• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:00
CEST 08:00
KST 15:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak13DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview19herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025)17Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, GuMiho, Classic, Cure6Code S RO8 Preview: Classic, Reynor, Maru, GuMiho4
Community News
[BSL20] RO20 Group Stage0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1)7Weekly Cups (May 12-18): Clem sweeps WardiTV May3Code S Season 2 (2025) - Qualifier Results212025 GSL Season 2 (Qualifiers)14
StarCraft 2
General
Interview with oPZesty on Cheeseadelphia/Coaching herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025) DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview Power Rank: October 2018 Code S Season 2 (2025) - Qualifier Results
Tourneys
DreamHack Dallas 2025 Last Chance Qualifiers for OlimoLeague 2024 Winter $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1)
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed
Brood War
General
[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak ASL 19 Tickets for foreigners BW General Discussion Cwal.gg not working BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[ASL19] Semifinal B [BSL20] RO20 Group C - Saturday 20:00 CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] RO20 Group Stage
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Trading/Investing Thread
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Yes Sir! How Commanding Impr…
TrAiDoS
Poker
Nebuchad
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 11689 users

New Zealand politics - Page 4

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next All
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:28 GMT
#61
For context, here is a previous speech by her on welfare reform which proposes ideas:

+ Show Spoiler +
ACT's Welfare Vision: ACT Alternative Budget 2002 Speech by Dr Muriel Newman

Sunday 19 May 2002 Dr Muriel Newman Speeches -- Economy

Speech to launch of ACT Alternative Budget,

9.45am Crowne Plaza Hotel, Auckland, Sunday, May 19, 2002

Richard, Rodney, Ladies and Gentleman.

Today I have real pleasure in sharing with you ACT's vision for welfare, outlining why reform of New Zealand's welfare system is fundamental to creating a prosperous society that is based on individual responsibility.

The reality is that our entrenched Welfare state has now changed so much from that conceived by its creators, that without a completely new welfare philosophy, we simply cannot build a society of strong families, high average incomes, low crime, quality health and education services, that only 40 years ago made us the world's third most prosperous nation.

When the welfare state was created in 1940, we had just experienced a severe depression with real hardship. New Zealanders overwhelmingly voted for a vision of a society based on compassion for those, who for no fault of their own, had no income, no job, and couldn't pay for basic health services.

In 1951, there were 29,601 New Zealanders on benefits. Paying for this were 716,000 full time workers.

There was no long term unemployment, no DPB.

The architects of the Welfare state had made it clear: Welfare was not a lifetime right. Fundamental to its sustainability, was the nation's ability to afford it.

For 20 years, the numbers of working age beneficiaries remained small in relation to the full time work force who were paying for it.

But from 1970, New Zealand began to change, slowly, steadily, and irreversibly, and at such cost to so many.

In swept the Labour Government: the DPB was born, benefit levels were lifted, and new categories of benefit were created. As a result, the numbers of New Zealanders seduced into the low income - `here's money for no work' philosophy - grew and grew.

Until this time, anyone unemployed was known by name by the Labour Department. There were jobs; there simply was no long-term unemployment.

And fathers who deserted their wives and families were chased by the Justice Department, and made to face up to their responsibilities.

Today, there are 400,000 working age adults supported by benefits. Of those, 111,000 have been there for over 5 years, with 56, 000 being on the dole or the DPB.

What have we done to our nation?

In 1970, 36,000 beneficiaries were supported by 1 million full time workers

Only 30 years later, 400,000 beneficiaries are supported by one and a half million full time workers.

Taking a conservative view and leaving out the partners on benefits, the 30-year dependency growth is staggering.

In 1970, there were 28 fulltime workers for each full time benefit.

Today, there are 4 fulltime workers for each full time benefit.

If we look at the bigger picture, paying for 450,000 pensions, and 400,000 benefits - that's 950,000 adults - are one and a half million fulltime workers and 400,000 part timers.

One and a half million fulltime workers to 950,000 on state incomes - that's around two people on a state benefit or pension to every three full time workers. No nation, with this level of state dependency to fund by taxing a small workforce, can grow as fast as, or faster than its competitors.

Of the $40 billion a year spent by this government, $14 billion goes to the welfare department on benefits and pensions.

As a Nation, we simply cannot hope to have the lower tax rates, high educational achievements, leading health services, strong families, and low crime rates, that we aspire to, when our welfare system prevents hundreds of thousands of working age Kiwis from contributing through the workforce.

