by Jan Logie
Because yesterday the Government confirmed plans to reform the sickness benefit system.
Basically they’re getting rid of the sickness benefit merging it into the wider job seeker benefit, albeit with some exemptions from work readiness activities if someone is deemed too sick.
The invalids benefit will be left in place as the supported living allowance.
The Government has said they’ll be focussing on what people can do not what they can’t, and will be transforming MSD to provide much more support for people to get into employment and thus radically improve their lives.
The Minister has accused Auckland Poverty Action of wanting to leave people stagnating on welfare. She suggests those who oppose the reforms are patronizing and stereotyping people by not believing they can work.
They suggest that being on a benefit is undesirable and unhealthy. They use research to support this. Their Principal Health Advisor is leading training of other doctors on the negative health impacts of welfare comparing receiving a benefit with smoking.
It’s a clever line. It positions the Government as ambitious, willing to break with tradition and treat people receiving welfare as capable rather than not, needing help rather than punishment. In other words they’re trying to make it look as if they’re progressive.
There are many problems with this though.
Focussing on capability is really important. Unfortunately the Government is not treating people as capable. If they thought they were capable they wouldn’t feel the need to incentivise job seeking behaviour with sanctions. Sanctions are a punishment.
I’ve suffered from depression and I know how bleak the world can seem from that place and how even the smallest tasks can seem impossible and reinforce existing feelings of inadequacy. The Government’s new policy sounds to me like the legislative version of the pull your socks up approach to depression. This has never worked, and it won’t work now, even with the fancy new language, because depression is fundamentally different from laziness.
This model in the UK has resulted in an increasing number of suicides of people with illnesses and disabilities.
This legislation will require people diagnosed with cancer to focus on what they’re capable of, in terms of employment, rather than what they’re not. This will change once they’ve been diagnosed as terminal. If they want to keep working or look for work then great but if not surely a reasonable society would let someone battling cancer focus on that battle and not siphon their energies off into proving their work readiness or availability.
To require people who are sick to engage in work readiness activities and look for work assumes they don’t know what’s best for them. It even seems to assume their doctor doesn’t know either.
The evidence that shows the negative health impacts of income support is contestable and I don’t think it can be used to draw the conclusions that this Government has drawn. There is some evidence that receiving income support has negative health consequences, but this has not to my knowledge considered if this would still be true if the benefit wasn’t set below the poverty level. It also ignores the research that shows it’s actually worse to be in low paid vulnerable employment with poor conditions than it is to be on welfare.
By focussing on the individual again this whole model misses employer biases when it comes to employing people with mental and physical illnesses/disabilities.
I’ve been working recently with People First a wonderful self-advocacy organisation for people with learning disabilities (previously referred to as intellectual disabilities) and they are very worried that the Government will decide they’re not work capable and leave them languishing without support on the supported living allowance. They need support to counter employer discrimination, redesign jobs and put in the support needed to enable them to do the job well. They are very aware though that without this help they may be the last to get the work.
I’ve heard the same message from groups of people with disabilities about the difficulty of overcoming prejudices in the employment market.
If the Government was serious about helping people into employment they would address the barriers to employment. This Bill does nothing to address those barriers.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Parliament by Jan Logie on Tue, September 18th, 2012
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
17 (-12)
photonz1 – Actually she explains herself rather well and leaves your point moot in the paragraph following the one you quoted from.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
“a reasonable society would let someone battling cancer focus on that battle and not siphon their energies off into proving their work
readiness or availability.”
She’s right. You aren’t. You provide some anecdotal evidence about people getting 6 figures “because they are tired at the end of the week” as though it is a normal thing… and does that really happen? Really?
This is indefensible, it is mean spirited, nasty, indefensible bashing of people who for the most part have no fncking choices left.
…because the alternative is that the government has to actually tax people in this country who HAVE money, and it can’t because they own the National party lock-stock and barrel.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
It is just common sense that people who have been diagnosed with cancer and left their jobs should ALWAYS concentrate on what they CAN DO and apply for other jobs accordingly. Quack.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
My point though is people should indeed be able to focus on what they can do, in consultation with their doctor. They shouldn’t have to meet the expectations of Work and Income and THEIR idea of what they can do.
I do not believe it is in anyone’s interest to have their health managed by a state institution with a conflict of interest.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
12 (-11)
And there has been no change to the decison-making of those on ACC of late, just a change in attitude to the cost of any entitlement to any income support.
First came the requirement to train for work at your own expense (borrowing to pay for tertiary fees) – and the end of on the job training funded by the employer paying a wage. Then came the ability of employers to lay off workers at no cost (end of redundancy with the end of union awards) and the need to retrain – again at the expense of workers. Then came the ability of employers to claim they needed experienced workers in preference to local graduates – so they could drive down wages.
Now comes the attempt to push those on ACC into term limits and transfer them to the work tested beneficiary category – again to save the employer any cost.
