Social Development Minister Paula Bennett earlier this year described special beneficiary payment cards as "highly intrusive", saying they would "rob individuals of their freedom of choice".
Under the Government's new youth welfare policy, announced by Prime Minister John Key at the weekend, 16- and 17-year-old beneficiaries would receive a payment card for food and clothes from approved stores.
Key said he made no apologies for the "hands-on" approach, and Bennett has stood by that position.
However, a letter tabled in Parliament yesterday suggested Bennett's attitude to such payment cards had changed substantially.
The letter, written by Bennett in March, said the writer's suggestion for a special credit card system for beneficiaries would require the Government to make "moral judgements about the appropriateness of each decision".
"Such oversight by the Crown would be highly intrusive and would rob individuals of their freedom of choice," Bennett wrote.
On the face of it, Paula Bennett does seem to have had a change of heart. But then you come to these next three paragraphs (with our emphasis added):
"Spread across the entire benefit system, this kind of oversight would impose an enormous administrative burden and cost upon Work and Income."
Questioned in Parliament about the letter by Labour deputy leader Annette King yesterday, Bennett said the current policy was for 16, 17, and some 18-year-olds, not all beneficiaries.
"I have said that I do actually see it as intrusive. I do think the administration that comes with it is worth it, and I am backing these young people into a better life."
There you have it; in six words - Spread across the entire benefit system - the beat-up is revealed. National is not proposing to introduce payment cards across the entire benefit system, although some would argue that it is a measure worthy of consideration. National's proposed system has identified a small but important group of vulnerable young people who need intensive support from the state.
But it's election year, emotions are high, and accusations of "flip-flop" will ring out. Need we mention the assets that Phil Goff and later Annette King sold in the 1980's? Need we mention Peter Dunne who flip-flops between National and Labour? Need we mention the Electoral Finance Act? You know the one; passed by Labour in 2007 and repealed with Labour's support in 2008?
Thanks to those who suggested that we blog about this beat-up; you've scored an own goal of the same proportions as Act Leader (in Parliament) John Boscawen when his Question to a Member directed to Phil Goff yesterday backfired on him. If this is the best that the opposition can come up with, Labour's problems might be worse than first feared.
35 comments:
Trying too hard, I fear. Spread or not, her view was that it was intrusive. You should give her credit for thinking differently from her leader, and then worry how she has been brought into line.
I see King also mentions 58,000 bennies - the number of under 17s seems to grown markedly for maximum effect in this beatup.
I disagree Robert, but that probably reflects where each of us sit on the political spectrum. Introducing such a system across the whole benefit system would be a recipe for disaster; an administrative nightmare. But for a small group of vulnerable young people with limited life skills, I reckon it's worth a go.
Thanks for your comment, and especially thanks for expressing an opposite view in a very different manner to the "attack the messenger" merchants. We can hold opposing opinions, and still debate them in a respectful manner.
Wriggling and jiggling there I2 but you can't get away (nor can Bennett or Key) from the fact that just one month ago, Bennett makes it clear that she regarded any move like the one Key announced to be 'highly intrusive' and that it would 'rob individuals of their freedom of choice'.
You've attempted to divert the argument to the administrative problems that would result, but the core of the issue and the focus of criticism from most of the media and the opposition parties and from me is that it flies in the face of expressed National Party phiiophy of freedom of choice. Bennett clearly expresses her dislike for any plans to intrude into beneficiaries lives in this manner "highly intrusive" she says, rob individuals of their freedom of choice". Key says it will and he makes no apology. Oh dear oh dear oh dear! No matter HOW you spin and spin I@, Key's willingness to dump core beliefs whenever it suits his need to be popular, is obvious to all but the smitten (you and your Softy, Scabby crew).
"On the face of it" you say. Yes I2. That's where we read the truth, on the face. You can spin your merry self away fro all you're worth but, like they say (and you say often enough) when you're in a hole, stop digging.
Bennett's words have revealed Key, and you and the clamouring masses of beneficiary-tsk-tskers.
All that's really left to say is DEAR OH DEAR OH DEAR OH DEAR!
What an OWN GOAL for KEY and NATIONAL!
OH DEAR!
BLESS YOU PAULA!
(The real issue of course, isn't this pathetic little piece of dog-whistling from Key that will only affect a very few people, it's what he DIDN'T do about the mass of unemployed youth that remains. In their vernacular HE DIDN'T DO NOTHING!
How about talking about THAT I2?
The things Key hasn't done (they are legion!)
What's all this crap I2?
"Need we mention the assets that Phil Goff and later Annette King sold in the 1980's? Need we mention Peter Dunne who flip-flops between National and Labour? Need we mention the Electoral Finance Act? You know the one; passed by Labour in 2007 and repealed with Labour's support in 2008?Thanks to those who suggested that we blog about this beat-up; you've scored an own goal of the same proportions as Act Leader (in Parliament) John Boscawen when his Question to a Member directed to Phil Goff yesterday backfired on him. If this is the best that the opposition can come up with, Labour's problems might be worse than first feared."