Of the 400,000 working age beneficiaries dependant on working New Zealanders for their income 270,00 are on an unemployment-related or sole parent benefit. By taking a `soft' approach to welfare - essentially removing the requirement for able-bodied beneficiaries to need to find work - Government forecasts show that all benefits - Unemployment, DPB, Invalid and Sickness Benefits - will continue to rise.

Yet overwhelmingly, research here and overseas shows across all social indicators, that adults and children who are dependent on a benefit in the long term fail to do as well as those who work; and the human cost is considerable.

I recently asked the Minster of Justice how many benefits were suspended or cancelled due to imprisonment. He replied that with regard to a prison population of 6,000 inmates, some 4,600 benefits were suspended due to imprisonment. In other words, out of New Zealand's 2.8 million adult population, 6,000 have committed a crime serious enough to be sentenced to prison, and 60% of those came from the beneficiary population of around 400,000.

These very serious statistics must however, be taken in the context of the fact that the great majority of the people on benefits are good New Zealanders, who want to work, and who are battling hard to raise their children well - often without much help and support.

I've been on a benefit and I can tell you that it is not easy - but then neither is life. Life is tough, and those on these benefits face a harsher day-to-day existence than many.

But not necessarily harsher than many hard working New Zealanders on low incomes, where mum and dad hold down basic jobs and struggle day to day to put food on the table, clothe the kids and pay the bills.

And they have to work so hard to keep their heads above water that I find it difficult to understand how we can accept as a nation, that it is OK that in our country we can have a family working long hours on $20,000 a year, while next door we pay a working age person the same, and ask for nothing in return - nothing.

What sort of nation have we become?

We are born to work. Work is a fundamental part of who we are. Work brings meaning and purpose to our days. Work makes us feel important, needed by our employers and colleagues.

To give people money for nothing - so they can waste their days and their lives - is wrong. It sends a message to working age beneficiaries that society thinks so little of them that as long as they are tossed a pittance they can then be forgotten. Well I say that's not good enough. It's an indignity to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and we simply have to do better.

That is why ACT wants to overhaul the welfare system, and we have three major initiatives that will help to do just that.

But I need to state, first and foremost, that in order to turnaround the present and future bleak welfare statistics, it is essential to put in place economic strategies that will lower taxes and cut red tape to create growth of over 4%. Growth is fundamental to creating the real jobs that are necessary to get our nation working.

The first of ACT's Welfare proposals is to introduce maximum life time limits to the DPB and the Unemployment Benefit, of 5 years. This includes a maximum spell of two years for any one continuous period on these benefits.

This policy will be accompanied by guaranteed job placements for those who reach the time limit, with a small discretionary exemption for Regional Commissioners.

Extra childcare subsidies, intense individual placement support, and assistance with relocation expenses will all be available if needed.

Secondly, all Unemployment and Sole Parent Beneficiaries who can work, will be required to participate in individually designed 40 hour a week programmes of work, training or organised job search - activities designed to improve their chances of getting a good job. As well, they will develop the habits, skills and disciplines needed in the workforce. Further, in line with the realities of the workforce, if they don't turn up or don't comply, they will not be paid.

This initiative will initially involve around 200,000 people including 150,000 on the Unemployment Benefit, and 50,000 on the Sole Parent Benefit whose children are of school age. It will fundamentally change the expectations of the welfare system for the able-bodied, re-establishing benefits as temporary financial support that must be earned.

Thirdly, ACT will not pay out the DPB to women who do not name the father of their child. It is extraordinary today that of 110,000 sole parents on the DPB, some 16,000 women say they cannot or will not name the father, particularly in this day and age where paternity testing through DNA hair samples is a simple and inexpensive procedure.

Again, ACT will provide a limited discretionary power with the Chief Executive of the Welfare Department, but we will not accept the increasing numbers of fathers who are either shirking their responsibilities or who are being prevented by the mother from providing fatherly support to their children.

Those, Ladies and Gentlemen are three ACT welfare positions that, hand in hand with lowering taxes and cutting red tape, to attract investment and grow our economy, will re-create welfare in New Zealand as the temporary safety net that its creators intended.

ACT's vision of society and welfare in New Zealand is so different from that of the government. Labour believes that welfare is a life-long right, and their policies are designed to deliver more and more working age New Zealanders onto the benefit system.

ACT believes that the economic and welfare policies, that we are proposing will deliver to New Zealand:

· Over 4% growth creating tens of thousands of real jobs;

· A huge reduction in the numbers of able-bodied working age beneficiaries as people move back into the workforce with the eventual elimination of long term dependency;

· The provision of dignity and organised days for those who still need benefit support.

