including me) do believe in a safety net, what many of us do not like is that people like Bradford seem to think that working for a living is an option and that if you do not feel like it then you need not worry as the rest of us will pay for your lifestyle.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
NZ’s “social and political culture” is center left and center right. That’s not where the Green Party is.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
The army is evidently a hell of a lot more family friendly than I thought!?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
>>Meghan
Why go on it at all, especially for that short period of time. To me, that indicates a lack of planning (i.e. saving for a rainy day)
August 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Sam, we do believe in a safety net.
We do not support a system which perpetuates social dysfunction and alienation.
The lax “entitlement” system needs to be returned to the status of a safety net.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
In this respect, I empathise with the (very) old school socialists, like my grandfather.
The old school socialists in the UK mining towns believed in supporting others. But they expected people to contribute first. If you didn’t contribute, you were entitled to nothing.
That’s how it worked….
August 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Ok here is what we should do fire the WINZ employee and make him live on the benefit for the next 6 months.
btw most of us support a safety net but what we have in NZ is a safety web, which isn’t good. Remember what ever safety nets we offer have to be paid for by the taxpayers.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
BluePeter - obviously I had no prior knowledge of how long I was going to take finding a job. And as far as more background to hows and whys, I am not going to go into that with you, I don’t need to. Simply I have to say that nothing is black and white, and with all the planning in the world it is still possible to find yourself needing help. And I am glad it was there when I needed it. I was also in my early twenties at this point too - so ’saving for a rainy day’ was over-riden by ‘living day to day’.
Would like to hear more of your ’safety net’plan, How does this look? How is it different?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Gerrit asked: And why is it so hard to find published entitlements for individual benefits?
I’ve always wondered that too Gerrit. IRD havea really good interactive website. Why can’t Work and Income do the same?
I must say that when my mother passed away, they did not ask for the two weeks pension she had been payed but then not really entitled to, to be returned.
That’s because of subsections 80BD(4) and (5) if the Social Security Act 1964 Gerrit .
Just one detail among thousands in this extraordinarily complex Act that anyone who is unfamiliar with it will not find in a month of Sundays looking through Work and Income’s brochures or their website.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:19 am
>>Would like to hear more of your ’safety net’plan, How does this look? How is it different?
I’ve outlined it my posts above. Scroll up….
It provides more personal control at the highest level, thus doing away with WINZ altogether, whilst at the lowest level, it directly provides and manages spend to ensure genuine welfare is administered.
Lower overheads, more benefit.
What say you?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Great idea BP.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Wow, there’s nothing like a story about a beneficiary … no, about a woman on the DPB to bring out the trash.
First of all, if you get a benefit, a proportion of that is taxed.
Second, anyone can apply for a food grant - whether you are on a benefit or not.
Third - BluePeter - lack of pride is not what this is about … it takes a certain amount of pride (and probably a fierce determination to feed your kid) to ask WINZ for what are currently entitlements under law.
It’s interesting how some people assume the woman was ripping off the system. Beneficiary bashing is obviously still the number one sport for some. I wonder if they’re as passionate about white-collar crime, which costs the country infinitely more than a $100 food grant. And even if 1000 people ripped the country off of $100 food grants (which, btw, cannot be used to buy alcohol or tobacco), we’re not even scratching the surface of the cost to this country of the people who are really ripping it off.
Back to the point: the man has got to go. If any of us in our job told a ‘customer’ to f off, we’d have a lot of explaining to do.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
>>t takes a certain amount of pride (and probably a fierce determination to feed your kid) to ask WINZ for what are currently entitlements under law.
So what do you think of my idea, then?
Under my plan, you wouldn’t have to ask WINZ for anything. They wouldn’t exist.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
toad,
Makes you wonder how many of the WINZ case officers know the entitlements inside out, before they are thrown into the office and in direct confrontation with their customers?
How well are they trained?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
BluePeter: I thought there was something in your first idea about targeting where our tax dollars went. Of course, I’m sure 90% of people would unsubscribe from paying politicians and public servants, so there goes the government.
I don’t know about a universal benefit - which is kind of what you’re describing. I prefer a needs-based system. You do realise that certain economic philosophies call for a degree of structural unemployment - whereby it is good management to retain a level of unemployment to ensure competition and willingness to do the really sh!tty jobs.
