The Nanny State Dependence.

New Zealand has an over dependence on Welfare, and it's really no surprise that this has happened or become the way of life we have become accustomed too. I'm an advocate of a welfare system. I've been in the position a number of times of being a beneficiary, and all the time, thankful that one existed to help me through difficult times. However, I believe the time has come for some solid and radical changes to the welfare system.

Personally, last year in particular, the loss of income and the inability to access any benefit payments became a source of frustration. Due to the fact my wife was earning a certain amount we could not qualify for any financial assistance. Regardless of the fact that the amount she was earning was roughly $475 a week, and $300 of that was rent, we could not get any assistance from Work and Income.

Its in this situation where I felt that the system was meaningless to me. There I was, a tax payer for multiple years, intent on getting work as soon as possible...but yet, 63% of our weekly household income as a result of job termination was being used on a single outgoing expense.

The sad thing is...I knew from all those times I sat in Work and Income's office, looking for work, that there were people coming in to the office to get their money. While it is not typical of all those on welfare, it would not be surprising if a lot of those who were, spent a majority of their 'income' on less than appropriate things.

But in some ways...without looking deep into operational or logistical matters or long term feasibility studies, but in general these are my thoughts.

Time Limits
Unemployment benefit should be very time limited. Six months, then reviewed on items such as number of jobs that have been applied for, efforts being made, interviews granted and so on. The unemployment benefit should be the buffer between jobs rather than the permanent stop gap.

In 2000, as a beneficiary I was questioned a number of times about the amount of jobs I was applying for, and a couple of times, they threatened me with its cancellation. The irony behind that was I had applied about 4 times that year between January and June for Work and Income case managers positions. So when my case manager demanded to see my job rejection letters those were placed conveniently at the top of the pile of the near 100 letters I had.

Eligibility
As I outlined in my situation, the blanket means test meant we were not able to get anything to support us. Nothing in terms of food assistance...or accommodation. In this case, a test less blanket and blunt might have proved some help was needed. As sympathetic as my case officers were they couldn't do anything because of the rules in place. Even if it is just a portion of the full entitlement.

Use
I know of places who do not give beneficiaries money relating to rents, power, and other accounts to them directly. The rent is paid to the landlord, and so on. Money is paid into an account that is controlled. For example, you become a beneficiary, your benefit is paid into a bank account that you are given. That account cannot be used at an ATM to withdraw a large amount of cash, and when using it for shopping cannot be used to purchase smokes or booze. If you shop at like a Countdown or Pack n Save and when you go to pay...if there are smokes or booze on the list, it will decline you. I believe that while you are dependent on the state to assist you, that they have rights to limit the things you buy with tax-payers money.

The other side of that is that this kind of use would allow to be monitored so that if they purchase products which are good for you, fruit, veges, etc discounts could be given by those who would be willing to participate, much like the Super gold card.

Savings.

I'm as bad at this as the average New Zealander is. You could come up with excuse after excuse about not savings but one idea is that when a point comes when you leave welfare dependence that you are required to contribute to Kiwisaver or another nominated savings fund. Dependent on your level of income determines your % contribution to savings. But overall, I think 1% is a fair start. After your second year of work, goes up to 2% and so on.

Those who currently contribute to Kiwisaver and who lose their jobs through restructure or redundancy should be allowed to access those savings until such time as they resume work. But this need not be taken into consideration when seeking help from welfare. During this time further contributions can be suspended by the person in question or reduced to at least 1%.

My thoughts on the Governments Role

I think the governments role is more like the ambulance at the top of the cliff rather than the coroner at the bottom. Welfare has its place and those who really need it should have access to it but not grow dependent on it, which has become the case. We have placed too much of our own personal responsibility in the hands of the government where it does not belong. Its not the governments responsibility to feed me, clothe me and pay every bill that comes, but because of the taxes I pay, I should be able to expect some assistance...if even in the short term.

As I outlined earlier, the circumstances around my job and our household income put us outside the ability to receive any assistance from the government. However, taking into account regular household expenses of food, power, phone, petrol, etc accounted for 127% of our weekly household income...yes...127%. Were it not for the understanding of our landlord, and some assistance from our church, we made it through until I went back to work.

Unlike the poster boy for the Labour party this last week, I didn't live in a lifestyle block, I didn't own houses in other towns, but the need was there. Regardless if there was an income, on balance outgoings were more than in-coming's and still they wouldn't do anything.

I think at least some of this is possible and worth investigating. Its long term thinking...but things in our welfare system do need to change.

Clayton Weatherston - DAMN STRAIGHT GUILTY

Hurray for the courts.

This guy is a certified deluded nut case. Not that he pleaded temporary insanity, which may have worked, but this wacko admitted to stabbing her over 200 times. Because he was provoked.

What a fool. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but it seemed pretty clear that the facts were hardly in dispute. He stabbed a woman, 200 times. What the heck could have brought that on.

Apparently, he was provoked by the "emotional pain of a six month relationship with Elliott and because she attacked him with a pair of scissors". Oh come on...watching you give evidence in the first place was smelling of save my arse, let alone that the things you seemed to say didn't have a chord of truth to them.

Hope the sentence is a very long one.