thedailyblog--2020-05-13--Go Hard, Jacinda. More Importantly, Go Early!

JACINDA ARDERN ’ S Covid-19 formula : “ Go hard , go early ” has proved a resounding success – at least in public health terms .
Success on the economic front will not be so easy .
The number of foes arrayed against her is formidable – all of them doing everything they can to erode the admiration she has won both at home and abroad for her handling of the crisis .
That being the case , might it not be time for the Prime Minister to consider whether the slogan “ Go hard , go early ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until 19 September to go to the polls , while constitutionally admirable , invites political disaster .
Certainly , the National Opposition is convinced that electoral victory has become a simple waiting game .
Waiting for the unemployment numbers to swell beyond anything experienced by any New Zealander under the age of 90 .
Waiting for upwards of a third of New Zealand ’ s small businesses to fail .
Waiting for the levels of fear , anguish , resentment and despair to rise beyond the ability of even the most empathic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while National is waiting , the mainstream news media will be doing everything it can to magnify the voters ’ sorrows and incite their rage .
The business community , still eager for every bit of assistance the Ardern-led government can be bullied into offering , will nevertheless damn it with faint praise : strongly suggesting that a considerably more competent alternative government is ready and waiting to put things ( or should that be move things ) right .
Yesterday ( 13/5/20 ) in a moving pre-Budget speech from the Beehive Theatrette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealand is about to enter a very tough winter.
” The challenge she faces , politically as well as economically , is how to navigate the next four months so that they do not become “ the winter of our discontent.
” The Prime Minister ’ s plan , as set out in her speech , is to pivot from health to economics without losing her “ team of 5 million ” .
First and foremost her government ’ s intention is to keep New Zealanders working .
That , says Jacinda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embracing the grim doctrines of austerity : “ [ T ] he notion that at this time of need we would make cuts to the essential services so many New Zealanders need more than ever is not only immoral , it is economically wrong.
” These words offer not only reassurance to New Zealand ’ s most vulnerable citizens , but they also deliver a stinging slap to the faces of National and Act .
In her own words : “ Now more than ever we need our schools and hospitals , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need our police and our nurses , and we need our welfare safety net .
We will not let our team of 5 million fall when the times get tough , instead we will strengthen the blanket of support the Government can provide .
We are rebuilding together , not apart.
” Stirring sentiments !
But , as they say in the Ginsu ads : “ Wait , there ’ s more !
” The Prime Minister was not content to leave the electorate with nothing more than the standard government promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woes .
“ In the coming month the Government will launch a comprehensive engagement programme that will pose a simple proposition – look what our team of 5 million achieved together in beating the virus , now what can we do together to get our economy moving again , to look after our people , and rebuild in a way that make things better than they were before .
That will of course include the business community , but it will be broader too .
“ If anything , ” Jacinda continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that united we are a formidable force .
When we channel our energies into a goal collectively we are stronger for it .
Prior to the virus we faced serious long term challenges – persistent inequality and poverty , the threat of climate change , the need to diversify the economy , low productivity , limited domestic manufacturing and an abundance of low paid jobs .
Do we return to those settings or is now the time to find a better way ?
” It is difficult to overstate the radicalism of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
In effect , what she is saying is that the way out of the Covid-19-induced economic crisis must be determined by more than the usual business suspects .
She is inviting everyone : from the corporate CEO to the hero on the supermarket check-out ; from the bank economist to the welfare beneficiary ; to have their say about the shape and purpose of their country ’ s “ new normal ” .
No prime minister in my lifetime has ever placed such an opportunity before the New Zealand people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ slip through our fingers .
Jacinda ’ s offer must be taken up : by every union , every charity , every NGO , every church , and every citizen with a reason to want the New Zealand which emerges from this crisis to be better than the New Zealand that went into it .
The Beehive needs to be bombarded with the submissions of the “ democratic public ” – that great choir of New Zealand ’ s better angels to which the nascent Labour Party first appealed for support more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to do it fast – as fast as we possibly can – so that Labour can compile the “ people ’ s manifesto ” with maximum speed .
We must make sure that Jacinda and her colleagues can not only “ go hard ” for the progressive electorate ’ s support , but also , and much more importantly , “ go early ” .

JACINDA ARDERN’S Covid-19 formula: “Go hard, go early” has proved a resounding success – at least in public health terms. Success on the economic front will not be so easy. The number of foes arrayed against her is formidable – all of them doing everything they can to erode the admiration she has won both at home and abroad for her handling of the crisis. That being the case, might it not be time for the Prime Minister to consider whether the slogan “Go hard, go early” has more than one application?
Waiting until 19 September to go to the polls, while constitutionally admirable, invites political disaster. Certainly, the National Opposition is convinced that electoral victory has become a simple waiting game. Waiting for the unemployment numbers to swell beyond anything experienced by any New Zealander under the age of 90. Waiting for upwards of a third of New Zealand’s small businesses to fail. Waiting for the levels of fear, anguish, resentment and despair to rise beyond the ability of even the most empathic of prime ministers to assuage.
And, while National is waiting, the mainstream news media will be doing everything it can to magnify the voters’ sorrows and incite their rage. The business community, still eager for every bit of assistance the Ardern-led government can be bullied into offering, will nevertheless damn it with faint praise: strongly suggesting that a considerably more competent alternative government is ready and waiting to put things (or should that be move things) right.
Yesterday (13/5/20) in a moving pre-Budget speech from the Beehive Theatrette, Jacinda told her compatriots: “New Zealand is about to enter a very tough winter.” The challenge she faces, politically as well as economically, is how to navigate the next four months so that they do not become “the winter of our discontent.”
The Prime Minister’s plan, as set out in her speech, is to pivot from health to economics without losing her “team of 5 million”.
First and foremost her government’s intention is to keep New Zealanders working. That, says Jacinda, cannot and will not mean embracing the grim doctrines of austerity: “[T]he notion that at this time of need we would make cuts to the essential services so many New Zealanders need more than ever is not only immoral, it is economically wrong.” These words offer not only reassurance to New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens, but they also deliver a stinging slap to the faces of National and Act.
In her own words:
“Now more than ever we need our schools and hospitals, our public houses and roads and railways. We need our police and our nurses, and we need our welfare safety net. We will not let our team of 5 million fall when the times get tough, instead we will strengthen the blanket of support the Government can provide. We are rebuilding together, not apart.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Stirring sentiments! But, as they say in the Ginsu ads: “Wait, there’s more!” The Prime Minister was not content to leave the electorate with nothing more than the standard government promises to single-handedly rescue the nation from its woes.
“In the coming month the Government will launch a comprehensive engagement programme that will pose a simple proposition – look what our team of 5 million achieved together in beating the virus, now what can we do together to get our economy moving again, to look after our people, and rebuild in a way that make things better than they were before. That will of course include the business community, but it will be broader too.
“If anything,” Jacinda continued, “the last few months have shown that united we are a formidable force. When we channel our energies into a goal collectively we are stronger for it. Prior to the virus we faced serious long term challenges – persistent inequality and poverty, the threat of climate change, the need to diversify the economy, low productivity, limited domestic manufacturing and an abundance of low paid jobs. Do we return to those settings or is now the time to find a better way?”
It is difficult to overstate the radicalism of the Prime Minister’s “simple proposition”. In effect, what she is saying is that the way out of the Covid-19-induced economic crisis must be determined by more than the usual business suspects. She is inviting everyone: from the corporate CEO to the hero on the supermarket check-out; from the bank economist to the welfare beneficiary; to have their say about the shape and purpose of their country’s “new normal”.
No prime minister in my lifetime has ever placed such an opportunity before the New Zealand people. We cannot afford to let it slip through our fingers. Jacinda’s offer must be taken up: by every union, every charity, every NGO, every church, and every citizen with a reason to want the New Zealand which emerges from this crisis to be better than the New Zealand that went into it. The Beehive needs to be bombarded with the submissions of the “democratic public” – that great choir of New Zealand’s better angels to which the nascent Labour Party first appealed for support more than a hundred years ago.
And we need to do it fast – as fast as we possibly can – so that Labour can compile the “people’s manifesto” with maximum speed. We must make sure that Jacinda and her colleagues can not only “go hard” for the progressive electorate’s support, but also, and much more importantly, “go early”.