This combines with placing those on the SB into the work tested job seeker category and the 13 week stand down for refusing any job determined to be suitable – to create a more numerous desperate to work labour pool to drive down wages.
It’s just a hate for carrying the sick and the injured – they are being seen as mere numbers, costs to be eliminated. And this is why things like home support are being reduced for people, who are not even capable of working.
Sure, there is the positive in investment in making people work capable – when we can do this for all those who want it, we might even have a case for imposing it on others for their own good. But why we would want to impose such a concept, when we have yet to do this, is more suggestive of an attack on people and their cost to us, rather than a helping hand. And that is just mean and nasty.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
So now we bred people to get Cancer? Photonz, you are getting in deeper and deeper here. This is, as I said before, indefensible. Don’t even try.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Someone who is injured should not be forced into a low paid vulnerable McJob just so that ACC can avoid paying the workplace injury insurance that he/she has already paid for.
ACC as it was is already cheaper for employers than the litigation and workers compensation that is used elsewhere. What more do they want?
And. Only 14.3 % are on benefits for more than ten years – and since those figures include people with chronic physical and mental disabilities, the ratio of those staying on benefits because it is a “lifetime, lifestyle choice’ is lower again.”
Someone who attempted to work with severe depression or a recurrent injury that slowed them down, for example, would soon lose their reputation as a capable worker and be unemployed anyway.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
BJ loses the plot “So now we bred people to get Cancer? Photonz,”
Talk about making up stuff that’s completely different to what was said.
And Kerry does the usual thing of making every excuse for people not to work, even though thousands of people worse off than them do.
Kerry’s attitude is exactly the crux of the problem, as described earlier.
And it’s exactly why ACC and our benefit system are becoming dysfunctional.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
“We have people on long term benefits and ACC who are far less incapacitated than others who have always been in full time work.
That’s because we’ve bred a section of society who think they should screw as much as they can from those who work and pay tax”
…and because of this we should take benefits away from people with Cancer if they can’t prove they can’t work?
Photonz, this government lumped every person who is sick into the same category. Guilty until proven innocent. You seem to think that this is a common thing. I have never seen it.
Moreover, with unemployment where it is, there isn’t actually any point in forcing people off of benefits of some sort.
The whole thing is nasty AND irrational. My taxes are “too high” because I am paying by percentage, MORE tax than most people who make 3 to 50 times as much…. not because I can’t survive on what I keep and not because some poor clod who is less fortunate than I is getting a bare minimum to live on. You keep pushing to make the society more unequal and you’re going to have a VERY uncivil society.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Not that I get forced back to work, in a low paid burger flipping job, so that NACT can make ACC have an unnecessarily big surplus to reduce future employers levies below cost, or sell it to a private insurance company along with the investment earnings from my past contributions.
Similarly I pay taxes so that those who are too ill or otherwise unable to work, including me if I have a period of bad luck/illness can live decently and with respect.
Not to have to go cap in hand to some unemployable at WINZ 3 times a week to have it taken away for all sorts of made up reasons, as I have seen happen to many others.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
BJ says “You seem to think that this is a common thing. I have never seen it.”
ACC says “In the last 5 years over 5000 cases have been investigated and ACC’s Investigation Unit has identified and dealt with fraud amounting to $150 million.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is what’s known as capitalism, and our ruling class are pained that they have so far only managed to infect a section of society with it. They are working hard to create a dog eat dog society in which everyone is out for the main chance and Devil take the hindmost.
Part of their whole glorious ideal is to convince people that this philosophy is fine as long as you are successful, if, like most beneficiaries, you haven’t really suceeded in ripping off your fellow citizens to any significant degree, you are decried as a ‘bludger’. The moderately successful are described as ‘consultants’ or ‘businesspeople’ and the truly successful as ‘pillars of the community’ and are given awards. This incentivises success.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
“fraud amounting to $150 million.”
How does ACC define ‘fraud’? I recall WINZ, or whatever they were called at the time, had a newspeak word ‘fraud’ which meant ‘any over-payment’, including when a beneficiary had been over-payed due to a departmental mistake, or when the beneficiary honestly believed they were entitled to a payment and the bureaucrats decided they weren’t.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Kerry says “Not that I get forced back to work, in a low paid burger flipping job”
This is exactly the bludge attitude I’m talking about. If I get made redundant, my company goes bust, has a fire, earthquake, if I get an injury or whatever……I would get a job doing whatever I can, even if it’s a crap job with crap pay (and have done more than once in these circumstances).
NZ has a huge problem with ingrained bludge attitudes like your – I’ve paid my tax/ACC, so I’m going to screw as much as I can out of the system for as long as I can
(for system, read “other workers”).
(for “as long as I can”, read I’m getting much more than I could if I have to go back to work so I’ll make this injury last as long as possible).