It is an unashamedly tough-love approach to welfare, helping people to help themselves. We will not cut benefit payment rates, but we will place big expectations on working age beneficiaries who can work to take personal responsibility for their lives, their livelihoods and their future.

This policy will send the clear message that welfare is meant to provide temporary help in times of need; those who deserve help will get it, but in return, they will have the same 40 hour work week as the rest of adult society.

People who are in a position to work will no longer be paid to do nothing, and as a result, tens of thousands of our poorest New Zealanders will regain control of their own future through work and higher incomes.

This strategy will work. It has produced unprecedented results overseas. But be assured, this is a New Zealand policy created for New Zealanders.

ACT's vision of welfare is of a truly compassionate system that gives people a hand up to work, independence and a better future. That is why I am so passionate about ACT.

ACT is the only party that places the future of our poorest, and the children of our poorest, as our highest priority. We are the only party that has the plan to empower all New Zealanders to pursue success in their own way and in so doing help transform this country into one of the most prosperous nations on earth.

Welfare reform is at the heart of that plan and I am privileged to have had the opportunity to present our programme to you here today.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
August 21 2011 09:32 GMT
#62
Kiwifruit, are you aware that under police guidelines "Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution." (http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html)?

This law has been in place for a number of years now. Can you back up the argument that "good parents" are being prosecuted for the light smacking that you seem so determined to protect with any examples?
EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 09:39:42
August 21 2011 09:32 GMT
#63
On August 21 2011 18:23 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:15 Swede wrote:
The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defense for child abuse at the expense of the freedom to smack.


This is a good summarisation.

Show nested quote +
No clear headed person would call that a bad thing. If you are so attached to smacking as a means of discipline that you would have child abusers roam free with no consequences then you are an idiot.


You are the idiot if you think the solution to child abuse is to remove a method of discipline from good parents. It goes far deeper than just smacking. It is the result of family circumstances, poverty, mental illness, stresses in life, etc. This article by Muriel Newman (former ACT MP) explains part of the issues:

Show nested quote +
Raising children - using traditional methods of discipline when necessary - has withstood the test of time....


I'm sorry, but this article actually has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm NOT anti-smacking. Sue Bradford's bill may sacrifice the ability to smack your child, and some people may find that annoying... But who gives a shit if it STOPS CHILDREN BEING ABUSED?! Perhaps in a world where smacking was the only effective way to discipline your child then I would understand, but it absolutely isn't. That point isn't even up for debate.

Sure, maybe a bill that somehow allowed parents to smack while also putting child abusers in jail would have been more ideal in terms of the general population being satisfied... So the politicians sit on their arses for a few more years thinking of a way to circumvent this issue of wanting to catch child abusers while retaining the ability to smack, meanwhile there are children out there who are continuing to be abused every day of their lives with no end in sight all because some ridiculously near-sighted group of retards won't give up their completely non-essential right to smack.

Sounds like a fucking great idea!
Birdie
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
New Zealand4438 Posts
August 21 2011 09:35 GMT
#64
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.
Red classic | A butterfly dreamed he was Zhuangzi | 4.5k, heading to 5k as support!
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
August 21 2011 09:37 GMT
#65
I'm anti-smacking, just in the same way I wouldn't smack my dog, or my cat.
EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
August 21 2011 09:38 GMT
#66
On August 21 2011 18:35 zany_001 wrote:
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.


I would like one statistic which demonstrates the number of 'good parents' who have been arrested for smacking. Just one will be fine.

Have fun!
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:39 GMT
#67
On August 21 2011 18:32 Swede wrote:
I'm sorry, but this article actually has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm NOT anti-smacking. Sue Bradford's bill may sacrifice the ability to smack your child, and some people may find that annoying... But who gives a shit if it STOPS CHILDREN BEING ABUSED?! Perhaps in a world where smacking was the [i]only]/i] effective way to discipline your child then I would understand, but it absolutely isn't. That point isn't even up for debate.


The point is, it DOESN'T STOP CHILDREN FROM BEING ABUSED. That is what the opponents of the bill advocated. Most on the right consider that the way to prevent child abuse is to reform the welfare system. This is something the Left is strongly against. I refer you to the following:

[image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading]
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:41 GMT
#68
On August 21 2011 18:32 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Kiwifruit, are you aware that under police guidelines "Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution." (http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html)?