thedailyblog--2020-05-13--The welfare system is dangerous to our COVID-19 future

The ignorance of Work and Income was on display when it was revealed that staff tell benefit applicants that their redundancy money has to be used up first .
New Zealand ’ s core benefit system is subject to an income test but never to an asset test as clearly spelt out in 1972 None of the standard categorical social security benefits is subject to a means test .
All except universal superannuation , family benefit , and miners ’ benefits are , however , subject to an income test set at the level of the benefit plus a varying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Apart from ad hoc emergency payments , it is only in the area of supplementary assistance that assets as well as income are taken into account ( Royal Commission of Inquiry on Social Security in New Zealand , 1972 , p. 139 ) Importantly , in the NZ system , asset and income tests apply only to what should be limited and unusual cases of top-ups to relieve unexpected hardship .
It is necessary to look more deeply at the confusion at Work and Income because the reason has bred a culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration of the welfare state and will be dangerous to the COVID recovery .
Controversially , in 2007 Labour included a new statement of purpose and set of principles in an amendment to the Social Security Act 1964 .
The intent was not only to put a strong emphasis on paid work as the tool of social inclusion , but also to introduce the idea that an individual should use resources available to them first , before seeking help from the state : The purpose became : • None “ to enable in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to people to help alleviate hardship : • None to ensure that the financial support referred to in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) is provided to people taking into account— that where appropriate they should use the resources available to them before seeking financial support under this Act ” It is no wonder staff have been eying things like redundancy money .
The culture facilitated by that amendment stresses the need for applicants to “ draw on other resources first ” and go away to become the ‘ deserving poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
Other social security programmes like ACC and NZS have no such poverty inducing requirements .
The idea that a welfare benefit is a social insurance payment to tide people over so that assets are not run down just to survive has disappeared .
As part of the engrained MSD culture , benefits are rarely referred to as ‘ social security ’ but have all the negative connotations of ‘ welfare ’ .
What does looking to your own resources first mean ?
Because core benefits are set well below poverty lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hardship top-ups are required .
These are tightly means-tested and require that cash assets are run down to low levels .
They effectively force applicants to look to their own resources first even if the core benefit itself is only income tested .
The supplementary payments are no longer an unusual addition and the system has become wildly distorted .
The picture below shows the numbers of means tested top-ups in contrast to the numbers of core benefits .
But what does this “ looking to your own resources ” mean in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What about taking out a bigger mortgage , getting loans from family or loan sharks , cashing in assets like the car ?
It is no wonder when so much staff time is needed to pry into people ’ s affairs for these complex supplements that such thinking spills over into the way applicants for the core benefit are treated .
In fact , staff have been acting on the mis-information on their own website that has since been corrected to remove redundancy payments .
“ When a person applies for income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the payments they receive when they stop work may delay the date when their benefit starts .
“ Payments that impact the benefit start time include holiday pay , sick pay , long service leave , pay in lieu of notice and retirement payments .
Redundancy payments are not part of this calculation.
” But even now this is wrong .
There will be many older workers whose COVID-19 job loss experience sees them exiting employment with early retirement payments .
Section 422 of the Social Security act says quite clearly : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the purpose of determining the rate of benefit , to take no account of a redundancy or retirement payment.
” Clearly , there is a long way to go before the conditioning of staff into this mentality of “ stand on your own two feet ’ gets sorted .
But in the meantime it will be a tragedy for the COVD-19 recovery .
In the coming long , drawn-out and painful recession , the better-off will emerge with scarcely a dent to their balance sheets , while the worst-off will struggle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to retirement recovery of retirement savings may never occur , and elder poverty will soar .
Others of working age will become entrapped in the welfare system with poverty traps punishing them when they attempt to get on their feet , when retraining , insecure casual or part-time work is all that is on offer .
Meeting Child Poverty Reduction Targets seems a pipe dream for the foreseeable future and family and child poverty will surge with its associated costs of poor health , stunted potential and high levels of transience , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and CPAG have said multiple times , first fix the Act and frame our purposes and principles intelligently .
That is the way to get the culture shift we will so desperately need .

