NZ Centre for Political Research

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*The DPB should only be paid for a maximum of two years which is enough time for a women to get herself together, make arrangements for her children and return to the workforce. If a solo mother has an other children, then she is on her own. They will quickly learn the concepts of birth control.

Similarly, any person should only be entitled to the unemployment benefit for a maximum of two years.

And benefits should be in the form of WINZ attending to rent payments, and electricity payments and providing the beneficiary with sufficient food to sustain them for the week. Anyone CAN survive without a telephone - they are not essential. Other bills would be paid on an as need basis - such as transport costs, insurance, medical. If the beneficiary has no cash, then they cannot buy alcohol and drugs. The children should be fed from the food provided. Naturally, there is always the chance the beneficiary will sell the food to buy alcohol but if the Government monitors the beneficiary and siblings, it will know if a child is being cared for properly. If not, then the child goes into Welfare and all benefits stop to the parents. Delwyn

*None I'm disappointed in National as a whole they will not receive my vote in future. Ken

*No where near enough. For every new baby a woman on the DPB has, the benifit gets cut, not increased. JK and co will not have the guts. Sadly, the country is screwed. Graeme

*When you take into account universal super and Working for Families, more than half of our populaion is partially or totally state dependent. Peter

*I do believe it is a step in the right direction and we have to begin the journey but we definitely have to take things a lot further. Christine

*Clearly not! And while not doing so they penalise some of our population who really need help. Rob

*For a start, there should be a benefit freeze for at least the next five years to bring back relativity. Why would (some) people want to work when the benefits are so attractive? Better still, a reduced benefit now, but I suppose that's a lot to ask for. Mothers on the DPB should receive a benefit for only one child, not subsequent ones born while on the DPB. National should make the hard decisions now, when it's not election year. They would get my vote again. Sheila

*I feel the DPB is the most insidious for all the reasons outlined but particularly because it is now a careet choice for MANY girls. It should go back to the criteria of earlier years and NOT be available for anyone under 20, and halved if still unpartnered and a second child is born and gone if more than one. Why should working people have the number of children they can afford while many of these girls are having any number they desire with the taxpayer paying for it?!! Louise

*No for all the reasons that you have identified. The problem is that there are now so many Beneficiaries and so many Socialists that they carry considerable weight within the electorate. As a result, any government needs to tread very carefully, or they will be voted out at the next election. I would love to think that, if the government did take firm action that must thinking tax payers would applaud their action and would wholeheartedly stand behind the government. I fear that this would not happen and we would be back to another socialist party in power. David

*My husband and I are in our 60s. We have worked hard all our lives and the current economic climate is likely to see us possibly loose the business that we have spent many years developing. We could have been beneficiaries and had the state pay for our needs. Instead we lived modestly and invested any profits back into a business that provided wages for others well above what we ourselves attained. Now due to a set of circumstances beyond out control our work may all be lost. Why shouldnt people who dont want to work be subject to self discipline and personal responsibility like the rest of us? Carol

*If John Key was more interested in the good of the country than staying in power he would do a hell of a lot better than he has to date. Peter

*No definitely not...I think the article covers it perfectly..get on with the job now before its too late...Audrey

*Tinkering with a problem so great that only a revolution will cure. Within five years this country will become the Greece of the South Pacific. At least we will have little fear of an Australian "take us over". Brian

*Every National MP should be asked "Do you honesty believe that requiring Solos to work after their child is 6 years old will not result in many of them having repeat pregnancies..If they reply Yes it confirms their stupidity. Rocky

*Benefit for 1st child only after 3yrs benefit halved reduced further over next 2 yrs. Louise

*Until there is an attitudinal and cultural change to welfare entitlement DonKey will tackle 'only the easy and convenient issues'.These measures needed to be announced last year so they were instituted by now and further reforms to the drivers of the underclass could be addressed this year. Why is the separatist whanau ora being brought in? How about welfare given out based on taxpayer contributions in the past,otherwise only one DPB child for every woman and/or welfare limited to a lifetime amount for work able 16-64yr. olds? Monica

*But not to worry, John Key will have changed his mind by next week. I have never known anyone to change his mind like he does. We have in fact adopted the Labour party name of Flip Flop. About the only useful thing the Labour party have come up with. Chris

