Anne Tolley won’t meet her targets, but damn, we need more of her


Anne Tolley has effectively conceded that National is unlikely to meet its objective of moving 65,000 people off the benefit within the next two years.

The Minister for Social Development revealed that while the Government is “working hard to meet the target”, it was merely an “aspirational” ambition – and she also admitted to being “not too worried” by the number of people coming off welfare support.

Thirty-three-thousand people have come off benefits in the last two years, and Ms Tolley says other positives have come out of her ministry’s social investment approach to welfare. Read more »

Paula Bennett takes back taxpayer money from bludgers sneaking off overseas


If you are alive care of the tax payer, you need to let WINZ know if you are going for a trippy-poo overseas. ?We take a dim view of you spending a week at Surfers’ on our money while we are slogging our guts out earning the taxes to pay for your lifestyle. ? Read more »

5000 arrest warrants for beneficiaries


Q. What do you call 5000 arrest warrants for beneficiaries?

A. A good start Read more »

Gary Johns: No contraception, no benefit

IF a person?s sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.

This is not an affront to single mothers or absent fathers, or struggling parents. Such a measure will undoubtedly affect strugglers, it undoubtedly will affect Aboriginal and Islander people in great proportions, but the idea that someone can have the taxpayer, as of right, fund the choice to have a child is repugnant.

Large families of earlier generations were the result of the combination of absent contraception and the need to have many children, in order that some survive to care for parents in old age.

These conditions do not now apply. Infant mortality is minuscule in all sectors of society, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for aged care.

Therefore, there should be no taxpayer inducement to have children. Potential parents of poor means, poor skills or bad character will choose to have children. So be it. But no one should enter parenthood while on a benefit.

It is better to avoid having children until such time as parents can afford them. No amount of ??intervention?? after the fact can make up for the strife that many parents bring down on their ?children.

Johns is essentially saying it is child abuse to bring children into a world where parents can’t afford them. ? Read more »

Herald briefly stops Pimping the Poor

via The Guardian

via The Guardian

You have to wonder about the NZ Herald sometimes. ?There is a definite anti-government, pro-left flavour to the body of articles. ?But occasionally one of the senior people jump in with an editorial and shock us with some common sense.

The news that at least 21,000 beneficiaries have travelled overseas in the past nine months had a predictable response. The airwaves went hot with taxpayers’ anger and disgust at the supposed “rip-off” of the welfare system. Welfare defenders bristled with equal indignation, accusing minister Paula Bennett of “beneficiary bashing”. They seemed to consider overseas travel to be part of today’s average living standard that beneficiaries ought to be able to share.

Labour spokeswoman Sue Moroney said it was wrong to imagine a benefit alone allowed anyone to travel overseas. Often the cost was met by family members or was a gift. She is right, but she and others who talk about poverty in this country ought to remind themselves of this more often.

The Children’s Commissioner, who annually reports on the numbers in poverty as defined by household income and surveys of material possessions, ought to take note of the travel figures. On the income definition all beneficiaries and their children are below the poverty line.

Indeed. ?Like Pavlov’s dogs we all were. ?Including the cries for beneficiaries to be hung, drawn and quartered by Whaleoil. ?Non-beneficiaries work hard for their money. ?They pay their taxes, often a little begrudgingly. ? To find that 21,000 beneficiaries enjoyed overseas travel, some multiple times, when you haven’t had a holiday for a few years is quite likely to get steam up. ? Read more »

Minister does job. Gets told off for doing it too well


They like to call it beneficiary bashing. ?What do you call it when a Minister gets criticised for making sure the rules are implemented properly? ?Minister bashing?

Sue Moroney?has a go at Paula Bennett for returning $1M of tax payers money to those who can’t afford overseas holidays

Labour’s social development spokeswoman, Sue Moroney, said there had always been penalties for travelling without valid reason, but Ms Bennett was wrong to claim beneficiaries could clearly afford to travel. Often the money was scraped together by other family members or was a gift.