The ignorance of Work and Income was on display when it was revealed that staff tell benefit applicants that their redundancy money has to be used up first.
New Zealand’s core benefit system is subject to an income test but never to an asset test as clearly spelt out in 1972
None of the standard categorical social security benefits is subject to a means test. All except universal superannuation, family benefit, and miners’ benefits are, however, subject to an income test set at the level of the benefit plus a varying amount of “allowable other income”. Apart from ad hoc emergency payments, it is only in the area of supplementary assistance that assets as well as income are taken into account (Royal Commission of Inquiry on Social Security in New Zealand, 1972, p. 139)
Importantly, in the NZ system, asset and income tests apply only to what should be limited and unusual cases of top-ups to relieve unexpected hardship.
It is necessary to look more deeply at the confusion at Work and Income because the reason has bred a culture that lies at the core of the administration of the welfare state and will be dangerous to the COVID recovery.
Controversially, in 2007 Labour included a new statement of purpose and set of principles in an amendment to the Social Security Act 1964. The intent was not only to put a strong emphasis on paid work as the tool of social inclusion, but also to introduce the idea that an individual should use resources available to them first, before seeking help from the state: The purpose became:
“to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support to people to help alleviate hardship:
to ensure that the financial support referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is provided to people taking into account— that where appropriate they should use the resources available to them before seeking financial support under this Act”
It is no wonder staff have been eying things like redundancy money. The culture facilitated by that amendment stresses the need for applicants to “draw on other resources first” and go away to become the ‘deserving poor’ before asking for anything from the state.
Other social security programmes like ACC and NZS have no such poverty inducing requirements. The idea that a welfare benefit is a social insurance payment to tide people over so that assets are not run down just to survive has disappeared. As part of the engrained MSD culture, benefits are rarely referred to as ‘social security’ but have all the negative connotations of ‘welfare’.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
What does looking to your own resources first mean? Because core benefits are set well below poverty lines, supplements such as the Accommodation Supplement and hardship top-ups are required. These are tightly means-tested and require that cash assets are run down to low levels. They effectively force applicants to look to their own resources first even if the core benefit itself is only income tested.
The supplementary payments are no longer an unusual addition and the system has become wildly distorted. The picture below shows the numbers of means tested top-ups in contrast to the numbers of core benefits.
But what does this “looking to your own resources” mean in practice? Should Kiwisaver be drawn down? What about taking out a bigger mortgage, getting loans from family or loan sharks, cashing in assets like the car?
It is no wonder when so much staff time is needed to pry into people’s affairs for these complex supplements that such thinking spills over into the way applicants for the core benefit are treated.
In fact, staff have been acting on the mis-information on their own website that has since been corrected to remove redundancy payments.
MSD now say
“When a person applies for income support because they are finishing employment, the payments they receive when they stop work may delay the date when their benefit starts.
“Payments that impact the benefit start time include holiday pay, sick pay, long service leave, pay in lieu of notice and retirement payments. Redundancy payments are not part of this calculation.”
But even now this is wrong. There will be many older workers whose COVID-19 job loss experience sees them exiting employment with early retirement payments. Section 422 of the Social Security act says quite clearly:
“in calculating the income of a person for the purpose of determining the rate of benefit, to take no account of a redundancy or retirement payment.”
Clearly, there is a long way to go before the conditioning of staff into this mentality of “stand on your own two feet’ gets sorted. But in the meantime it will be a tragedy for the COVD-19 recovery.
In the coming long, drawn-out and painful recession, the better-off will emerge with scarcely a dent to their balance sheets, while the worst-off will struggle for decades to repair theirs.
For those close to retirement recovery of retirement savings may never occur, and elder poverty will soar. Others of working age will become entrapped in the welfare system with poverty traps punishing them when they attempt to get on their feet, when retraining, insecure casual or part-time work is all that is on offer.
Meeting Child Poverty Reduction Targets seems a pipe dream for the foreseeable future and family and child poverty will surge with its associated costs of poor health, stunted potential and high levels of transience, domestic violence and suicide.
As WEAG and CPAG have said multiple times, first fix the Act and frame our purposes and principles intelligently. That is the way to get the culture shift we will so desperately need.


thedailyblog--2020-05-13--Open Letter To Maori MPs Please Vote Against Covid-19 Public Response Bill

I am writing to you as Maori MPs with a plea to vote against the Covid-19 Public Response Bill , and at the very least refer it to select committee for scrutiny .
There are so many problems with the Bill , but I want to focus specifically on Clause 17 ( 3 ) .
As I read the Bill I had images of the invasion of Parihaka – the wording almost mirrors that in the west Coast Peace Preservation Act – and the arrest of Rua Kenana at Maungapohatu .
As some of you will recall , I teach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law and Society students as among the deepest days of racism and colonial oppression in New Zealand .
Surely , we can ’ t be laying the ground to repeat those grave injustices in the name of Covid-19 ?
The assurances of safeguards echo those we were given when making submissions on the Suppression of Terrorism Act .
Some of us predicted those powers would be used against Maori , with sweeping racially biased interpretations and failed safeguards .
Sure enough we had raids on te Urewera .
Just today we have stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any permission .
We know that AI has inbuilt racial biases .
This Bill operates for 2 years without effective scrutiny .
If the Parliament passes this Bill , and the Maori MPs are complicit in that , what reassurance does a requirement for ex poste scrutiny in the House provide ?
… Where is the Treaty of Waitangi assessment , even against the deeply flawed guidelines adopted by the government last year ?
The Bill of Rights assessment makes no reference to the Treaty .
Clause 17 ( 3 ) treats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equivalent , and the concerns expressed are over privacy not over tino rangatiratanga , tikanga , te kawa of the marae … Yes , there are health issues , but as with the roadblocks , there are means of cooperating to develop appropriate strategies that recognise tino rangatiratanga and are culturally appropriate and consistent with tikanga .
The Crown is acting today just as it did back in the 1880s .
Today , it should know better .
But by bypassing select committee it is not prepared even to be held to account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against this Bill and plead with the government to at least send it to select committee to hear submissions .

Tena koutou.
I am writing to you as Maori MPs with a plea to vote against the Covid-19 Public Response Bill, and at the very least refer it to select committee for scrutiny.
There are so many problems with the Bill, but I want to focus specifically on Clause 17(3).
As I read the Bill I had images of the invasion of Parihaka – the wording almost mirrors that in the west Coast Peace Preservation Act – and the arrest of Rua Kenana at Maungapohatu. As some of you will recall, I teach both of those to my first year Law and Society students as among the deepest days of racism and colonial oppression in New Zealand. Surely, we can’t be laying the ground to repeat those grave injustices in the name of Covid-19?
The assurances of safeguards echo those we were given when making submissions on the Suppression of Terrorism Act. Some of us predicted those powers would be used against Maori, with sweeping racially biased interpretations and failed safeguards. Sure enough we had raids on te Urewera.
Just today we have stories about the police trialling facial recognition software without any permission. We know that AI has inbuilt racial biases.
This Bill operates for 2 years without effective scrutiny. If the Parliament passes this Bill, and the Maori MPs are complicit in that, what reassurance does a requirement for ex poste scrutiny in the House provide? …
Where is the Treaty of Waitangi assessment, even against the deeply flawed guidelines adopted by the government last year?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The Bill of Rights assessment makes no reference to the Treaty.
Clause 17(3) treats a private dwelling and a marae as equivalent, and the concerns expressed are over privacy not over tino rangatiratanga, tikanga, te kawa of the marae …
Yes, there are health issues, but as with the roadblocks, there are means of cooperating to develop appropriate strategies that recognise tino rangatiratanga and are culturally appropriate and consistent with tikanga.
The Crown is acting today just as it did back in the 1880s. Today, it should know better. But by bypassing select committee it is not prepared even to be held to account within its own forum.
Please vote against this Bill and plead with the government to at least send it to select committee to hear submissions.