I have heard many politicians say we will never have full employment again, so I’d like the unemployment benefit to be renamed ‘unemployment compensation’ as it’s obvious a small level of unemployment is central to our National/Labour (I get confused) government’s economic policies.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Go Sue! Awesome work. Love it.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“..tephenR Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Hey philu, how does applying for WFF when one otherwise would not get any money back (like say, with a tax cut) make someone a hypocrite for criticising an aspect of the welfare system? Any rational person has to apply - would you still be saying this if everyone had to apply for October’s tax cuts?..”
so..family support from the state is ok for you…?
..but not for sole parents..raising children on their own..?
(do i need to point out how that makes you look..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz
August 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Would seem that I was talking past you/misunderstood phil - I just made the ’sole parents’ connection. I get you now. Yes, WFF not great. Tax cuts for all then?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Gerrit said: Makes you wonder how many of the WINZ case officers know the entitlements inside out, before they are thrown into the office and in direct confrontation with their customers? How well are they trained?
In my experience (I used to work as an advocate for beneficiaries and ACC claimants) not very well. Although it might have improved over the last 6 years since I last had close involvement. Maybe Sue Bradford could ask the Minister some written parliamentary questions about this and get back to us with the replies.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
>>certain economic philosophies call for a degree of structural unemployment
I know. But I do not like this aspect of these philosophies, due to the damage they can do to people, and the community. If no one wants to do the sh&it$y jobs, then the compensation should rise.
I accept the point that there will always be a group of people who are essentially unemployable. However, not all of those currently unemployed fall into this group, and it is not all due to structural reasons.
There is a danger viewing all these people as victims, just as there is a danger in viewing them all as lifestylers.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
StephenR said: Any rational person has to apply - would you still be saying this if everyone had to apply for October’s tax cuts
I now feel somewhat silly for my above praise for the IRD website, because you have pointed out a shortcoming.
Why do people have to apply for WFF? Why can’t the employee’s details just be disclosed to the employer, whose payroll person then enters them into an interactive IRD website, gets returned an individualised tax code for the employee, and then deducts PAYE (or pays the tax credit which they then claim back from the IRD) in respect of the employee at the correct net amount taking into account the WFF credit.
The process of deducting PAYE from the employee, and then paying some or all of it back as a tax credit upon application seems an extraordinarily bureaucratic moving of money in circles.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
WOW
I skipped down 20 screens to see if things got back to the point, but they didn’t, so I’ll try.
The major point of the original post is that the words “Fuck Off” are OK in the mouth of a WINZ employee, but not in the House of Representatives Debating Chamber.
Surely the point is that they shouldn’t be used in either circumstance, yet their use in both of these is a classic example of how our standards of behaviour and respect, as a nation, have descended to gutter depth.
The WINZ worker shouldn’t have been able to get the words to come out of his mouth, even if he wanted them to - they won’t come out of mine with a woman in hearing distance. The erosion of respect for one another that has been growing apace these last 20 years is not only illustrated by this public servant, but also by the children in our schools - I have been in a classroom recently and heard it said by a student to a teacher; the teacher’s reaction was to ignore it, and when I took him to task about it later he suggested the naughty corner wasn’t going to work on a 14 year old! By totally removing disciplinary actions from both the classroom and the home, we have created a youth society that can impugn people and abandon respect without fear or trepitude; shame on my generation for letting it happen.
An example of how the ‘elders’ of the country have shown the way in this was Ms Bradford’s exhibition yesterday in the Chamber. For centuries there have been standards of Parliamentary behavior, based on respect for the institution of Parliament and the mores of the Chamber. What Ms Bradford did yesterday flew in the face of those traditions and showed, to use the ‘modern speak’ term, disrespect for the institution she was looking to to enforce respect to the beneficiary she was advocating for. Sending a message from the highest authority in the land that such behaviour and words are now acceptable in society, and so defeating the very nature of her plea. What’s worse, she probably didn’t realise it then and doesn’t now!