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Whatever BS you come up with both benefits and ACC are insurance schemes that we pay into. Most people on the unemployment benefit for example are on it for less than four years. They have already, or will pay, more than they receive in taxes over the rest of their lives. The costs are a lot less than a private scheme because of the number of people covered and the fact that it can be guaranteed by all of us. Even NACT had to admit that private insurers could not compete on an equal basis with ACC.
It is not bludging. It is getting what we paid for.
Bludging is the ones on million dollar incomes who pay no taxes and still claim family support.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Sam asks “How does ACC define ‘fraud’?”
Things like a woman claiming ACC for three decades because her husband died in an accident in 1981, even though she has been with a new partner for the last 27 of those years (since 1985) so wasn’t entitled to the payments she was claiming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Kerry says “It is not bludging. It is getting what we paid for.”
If you can work, but decide not to and keep claiming off others instead – it’s definitely bludging, no matter what justification you try to deceive yourself with.
Like conning yourself that if someone doesn’t pay tax – then ripping off winz or ACC when you could work becomes legitimate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Check your dictionary – I asked for a definition – not an example.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
What Paula B. is doing is called “using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut !” IF there are some people who are ‘rorting’ the system, then winz should focus on that. BUT its more of the same B-S, “GET BACK TO WORK YOU LAZY BLUDGERS” Beneficiary BASHING !
“Hey Paula. where are the 170,000 jobs.. you keep talking about ?”
Kia-ora Koutou
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Photonz
How do the new rules have ANYTHING to do with the fraud that the ACC dealt and deals with? One has to wonder how you think that your example justifies the obscene farce that has been perpetrated here. The question of definition remains open, but the additional question of how this actually helps them to combat fraud, apart from the assumption that everyone is committing fraud, has to be asked as well.
People commit crimes all the time. They remain innocent until proven guilty. Putting things arse-about as this does is strictly a National and ACT idea, and it is mean-spirited and obscenely nasty to those who are in fact sick, which is a large majority of the people who are on ACC.
Punish the most vulnerable, punish people who have the misfortune of being too dumb, too hurt, too sick… or too honest. I find nothing to admire in this government except for the audacity of believing that its policies can be gotten away with.
Might do it for a short time longer. New Zealanders elected National a second time after all… and it is uncertain how long the hangover will last. However, I regard this government as a bunch of treasonous, larcenous criminals with no claim on my respect.
…and given what it is doing, the backlash when it finally loses AND IT WILL, will be quite severe… and deservedly so.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Just maybe ACC would be more effective in encouraging people to retrain (or simply work where they could) if
1. there would be a top up of lower paid work to 80% of their former wage (plus CPI)
2. they would return to ACC, if they lost their job, rather than benefits.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“By focussing on the individual again this whole model misses employer biases when it comes to employing people with mental and physical illnesses/disabilities.”
This is critical because even though there is some funding to assist with disabled people, it is very difficult to obtain. Why should this be? If the government was insistent on helping persons with disabilities then it should be easy to access.
I observe that there is plenty of consultation with potential employers of disabled. When are they going to consult with disabled people? There used to be a group of 10 disabled people who had some input. Has this group been disbanded? Or just replaced with the Welfare Working Group?
Disabled people should be encouraged to go into business for themselves and this is hardly heard of anymore with the Grants that used to be freely available drastically cut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think people with cancer – or any severe immune-compromised illness – can certainly benefit from concentrating on what they CAN do, but this is very likely to be far below any idea of working in most cases,I think. For ANY improvement, the major objective must be to do everything possible to improve the strength and energy of the body – e.g. rest, a particularly healthy diet, (many advise not too much meat as it takes a lot of energy to digest; lots of fruit/vegetables; and nuts and seeds (which help sustain and even create ‘life’ /energy; ).. and so on…
.”Your Body Doesn’t Lie” – explains SUGAR as a major culprit in any dis-ease – it stops the white blood-cells (fighters of disease) from maturing in the thymus gland (2 ribs below the collarbone; in the centre). You can copy Tarzan by gently ‘thumping’ it, to strengthen the immune-system!! ( a Ta-a-a-ap, tap,tap rhythm.). Yes!!! (Retired Nurse…)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I agree with Sam the basis of capitalism is exploitation and I must stress that there are no moral limitations on this. Where is the line between ‘profit’ and ‘profiteering’? Is it 10%? 25%? 50%? 100%? or over 200%?
Those who are raking in over 100% (mainly from speculative business) are the consultants and captains of industry who will be seen as the heroes and will be rewarded by golden hand-shakes and knighthoods etc.etc.
These people don’t see why they should pay tax to help out the sick and infirmed, to educate doctors from all backgrounds. This I feel is not civilization, no we seem to be entering into an age of barbarism where those in the ivory towers have never stood in the shoes of the suffering.
Only a revolution can address this pitiful situation: NOT a communist revolution no a revolution just to get things back to normal!!!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)