thedailyblog--2020-05-14--On National On Labour On Human Rights In (A) Crisis

So let me get this straight .
The National Party is objecting to the Government ’ s recent Public Health Response bill … because of its deeply held stances around the protection of human rights , opposition to warrantless searches , and scrupulously consistent abject horror at the concept of abrogation ( or expedition ) of democracy .
I believe the canonical response goes : pull the other one , for it hath bells on .
This is the self-same National Party that semi-regularly treated ‘ human rights ’ , and the Human Rights Commission as a dirty word during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has continued to oppose the Human Rights Commission ’ s stance on prisoners voting from Opposition .
This is the self-same National Party that massively expanded Police and spy agencies ’ powers to engage in warrantless search and surveillance of ordinary Kiwis … and , as it happens , sided against the Human Rights Commission AGAIN in the process .
This is the self-same National Party that imposed a SuperCity on Auckland against the will of its people ( as in , quite literally erased eight democracies and then some at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy for almost a decade at Environment Canterbury , and rushed HOW much legislation through under Urgency ?
National ’ s own track-record is abundantly clear .
They didn ’ t care about human rights , or the views of the Human Rights Commission , or protecting you from warrantless search etc.
, or upholding your democratic-constitutional system … … up until it became politically convenient to .
In fact , they STILL don ’ t care about these things .
They ’ re just far enough from power – and painfully aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that way for some time yet – that they can semi-safely pretend to be up in arms about these concerns , secure in the knowledge that by the time they ’ re in a position to legislate in these areas again , all of this will be a distant memory .
The National Party was quite prepared to actively support the abrogation of human rights , sidelining of HRC , and the deliberate erosion of democratic systems here … in an ordinary , peace-time situation .
In fact , in what was – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the best and most prosperous conditions in recent memory .
Who knows WHAT they ’ d have felt entirely entitled to hack away at were they in the driving seat right now instead of Labour .
Hell , they ’ d probably be flogging off the other half of half a dozen energy companies in order to try and fund a few billion worth of tax-cuts … and that ’ d be before they ’ d even realized there was a Covid-19 Crisis demanding their attention .
Now , I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fan of Labour ordinarily .
And I do think that there is legitimate room for both criticism and conversation around this Bill .
As well as , of course , congratulation in no small quantity for how they ’ ve handled this present Crisis all up .
But I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the man who proudly boasts of being a “ former Crown Prosecutor ” who ’ s presently leading the Opposition … genuinely has an issue with warrentless searches by Police .
It ’ d be interesting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant that he ’ d ever turned down prosecuting a cannabis charge , for instance , because the warrantless search powers we ’ ve already got under various legislation ( even prior to the legislation he voted for on this subject ) were made use of to make the arrest .
I doubt it .
I really do .
There ’ s a lot of misinformation flying around about the Public Health Response bill at the moment .
Surely , the most egregious of it is that National has a leg to stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imply that it hath been surgically removed from Simon ’ s mouth .

So let me get this straight. The National Party is objecting to the Government’s recent Public Health Response bill … because of its deeply held stances around the protection of human rights, opposition to warrantless searches, and scrupulously consistent abject horror at the concept of abrogation (or expedition) of democracy.
I believe the canonical response goes: pull the other one, for it hath bells on.
This is the self-same National Party that semi-regularly treated ‘human rights’, and the Human Rights Commission as a dirty word during its time in Government – indeed, which has continued to oppose the Human Rights Commission’s stance on prisoners voting from Opposition.
This is the self-same National Party that massively expanded Police and spy agencies’ powers to engage in warrantless search and surveillance of ordinary Kiwis … and, as it happens, sided against the Human Rights Commission AGAIN in the process.
This is the self-same National Party that imposed a SuperCity on Auckland against the will of its people (as in, quite literally erased eight democracies and then some at the stroke of a pen), suspended democracy for almost a decade at Environment Canterbury, and rushed HOW much legislation through under Urgency?
National’s own track-record is abundantly clear. They didn’t care about human rights, or the views of the Human Rights Commission, or protecting you from warrantless search etc., or upholding your democratic-constitutional system …
… up until it became politically convenient to. In fact, they STILL don’t care about these things. They’re just far enough from power – and painfully aware that they’re going to be that way for some time yet – that they can semi-safely pretend to be up in arms about these concerns, secure in the knowledge that by the time they’re in a position to legislate in these areas again, all of this will be a distant memory.
The National Party was quite prepared to actively support the abrogation of human rights, sidelining of HRC, and the deliberate erosion of democratic systems here … in an ordinary, peace-time situation. In fact, in what was – by their own accounting of things – some of the best and most prosperous conditions in recent memory.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Who knows WHAT they’d have felt entirely entitled to hack away at were they in the driving seat right now instead of Labour. Hell, they’d probably be flogging off the other half of half a dozen energy companies in order to try and fund a few billion worth of tax-cuts … and that’d be before they’d even realized there was a Covid-19 Crisis demanding their attention.
Now, I am not, strictly speaking, a huge fan of Labour ordinarily. And I do think that there is legitimate room for both criticism and conversation around this Bill. As well as, of course, congratulation in no small quantity for how they’ve handled this present Crisis all up.
But I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the man who proudly boasts of being a “former Crown Prosecutor” who’s presently leading the Opposition … genuinely has an issue with warrentless searches by Police. It’d be interesting to know if this apparent deeply-seated principled belief meant that he’d ever turned down prosecuting a cannabis charge, for instance, because the warrantless search powers we’ve already got under various legislation (even prior to the legislation he voted for on this subject) were made use of to make the arrest.
I doubt it. I really do.
There’s a lot of misinformation flying around about the Public Health Response bill at the moment.
Surely, the most egregious of it is that National has a leg to stand on.
Not least because that would imply that it hath been surgically removed from Simon’s mouth.


thedailyblog--2020-05-14--Dr Liz Gordon – Adult and Community Education and the end of neoliberalism