Pity my children, who are trying to raise my Grand-kids to a reasonable standard of behaviour and respect. My eldest Grandchild, three, recently told his mother he didn’t have to wipe his shoes when he went into someones house because his Daddy didn’t - Daddy (my son) got a tongue lashing too. In a few years, when he tells his mother to Fuck Off, and she tells him to go and wash his mouth with soap, he will look at her and say ‘they say that in Parliament so I can say it too!’ Somehow I don’t think she will be able to give all MPs the tongue lashing they will deserve!
We complain about the behaviour of our young, yet we do nothing to set them examples of how we want them to be, and take away the right to discipline them when they do unacceptable things. When they get older (18-28 say) we decry their attitude of drinking, stealing, demanding and generally behaving in anti-social ways, and wonder why they don’t understand why we are upset.
It is time for people, especially those who want respect for the environment and ecology, to start providing society with the examples, and tools, needed to re-establish respect for others in our young, otherwise this society is doomed.
Thank you for reading an old man’s heartfelt rant.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
|| There is a danger viewing all these people as victims, just as there is a danger in viewing them all as lifestylers.
Agreed.
But whatever the system, there will always be people who abuse it. Doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, in my opinion.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
>>seems an extraordinarily bureaucratic moving of money in circles.
You’re expecting efficiency and sense?
August 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Toad
Please edit my last post with ** in appropriate places - I was making a point, not trying to be offensive, and believe the point will still be made.
Thank you.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Good post, Strings.
>>past time that MSD trained all its front line staff to treat beneficiaries with respect and dignity.
It’s past time beneficiaries treat MSD front line staff with respect and dignity.
Although I’m sure it doesn’t apply to all of them, eh Sue….
August 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“For centuries there have been standards of Parliamentary behavior, based on respect for the institution of Parliament and the mores of the Chamber. ”
Come off it! Standards of parliamentary behaviour are appaling - we pay people to abuse each other, misrepresent each other, avoid questions and make sarcastic comments in the guise of political debate. I’m an anarchist and if people acted this way in the meetings I go to they’d be chucked out in short order and told not to come back until they learned to behave themselves. Somebody quoting a person saying “Fuck off” is the least of our worries.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
hmmm… interesting reading Strings as to what your interpretation of the main point is here. I agree to a point: people should certainly be treating each other with respect. However, I feel Sue’s use of the term “f* off” as a quotation was highly appropriate, and would not be a viable defense for your grandchild to call his Mum. He could use it to say “Johnny at school told Jimmy to f* off”, which with my upbringing would still be considered pretty bad but on quite a different level to actually telling your Mum to. In this case, the ire it caused in parliament, just used as a quotation, underlies the offensiveness of the word, and I think supports Sue’s comments. This would not have had such a visceral effect if she had said “eff off” in her quote (which would also have been ambiguous: did the worker actually say “eff off” or did he use the actual word?).
August 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Strings: Sending a message from the highest authority in the land that such behaviour and words are now acceptable in society, and so defeating the very nature of her plea.
Strings, I think you completely miss the point of why Sue Bradford used the term “f*** off” in Parliament. I’m sure that she knew at least some in Parliament, and some listeners and viewers to Parliament, would be offended and even outraged. I’m sure she know she would be asked to withdraw the term and apologise (which eventually happened).
If the term is unacceptable in Parliament, then surely it is also just as unacceptable for a public servant dealing with a member of the public to use it. That was the point she was trying to make. Just a pity that a few, such as you and (unfortunately) John Armstrong in the NZ Herald, didn’t quite get it. She wasn’t setting out to lower standards in Parliament, as John Armstrong asserted, but to raise standards in the public service.
Let’s hope the n-word doesn’t make an appearance in our Parliament though - as it did in the British House of Lords recently.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Toad, I think its about time you stoped, consistantly, constructing straw men arguements.
I have not claimed that she is ripping off the system, I have not claimed that he was an angel. I have mearly stated that he may have a perfectly legitimate reason to blow his top at her in this case and that we should not always assume the individual is a victim or fo that case attempting to rip off the system. he may have made a bad choice of words; but he may ahve been entirly in the right.
I did argue that the current benifit system is not satisfactory; that, as highlighted above, it is a sticky web of spiders silk rather than a safty net as it should be. I do not make my choices of posistion based on ideology, I make then based on what I see, after hours of deliberation and moral conflict, to produce the most desirable outcome for new zealand and the world, and truth be told the majority is left; so claiming me to be right and ignorant mearly because some of my opinions conflict with your bleeding heart ‘liberalism’ is both untruthful and uncalled for.
