by Russel Norman
John Key has just delivered his State of the Nation speech.
OK, the good stuff.
1. Key identifies that there is an underclass in New Zealand. Seven years of a Labour led government and there is still an underclass. Agreed.
2. He acknowledges the vital role of the welfare state in providing people with opportunities. I really welcome a National Party leader turning his back on the rhetoric of welfare bashing (well, mostly).
3. He acknowledges the environment as one of the big topics of our age.
4. I agree with him that reaching out to the community sector is really important way of strengthening social bonds and getting better outcomes for social programs.
The problems:
1. Last time National were in Govt they produced a greatly expanded underclass.
2. The Bolger/Shipley National Government’s attacked the welfare state relentlessly. Let’s not forget the 1991 benefit bashing budget etc
3. Current National Party policy is to make environmental problems worse. OK, in due course they might change their policy more in the direction of the Blue Green discussion document but even that isn’t great. They will never give up their attempts to gut the RMA it seems.
4. The Bolger/Shipley Government expanded the role of the community sector in delivering social programs but as a cost cutting measure. This meant that many community groups found themselves underfunded and overstretched and many social programs were not well delivered. Also that govt tried to use the funding to silence the community groups – if you spoke against the govt you could lose your contract. If he’s serious about working with the community sector it can’t be driven by cost cutting and must be a partnership.
5. Overall, bugger all detail and not much positive policy really – I suppose you can’t blame him for that just yet as it’s early days in his leadership and their policy process. But actual policy has to be his test, otherwise it’s just “Hollow Men” rhetoric in an attempt to present a kinder gentler National Party.
He sounds a lot like the Labour Party on a lot of issues actually!
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Russel Norman on Tue, January 30th, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Russel
The facts
1 The last time the Nat’s were in power they inherited a mess from the Labour party, this is the same party that campaigned on there being a surplus when in fact there was a massive deficit.
The greatly increased underclass was not a result of National policy rather a result of the previous Labour administration
2 The NZ economy is in a better state to this day BECAUSE of the social welfare cuts of the early 90′s, any system that pays people to stay at home and do nothing is wrong, i applauded Richardson then and I applaud her now, she is a great New Zealander.
3 The RMA needs to be gutted.
4 If you find it abhorrent that a govt would attempt to silence those who speak out against them then I assume you will be withdrawing Green party support for this Labour government, come on Russ you cannot have it both ways, either you find this behavior abhorrent (as i do) or you do not, political loyalties should not matter.
5 Here we agree, I would rather have seen Key push traditional National party policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hang on big bruv..(just so i’m clear on this….)
our current underclass is due to the policies of the labour govt..pre-shipley..
so..pre 1990…..16-17 years ago..?
have i got you right on that..?
whoar..!
tho’..for russel to reach back there also to try to find a stick to beat key with is also a bit rich..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree that the underclass was greatly increased by the policies of the 1984-90 Labour government. The real problem is that those policies have become the orthodoxy of both Labour and National (plus a few others). Having said that, the National government policies prior to that didn’t do much to reduce the underclass either.
The social welfare system doesn’t pay people to stay at home and do nothing – it pays a lot of people to stay home and look after kids and others, and some people to get over injuries and survive disabilities. If you are talking about the unemployment benefit in particular, you might have a point (although most of the people I know on the dole are anything but layabouts – they may be untypical).
Any system that pays people to stay at home and do nothing is wrong. People shouldn’t be denied the access to resources they need to work and do useful things. Neither should the few that control those resources be allowed to loaf at home in luxury.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i just went and read keys speech..and think you have been too genorous/kind ..russel..
key just blew out a lot of feel-good hot-air…
vague mumblings about food for low-decile schools (good..!..) is about it..
much build-up..much expectation..poor/no delivery..
i gave him 3 out of 10..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Once you add up the costs of social welfare, CYFS, corrections, police, health service and so on, the ongoing economic cost of the 84-90 reforms must be now approaching the same as if they had just kept on all the make-work jobs. Plus we would probably have a decent rail system to boot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Weak and transparent, to much emphasis on current moral panics (troubled children), wheres the real environmental emphasis, or is to to much to expect from another greedy capitalist….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ah yes i remember that charade of promising big, then “throwing open the books” to find their promises were undeliverable – shock, horror.
what they did not tell is that while the books were indeed shut to the public, the opposition had already seen them & knew
yes, there are some layabouts & loafers on the dole – but where did they come from? for years nz had a social welfare system but almost nobody on the dole, while a job was easy to get.
thougsands of people didn’t just suddenly get lazy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrew
Thats right, labour taught them to be lazy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
thanks for the in-depth analysis. since i’ve just pointed out that the welfare system didn’t make them lazy, you’ve gone for a much vaguer “labour made them lazy”… just through labour’s very existence i guess.
the only way i can think of that labour made them lazy is by throwing them on the unemployment heap in the first place, with all of the free-market reforms – are you campaigning against them?
being unemployed isn’t easy and job-searching can be a full-time occupation itself, involving expenses like travelling to multiple job interviews, printing out CVs etc. & it’s emotionally gruelling. if a job is not soon forthcoming i can understand retracting one’s efforts. to survive on the dole for much time can involve longer term decisions like moving to cheaper accomodation, selling some of your stuff. it’s no wonder that a class of habitually unemployed people developed & have focussed their ambitions upon the smaller comforts of life, like liquor. most of these people have come off the dole & had jobs only to lose them again & have to go through the humiliating procedure of applying for dole all over again.
if secure employment was easily available, i bet they’d all soon realize they much prefer a working lifestyle – it’s human nature. giving up on it all is something which comes with repeated disappointments
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)