It was the smallest little announcement and the biggest thing in the world that caught my attention during the budget .
The smallest one was the reinstatement of adult and community education .
The cut to ACE funding by the last National government was a huge slap in the face for people learning together in local communities .
For that government , there were not enough job outcomes to justify funding ACE and any other outcomes were irrelevant .
After a decade where social cohesion in communities has come into question as a result of the rise of the racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in your local schools and community centres has come back into clear focus .
Whether it be Thai cooking , pottery , woodworking , art or whatever , ACE is back .
As a long time user of such courses , and as a supporter of community-led change , I am delighted .
I nearly fell off my chair in glee .
Towards the end of his speech , Grant Robertson said the following : We can also draw the lessons of the past as to what not to do in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case I can draw on the experiences of my own life .
As the economic carnage of the 1980s and 1990s wreaked havoc in our communities , I saw that up close .
It was based on a tired set of ideas that the market would save us , that if government sat on the sideline all would be well .
Well , it didn ’ t work out that way and lives and livelihoods were lost .
That will not happen again , not on the watch of this government .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with iwi , business , unions , community groups , every one of the team of five million to make sure we all not only get through this , but that we thrive on the other side .
The budget was masterful in the circumstances , but nothing was more important than those two paragraphs .
For 30-plus years we have suffered as a nation under the daft idea that if we leave everything to the market , that capitalism would by itself produce good outcomes for our society .
Instead , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries are in a worse position , having abandoned their health systems at least in part to market forces , then found that they do not have the services they need when an emergency arises .
Our struggle with Covid-19 has barely started , I think .
It is too naïve to imagine that we have won the battle and the war .
We may have done well only in a preliminary skirmish .
But once again today , our government has passed the test of world leadership .
Compared with the incoherent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump and the machinations of various world leaders ( I do not need to name them again ) , our government is a model of good practice .
I think Simon Bridges failed a key test of good leadership today in going after the money and the debt .
It is obvious to me that most people want us to cushion the many blows to our economy with borrowed money .
Whether or not Bridges is replaced before the election , this government is going to ride a much-deserved wave to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it is going to do then to heal the neoliberal wounds of poverty and inequality will be front and centre at that point .
This is a fine start in many areas .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

It was the smallest little announcement and the biggest thing in the world that caught my attention during the budget.
The smallest one was the reinstatement of adult and community education. The cut to ACE funding by the last National government was a huge slap in the face for people learning together in local communities.
For that government, there were not enough job outcomes to justify funding ACE and any other outcomes were irrelevant. After a decade where social cohesion in communities has come into question as a result of the rise of the racist right, the role of community learning in your local schools and community centres has come back into clear focus. Whether it be Thai cooking, pottery, woodworking, art or whatever, ACE is back. As a long time user of such courses, and as a supporter of community-led change, I am delighted. I nearly fell off my chair in glee.
Towards the end of his speech, Grant Robertson said the following:
We can also draw the lessons of the past as to what not to do in response to a major economic shock. In this case I can draw on the experiences of my own life. As the economic carnage of the 1980s and 1990s wreaked havoc in our communities, I saw that up close. It was based on a tired set of ideas that the market would save us, that if government sat on the sideline all would be well.
Well, it didn’t work out that way and lives and livelihoods were lost. That will not happen again, not on the watch of this government. We know that we must work in partnership with iwi, business, unions, community groups, every one of the team of five million to make sure we all not only get through this, but that we thrive on the other side.
The budget was masterful in the circumstances, but nothing was more important than those two paragraphs. For 30-plus years we have suffered as a nation under the daft idea that if we leave everything to the market, that capitalism would by itself produce good outcomes for our society. Instead, we have nearly wrecked our society.
Other countries are in a worse position, having abandoned their health systems at least in part to market forces, then found that they do not have the services they need when an emergency arises.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Our struggle with Covid-19 has barely started, I think. It is too naïve to imagine that we have won the battle and the war. We may have done well only in a preliminary skirmish. But once again today, our government has passed the test of world leadership. Compared with the incoherent instructions of Boris, the insane rants of Trump and the machinations of various world leaders (I do not need to name them again), our government is a model of good practice.
I think Simon Bridges failed a key test of good leadership today in going after the money and the debt. It is obvious to me that most people want us to cushion the many blows to our economy with borrowed money. Whether or not Bridges is replaced before the election, this government is going to ride a much-deserved wave to the election and beyond. The question of what it is going to do then to heal the neoliberal wounds of poverty and inequality will be front and centre at that point. This is a fine start in many areas.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-05-14--The Day Labour Came Home.

The Day Labour Came Home.

THIS WAS THE DAY my old comrades Bruce Jesson and Gerry Hill never got to see .
Grant Robertson ’ s reaffirmation of Labour ’ s democratic-socialist principles , the Budget Speech they never got to hear .
That I have lived long enough to see this day and hear that speech is something for which I am truly thankful .
What am I talking about ?
is what I ’ m talking about : “ We can draw on the lessons of the past as to how to deal with [ the challenges of the Covid-19-generated economic crisis ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditions of the First Labour Government who rebuilt New Zealand after the Great Depression .
It was a time when they understood a genuine partnership between government and the people .
That each and every person in this country deserved the right to take up the chances afforded by being lucky enough to live in , as my predecessor Peter Fraser called it , this green and pleasant land .
They built houses , rail and roads , they created the welfare state and a strong public health system , and they backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those principles into the modern era .
“ We can also draw the lessons of the past as to what not to do in response to a major economic shock .
In this case Mr Speaker I can draw on the experiences of my own life .
As the economic carnage of the 1980s and 1990s wreaked havoc in our communities , I saw that up close .
It was based on a tired set of ideas that the market would save us , that if government sat on the sidelines all would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work out that way and lives and livelihoods were lost .
“ That will not happen again , not on the watch of this government .
We know that we must work in partnership with iwi , business , unions , community groups , every one of the team of five million to make sure we all not only get through this , but that we thrive on the other side.
” Nearly forty years ago , I was present to hear my old history professor , John Omer-Cooper , debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with one of his post-graduate students , a young fellow by the name of Michael Laws .
For a good part of his life Omer-Cooper had lived in Africa – an advantage he put to good use against Laws who grew increasingly exasperated as the mild-mannered professor methodically dismantled his arguments .
The pro-Tour firebrand ’ s final shot was to accuse his opponent of attempting to pass off expediency as morality .
Omer-Cooper ’ s reply , calmly but firmly delivered , I have never forgotten : “ There are occasions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , and the moral thing to do , are the same thing.
” I would offer Omer-Cooper ’ s observation to all those who dismiss Robertson ’ s remarks as boiler-plate Budget Day rhetoric .
“ Words are cheap !
” , they object – which is certainly true .
The point I would make in response to such cynicism , however , is that in the 35 years since Roger Douglas delivered his paradigm-shifting 1985 Budget Speech , no other Labour Finance Minister has felt either willing or able to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robertson and the Prime Minister referencing Labour ’ s democratic-socialist traditions because in the absence of such a transformative vision the numbers quoted in today ’ s Budget Speech will crush all hope of their government ’ s re-election ?
Of course they are .
And doesn ’ t that constitute sheer expediency on their part ?
No , not “ sheer ” expediency : not when their joint repudiation of Rogernomics is genuine .
Not when the idea of making the most vulnerable members of our society bear the burden of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To seek to inspire New Zealanders with hope for a better future on the other side of this once-in-a-century crisis may well be the expedient thing to do in the run-up to a general election , but it is also the right thing to do .
All of which leaves us with a decision of our own to make .
How should we respond to the extraordinary words spoken by Jacinda and Grant over the course of the last 48 hours ?
For what it ’ s worth , my personal opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face value .
Now , don ’ t get me wrong , I ’ m not suggesting we simply overlook the clear deficiencies of the 2020 Budget : the absence of tax increases for the wealthy ; its lack of further financial assistance for beneficiaries ; but neither should we allow the best possible budget to become the enemy of a bloody good one .
In a nation that has suffered 35 years of relentless neoliberal sloganeering , discretion just has to be the better part of political valour .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill had been here to witness the day Labour came home to itself ; had they , too , heard Robertson repudiate Rogernomics ; then I ’ m pretty damn sure that they – and every one of our dear departed democratic-socialist comrades – would say the same .