This law has been in place for a number of years now. Can you back up the argument that "good parents" are being prosecuted for the light smacking that you seem so determined to protect with any examples?


I am aware of this - my argument against the smacking law isn't that good parents would be prosecuted - but rather that, as you would see if you read my posts regarding how welfare reform is the solution etc, that it is not the solution to child abuse and in fact takes away one (of the many) tools a parent can raise and protect their child.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
brendaaan
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand77 Posts
August 21 2011 09:43 GMT
#69
i like Nation with the new benefit scheme... no longer will my hard earned tax dollers be wasted on drugs and alcohol!
Rubrix cube record: 36 seconds :D
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 09:50:05
August 21 2011 09:47 GMT
#70
On August 21 2011 18:39 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:32 Swede wrote:
I'm sorry, but this article actually has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm NOT anti-smacking. Sue Bradford's bill may sacrifice the ability to smack your child, and some people may find that annoying... But who gives a shit if it STOPS CHILDREN BEING ABUSED?! Perhaps in a world where smacking was the [i]only]/i] effective way to discipline your child then I would understand, but it absolutely isn't. That point isn't even up for debate.


The point is, it DOESN'T STOP CHILDREN FROM BEING ABUSED. That is what the opponents of the bill advocated. Most on the right consider that the way to prevent child abuse is to reform the welfare system. This is something the Left is strongly against. I refer you to the following:
+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading][image loading]


You're right. Children are still be abused. But at least now the child abusers who are being caught are being punished in some form.

It's true that we should be aiming for a society in which child abuse is something which is a lot less common, but that is actually a different issue, despite how it may seem.

The issue Sue Bradford's bill addressed was people abusing their children and getting away with it. The bill was not designed to put an end to all child abuse ever. The reason you're so dissatisfied with the bill is because your expectations are completely unreasonable and unjustified. Nobody ever made this bill out to be anything more than what it has turned out to be.

The issue you are talking about is child abuse in general, ie the fact that it occurs. I am totally in agreeance that we should be taking steps to prevent child abuse before it even happens, but the fact is that, for now, it is happening and before the removal of reasonable force people were getting away with it too.

I just can't fathom how you can disagree with the bill. Anybody who understands it properly agrees with it, and you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand it.
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
August 21 2011 09:48 GMT
#71
On August 21 2011 18:35 zany_001 wrote:
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.


Wow. Can we get some stats on these "hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking"?

The 87.4% vote was a total farce. The question was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" What if you believed it wasn't possible for a smack to be part of good parental correction? The question relies on a pre-supposition that smacking can be a part of good parental correction.
Also, the law does not in practice make your day-to-day smack a crime. I see parents smack kids all the time in the supermarket. Where are the stats of all these parents getting arrested?

Abortion? What about women, especially young girls that get raped, are you to refuse them an abortion? When does a sperm become a human being? Can I masturbate?
EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Goragoth
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
New Zealand1065 Posts
August 21 2011 09:49 GMT
#72
On August 21 2011 18:41 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:32 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Kiwifruit, are you aware that under police guidelines "Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution." (http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html)?

This law has been in place for a number of years now. Can you back up the argument that "good parents" are being prosecuted for the light smacking that you seem so determined to protect with any examples?


I am aware of this - my argument against the smacking law isn't that good parents would be prosecuted - but rather that, as you would see if you read my posts regarding how welfare reform is the solution etc, that it is not the solution to child abuse and in fact takes away one (of the many) tools a parent can raise and protect their child.

Do you have any proof, any at all, that the law change has caused innocent (i.e. non-child abusing but just reasonably discipling) parents to be arrested/charged/impacted in any way what so ever? Or is this just pure speculation?

Oh and that ACT article you keep posting sounds like complete BS. I just skimmed over it but it seems to make some horrible conclusions. Confusing correlation and causation all over the place.
Creator of LoLTool.
Dali.
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand689 Posts
August 21 2011 09:50 GMT
#73
On August 21 2011 18:28 Kiwifruit wrote:
For context, here is a previous speech by her on welfare reform which proposes ideas:

+ Show Spoiler +
ACT's Welfare Vision: ACT Alternative Budget 2002 Speech by Dr Muriel Newman

Sunday 19 May 2002 Dr Muriel Newman Speeches -- Economy

Speech to launch of ACT Alternative Budget,

9.45am Crowne Plaza Hotel, Auckland, Sunday, May 19, 2002

Richard, Rodney, Ladies and Gentleman.