*If only the first child got a benefit, women would tend not to have large families. James

*In your commentary and that of many others there is never mention of how the welfare system and DPB supports the proliferation of several of the seven Deadly Sins i.e. Sloth, Envy, Greed, Lust,Pride, Despair Strife...
I suggest that the simple and classical way of looking at these matters of the human spirit gets closer to the bone of the matter than any of the quasi-social pontificationg that so often masquerades as political talk in NZ. Chris

*Benefits should not be of right but only where need is the indication and all alternatives explored. Laurie

*They are showing their true colour - red, viewed through blue tinted glasses. Graeme

*National are using hatred to further push their agenda. Dave

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*Until people are made to be responsible for their actions and tax payers have to pick up the tab for their actions NZ will keep sliding down the economic pole ie if you decide to have children you should be able to bring them up without tax payer assistance. Children should be a planned event not an unexpected event that the tax paying person is expected to pick up. Entitlement to extra money should not be greater for more children. Have you ever heard of an employer asking how many children their employee has and base their wages on that rather than ability. So why does the government do it. I employ people on a lower wage and the only people that have laughed outright to me at the level of pay are people on the dpb as I cannot even come close to offering them the same as they already get. Brent

*Please Mr Key, get Dr Newman as our "Welfare Minister" for the future of all NZers. Jo

*They're not reforms at all, but that's become expected from John Key - no balls at all. Still, in a few years I'll hit 65 and change from fighting to really reform the welfare state into demanding more of it! After all, I won't be paying for it and we can all sit together, equal and poor, in the gutter! Kp

*If I didn't have as much moral integrity as I do, I would go on the dole, because I'm sick and tired of working 50 hrs. A week to recieve only a little more than some lazy slob who chooses to bludge the system. National is too lilly livered to actually introduce any meaningful changes. Grahame

*You said it all Muriel. If National are introducing the announced reforms because of their much repeated reason that they 'promised' no radical 'lurches', then at least they should be upfront and honest that the current measures are ...'just the beginning'....that they will be seeking an electoral mandate for MUCH more significant reforms. One is left with the thought that National, like most governments before them, are driven by a desire to just stay in power, rather than by any guiding principles. What a disappointment they have been. Ross

*John Key will never push welfare reform because to do so will cost him votes at the next election. Key and National are desperate to win the next election, at any price. We have been deceived by Key and the National Party who, prior to the last election, made a variety of promises about the changes to improve the NZ economy that would be introduced if we voted National. Now we find that John Key is only tickling the surface of each problem area, rather than dealing with the problem in depth. We will never achieve the changes needed to catch up with Australia whilst Key is Prime Minister. My Wife and I will not vote for National again. Our problem, and YOUR problem, is who can we vote for that will return New Zealand to the wealthy, well run country we once enjoyed? Ernest

*Government should get back to it's true function. Defence and Justice. Government welfare has produced a Nation of moochers. Welfare, health care are not a right. In fact Government welfare extracted at the point of a gun has destroyed true charity and spirit of individual. This has returned man to serfdom. Michael

*I know of abuse happening & can't report it as it's too close to home & would be obvious where it came from. I should be able to anonomously point investigators in the right direction & stand back from involvement. Otherwise I can't report it in without major family discord!! Sort that out!! Peter

*The majority of DPB beneficaries are women. Where are the fathers. Name the fathers before any benefit is given! Jill

*Why are solo mothers benefits increased just because they have another kid. Marty

*There are far too many ways to use the system and avoid working. Maurice

*What about the 10% of the population who have to pay 75% of the total tax take -what are their rights? Paul

*This is a very bad time to copy the USA with their failed welfare reforms. The poverty and wage drop will end the National govt next elections or before. Rehash of the "mother of all budgets". Rick

*It's a start and willtake years to 'turnaround'. Politics is the art of the possible ... not of the polemical. Larry

*I believe we need to help the genuinely needy; but we are instead creating a culture of neediness. It will take a lot of backbone to alter because we have slipped so far down the slippery slope already. I dont think John Key is the man for the job (sadly). Colleen

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*But they are an acknowledgement that NZ has an epidemic of welfare dependancy and it's going to become far worse unless something is done. Angela