THIS WAS THE DAY my old comrades Bruce Jesson and Gerry Hill never got to see. Grant Robertson’s reaffirmation of Labour’s democratic-socialist principles, the Budget Speech they never got to hear. That I have lived long enough to see this day and hear that speech is something for which I am truly thankful.
What am I talking about? This is what I’m talking about:
“We can draw on the lessons of the past as to how to deal with [the challenges of the Covid-19-generated economic crisis]. The answers lie in the great traditions of the First Labour Government who rebuilt New Zealand after the Great Depression. It was a time when they understood a genuine partnership between government and the people. That each and every person in this country deserved the right to take up the chances afforded by being lucky enough to live in, as my predecessor Peter Fraser called it, this green and pleasant land. They built houses, rail and roads, they created the welfare state and a strong public health system, and they backed shopkeepers and manufacturers. We are taking those principles into the modern era.
“We can also draw the lessons of the past as to what not to do in response to a major economic shock. In this case Mr Speaker I can draw on the experiences of my own life. As the economic carnage of the 1980s and 1990s wreaked havoc in our communities, I saw that up close. It was based on a tired set of ideas that the market would save us, that if government sat on the sidelines all would be well. Well, it didn’t work out that way and lives and livelihoods were lost.
“That will not happen again, not on the watch of this government. We know that we must work in partnership with iwi, business, unions, community groups, every one of the team of five million to make sure we all not only get through this, but that we thrive on the other side.”
Nearly forty years ago, I was present to hear my old history professor, John Omer-Cooper, debate the ethics of the 1981 Springbok Tour with one of his post-graduate students, a young fellow by the name of Michael Laws. For a good part of his life Omer-Cooper had lived in Africa – an advantage he put to good use against Laws who grew increasingly exasperated as the mild-mannered professor methodically dismantled his arguments. The pro-Tour firebrand’s final shot was to accuse his opponent of attempting to pass off expediency as morality. Omer-Cooper’s reply, calmly but firmly delivered, I have never forgotten: “There are occasions, Michael, when the expedient thing to do, and the moral thing to do, are the same thing.”
I would offer Omer-Cooper’s observation to all those who dismiss Robertson’s remarks as boiler-plate Budget Day rhetoric. “Words are cheap!”, they object – which is certainly true. The point I would make in response to such cynicism, however, is that in the 35 years since Roger Douglas delivered his paradigm-shifting 1985 Budget Speech, no other Labour Finance Minister has felt either willing or able to speak such words. Until today.
Are Robertson and the Prime Minister referencing Labour’s democratic-socialist traditions because in the absence of such a transformative vision the numbers quoted in today’s Budget Speech will crush all hope of their government’s re-election? Of course they are. And doesn’t that constitute sheer expediency on their part? No, not “sheer” expediency: not when their joint repudiation of Rogernomics is genuine. Not when the idea of making the most vulnerable members of our society bear the burden of economic misfortune is one they sincerely consider objectionable. To seek to inspire New Zealanders with hope for a better future on the other side of this once-in-a-century crisis may well be the expedient thing to do in the run-up to a general election, but it is also the right thing to do.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
All of which leaves us with a decision of our own to make. How should we respond to the extraordinary words spoken by Jacinda and Grant over the course of the last 48 hours? For what it’s worth, my personal opinion is we should take their words at face value. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting we simply overlook the clear deficiencies of the 2020 Budget: the absence of tax increases for the wealthy; its lack of further financial assistance for beneficiaries; but neither should we allow the best possible budget to become the enemy of a bloody good one. In a nation that has suffered 35 years of relentless neoliberal sloganeering, discretion just has to be the better part of political valour.
What’s more, if Bruce Jesson and Gerry Hill had been here to witness the day Labour came home to itself; had they, too, heard Robertson repudiate Rogernomics; then I’m pretty damn sure that they – and every one of our dear departed democratic-socialist comrades – would say the same.


thedailyblog--2020-05-14--An extraordinarily underwhelming budget

An extraordinarily underwhelming budget

Despite the large numbers my feelings after reading it and the accompanying news reports is one of extreme disappointment at a missed opportunity .
The government is telling us that it will more than double the national debt to around $ 200 billion over the next few years and all we will achieve is to keep things unchanged .
In effect what has happened is that we have had decades of underspending in so many areas that we need to spend this money just to keep us where we already are or where we should have been .
New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fetishes that both National and Labour governments adhered to .
One was that we can ’ t have any taxes that target capital gains or wealth more broadly .
The second was that we had to have budget surpluses every year to reduce New Zealand ’ s existing debt to ever lower and lower numbers .
The result was we would never have the income or ability to spend to the levels needed to maintain the infrastructure of New Zealand to the level it should be .
Health , for example , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparedness for this pandemic that we were extremely lucky not to be infected to the extent the system was simply overwhelmed .
Health Boards are saddled with billions of dollars in debt that they must pay interest on as a consequence .
What this budget seems to be doing is simply spending the money over the next five years that we should have spent over the last 20 or 30 years .
The problem with this strategy is that at the end , most people won ’ t notice any change to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this budget .
There is no promise of a new , fairer , more egalitarian , more equal New Zealand where everyone pays their fair share .
There is no commitment to rebuilding New Zealand in a manner that allows us to genuinely address climate change .
The biggest chunk of money is actually being given to businesses as a subsidy for wages to keep people employed .
That may be necessary as an emergency step .
But many of these companies didn ’ t actually need the money or were low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything they can to enrich their shareholders above all else over the last decade .
The government could have simply demanded that they be given 33 % of the shares ( voting or non-voting ) as a condition of the aid to ensure that taxpayers benefited from the recovery .
The opposition will be accusing the government of taxing working people to pay for these debts without any real benefit .
And that is how it will soon feel for many .
A crisis is an opportunity .
The right-wing know that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
There is more to life than always trying to be a safe pair of hands for big business which is what Labour government ’ s around the world have been reduced to over recent decades .
We need a vision that puts the needs of working people and the plant at centre stage .
Dare to dream !

