Josie Pagani has posted views on Facebook about how she thinks Labour need to handle the welfare issue that’s caused a lot of duiscussion at The Standard.

I want to deal with the welfare issue.

I’ll tell you what beneficiary bashing is: Paula Bennett removing the ladder she used herself to get off a benefit.

Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley cutting the benefit out of a spiteful ideology that believes life on a benefit is too easy.

Act radicals who would say you should buy social insurance instead of having an entitlement to welfare in times of misfortune.

That’s what benefit bashing looks like. What isn’t benefit bashing is stating the bleeding obvious that some people work the system and make claims they should not. Pointing that out is the opposite of benefit bashing. It is not the same as saying everyone on a benefit (or even most) doesn’t deserve to be there.

This matters because Labour has to always earn the trust of New Zealanders to run the welfare system fairly. We don’t get it automatically. Many Labour voters – people who support a decent welfare system – want to be reassured that we won’t ignore problems.

David Shearer’s story about the guy who saw his neighbour up on a roof while on a sickness benefit spoke to them.

Reading some of the reaction to his story, it’s clear that a lot of people think his re-telling of the story legitimises a right wing theme about welfare. People say that we should ignore or refute any negative story about benefit fraud because it undermines the whole system.

Quite a few people have said, ‘yes but the individual might have been mentally ill or had some other condition preventing them from holding a steady job.’ This certainly might be true and yet it is certainly not true in all cases.

There are genuine cases where people claim benefits they shouldn’t. It’s intellectually and morally indefensible to defend those cases. Voters know that.

If we on the left can’t talk about that without deflecting onto another issue – ‘never mind benefit fraud, what about the rich bastards who fiddle the tax system to steal millions from the tax payer?’ – then we will lose the battle on welfare.

We should and do single out the bludgers at the top who don’t pay their fair share of tax.

But we must also talk about the responsibilities that people have when they claim a benefit (to work if they can), if we’re to win the debate on rights.

I want to win the argument that a solo mum who can’t work has a right to a decent amount of money on a benefit so she can pay the bills, get a grant to up-skill herself, and access subsidised child care.

We’re not winning that argument.

We invented the welfare system, we believe in it. The right doesn’t. But they own the debate on welfare reform.

That’s the irony. If we lose the argument and the trust of New Zealanders, the welfare system as we know it will be eroded over the next ten years by the right.

All those people on The Standard who attack me anonymously are playing into the hands of those who want to see us lose the welfare debate, by avoiding talking about responsibilities.

We cannot say we must never talk about these issues. We must. We must have decent answers.

The reason for Labour getting into government is not to defend welfare – or anything else – against reform. It’s so that reform can be done our way – fairly, and in a way that produces a decent outcome that provides a fulfilling future for everyone. The welfare system doesn’t do that today. Everyone knows that, and that’s why it needs to be reformed.

Voters won’t trust us to reform it if the only part of reform is to argue that we should just hand over more money and ignore ways to make the system work better.

Shearer’s roofer case is easy.

What’s much harder for the left to deal with is the attitude in this week’s Dominion Post editorial, that somehow draws a connection between beneficiaries and the family of the Kahui twins.

That really is beneficiary bashing.

Yet this is a harder issue for the left. Being on a benefit does not imply horrific child abuse, as the Dom Post appeared to imply. Yet there is a widespread belief the two are linked – not because of a successful right wing propaganda machine, but because a lot of people do believe the link exists.

The left has no choice but to challenge that view because it is demeaning to all beneficiaries, and because it actually diverts attention from where it needs to be – which is intervening wherever child abuse is occurring, in middle class homes too.

We can only hope to do so if we are not being seen to defend the indefensible.

A related Standard post.

I want to deal with the welfare issue.

I’ll tell you what beneficiary bashing is: Paula Bennett removing the ladder she used herself to get off a benefit.

Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley cutting the benefit out of a spiteful ideology that believes life on a benefit is too easy.

Act radicals who would say you should buy social insurance instead of having an entitlement to welfare in times of misfortune.

That’s what benefit bashing looks like. What isn’t benefit bashing is stating the bleeding obvious that some people work the system and make claims they should not. Pointing that out is the opposite of benefit bashing. It is not the same as saying everyone on a benefit (or even most) doesn’t deserve to be there.

This matters because Labour has to always earn the trust of New Zealanders to run the welfare system fairly. We don’t get it automatically. Many Labour voters – people who support a decent welfare system – want to be reassured that we won’t ignore problems.

David Shearer’s story about the guy who saw his neighbour up on a roof while on a sickness benefit spoke to them.

Reading some of the reaction to his story, it’s clear that a lot of people think his re-telling of the story legitimises a right wing theme about welfare. People say that we should ignore or refute any negative story about benefit fraud because it undermines the whole system.

Quite a few people have said, ‘yes but the individual might have been mentally ill or had some other condition preventing them from holding a steady job.’ This certainly might be true and yet it is certainly not true in all cases.

There are genuine cases where people claim benefits they shouldn’t. It’s intellectually and morally indefensible to defend those cases. Voters know that.

If we on the left can’t talk about that without deflecting onto another issue – ‘never mind benefit fraud, what about the rich bastards who fiddle the tax system to steal millions from the tax payer?’ – then we will lose the battle on welfare.

We should and do single out the bludgers at the top who don’t pay their fair share of tax.

But we must also talk about the responsibilities that people have when they claim a benefit (to work if they can), if we’re to win the debate on rights.

I want to win the argument that a solo mum who can’t work has a right to a decent amount of money on a benefit so she can pay the bills, get a grant to up-skill herself, and access subsidised child care.

We’re not winning that argument.

We invented the welfare system, we believe in it. The right doesn’t. But they own the debate on welfare reform.

That’s the irony. If we lose the argument and the trust of New Zealanders, the welfare system as we know it will be eroded over the next ten years by the right.

All those people on The Standard who attack me anonymously are playing into the hands of those who want to see us lose the welfare debate, by avoiding talking about responsibilities.

We cannot say we must never talk about these issues. We must. We must have decent answers.

The reason for Labour getting into government is not to defend welfare – or anything else – against reform. It’s so that reform can be done our way – fairly, and in a way that produces a decent outcome that provides a fulfilling future for everyone. The welfare system doesn’t do that today. Everyone knows that, and that’s why it needs to be reformed.

Voters won’t trust us to reform it if the only part of reform is to argue that we should just hand over more money and ignore ways to make the system work better.

Shearer’s roofer case is easy.

What’s much harder for the left to deal with is the attitude in this week’s Dominion Post editorial, that somehow draws a connection between beneficiaries and the family of the Kahui twins.

That really is beneficiary bashing.

Yet this is a harder issue for the left. Being on a benefit does not imply horrific child abuse, as the Dom Post appeared to imply. Yet there is a widespread belief the two are linked – not because of a successful right wing propaganda machine, but because a lot of people do believe the link exists.

The left has no choice but to challenge that view because it is demeaning to all beneficiaries, and because it actually diverts attention from where it needs to be – which is intervening wherever child abuse is occurring, in middle class homes too.

We can only hope to do so if we are not being seen to defend the indefensible.

A related post at The Standard: Dog whistling