Mandatory work tests for beneficiaries

Sounds exactly like the failed National party policies of the 1990s, all they did was cause severe poverty and hardship for sick and injured people.

Cant wait to see what happens when some of these unfortunate vulnerable people get their benefits stopped and cannot feed their kids, or when sick people die of harassment and stress mot being able to comply with nazi nationals filthy plans!,http://www.oldmuso.com/

Quote Nationals plan "National would also target the long-term unemployed, requiring those on the dole for more than a year to re-apply within its first 12 months in office.

They would face a "comprehensive work assessment" and would be made to take steps to secure work, including practical training, basic skills courses or drug and alcohol rehabilitation.

"After that, they will be required to actively look for a job, go to any job interview they are referred to, and accept any suitable offer of employment. If they don't comply with these obligations, their benefits will be reduced in the first instance, then suspended, then cancelled.'' unquote

Woah....hang on a minute, this is standard practice for all NEW beneficiarys (well here in Levin anyway??.)

We applied for unemployment after work contracts ran out so on applying WINZ made my husband attend all these stupid meetings, and to fill in a form 6 times a week proving he had been arranging job interviews ect, which he had to take into the WINZ office twice a week for an hour each time , for them to cheak on him , and after 6 weeks of this he didnt turn up for one of his pathetic appointments and they suspended the benefit, WTF, who the hell do they think they are? If this is some new idea of National, getting tougher, well from what is at least happening here in Levin its definatly nothing new. But hang on, John Key says he will be targeting those who have been unemployed for over one year, my husband was unemployed one week????? Is this a Levin thing or a labour thing???

And single parents should be left alone its hard enough for them. They need help and support.

I'm on an invalids' benefit because I had to resign from a very strenuous teaching/managerial position in order to have treatment for cancer. I'm trying to separate needs from wants but the benefit does not cover the true cost of living even when one makes the effort to conserve costs. Now that I have finished treatment I am working 2 hours a week with children who have reading difficulties. The pay amounts to $16 a week gross over the allowed $80. It's very demeaning. I cannot returning to full time teaching. I'm 63 and have a mortgage free home. I have worked hard to bring up 3 children on my own etc. $100 limit would make all the difference. $80 has been the limit for years!!!

O.K Rebecca, You seem to be picking on a very small statistic, The fact is there are simply too many people like you that too small minded to think why those people would be on a benefit in the first place, Its not a living, the amount of money you get proves that, you get just enough to get by and in most cases the father of the children in a broken up relationship pay a major part of the benefit, myself included paying $176 a week to the government for child support. My ex-partner getting around $350 a week to live on, and then me topping her up so my child doesn't go with out. The biggest drain on our country is the government itself wasting money on things that have absolutely nothing to do with the betterment of the population

It is interesting reading through all of the responses on this issue.

Some of the more specific 'negative' comments include: - the wealthy have too much.. and should pay more. - the policy is sexist and/or racist - it picks on solo mothers or those with disabilities. - it picks on 'poor' people

There are a number of key considerations from my perspective: - Modern society has a moral obligation to look after those who cannot look after themselves. E.g. Disabled, sick.. - The government has an obligation to those who have assumed support through various circumstances. E.g. Elderly (payed tax for pensions etc) - It is in the best interests of society to support those transitioning to gainful employment and be therefore able to look after themselves.

The other considerations raised are in my opinion more about 'redistribution of wealth'. If we take a step back and look at this, you can see that NZ already practices the 'robin hood' taxation model and limits benefits / subsidies etc to those under a certain income. We live in a capitalist society which rightly or wrongly encourages improving your situation through hard work.

The best way I like to look at this is. Where would you spend your tax dollars if you could distribute them. What would your focus be?

I am dismayed that even the thought of revising these sorts of policies seems to have people crying out... these policies should be changed regularly - that shows the government is adapting to the changing needs of NZ.

hmmm, a lot of comments here about how people on benefits should undergo training etc to get them into work....a good theory perhaps but I have yet to hear any policy of National's to do with training and education.....golly gosh I can get my forklift licence through Winz though how exciting for a 22 year old female such as myself...

I am on DBP and I am using govt help to get a degree at uni and then I am off govt aid and into paid employment and support for my two kids, point is, there are those of us out there who need a bit of help, and are getting it from the govt and we are not bludgers or losers just people who need a bit of help for a while, why can I not expect that from my govt whom I have paid taxes to for a long time now? this benefit, while of assistance is not a wage bracket that I would want to be in for any length of time due to the fact that it is barely subsistence level, check Thomas Mathuis, his survival model is alive and well in the welfare paradigm for assesment - if you think that living on a welfare benefit is a good financial deal then go live on one, enter Jenny Shipley, give us a break cheers

In the interests of equity and fairness, I am sure they will soon announce that working for families will also require the same from at-home partners in two-parent families, in order to get their benefit.

At last we will have a proper and conclusive policy regarding available and affordable after school and holiday care.

Or perhaps suddenly there will be lots and lots of benevolent employers happy to give their part time staff 12 weeks holiday a year.

National just makes it too easy for Tui's ad agency.

Sloane, if you have a partner in work, you do have the opportunity. Presumably you have chosen the money. Feeling as you do, I am sure you wouldn't put your hand out for WFF. It is a benefit paid to people unable to support themselves.

ive been on dpb for 15 years love it arrrrrrrrrrrr what a easy life

Great idea to increase income level to $100 before they are penalised Tax rate should be lowered from 22.4cents in the $ If my workmate needs to work extra hours, she's penalised big time.

What do mothers of school aged children do all day everyday if not working?? Job share & Part time work should be encouraged.