The post is about Bennett and what she said.Trolling your own post - how confused/desperate ARE you?
"I disagree Robert, but that probably reflects where each of us sit on the political spectrum."
No it doesn't I2.
You disagree because you are unable to look objectively at anything that concerns National. Robert is able to apply logic to questions. How we WISH you could/would do the same. Some of us work hard to try to crack open your ideological shell and let the light of logic in, but at times we despair.
@ Anon (7.51am)
Wriggling and jiggling there I2 but you can't get away (nor can Bennett or Key) from the fact that just one month ago, Bennett makes it clear that she regarded any move like the one Key announced to be 'highly intrusive' and that it would 'rob individuals of their freedom of choice'.
Oh dear; a maths failure Anon; Bennett's letter was written in March; five months ago.
Meanwhile I suggest you read Robert Winter's comment, and reflect on both it, and the polite response it received. Your abuse is getting tedious.
"Your abuse is getting tedious"
Quite so IV2, as the dance of the desperates continues.
"Some of us work hard to try to crack open your ideological shell and let the light of logic in"
I do so love others working hard to 'reform' those of us on the straight and narrow path of Righteousness.
You PMofNZ, we don't even bother with.
I2, your post is misguided. It wouldn't kill you to admit that what Bennett said originally, she meant, and that she's had to recant because of Key's announcement. It's no great shake and it'd not hurt you.
Yes, I did get my months wrong. I was wrong, mistaken, incorrect. See! It's not hard to do and being honest feels good.
Come on big fella, you can do it!
(Relax PMofNZ, you can't and we won't ask that you try.)
I2 - Robert Winter's post is polite and intelligent.
You could have said, "Yes Robert. I believe that you are correct. Thank you for making the effort to engage in this discussion. I've modified my thinking as a result of your good suggestion.
How about that I2? How does that sound?
It's almost like there is a special section of the thought police whose roll is to burst into print when you say something I2.
Don't people have anything better to do?
That sounds fine Anon, but it would also be dishonest. I made it clear that I do not agree with his summation.
And I frequently apologise when I am wrong. I will do so again. I should have read the Herald's story before I published, where I would have found this quote from Paula Bennett:
She claimed her letter was a response to a much wider payment card proposal than the one announced at the National Party conference on Sunday.
"How ridiculous saying it is a backtrack. It's not a backtrack at all...
"I was writing a response to one correspondent who is proposing something very different."
So yes; I erred. Had I done some more research, I could have presented an even stronger case. My bad. I apologise.
I won't both with a link, since you all know where the Dim Post is...but I'd recommend the knee-jerk type lefties go and read what another one of the thinking variety has to say on the matter.
According to Danyl, PB is "Ideologically coherent"
"I've modified my thinking as a result of your good suggestion."
Classic mantra of the left.
When I first heard of the Howard govt introducing just such a scheme in NT I thought the leftists might have some basis to their argument. But Howard was proven to be right, the health of the children in the care of beneficiaries in NT improved. The incidence of malnourishment has decreased. The clothing standards of the kids has improved (if only more would be like the Canteen Creek mob and wash their clothes, and themselves on a daily basis). In general the policy is a winner. The losers were the Bottlestore owners who had upto half their income in source taken away. The policy is such a win, that there are plans to extend it nationwide.
As for the argument that it is intrusive.... couldn;t you apply the same argument to the supply of a benefit in the first place? Who's money is it? If the beneficiaries want total decree as to how they spend their income, then sure thing, go earn your own.
The administration side of the argument: won't this guarantee some zombie jobs in the MSD? I would have thought the leftists would love any policy which results in more entrenchment of Zombies in the public sector.
"I would have thought the leftists would love any policy which results in more entrenchment of Zombies in the public sector."
But we don't, proving that the things you 'would have thought' are wrong mort.
Given that you were wrong about that, as a result of your ideological blindness I suggest) you might like to consider the possibility that you are wrong about other things too.
The argument here is not that the idea is wrong, but that Bennett thought and said that it was wrong.
Try to focus.
"I've NOT modified my thinking as a result of your good suggestion."
Classic mantra of the right.
Touche
Follow your own advice, and try to focus Anon.
The argument here is not that the idea is wrong, but that Bennett thought and said that it was wrong.
No; the argument, made in the original blog-post is that Bennett said that the idea was wrong (and probably unworkable) when applied across all benefits.
Excellent, so the next Govt can do all it can to minimise zombie jobs in the public sector. Good stuff, that policy will probably save 10-20% of the $300m borrowed every week.
Given that you weren't arguing against the positive outcomes of the Howard intervention, then that's that debate sorted, where else do you want your hat handed back to you?