Today I have real pleasure in sharing with you ACT's vision for welfare, outlining why reform of New Zealand's welfare system is fundamental to creating a prosperous society that is based on individual responsibility.

The reality is that our entrenched Welfare state has now changed so much from that conceived by its creators, that without a completely new welfare philosophy, we simply cannot build a society of strong families, high average incomes, low crime, quality health and education services, that only 40 years ago made us the world's third most prosperous nation.

When the welfare state was created in 1940, we had just experienced a severe depression with real hardship. New Zealanders overwhelmingly voted for a vision of a society based on compassion for those, who for no fault of their own, had no income, no job, and couldn't pay for basic health services.

In 1951, there were 29,601 New Zealanders on benefits. Paying for this were 716,000 full time workers.

There was no long term unemployment, no DPB.

The architects of the Welfare state had made it clear: Welfare was not a lifetime right. Fundamental to its sustainability, was the nation's ability to afford it.

For 20 years, the numbers of working age beneficiaries remained small in relation to the full time work force who were paying for it.

But from 1970, New Zealand began to change, slowly, steadily, and irreversibly, and at such cost to so many.

In swept the Labour Government: the DPB was born, benefit levels were lifted, and new categories of benefit were created. As a result, the numbers of New Zealanders seduced into the low income - `here's money for no work' philosophy - grew and grew.

Until this time, anyone unemployed was known by name by the Labour Department. There were jobs; there simply was no long-term unemployment.

And fathers who deserted their wives and families were chased by the Justice Department, and made to face up to their responsibilities.

Today, there are 400,000 working age adults supported by benefits. Of those, 111,000 have been there for over 5 years, with 56, 000 being on the dole or the DPB.

What have we done to our nation?

In 1970, 36,000 beneficiaries were supported by 1 million full time workers

Only 30 years later, 400,000 beneficiaries are supported by one and a half million full time workers.

Taking a conservative view and leaving out the partners on benefits, the 30-year dependency growth is staggering.

In 1970, there were 28 fulltime workers for each full time benefit.

Today, there are 4 fulltime workers for each full time benefit.

If we look at the bigger picture, paying for 450,000 pensions, and 400,000 benefits - that's 950,000 adults - are one and a half million fulltime workers and 400,000 part timers.

One and a half million fulltime workers to 950,000 on state incomes - that's around two people on a state benefit or pension to every three full time workers. No nation, with this level of state dependency to fund by taxing a small workforce, can grow as fast as, or faster than its competitors.

Of the $40 billion a year spent by this government, $14 billion goes to the welfare department on benefits and pensions.

As a Nation, we simply cannot hope to have the lower tax rates, high educational achievements, leading health services, strong families, and low crime rates, that we aspire to, when our welfare system prevents hundreds of thousands of working age Kiwis from contributing through the workforce.

Of the 400,000 working age beneficiaries dependant on working New Zealanders for their income 270,00 are on an unemployment-related or sole parent benefit. By taking a `soft' approach to welfare - essentially removing the requirement for able-bodied beneficiaries to need to find work - Government forecasts show that all benefits - Unemployment, DPB, Invalid and Sickness Benefits - will continue to rise.

Yet overwhelmingly, research here and overseas shows across all social indicators, that adults and children who are dependent on a benefit in the long term fail to do as well as those who work; and the human cost is considerable.

I recently asked the Minster of Justice how many benefits were suspended or cancelled due to imprisonment. He replied that with regard to a prison population of 6,000 inmates, some 4,600 benefits were suspended due to imprisonment. In other words, out of New Zealand's 2.8 million adult population, 6,000 have committed a crime serious enough to be sentenced to prison, and 60% of those came from the beneficiary population of around 400,000.

These very serious statistics must however, be taken in the context of the fact that the great majority of the people on benefits are good New Zealanders, who want to work, and who are battling hard to raise their children well - often without much help and support.

I've been on a benefit and I can tell you that it is not easy - but then neither is life. Life is tough, and those on these benefits face a harsher day-to-day existence than many.

But not necessarily harsher than many hard working New Zealanders on low incomes, where mum and dad hold down basic jobs and struggle day to day to put food on the table, clothe the kids and pay the bills.

And they have to work so hard to keep their heads above water that I find it difficult to understand how we can accept as a nation, that it is OK that in our country we can have a family working long hours on $20,000 a year, while next door we pay a working age person the same, and ask for nothing in return - nothing.

What sort of nation have we become?

We are born to work. Work is a fundamental part of who we are. Work brings meaning and purpose to our days. Work makes us feel important, needed by our employers and colleagues.