I have never claimed any benifit from the government outside of the subsidies provided for all on education and (by the local government) for the bus. Having said that, I have spent many hours in WINZ assisting associates whom were on the benifit, and it is true that staff can be less than forthcoming, but this can be perfictly justified when one considers that day in and day out they have to deal with people whom are far more abusive to them, as I have witnessed on many occasions.
The Green party has, i fear, become nothing more than a red ball painted with some green paint; a watermelon or astro-turfer as so wonderfully put by one on this blog. I hold the utmost discust for professional victims like bradford, leftovers from the alliance and new labour whom corupt the green cause for their own ideological ends and in doing so doom the greens.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Did anyone else hear the National MP in the House yesterday, as heard on Morning Report this morning, calling the Labour MPs “scro(a?)ts”? He was name calling and using a word that is more offensive, I think, and in less common parlance than F…
To me that is far more offensive compared to Sue making a very clear point about the treatment of beneficiaries.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Gerrit - well said !! The greed ignorance, and selfishness displayed on this subject has again shocked me to the core. How can such people, who have been given a secular, liberal education, presumably here in NZ, believe such Facistic rubbish. Perhaps they have never read any history and are ignorant of the 4th decade of the 20th century. It’s the only explanation my poor brain can come up with. I hope I never meet any of them in person as I would take fright !
August 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m a supporter of a welfare system. Mainly as a safety net. And a solo mum with a *baby* needs that too. If her youngest was 3 or 4, then a part-time job while the little one was in childcare would be fine, but personally I don’t think they’re ready for that before that age: mine certainly isn’t,
There are people who rip off the system. One thing that bothers me is that those who only use the system as a safety net don’t know all the bits and pieces they can apply for, but “welfare families” (those exploiting the system) know exactly. The base benefit is barely enough to live off, let alone do basic things like pay for other essentials such as doctor’s visits and prescriptions (there’s only so much a community service card gets you), or pay bus fares across Auckland to get to job interviews. I guess that if you know all the entitlements you can get by ok, and then if you’re committing benefit fraud (such as getting paid under the table) then you could be reasonably comfortable, if not well-off. It would be helpful, I think, for the Greens to admit that there are people who rip the system off and have no intention of getting work. And let us know how you’d deal with this. I also know of school kids whose only ambition is to go on the dole and bludge. Perhaps even have kids to up their entitlements. However, in my experience, most mothers on DPB are there after marriage/de-facto relationship breakups, and until their kids are old enough to attend school full-time they’re in a bit of a bind as to how to earn enough to pay all the bills.
Some of the suggestions made in this blog have been downright revolting (such as removing someone’s children just because they can’t pay for them). However, I do have a problem with the few people who have kid after kid, without any means/hopes of supporting them. Do we just let this slide given it’s such a minority, or is there some way of imposing a penalty on the parents without imposing it on the children as well?
August 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
>>is there some way of imposing a penalty on the parents without imposing it on the children as well?
Yes.
I would replace the DPB with a personal insurance welfare scheme. Everyone gets an account at birth, the government contributes, and the balance builds up. If you’re out of work for a time, you can use it as you see fit. If you never use it, you can pass it on to your kids.
If you drain it, then your CHILD goes on a voucher system. This voucher system would need to be monitored to prevent abuse (probably in the form of a debit card). The parent gets a standard unemployment benefit for a limited period.
Progressively slides from personal control down to managed control, depending on the behavior of the beneficiary.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
BluePeter said: Progressively slides from personal control down to managed control, depending on the behavior of the beneficiary.
Sounds a bit like Nanny State to me BP - I thought that was what you guys on the right didn’t agree with.
Sapient: I read in some previous post that you are a student. Not shure wot, but lerning to spel wood maybee help.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
>>Sounds a bit like Nanny State to me BP
Most wouldn’t require any nannying, so they can manage their own accounts, with no need to go cap ‘n hand to WINZ. Anyway, Winz would not exist.
Those who do need nannying, and some always will, get managed via a debit card system.
Streamlined. Efficient. Decreases abuse. Gives (responsible) people the cash they need, the minute they need it. Encourages personal responsibility.
