John MacDonald: What's all this talk about beneficiary-bashing?

Look out dole bludgers, we’re coming after ya. 

That’s the Government’s message to beneficiaries who are being warned that, if they abuse the system, there’ll be limits on what they can spend their benefit money on. 

This is all part of the new traffic light system for people on the Jobseeker benefit. Some might say it’s a traffic light system with a green arrow to the right. 

Which is what the Opposition parties are getting at, anyway. Saying that all the Government’s doing here is a bit of good-old-fashioned beneficiary bashing. 

The Government, though, is saying ‘oh nah nah nah, it’s not like that at all. All we’re doing is sticking up for hardworking taxpayers who provide the money for the benefits.' 

And I’m with the Government. Because all it’s doing is setting-out some expectations and what will happen if people don’t meet those expectations. 

It’s not beneficiary bashing. If it was beneficiary bashing, the Prime Minister and the Social Development Minister would have come out yesterday and said something like ‘anyone on a benefit is a no-hoper bludging off the system’. 

That would be beneficiary bashing. 

But the Government didn't say that at all. It’s being claimed by politicians on the left that that’s what the Government is implying. But I don’t buy that for a minute. 

What are some of the other words being thrown around about this? 

“The Government is waging a war on the poor”. That’s what the Green Party is saying. But I’m sorry Greens, I think you’re talking nonsense there. I don’t see it that way, at all. 

Yes, the National, ACT and NZ First parties probably don’t have as much time for beneficiaries as the parties on the left do. But they’re not waging war on the poor. 

Maybe I’m sympathetic to what the Government is doing because I’ve never actually been on a benefit myself before. That could change some day, of course. Because none of us really know how our lives might change down the track. 

But, even though I don’t have experience of what it’s like to be a beneficiary, I imagine that —if I was— I’d follow the rules, knowing that a benefit is a mixture of being a right and a privilege. 

And I can’t imagine myself willingly ripping off the system. Or claiming the dole —or Jobseeker benefit, as it’s known— and not doing anything to try and find a job. 

That’s because I have a good understanding of expectations. Just like those of us who have a paid job, we know about expectations. 

Example: I know that if I didn’t bother turning up to work every morning, I’d be out the door. I know that if I overstay my welcome in a car park, there’s a pretty good chance of a ticket waiting for me when I get back to the car. 

I understand expectations and consequences. 

And why shouldn’t it be the same for people on benefits? That’s what the Government is doing with the Jobseeker benefit. It’s setting out its expectation of people and the consequences if they don’t meet those expectations. 

The thing I mentioned before about the Government putting limits on what beneficiaries can spend their benefit money on, that’s one of the sanctions the Government is going to use to penalise people who don’t do things like actively look for work. 

They’ll have a card that half their benefit money will go onto, and they’ll only be able to use it to buy essential items. Which I actually think is a reasonable way to penalise someone because it wouldn’t be taking money away from a family, for example. From kids. 

So if you had a set of parents —or one of them— on the dole, and they repeatedly failed to meet the new requirem

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Look out, old bludgers, We're coming after you. We're coming
after you. That's the government's message to beneficiaries who are
being warned that if they abuse the system, there will
be limits on what they can spend their benefit money on.
This is all part of the new traffic light system
for people on the job seeker benefit. Some might say
it's a traffic light system with a green arrow to

(00:33):
the right, which is what the opposition parties are getting
at anyway, saying that the government's you know, all the
government's doing here is a bit of good old fashioned
beneficiary bashing. The governments is saying oh no, no, no, no, no, no, that's.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
Not that at all.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Oh, all we're doing here is sticking up the hard
working taxpayers who provide the money for the benefits. And
who do you think I'm with? I'm with the government
because all it's doing is setting up some expectations and
what will happen if people don't meet those expectations. It's
not beneficiary bashing. If it was the Prime Minister and

(01:12):
the Social Development Minister would have come out yesterday and
said something like anyone on the benefits and no hope
of bludging off the system. Now, that would be beneficiary bashing.
The government didn't say that at all, either the Prime
Minister or the Minister. It's been claimed by politicians on

(01:32):
the left that that's what the government is implying. But
I don't buy that for a minute. What are some
of the other words being thrown around this morning? Or
here's one. The government is waging a war on the poor.
That's what the Green Party is saying. I'm sorry, Greens, sorry,
I think you're talking nonsense there. I don't see it
that way at all.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
The National Act and New Zealand First Parties probably don't
have as much time for beneficiaries as the parties on
the left to do, but they're not waging war on
the poor. And maybe I'm sympathetic to what the government's
through because I've never actually been on a benefit myself before.
That could change someday, of course, because none of us

(02:16):
know how our lives might change down the track, do we.
But even though I don't have experience of what it's
like to be a beneficiary, I can imagine that if
I was, I'd followed the rules, knowing that a benefit
is a mixture of being a right and a privilege,
or a mix of being a right and a privilege.
Some people say it's an out and out privilege, but

(02:39):
I think it's a mix of the two. And I
just can't imagine myself willingly ripping off the system or
claiming the DOLL or the job Seeker Benefit as it's known,
and not doing anything to try and find a job.
Can't imagine that. That's because I have a good understanding
of expectations, just like those of us who are lucky
enough to have a paid job. We know about expectations. Example,

(03:04):
I know that if I didn't bother turning up here
of him, or if Jes didn't turn up every morning,
we'd be out the door. I know that if I
overstay them are welcome in a car park, for example,
pretty good chance of a ticket waiting on the windscreen
form we want to get back to the car. So
what I mean expectations and consequences, and why shouldn't it
be the same for people on benefits. That's what the

(03:27):
government's doing with the DOLL. It's setting out its expectation
of people and the consequences if they don't meet those expectations.
And I know that sounds oh yeah, sounds all mister
Center right on it, But that's what it is, expectations
and consequences. The thing I mentioned before talk about consequences
about the government putting limits on what beneficiaries can spend

(03:48):
their benefit money on. That's one of the sanctions the
government's going to use to pen life people who don't
do things like actively look for work when they're on
the doll and so they have a card that half
their benefit money will go on to and they'll only
be able to use it to buy essential items, which
I actually think is a reasonable way depend like someone
because it wouldn't be taking money away from a family,

(04:10):
for example, take it wouldn't be taking money away from kids.
So if you had a set of parents or one
of the parents on the job seeker benefit and they
repeatedly failed to meet the new requirements, then it wouldn't
be their kids who would be punished. The kids wouldn't
miss out on essentials because of less money coming into

(04:31):
the house. Same amount of money would be coming into
the house, just be a different way of spending it.
Limits on how half that money is spent. People will
probably find a way of working around that, because that's
what people tend to do, aren't they. Nevertheless, I think
it's a much more humane approach than just cutting benefits
or reducing them out paid to a beneficiary. Now, of course,

(04:56):
if we're totally honest, I mean less be honest, we
know that the governments doing this not in the interests
of the beneficiaries themselves. I mean ittle say it is,
but it's actually another one of these things that politicians
do to keep the crowd happy. Because I haven't seen
anything from the government about how much money this will
save the taxpayer. For example, it's probably gout. It's probably

(05:16):
got no idea, I have no idea. That's fine. Nevertheless,
it's good optics for a center right government, but it
isn't beneficiary bashing.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.