Government is trying the stick approach to beneficiary parents:
From next July, parents on a benefit will have to ensure their children meet four health and education requirements, otherwise their benefit could be cut by up to half.
Children must also be enrolled with a GP and have core health checks.
Parents will get three chances to fall into line before having their benefit cut by up to half.
I’ve got no problem with pushing parent’s to ensure their children have adequate health care and education. And three chances seems fair enough, as long as what parents are required to do is reasonable.
But I do have doubts about the final stick of halving benefits, as Labour says in Govt warned that crackdown could hurt children…
… if a benefit is cut, the children the Government says it’s trying to help could end up worse off.
It may depend on how quickly the benefit can be reinstated if the parents comply – but it would be odd if any parent relying on a benefit would get themselves in the position of having their benefit cut in the first place, as long as the requirements are reasonable.
Greens, who always seem to prefer handing out carrots, don’t see it this way…
Party co-leader Metiria Turei said it’s unfair that the financial penalty would apply solely to beneficiaries and not other parents.
That’s an odd statement, you can’t half a benefit that you aren’t paying. And…
RadioLIVE Newsroom
@LIVENewsDeskThe Greens outraged by government plans to halve benefits for parents who don’t enrol their kids in early childhood education.
Presumably Greens support better health and education for children, and just don’t like any threats of repercussions for non-compliance.
Metiria Turei has just launched a campaign against poverty – how will she ensure kids get better healthcare and education?
It really should only be a theoretical threat anyway, surely parents will do what’s best for their kids anyway.
But United Future leader Peter Dunne says it’s a fundamentally good idea for people receiving a benefit to have to meet certain obligations for their children.
However, he hopes it won’t be a repeat of the Shipley Government’s code of social responsibility.
Mr Dunne said that failed by imposing obligations on people without the Government providing services to hold up its end of the bargain.
It’s up to Government to ensure the services are available. And hopefully parent’s won’t even require a first warning, they should make sure their kids get education and healthcare.
gpicone
/ September 12, 2012Punishment never works better than encouragement. When will we ever learn?
Pete George
/ September 12, 2012Just wanting the best for their kids doesn’t seem to be enough for some parents (it is for most).
How to turn it into incentive? Annual benefit cost of living increases only when they comply? I really don’t know, I’m trying to think of more carrot and less stick.
rrm22
/ September 12, 2012For goodness’ sake.
There is already a TONNE of encouragement:
Early childhood education up to a certain number of hours is FREE to the parents.
A certain level of healthcare for children under 5 is FREE to the parents.
FREE.
You pay NOTHING. In return you get SOMETHING.
And yet dropkick parents still fail miserably to do these things for their own kids’ benefit. Contrary to your fine words, the encouragement doesn’t appear to be doing much at all.
How much more encouragement do they need?
Should we perhaps PAY cash bonuses people who can\’t be bothered getting a job, to ”encourage” them to take their kids to see the Doctor?
Remember the parents are already getting PAID by the state, week in week out, for sitting at home producing nothing. Everything they have, is charity that is being GIVEN to them.
And when a Govt Minister suggests benefits could be made conditional on the recipients having to jump through the smallest and easiest of token hoops (hoops that pale into utter insignificance compared to what those of us who get up every day and WORK and pay tax have to do in order to make our way in the world and provide everything for the said beneficiaries, btw) somehow that’s characterised as ”WAR ON THE POOR”… ffs.
’War on the poor’ would be rounding beneficiaries up and expelling them from the country at gunpoint. This is not that.
And this is not even a ’stick’ – imposing fines for non-compliance would be a ’stick’. This is just the prospect of slightly less carrot than they’ve become accustomed to.
- RRM
Pete George
/ September 13, 2012“Should we perhaps PAY cash bonuses people who can\’t be bothered getting a job, to ”encourage” them to take their kids to see the Doctor?”
I actually saw something like that suggested yesterday – financial incentives. I don’t know how that would be fair on the good beneficiary parents.
gpicone
/ September 13, 2012How much do you think we spend every year on free stuff to the poor? Do you have the statistics? I’m just wondering if it comes close to the 3 trillion dollars we’ve spent on 2 wars and the 1 trillion dollars we gave to the banks for FREE. If you have the numbers I would be interested because I don’t know the total amount in handouts we give in charity to lazy parents.
aquashell
/ September 14, 2012Nothing will make me get a job. I have survived for years on the dole so stick that.