*Cancel the DPB now! As a first step. David

*It won't be enough until they target the ones who are truly rorting the system and the ones who can work but don't. Also they need to target how the welfare payments are spent. ie: ensure that beneficiaries who spend money on the TAB, alcohol, cigarettes etc have spent the money on their rent, power, children, food etc first. Peter

*Having illegitimate children to produce income and support should be stopped. Mothers should be forced to name the father before getting any welfare so that the father can be forced to contribute. Peter

*Welfare is the largest millstone around middle NZ.It has destroyed the work ethic that was present in NZ before the 1960's. Any sensible young New Zealanders would leave the country to escape the imposition of such high taxes. John Key needs to get a backbone instead of trying to please everyone. David

*Checks should be put in place to prevent some cheats having benefits by using different names. Any solo mother should not get benefits for future children she has unless the father is named. George

*National so far has been a huge disappointment but even though the welfare reform doesn't go nearly far enough, at least it is a start and I hope it progresses further. Firstly, many beneficiaries choose to live in a place where there is no work so the Government should assist them to move to where work is more plentiful. Secondly, before the youngest child reaches 6 years of age, there should be assistance for the mother to train for work that will give her better job prospects. Thirdly, and very important in my view, I can just see what will happen when the youngest is approaching 6 years of age - the mother will have another baby!! Surely, whilst on a benefit there should be a law that says no extra money will be paid to a mother who has a child whilst on the benefit. This will stop this practice in its tracks and also help with preventing 'unwanted' children who end up in terribl deprived circumstances in many cases. H & B

*A hand up not a hand out to the lazy ne'erdowells. Sterilization should be made a worthwhile option with a handsome payout. Chris

*Assets must be redistributed not just income. The underclass would disappear over night if awarded the assets of the idle rich. Charlie

*The National government had a clear mandate for change when elected into office in 2008. In the face of the most significant global economic crisis since the Great Depression they had an invitation to justify that change. That they have squandered this opportunity is nothing short of scandelous. Their constant search for approval (recall the Holyoake era) has simply reduced them to a 'caretaker' government through their own volition. James

*Why is it that politicians who have been elected to do a job, fail to recognise the mandate that the general population have given them. REFORM WELFARE PROMPTLY AND MEANINGFULLY. I don't think most people would mind if all those who have been drawing a welfare benefit (not including Superannuation) for more than one generation, were rounded up and put into a military style camp and taught the basics of living a decent life. i.e. taking a regular bath or shower, feeding their children, the man going out to do a decent days work in a fit state to be productive of something useful, the woman learning to cook a decent meal and learning the rudiments of childcare and health. No drugs, no cigarettes, only 1 beer or glass of wine per week and a serious physical exercise regime. This will be a 12 month bootcamp for the whole family. The can also learn to grow their own food, make there own clothes etc etc etc. No ifs, buts or maybes. The cycle of welfare funded abuse must stop and the only way to stop it is to interrupt the cycle. It's not rocket science!
No welfare benefits of any kind for anyone under 21. No DPB for anyone without evidence of real need. i.e. death of a spouse or serious disablement. No benefit paid automatically. Benefits must be collected in person. Well, you did ask. Dianna

*As an employer of 15 staff I am sick of paying out there hard Tax to feed the Mouths of all these bluges who just rip the System off. John Key has failed the 92% of workers who are employed by Compaines that employ staff of 1 to 20 who are the biggests tax payers in NZ & we get no help from the Govememt of the day, all they do is take our Tax & give it ot the wrong people. Time has come to stop the hand outs. Geoff

*We must stop enabling self - destructive lifestyles, for the good of welfare recipients, and the taxpayers. Jack

*Oh for leaders who have the necessary courage and moral fibre to really sort out the problem. Alan

*Benefits should be paid as a credit card not able to be spent on alcohol cigarettes or fast food and require photo ID to use, would put half of the South Auckland liquor outlets out of business and maybe allow some "parents" to sober up enough to feed their kids. John

*I am afraid that I have a real problem funding people out of my tax on a benefit to produce more than one child out of wedlock. Pay for one mistake only!! If they wish to have more children the father or parents should pay/support.
Also why should the benefit be available to persons under the age of 17 yrs when they are too immature to raise themselves without trying to bring up an infant. Doug

*Stop the welfare abuses and cheating and then we can really help those genuine and deserving cases. Mike