To give people money for nothing - so they can waste their days and their lives - is wrong. It sends a message to working age beneficiaries that society thinks so little of them that as long as they are tossed a pittance they can then be forgotten. Well I say that's not good enough. It's an indignity to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and we simply have to do better.

That is why ACT wants to overhaul the welfare system, and we have three major initiatives that will help to do just that.

But I need to state, first and foremost, that in order to turnaround the present and future bleak welfare statistics, it is essential to put in place economic strategies that will lower taxes and cut red tape to create growth of over 4%. Growth is fundamental to creating the real jobs that are necessary to get our nation working.

The first of ACT's Welfare proposals is to introduce maximum life time limits to the DPB and the Unemployment Benefit, of 5 years. This includes a maximum spell of two years for any one continuous period on these benefits.

This policy will be accompanied by guaranteed job placements for those who reach the time limit, with a small discretionary exemption for Regional Commissioners.

Extra childcare subsidies, intense individual placement support, and assistance with relocation expenses will all be available if needed.

Secondly, all Unemployment and Sole Parent Beneficiaries who can work, will be required to participate in individually designed 40 hour a week programmes of work, training or organised job search - activities designed to improve their chances of getting a good job. As well, they will develop the habits, skills and disciplines needed in the workforce. Further, in line with the realities of the workforce, if they don't turn up or don't comply, they will not be paid.

This initiative will initially involve around 200,000 people including 150,000 on the Unemployment Benefit, and 50,000 on the Sole Parent Benefit whose children are of school age. It will fundamentally change the expectations of the welfare system for the able-bodied, re-establishing benefits as temporary financial support that must be earned.

Thirdly, ACT will not pay out the DPB to women who do not name the father of their child. It is extraordinary today that of 110,000 sole parents on the DPB, some 16,000 women say they cannot or will not name the father, particularly in this day and age where paternity testing through DNA hair samples is a simple and inexpensive procedure.

Again, ACT will provide a limited discretionary power with the Chief Executive of the Welfare Department, but we will not accept the increasing numbers of fathers who are either shirking their responsibilities or who are being prevented by the mother from providing fatherly support to their children.

Those, Ladies and Gentlemen are three ACT welfare positions that, hand in hand with lowering taxes and cutting red tape, to attract investment and grow our economy, will re-create welfare in New Zealand as the temporary safety net that its creators intended.

ACT's vision of society and welfare in New Zealand is so different from that of the government. Labour believes that welfare is a life-long right, and their policies are designed to deliver more and more working age New Zealanders onto the benefit system.

ACT believes that the economic and welfare policies, that we are proposing will deliver to New Zealand:

· Over 4% growth creating tens of thousands of real jobs;

· A huge reduction in the numbers of able-bodied working age beneficiaries as people move back into the workforce with the eventual elimination of long term dependency;

· The provision of dignity and organised days for those who still need benefit support.

It is an unashamedly tough-love approach to welfare, helping people to help themselves. We will not cut benefit payment rates, but we will place big expectations on working age beneficiaries who can work to take personal responsibility for their lives, their livelihoods and their future.

This policy will send the clear message that welfare is meant to provide temporary help in times of need; those who deserve help will get it, but in return, they will have the same 40 hour work week as the rest of adult society.

People who are in a position to work will no longer be paid to do nothing, and as a result, tens of thousands of our poorest New Zealanders will regain control of their own future through work and higher incomes.

This strategy will work. It has produced unprecedented results overseas. But be assured, this is a New Zealand policy created for New Zealanders.

ACT's vision of welfare is of a truly compassionate system that gives people a hand up to work, independence and a better future. That is why I am so passionate about ACT.

ACT is the only party that places the future of our poorest, and the children of our poorest, as our highest priority. We are the only party that has the plan to empower all New Zealanders to pursue success in their own way and in so doing help transform this country into one of the most prosperous nations on earth.

Welfare reform is at the heart of that plan and I am privileged to have had the opportunity to present our programme to you here today.


Why is she demonizing benefit receivers? Surely its only those who CAN work but refuse/find loopholes which we should be especially concerned about.

Most benefits do good in my eyes: http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/index.html

The main abuse comes from the unemployment benefit doesn't it? And according to Work and Income that only accounts for around 60,000 concurrent persons.
Source: http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/factsheets/future-focus/unemployment-benefit.html
Birdie
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
New Zealand4438 Posts
August 21 2011 09:53 GMT
#74
On August 21 2011 18:38 Swede wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:35 zany_001 wrote:
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.


