National’s policy of Welfare That Works announced by Christopher Luxon at the Party Conference has all the hallmarks of a well-thought-out approach. The initial reaction is mainly positive. It is certainly preferable to the current policy of doing nothing. Doing nothing is something which has manifested itself in all areas of the current administration. It is the reason this country is sinking into an economic and social morass. Doing nothing is not an option.
When a policy is criticised by predictable politicians and others on the left you know you are on the right track.
Let’s start with Jacinda Ardern. She says there are incentives to get young people into work, and sanctions are also available if needed. I wouldn’t argue, no doubt there are, but the big question is who is following up to see if those receiving the job seeker support are in fact actively looking? Who is applying sanctions where needed? I’m picking it’s not happening, which probably explains why employers are crying out for workers yet so many are receiving the job seeker allowance.
This is typical of how this Labour Government operates. Big announcements, things put in place but then comes the hard work of implementation. This is where the ‘do nothing’ comes in. Fifty thousand extra civil servants and still nothing is achieved.
I read in the Herald that a former polytechnic CEO wants an apology from Chris Hipkins for turning the country’s polytechnic education system into a “national disgrace”. According to Phil Ker, hundreds of millions have gone into structural stuff. The deficit has doubled to $100 million and not a single dollar has been put into improving the outcomes for learners or strengthening regional providers. Watch the health system emulate this.
Another of my digressions! The Green Party’s mad-as-a-March-hare Ricardo Menendez says thousands of families will go hungry and cold under National. Really? I thought the aim of getting a job was to avoid exactly that. He says forcing people into employment, no matter how unsuitable, is not the answer. Increasing benefit sanctions will simply push people into hardship and criminalise families who need support, Ricardo says. Criminalise is an apt word when you see the average age of the ram raiders.
Carmel Sepuloni, who would have had a good idea of how the system works before being appointed the Minister, says the whole announcement was political and predictable. Words fail me. So trying to get people off welfare and into work is ‘political’. Sepuloni says young people aren’t getting a free ride under the current Government. She says National has over simplified a complex problem. Have you noticed how, in every portfolio, they use the word ‘complex’? It’s the excuse word for their non-achievement and do nothing behaviour.
David Seymour, who has more between the ears than the entire Labour caucus, agrees it is a good move. He says requiring case management for long-term and young beneficiaries was good policy. His further comments reflected the fact that National and ACT have a similar policy thrust in this area. This is another example of the difference between the right and the left.
The right recognise that to get results you have to put in the hard yards, you have to actually do some work.
The policy is largely aimed at those who prefer welfare to work. It will also assist those who are work ready but are genuinely finding it difficult to get a job.
This policy is a carrot and stick approach for both those receiving welfare and the Ministry of Social Development. If the Ministry can’t solve the problem some of its money will be redirected to community providers who can.
You can read Ardern’s comments and say it is Labour lite. On the face of it maybe. But the big difference is that National will be looking for outcomes. There will be targets to be met. The Sir Humphreys of this world will actually have to do some work or risk having it taken away from them. The less work, the fewer staff needed.
Sepuloni doesn’t like it because she says it’s ‘political’. It isn’t but in her world it most definitely is. Some who are working with young people have also been critical of it. They have a ‘softly softly’ approach and believe all these young ones are victims.
Victims or not, they have to be actively helped out of the hole they are in. That’s what National’s policy is all about. I like it. It has a lot going for it.