*It's a start. But that's all you can say. National have moved a long way towards the left. This is not a conservative government. John Key is as populist as Winston Peters. Ronmac

*How many fathers of the children whose mothers are on the DPB contribute financially to their upbringing? Dorothy

*Because NZ has one of the most generous benefit packages amongst the OECD countries, it would be wise to learn from countries managing social expectations and needs in a more responsible fashion. The goal is to reduce dependency and increase responsibility. Bruce

*"New National" is pink and spineless. We need incentives to get the country working as one nation!! Peter

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*But it is a good start! A problem that was 60 years in the making will take some time to correct, and this is a good first step! Graham

*Why oh why do we keep paying DPB benefits to those women who keep having more babies by often many different fathers while they are already on the DPB? Cap the payout to the number of children they have at the outset. There will be a lot of pregnant women dependents with children approaching 6 yrs old just because they feel they cannot face the thought of having to go to work. It does happen and I have employed some of these women. The 6 yr rule has been round before. Tim

*I'm concerned that they have not capped the payout for extra children immediately with this policy as it is an incentive to have more children to stay on the DPB. If this was capped at least it would not be rewarded. Judy

*Why doesn't Key adopt the policy Clinton brought in the USA. Only allow a welfare benfit for a maximum of 5 months at a time and the maximum time on Welfare for able bodied person is 5 years over a lifetime? Sounds fair don't you think? Jim

*The horse has bolted. Life-time beneficiaries include the proudly unemployable, alchoholic, gang member or druggie "invalids", "invalids" with mild depression or a trivial injury, and those on the DPB because it pays much more than the Youth Benefit. My boys found part time work at 14 and 15 in a town full of beneficiaries, with employers unable to find literate or reliable workers. Start afresh with our 5 year olds starting school. Alan

*Solo mothers should be given notice that one mistake will be funded any additional children will be funded by mother & father of thse future children. The system as it stands perpetuates a lifestyle where the resultant children have little or no chance of a decent productive life. Ian

*Those on the DPB should not get any extra benifit if they have more children while on the DPB. Helen

*While I feel sorry for the people fronting the ones on benefits, we simply can't afford to keep propping up people who could be working and earning their own keep. Ken

*Systemic change not tweaking at the edges is what is needed. Lindsay Mitchell's comments are right on the money. I am steadily coming to the view that National Party has no underlying principles by which they govern. Oh for a government with the guts to make the changes that need to be made! Michael

*The work requirement once the youngest child reaches age 6 will provide an incentive for beneficiaries to have an additional child. As noted, each year 5,000 children are born to benefit dependant women. This trend will accelerate. What needs to be done is to introduce a policy that removes the incentive to graduate up the welfare payment scale. A simple rule that a person cannot move to a higher level of benefit would stop this practice. It must be accompanies by free contraception and an offer of free permanent contraception. The elegance of such a solution is that it does not punish anyone who is already on a benefit or, more importantly from a PR perspective, allow the ‘welfare iron triangle’ to clam that the policy is hurting children. If a woman has an extra child and cannot manage on the old benefit then the child can be taken by CYPS and made available fro adoption. Once beneficiaries realise that there is no money to be gained from having an additional child then the practice will either stop completely or be reduced to very very low levels. Stephen

*If welfare was reformed well then pressure would build for reforms of the justice system/ govt dept's etc etc, kinda like police complaints investigations - the corrupt judging the corrupt. Wayne

*The principle of welfare and State supplied money is so ingrained in the NZ psyche that I believe no real alteration in the welfare status quo will be effective. The Key administration will tinker and posture but there will be no real change because New Zealanders expect the State to be there to bail them out of their problems and lifestyle choices. More fool us! Peter

*But at the same time the minimum wage needs addressing. Why should a person on the DPB/Benefit work for less than what they were getting on the benifit. This I feel is the first step that needs addressing. Carl

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*Time to stop girls having babies and make the father fully resposible if they do. Russell

*If a woman requires assistance of teh DPB and she enters into a contract with the Government with X number of children the contract is made to support her and that many children. If she selects to get pregnant the father should be made responsible for the ongoing support. Sandra

*Needs to replace 'good moral character' test with 'drug free & able to passmost firms drug free hiring policy' - fail drug test, stand down. Be able to work if required means able to work, not doped up. Cliff

*But they also need to look at the 2002 property relationship act as the problems can be interconnected. Grant

*Very disappointing - even Labour could have done better than this! Tina

*Key simply has neither the BOLLOCKS nor the SPINE to do what is needed.