Despite the large numbers my feelings after reading it and the accompanying news reports is one of extreme disappointment at a missed opportunity.
The government is telling us that it will more than double the national debt to around $200 billion over the next few years and all we will achieve is to keep things unchanged.
In effect what has happened is that we have had decades of underspending in so many areas that we need to spend this money just to keep us where we already are or where we should have been.
New Zealand is in this situation because of two fetishes that both National and Labour governments adhered to.
One was that we can’t have any taxes that target capital gains or wealth more broadly.
The second was that we had to have budget surpluses every year to reduce New Zealand’s existing debt to ever lower and lower numbers.
The result was we would never have the income or ability to spend to the levels needed to maintain the infrastructure of New Zealand to the level it should be.
Health, for example, was at such a critically low level of preparedness for this pandemic that we were extremely lucky not to be infected to the extent the system was simply overwhelmed. Health Boards are saddled with billions of dollars in debt that they must pay interest on as a consequence.
What this budget seems to be doing is simply spending the money over the next five years that we should have spent over the last 20 or 30 years.
The problem with this strategy is that at the end, most people won’t notice any change to their lives.
There is simply no vision in this budget. There is no promise of a new, fairer, more egalitarian, more equal New Zealand where everyone pays their fair share.
There is no commitment to rebuilding New Zealand in a manner that allows us to genuinely address climate change.
The biggest chunk of money is actually being given to businesses as a subsidy for wages to keep people employed. That may be necessary as an emergency step. But many of these companies didn’t actually need the money or were low on capital reserves because they have done everything they can to enrich their shareholders above all else over the last decade. The government could have simply demanded that they be given 33% of the shares (voting or non-voting) as a condition of the aid to ensure that taxpayers benefited from the recovery.
The opposition will be accusing the government of taxing working people to pay for these debts without any real benefit. And that is how it will soon feel for many.
A crisis is an opportunity. The right-wing know that. Why will the so-called left never learn that. There is more to life than always trying to be a safe pair of hands for big business which is what Labour government’s around the world have been reduced to over recent decades.
We need a vision that puts the needs of working people and the plant at centre stage. Dare to dream!


thedailyblog--2020-05-14--Budget 2020 state housing rebuild deeply disappointing

The budget announcement that the government will deliver 6000 additional public houses ( and 2000 transitional houses ) over the next four to five years is deeply disappointing .
This number includes houses to be provided by private community housing providers .
The number of state houses the government will provide is not stated but based the current social housing plan ( whereby the Government provides 75 % of new state houses ) this means that only 4500 will be state houses .
It will be Kainga Ora who will paying for this so the sum result is there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year built and central Government will not be paying for any of them .
By getting Kainga Ora to borrow the $ 5 billion to build these houses the government will keep that debt off its books despite the fact the government can borrow money more cheaply than Kainga Ora .
Good politics but not so good value for money for those is need of state housing .
This announcement comes the day after data was released showing the state house waiting list has skyrocketed to 16,309 – nearly tripling since this Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state houses will only slow down and not reduce this waiting list .
Instead it will balloon further with the Covid 19 downturn .
Recently Infometrics called for 5000 additional social houses a year .
Only this type of increase will address the current social housing crisis – not the token effort the Government has announced .
Tenants and families on low incomes deserve better than this .
These are the people who are the first to be fired and the last to be hired .
They will bear the brunt of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic but they have been poorly treated in this budget with respect to housing .

The budget announcement that the government will deliver 6000 additional public houses (and 2000 transitional houses) over the next four to five years is deeply disappointing. This number includes houses to be provided by private community housing providers. The number of state houses the government will provide is not stated but based the current social housing plan (whereby the Government provides 75% of new state houses) this means that only 4500 will be state houses.
It will be Kainga Ora who will paying for this so the sum result is there will be about 1000 additional state houses a year built and central Government will not be paying for any of them.
By getting Kainga Ora to borrow the $5 billion to build these houses the government will keep that debt off its books despite the fact the government can borrow money more cheaply than Kainga Ora. Good politics but not so good value for money for those is need of state housing.
This announcement comes the day after data was released showing the state house waiting list has skyrocketed to 16,309 – nearly tripling since this Government came to power. The budgeted additional state houses will only slow down and not reduce this waiting list. Instead it will balloon further with the Covid 19 downturn.
Recently Infometrics called for 5000 additional social houses a year. Only this type of increase will address the current social housing crisis – not the token effort the Government has announced.
Tenants and families on low incomes deserve better than this.
These are the people who are the first to be fired and the last to be hired. They will bear the brunt of the economic and social crisis created by the pandemic but they have been poorly treated in this budget with respect to housing.


thedailyblog--2020-05-15--Labour’s new 8000 State Houses are an illusion

“ The very first time in a very long while that we have had a public housing build target that does match the current waiting list ” Excuse us Ms Woods but the facts on planet earth are the following : • It has increased by over 3,000 per year for each of the past three years of the Labour-led coalition government .
• The budget announcement of 8,000 new “ public houses ” over five years ( 6,000 public houses and 2,000 transitional houses ) means at best 1600 new “ public houses ” each year for the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 1400 houses less , year by year , than the growth in demand .
• The state house waiting list is increasing at double the rate of the government ’ s “ public house ” building plans .
• There is no possible way to construe the minister ’ s statement as even beginning to approach the truth .
The government announcement is indifferent to the desperate housing needs of low-income tenants and families .
• The 8,000 public houses are NOT state houses but rely on at least 25 % being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The government is not putting a single dollar into building new state houses – it is requiring Kainga Ora to borrow to build them despite the government being able to borrow at cheaper interest rates .

Housing Minister Megan Woods:
“The very first time in a very long while that we have had a public housing build target that does match the current waiting list”
Excuse us Ms Woods but the facts on planet earth are the following:
The current state house waiting list is 16,309.
It has increased by over 3,000 per year for each of the past three years of the Labour-led coalition government.
The budget announcement of 8,000 new “public houses” over five years (6,000 public houses and 2,000 transitional houses) means at best 1600 new “public houses” each year for the next five years.
The government target is 1400 houses less, year by year, than the growth in demand.
The state house waiting list is increasing at double the rate of the government’s “public house” building plans.
There is no possible way to construe the minister’s statement as even beginning to approach the truth. The government announcement is indifferent to the desperate housing needs of low-income tenants and families.
Other important but unreported facts.


thedailyblog--2020-05-16--Why Are The Most Desperate Ignored In The Budget?