You don’t like my plan?
August 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
The issue here is decency in the house. This is our legislative chamber, and we should respect it - as even Mr Tanczos was at pains to point out in his closing speech. By repeating this language in the house you show utter disrespect for it.
Yes, the issue you bring up may be valid. But it could have been explained without repeating the quote literally in the house.
Utterly disgraceful.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Margret Wilson has ruled it out of order.
Good. Because it is.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hmmm, Toad, One has got to love how you never follow up on your comments once you get a reply that you can not label as bigotry aye?
Indeed; I am a student and readily admit i cannot spell to save my life, a student of the humanities for that matter; you know? a place where ideas and facts matter more than simple semantics (unless that is the area studied of course). Maybe you should take a lesson, might teach you something like logic. Infact I highly recomenf a paper called ‘critical thinking’ its the easist paper ive ever done, though I suspect you may find it somewhat difficult; as I would find an english paper.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Yes BP, and I’m sure Sue Bradford would suport that.
The point she was making by saying it in the House is that if it is out of order there, then it should also be out of order when public servants say it to members of the public they are dealing with.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Sapient said: Maybe you should take a lesson, might teach you something like logic.
Funnily enough, Sapient, I successfully studied both pure mathematics and philosophy at University (although neither to post-grad level, admittedly), but I still do think I have a reasonably good grasp of logic - both theoretically and practically.
Admittedly, that around 30 years ago, but I don’t think the fundamental axioms of logic have changed much, if any, over that time. Nor, for that matter, has spelling in the English language.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I doubt the axioms have changed significantly, though the thinkers most surley have, prehaps you have mearly deteriorated, eaither that or your concept of desirable is somewhat distorted.
Depends on what you see to define this constantly evolving language, words contained in the dictionaries certainly have; but at any rate, the spelling and grammar are irrelivant so long as the meaning is discrenable.
On that matter; wat DO you see as desiriable? a massive state that takes care of every matter of your day to day life, rocks you to sleep, and disinfects your knee when you graze it? it certainly seems that way…
August 7th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
It doesn’t matter if he used the “F” word or not.
I received the same dismissive response (without the “F” word) when I was in my hour of need. No help for me.
As a taxpayer of 20 years I felt deserving of assistance but didn’t get it.
If Tara Marks didn’t qualify for assistance I suspect she responded in a way that deserved a curt response.
The real issue is not what language is used, but rather where the money is going.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
kahikatea, your comments actually brought tears to my eyes for the first time in a long time.
I well remember the complexities of the system and how they worked against me, and I genuinely sympathise with those who do qualify but don’t get their entitlement.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Toad, I agree with Sapient. If a woman chooses the wrong guy (and I sympathise with her) why should the rest of society pay the price for this?
Why should that tax money not go to (for example) an injured person who has been a taxpayer?
Anyone who needs a hip op??
Why is the system predicated upon the view that any child or mother is a valuable member of society.
In my opinion this view is an insult to good mothers. (and I am not trying to judge the woman Sue Bradford is talking about here). I am just against the ‘entitlement’ perspective that has developed around anyone who can spit out a child.
Some of them genuinely need to hear the F word.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Sapient said: On that matter; wat DO you see as desiriable?
Listen to this from Jim Morrison - a guy many people dismiss as ‘just’ a 60s rock star, but I think also a great 20th century poet and philosopher.
“The old get older, but the young get stronger”. Yep, it’s true Sapient. The young always have potential to do better for humanity than those who have gone before them. But a learning experience is necessary to do so. If you don’t learn from those of older than you who have made mistakes, you will be bound to make the same ones.
And speaking of rock stars from yesteryear, Sapient, check out Pete Townshend’s Won’t get Fooled Again. There might be a message in that for you too.
I’m not saying you should “respect your elders” Sapient. You’re quite entitled to tell us to “f*** off”, as the Rotorua Work and Income Case Manager did to Tara.
All I ask is that you listen to those of us older than you, and apply some intellectual rigour to what we may be saying based on our experiences.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
If you are a woman on DPB with one kid WINZ will not tell you to F off.
They will pay for the LTNZ bill
If you are an injured man on UB with one kid they will tell you to F off.
(even if they don’t use the F word)