I would like one statistic which demonstrates the number of 'good parents' who have been arrested for smacking. Just one will be fine.

Have fun!

Bah, NZ police statistics don't distinguish between assault and child abuse.

All I can say is that because it is easier for parents who smack their kids to be arrested, it is logical that more of them are arrested; numbers of parents who genuinely abuse their kids logically would not have gone down as under the previous law they could also be arrested. Therefore it is LIKELY that there are more parents being arrested for supposed child abuse, which then hides the real abusers.

Case in point being a court case my father was called up for jury duty for. A woman had supposedly violently hit her child while at a party (he was misbehaving). One of the witnesses was asked to rank the smacking on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being extreme abuse. He immediately said "10, 10." He was then asked what the child's response was. He said the child just laughed. (my father had to struggle not to laugh at hearing this ) Under the previous law the case would have then be cut and dried; obviously the child was not being abused. But under the new law it was much more debatable, and there was almost a hung jury over the matter. Happily the jury decided the woman was innocent.
Red classic | A butterfly dreamed he was Zhuangzi | 4.5k, heading to 5k as support!
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
August 21 2011 09:55 GMT
#75
On August 21 2011 18:41 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:32 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Kiwifruit, are you aware that under police guidelines "Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution." (http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html)?

This law has been in place for a number of years now. Can you back up the argument that "good parents" are being prosecuted for the light smacking that you seem so determined to protect with any examples?


I am aware of this - my argument against the smacking law isn't that good parents would be prosecuted - but rather that, as you would see if you read my posts regarding how welfare reform is the solution etc, that it is not the solution to child abuse and in fact takes away one (of the many) tools a parent can raise and protect their child.


I'm not sure whether I should be reading your posts or the 15 page ACT party articles you are posting. Here's a tip: actually read the articles yourself, then use the arguments or facts within in a way that people can easily digest them, and post a link to the source.

The Bill was never intended to be a "solution to child abuse". Are you actually that stupid, after all this, to be saying that?
EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Birdie
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
New Zealand4438 Posts
August 21 2011 10:01 GMT
#76
On August 21 2011 18:48 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:35 zany_001 wrote:
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.


Wow. Can we get some stats on these "hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking"?

See my previous post to this one.


The 87.4% vote was a total farce. The question was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" What if you believed it wasn't possible for a smack to be part of good parental correction? The question relies on a pre-supposition that smacking can be a part of good parental correction.
Also, the law does not in practice make your day-to-day smack a crime. I see parents smack kids all the time in the supermarket. Where are the stats of all these parents getting arrested?

Don't be silly, the question is clearly phrased so that abusers can't simply say they were smacking their child. Abuse is not good parenting by any standards.
The point is that under the law those parents SHOULD be arrested; because nearly 90% of kiwis disagree with the law in this case, they just ignore it.

Abortion? What about women, especially young girls that get raped, are you to refuse them an abortion? When does a sperm become a human being? Can I masturbate?

1: it isn't the child's fault that their mother was raped; why punish a child for their mother's rapist's crime?
2: After entering an egg, you mean? I don't know. Nobody knows. If you see a person lying on the ground you wouldn't bury them without knowing if they're alive or dead; you also shouldn't kill a baby before knowing whether it's human or not.
3: go for it.
Red classic | A butterfly dreamed he was Zhuangzi | 4.5k, heading to 5k as support!
Goragoth
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
New Zealand1065 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 10:10:43
August 21 2011 10:10 GMT
#77
On August 21 2011 19:01 zany_001 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:48 CaptainCharisma wrote:
On August 21 2011 18:35 zany_001 wrote:
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.


Wow. Can we get some stats on these "hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking"?

See my previous post to this one.

Show nested quote +

The 87.4% vote was a total farce. The question was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" What if you believed it wasn't possible for a smack to be part of good parental correction? The question relies on a pre-supposition that smacking can be a part of good parental correction.
Also, the law does not in practice make your day-to-day smack a crime. I see parents smack kids all the time in the supermarket. Where are the stats of all these parents getting arrested?

Don't be silly, the question is clearly phrased so that abusers can't simply say they were smacking their child. Abuse is not good parenting by any standards.
The point is that under the law those parents SHOULD be arrested; because nearly 90% of kiwis disagree with the law in this case, they just ignore it.
Show nested quote +

Abortion? What about women, especially young girls that get raped, are you to refuse them an abortion? When does a sperm become a human being? Can I masturbate?