So what if it is a flip flop? Can't she change her mind or modify her opinion? So what if she has been broadsided by John Key? Is it not his perogative? It's just another pathetic little political issue raised by Annette King which is symtomatic of Labour's problem. They would rather talk politics than policies. Fail.
Not true Inv2, in fact you are wrong from the outset:
"We've been challenged to comment on an apparent flip-flop"
You weren't challenged to do that at all. The original comment(s) were those you deleted (remember) and they challenged you to comment on Bennett having said one thing then recanting, following Key's silly announcement.
Seems you make stuff up as you go along, getting lost in your own thinking as you do so.
You too rort. Agreeing with your own ideas is satisfying for you I don't doubt but often it's useful to at least try to address the point the other party is making. Keep the hat and return it when you feel ready to try big boys debate.
Moist - dry up.
ha ha ha another anonymous asshat
Robert Winter and Robert Guyton are running a tag team called 'two-bob watch'.
Robert Winter and Robert Guyton are running a tag team called 'two-bob watch'.
Ah yes; as in "As silly as a ..."
The second Bob has repeatedly assured me that he isn't posting anonymously, but there is a certain familiarity in the writing style, the use of words in capitals, and the pedantry. Suspicion lingers...
Here’s a copy of the letter (copied off the tv3 video)
Dear [ ],
Thank-you for your email which I received in my office on 22 February 2011 about a special credit card payment system for all people receiving a benefit. You suggest that alcohol and tobacco be forbidden purchases.
You may be unaware that there is already a payment card in place where for any food grant that is made alcohol and tobacco are forbidden.
I would like to explain that a key principle of the benefit system is that benefit payments are payable to the individual who qualifies for that assistance. Youre suggestion would require the Crown to make moral judgements about the appropriateness of each decision. Such oversight by the Crown would be highly intrusive and rob individuals of their freedom of choice. Spread across the entire benefit system, this kind of oversight would impose an enormous administrative burden and cost upon Work and Income. Most people do not receive a benefit for a long period of time and move into work as soon as they can.
It is most unfortunate that there is a small minority of income support recipients who do not use their monies prudently. I cannot agree that this should change the way welfare is paid or assessed. These people are generally well known to Work and Income and are often under the watchful eye of other organisations such as budgeters and welfare groups.
Thank you for taking the time to write. I am always interested in receiving suggestions.
Yours sincerely
Paula Bennett
http://www.3news.co.nz/Bennett-backtracks-on-benefit-card/tabid/370/articleID/222515/Default.aspx
"two Bob watch"?
A more apt description - one is the alter-ego of the other - Jekyll and Hyde.
A bob each way?
Nah, these guys are both way to the left.
Robert Winter is a very civil chap though, more in the line of Chris Trotter and Brian Edwards, whereas Robert Guyton is your Standard ranter.
Brian Edwards? Chris Trotter? Hallowed company indeed.
Certainly, old enough to be in that company.......
I can never see the point in being gratuitously rude, though people like Rick Perry take me to the edge. But one could, no doubt,look at my blog and prove me wrong.
As for the other half of the "two bob watch" team, I have always found Mr Guyton to be a decent sort.
The reason for your unfailing courtesy is clear Robert; like me, you love the sound of willow on leather. It takes a special kind of person to be a cricket tragic, and the love of cricket transcends even political differences! Do they play cricket in Riverton?
Good heavens I2 - did you delete the copy of Paula Bennett's letter I posted earlier?
Here it is agian.
Here’s a copy of the letter (copied off the tv3 video)
Dear [ ],
Thank-you for your email which I received in my office on 22 February 2011 about a special credit card payment system for all people receiving a benefit. You suggest that alcohol and tobacco be forbidden purchases.
You may be unaware that there is already a payment card in place where for any food grant that is made alcohol and tobacco are forbidden.
I would like to explain that a key principle of the benefit system is that benefit payments are payable to the individual who qualifies for that assistance. Youre suggestion would require the Crown to make moral judgements about the appropriateness of each decision. Such oversight by the Crown would be highly intrusive and rob individuals of their freedom of choice. Spread across the entire benefit system, this kind of oversight would impose an enormous administrative burden and cost upon Work and Income. Most people do not receive a benefit for a long period of time and move into work as soon as they can.
It is most unfortunate that there is a small minority of income support recipients who do not use their monies prudently. I cannot agree that this should change the way welfare is paid or assessed. These people are generally well known to Work and Income and are often under the watchful eye of other organisations such as budgeters and welfare groups.
Thank you for taking the time to write. I am always interested in receiving suggestions.
Yours sincerely
Paula Bennett
"a key principle"
I love it.
"It is most unfortunate that there is a small minority of income support recipients who do not use their monies prudently. I cannot agree that this should change the way welfare is paid or assessed. These people are generally well known to Work and Income and are often under the watchful eye of other organisations such as budgeters and welfare groups."
Post a Comment