“I think Paula Bennett’s attempts to paint this picture of beneficiaries off living the high life at Club Med is not accurate. If Paula Bennett thinks it’s easy to live on a benefit and somehow have money left over to go travelling, she needs to have a go at living on a benefit for a while and see how she gets on. Might have been the case in her day, but it’s not the case now.”

Come on now. ?One moment Labour are trying to convince everyone that a quarter of New Zealanders live in deep poverty, and the ?next minute you are trying to defend them going on overseas holidays? ? Read more »

Why not Photo ID?

d-23817-pc_1Matt Bowen?reports

A grocery chain has issued warnings to staff after claims beneficiaries are trying to swap their state-issued food credits for cash.

Mother of four Antillea Karaitiana, 28, says she was approached by a stranger in Pak ‘n Save Mill St last week looking to trade his Work and Income payment card for cash “to go clubbing”.

She said the man, in his late teens or early 20s, showed her a greenish electronic transaction card he said had $80 credit.

Read more »

How about getting HER fixed?

Stuff has a nice fluff story about the coppers helping fix up a poor person’s house.

Police have helped a South Auckland family of 13 avoid eviction by transforming their Housing New Zealand home, bringing it up to proper living standards.

The Flat Bush Neighbourhood Policing Team gained the support of the local community and businesses to upgrade the home, which was in such a poor state of repair the family was on its last chance with HNZ.

Constable Karen Ancell said 11 children lived at the house with their 32-year-old mother who was pregnant.

“We have stepped in to get the house up to scratch so the family can make a fresh start,” Ancell said.

“They are struggling, to say the least, and some of the children are starting to come to police attention.”

More than 40 volunteers helped with the make over while businesses donated materials and services.

The volunteers fumigated the house, repaired damaged walls and painted the interior. Outside they tidied the grounds, erected raised garden beds and planted vegetables.

Police, Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity representatives also donated furnishings to completely refurnish the house.

The community’s input for a family they had never met was huge, Ancell added.

“It’s about giving a family a fresh start. They are in a good place to change now, whereas in the past that hasn’t been the case.”

But giving them a home they can be proud of is just the first step. The police are also working to give the family the tools to become good members of society.

Where do I start with this;

  • It isn’t their home that just got fixed up…it is ours, that they destroyed in the first?place.
  • 32 years old and 11 Kids and number 12 on the way…WTF! Does she flip it for anyone who wants to run one up her?
  • Where is/are the fathers?
  • If they are struggling it is their own bloody fault…contraception is far cheaper than 12 bloody kids…she has chosen poverty because she chose to flip it up.
  • How much welfare is poured into that household?
  • What on earth is going to make this indigent family change their ways? THey have learned a valuable lesson though…if you live like a pig then someone will come along and make it all right again.

FFS…there is no way that 12 kids is a mistake…unless you are the stupidest person in the world.

Proof: Rufus Paynter isn’t real

So is Shearer clear where he met the man who was so upset about the sickness beneficiary painting his roof? ?This is what Shearer said in this recent speech:

Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.

He said: ?see that guy over there, he?s on a sickness benefit, yet he?s up there painting the roof of his house. That?s not bloody fair. Do you guys support him??

The Labour activists complaining about David Shearer’s ‘sickness beneficiary’ comments shouldn’t be surprised. ?The invisible Labour Leader has made the comments a number of times before, including before the 2011 election. ?However, when Shearer mentioned this issue back then, the sickness beneficiary wasn’t painting his roof he was cleaning it.

And when he told this story in 2011, it was an anecdote, not a real story.

“[T]here’s a number of people I meet in the streets and they’ll say, and we’ll talk about inequality of the tax system, and they’ll say “Yeah mate, but I’ll tell you what, that guy down the road he’s a sickness beneficiary and I saw him up there cleaning his roof the other day and you’ve got to go nail him.”

Note that the man was cleaning his roof, not painting it. ?Has Shearer told this wee story so many times that he thinks the whole scenario is real? ?No doubt we’ll find out soon just who Shearer was referring to in his speech a couple weeks ago.