And Beneficiary-Bennett will certainly not give all her mates a pay cut...another invertebrate.

All our Parliamentary Beneficiaries (MPs) are the same species. They crow about saving 1 million here and 10 million there when the DPB lifestyle bill is 2,500 MILLION dollars EVERY year.

Bring back "of good moral character and sober habits"...you don't want to work? That's fine: subsistence benefit. Refund grocery bills excluding booze and cigarettes.

Government pays power/phone directly up to a limit and rent likewise.

Why should the rest of us who get off our backsides and try to do better be saddled with this enormous bill?

And, while we are at it, let's see the "Parliamentary Benefit" (MP salary) SLASHED back to 1.5 times the average wage.

All the "public servants" too. How can it be that an accountant who goes into private practice (where s/he doesn't work 9:00-4:30) is paid nearly 20% less than their "equivalent" in the public sector?

Time for Key and Co to show some of the BOLLOCKS they assured us they had during the election campaign.

New Zealand: leading the 4th world! Mark

*AS a mortgage broker I was stunned when I saw how much a DPB with two children gets per week in benefits. It menas that for not working she gets more than about 30% of the working popultaion who also have to pay tax on lesser earnings and often are paying additional taxes in the form of local body and regional body rates. So those in low paid work get penalised all the time while those on benefits just keep sponging. Nick

*There should be a restriction on the number of children a parent can claim a payment for. Hopefully this would restrict the idea that having more babies wil get you more money. Elsa

*I think this is tinkering aimed at saving money rather than dealing with the underlying problems. These 'reforms' are driven by the wrong ethos. Viv

*But it is a good start! A problem that was 60 years in the making will take some time to correct, and this is a good first step! Graham

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*John Key & his team are a huge dissapointment. He had some good speeches with great content leading up to & just after being elected (especially relating to the individual & personal accountability), but has now just become a populist. It is disgusting that Employers are competing against their own money stolen from them (tax) paying for people to remain idle instead of entering the workplace. Chris

*I know someone that works for WINZ as I think a Case Manager, in an area short of people for jobs. The beneficiaries that are required to be "actively looking for work" but don't want a job show up at their interviews and deliberately fail so they can stay on the benefit. For those people it is a livestyle choice to remain beneficiaries and they have no incentive or desire to move from the benefit. This case manager has been shocked since starting at that office six months ago. It has been a wakeup call for this person too. On the other hand those keenest for work in the area this person is in, are over 50 years old and often don't get the work due to their age! A lot have never been on a benefit apparently and hate it. So National have a lot to do and need to hurry up as the IMF report has mentioned. Since they have been elected I have been amazed that they can actually walk with the spines they have and the wasteful practises they have adopted. Don't get me started on Stadium funding. Bill

*Eventually this will have to be fixed as paying for it can't be managed, why not tackle the problem now and limit the pain! Don

*Too little, too late. Women who don't want to return to work will just have more kids. Perhaps anyone already on a benefit should not be entitled to more of our money if they have more children. That is, remove the incentive to keep breeding. Gary

*Nothing will happen, nothing will change - all talk as usual and no action. Once people with an arm missing had a full time job and now they go on an invalid benefit. NZers today are a bunch of wimps. Lorna

This week's poll asks:

Do you think the welfare reforms announced by National go far enough?

*National have turned into a pack of whimps! I don't hold out much hope for NZ in the long term - the 'users' are taking over and the 'payers' are being screwed! Joe

*I always knew National would never deliver on that promise - John Key hasn't got the guts! Having said that, if Don Brash had remained the leader, I'm sure they would have. Bring back Don Brash... Sandy

*Paula Bennett is very credible as the Minister, but it's clear she wants to be liked, so the combination of her and Mr Smiley means that the tough decisions will never be made. Timothy

*Very disappointing - even Labour could have done better than this! Tina

* While National's plans all sound very reasonable, the point is that the welfare system is riddled with fraud and abuse and as soon as they move ten beneficiaries out into work, another 20 will go onto welfare behind them. Tough love is what is needed and I can't see any evidence of that! Paul