Unite Union wants to know why the most desperate sectors in New Zealand have been ignored in the budget , and wants a new package of support released soon With unemployment set to explode as the government wage subsidy comes to an end , many workers who have never had to rely on a benefit are soon going to have to come to terms with a system that drives people deeper into poverty and debt .
A number of employers Unite deals with are already beginning redundancy processes with jobs set to be terminated as soon as the subsidy runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions are reporting the same scenario .
Over the last ten years , the number of people applying for emergency benefits and accessing emergency food agencies have been exploding .
This reflects the very low level of benefits in New Zealand and the fact that the agency responsible for delivering support has been governed by a culture of denial of entitlements .
This culture was imposed on WINZ in the mid 2000s and led to a halving in the percentage of unemployed people accessing benefits , many choosing to try and survive with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face ritual humiliation , belittling and bullying from caseworkers .
The Household Labour Force Survey measures the number of people officially unemployed , as well as a broader number of people who are “ jobless ” .
Between 1990 and 2003 the number of people on benefits never dropped below 64 % of the jobless number .
Over the next decade , it dropped to only 18 % of the “ jobless ” number .
It went from 120 % of the unemployed number to only 45 % in 2013 .
No explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was achieved without denying people their legal entitlement .
These numbers are behind the hunger and homelessness associated with joblessness over the last seven years when unemployment was officially relatively low .
But if you were unemployed and couldn ’ t access any form of entitlement then misery was the inevitable result .
The new mass unemployment that will be being unleashed over the next six months demands a complete culture change .
But the exposure that WINZ is still unlawfully telling people who have received redundancy payments that they must exhaust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof that this culture has not changed at all .
Heads should roll at the top if needed to ensure this change .
• A doubling of the value of the unemployment benefit over the next six months at least .
This was done in Australia by a right-wing government and should be copied here .
The current benefit is worth only 20 % of the average wage compared to 40 % before the 1990 benefit cuts .
Even after those cuts , the adult unemployment benefit was worth 33 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to steadily decline in value because it was only ever increased by the consumer price index rather than average wages like superannuation has been .
• Extending benefits to migrant workers who have been brought to New Zealand with the promise of work and education opportunities and now have lost their jobs .
The government is currently forcing thousands of migrant workers to starve .
This is morally repugnant and it is no exaggeration to say it will lead to unnecessary deaths .
• The income people should be able to earn before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to at least levels recommended by the Welfare Experts Advisory Group .
If the government is serious about trying to protect workers from redundancies and help unemployed people back into work , workers need to be able to work part-time and receive enough support to make that affordable .
• All benefit entitlements should be individualised so workers can access benefits even if the partner is working .
The current system doesn ’ t reflect 21st-century families .
It actually destroys families rather than protects them .
• The $ 75 weekly in-work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended to all families .
This will ensure families accessing a benefit during this crisis period aren ’ t doubly penalised by having their payment taken off them .
It will also ensure a real increase for current beneficiary households denied this entitlement .
Governments , both Labour-led and National-led have ignored the welfare of people on benefits for years .
They have treated them as second-class citizens , better kept out of sight and out of mind .
The government is about to find out that this will no longer be possible @

Unite Union wants to know why the most desperate sectors in New Zealand have been ignored in the budget, and wants a new package of support released soon
With unemployment set to explode as the government wage subsidy comes to an end, many workers who have never had to rely on a benefit are soon going to have to come to terms with a system that drives people deeper into poverty and debt.
A number of employers Unite deals with are already beginning redundancy processes with jobs set to be terminated as soon as the subsidy runs out. We are aware that other unions are reporting the same scenario.
Over the last ten years, the number of people applying for emergency benefits and accessing emergency food agencies have been exploding.
This reflects the very low level of benefits in New Zealand and the fact that the agency responsible for delivering support has been governed by a culture of denial of entitlements.
This culture was imposed on WINZ in the mid 2000s and led to a halving in the percentage of unemployed people accessing benefits, many choosing to try and survive with no income at all, rather than face ritual humiliation, belittling and bullying from caseworkers.
The Household Labour Force Survey measures the number of people officially unemployed, as well as a broader number of people who are “jobless”.
Between 1990 and 2003 the number of people on benefits never dropped below 64% of the jobless number. Over the next decade, it dropped to only 18% of the “jobless” number. It went from 120% of the unemployed number to only 45% in 2013.
No explanation has ever been provided as to how this was achieved without denying people their legal entitlement.
These numbers are behind the hunger and homelessness associated with joblessness over the last seven years when unemployment was officially relatively low. But if you were unemployed and couldn’t access any form of entitlement then misery was the inevitable result.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The new mass unemployment that will be being unleashed over the next six months demands a complete culture change.
But the exposure that WINZ is still unlawfully telling people who have received redundancy payments that they must exhaust all their savings before accessing welfare is proof that this culture has not changed at all. Heads should roll at the top if needed to ensure this change.
Five urgent steps are needed:
A doubling of the value of the unemployment benefit over the next six months at least. This was done in Australia by a right-wing government and should be copied here. The current benefit is worth only 20% of the average wage compared to 40% before the 1990 benefit cuts. Even after those cuts, the adult unemployment benefit was worth 33% of the average wage. It has been allowed to steadily decline in value because it was only ever increased by the consumer price index rather than average wages like superannuation has been. Extending benefits to migrant workers who have been brought to New Zealand with the promise of work and education opportunities and now have lost their jobs. The government is currently forcing thousands of migrant workers to starve. This is morally repugnant and it is no exaggeration to say it will lead to unnecessary deaths. The income people should be able to earn before benefits are cut should be radically increased to at least levels recommended by the Welfare Experts Advisory Group. If the government is serious about trying to protect workers from redundancies and help unemployed people back into work, workers need to be able to work part-time and receive enough support to make that affordable. All benefit entitlements should be individualised so workers can access benefits even if the partner is working. The current system doesn’t reflect 21st-century families. It actually destroys families rather than protects them. The $75 weekly in-work tax credit for a child should be extended to all families. This will ensure families accessing a benefit during this crisis period aren’t doubly penalised by having their payment taken off them. It will also ensure a real increase for current beneficiary households denied this entitlement.
Governments, both Labour-led and National-led have ignored the welfare of people on benefits for years. They have treated them as second-class citizens, better kept out of sight and out of mind. The government is about to find out that this will no longer be possible.