1: it isn't the child's fault that their mother was raped; why punish a child for their mother's rapist's crime?
2: After entering an egg, you mean? I don't know. Nobody knows. If you see a person lying on the ground you wouldn't bury them without knowing if they're alive or dead; you also shouldn't kill a baby before knowing whether it's human or not.
3: go for it.

Except there is scientific distinction between a fertilized egg and an actual baby (human being). Nothing wrong with abortion as long as it is only done in early stages of pregnancy or if the mother's life is in danger. Pretty simple.
Creator of LoLTool.
Birdie
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
New Zealand4438 Posts
August 21 2011 10:12 GMT
#78
What is this scientific distinction? How does science know when a baby is not a baby? I don't see how it is possible to scientifically measure humanity.
Red classic | A butterfly dreamed he was Zhuangzi | 4.5k, heading to 5k as support!
Goragoth
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
New Zealand1065 Posts
August 21 2011 10:15 GMT
#79
On August 21 2011 19:12 zany_001 wrote:
What is this scientific distinction? How does science know when a baby is not a baby? I don't see how it is possible to scientifically measure humanity.

Sure you can, how else would you do it?
Creator of LoLTool.
Dali.
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand689 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 10:18:06
August 21 2011 10:16 GMT
#80
On August 21 2011 19:01 zany_001 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:48 CaptainCharisma wrote:
On August 21 2011 18:35 zany_001 wrote:
The previous law was quite adequate and punished child abusers; changing it to include parents who discipline their children is very bad. For one thing, now the real child abusers are hidden among the hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking. Also, the 87.4% vote AGAINST anti-smacking laws showed that the government doesn't care what people think.

The Conservative Party startup looks interesting, but if they don't show any signs of being against abortion then I'll vote for whichever anti-abortion party is biggest. Currently abortion is the biggest crime in NZ, claiming more lives than anything else; once the killing has stopped we can think about economics and discipline.


Wow. Can we get some stats on these "hordes of good parents being arrested for smacking"?

See my previous post to this one.

Show nested quote +

The 87.4% vote was a total farce. The question was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" What if you believed it wasn't possible for a smack to be part of good parental correction? The question relies on a pre-supposition that smacking can be a part of good parental correction.
Also, the law does not in practice make your day-to-day smack a crime. I see parents smack kids all the time in the supermarket. Where are the stats of all these parents getting arrested?

Don't be silly, the question is clearly phrased so that abusers can't simply say they were smacking their child. Abuse is not good parenting by any standards.
The point is that under the law those parents SHOULD be arrested; because nearly 90% of kiwis disagree with the law in this case, they just ignore it.
Show nested quote +

Abortion? What about women, especially young girls that get raped, are you to refuse them an abortion? When does a sperm become a human being? Can I masturbate?

1: it isn't the child's fault that their mother was raped; why punish a child for their mother's rapist's crime?
2: After entering an egg, you mean? I don't know. Nobody knows. If you see a person lying on the ground you wouldn't bury them without knowing if they're alive or dead; you also shouldn't kill a baby before knowing whether it's human or not.
3: go for it.


Do you believe in saving fetuses because human life is somehow special or that suffering of all forms should be reduced or another reason?

Abortion is awesome. More abortion. We're an overcrowded planet as is. That's my honest opinion.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PartinGtheBigBoy 312
Nina 238
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 2880
Britney 2532
TY 694
EffOrt 620
Leta 407
Stork 335
ggaemo 166
sSak 53
Shinee 49
Movie 34
[ Show more ]
Noble 21
ajuk12(nOOB) 7
Bale 6
Dota 2
ODPixel359
League of Legends
JimRising 805
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K925
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0484
Mew2King135
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor180
Other Games
summit1g9186
WinterStarcraft544
shahzam457
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick767
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH251
• practicex 48
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Scarra3001
• Lourlo940
• Stunt423
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
4h
SC Evo League
6h
Road to EWC
9h
BSL Season 20
12h
Dewalt vs TT1
UltrA vs HBO
WolFix vs TBD
Afreeca Starleague
23h
BeSt vs Soulkey
Road to EWC
1d 8h
Wardi Open
2 days
SOOP
3 days
NightMare vs Wayne
Replay Cast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
GSL Code S
4 days
Cure vs Zoun
Solar vs Creator
The PondCast
4 days
Online Event
4 days
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
GSL Code S
5 days
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Online Event
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-05-16
2025 GSL S1
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
DreamHack Dallas 2025
Heroes 10 EU
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.