The government has announced a range of new measures targeting recipients of state assistance.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett announced today that those seeking assistance under the government’s drought relief scheme would be required to submit to mandatory drug tests, and to show evidence that they were actively looking for alternative sources of income.
Farmers would also have their benefits docked if they failed to answer phone calls from Work and Income.
The measures are designed to crack down on the abuse by farmers of the government’s drought relief scheme.
Ms Bennett accepted that there was no evidence of widespread abuse of the scheme by farmers.
But she insisted that the new rules were necessary to keep farmers on the straight and narrow.
“Struggling farmers who are doing their best to manage and who are looking to find alternative work have nothing to fear,” said Bennett. “These rules are about helping to break the cycle of farmer dependency. Some of this dependency is inter-generational. We can’t afford as a nation to have hundreds of farmers begging for help each and every time a drought is declared.
“It doesn't matter whether you’re a farmer or a solo mother,” said Ms Bennett. “If you want a handout from this government then the same rules apply.”
Reporters at the Minister's press conference were unable to elicit further information from Ms Bennett about the measures, as she had by that time fallen over in a fit of hysterical laughter.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
12 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is this a spontaneous farmers versus beneficiaries post or part of a mass attack?
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously a coordinated attack by various members of the vast left-wing conspiracy, including myself. We had our weekly club meet earlier this evening.
DeleteSurprised you only found at your meeting, there is plenty of it about.
DeleteMartin Bradbury at The Daily Blog: How the hardship of farmers and beneficiaries differ
Helen Kelly at The Standard: We’re all beneficiaries now
Robyn Norris on NZ Labour Facebook:
"...the farmers moan cause they have no feed for their animals and the govt pays them compensation, what about all the low paid families out there that are having trouble feeding their children where is the govt then, making things worse for them."
There's a bit of a difference between a short term extreme weather condition affecting farmers and long term benefits like DPB and Working for families.
Some seem to suggest that farmers don't deserve anything, for example... mickysavage:
"There is a certain irony that farmers, who have a reputation for denying that climate change is occurring and opposing provision of social welfare for members of our community who need it should now be seeking a benefit because of a drought that is undeniably a symptom of global warming."
...but that existing beneficiaries should get more benefits for longer without any pressure to consider being self sufficient.
Yes, that will be it. I called my best friend Martyn Bradbury and we agreed to coordinate these posts. How perceptive you are.
Delete[note to self: we must do something about Pete George. He knows too much]
Very droll Scott. And your response to PG is hilarious except I'm a bit peeved that I didn't get invited to the club meeting, lol!
ReplyDeleteIt is much more pleasant on this site than Farrar's Kiwis log, which seems to attract a lot of bitter, mean and less informed people. Thanks for the opportunity. Hopefully!
DeleteHowever droll Scott is, alas it has not prevented PG from, as is (anti)inimitable way, going off and creating an entire pompous narrative around his own conclusions.
ReplyDeletePG problem is he is man out of time. He is the sort of guy everyone is pleased to see when he volunteers to keep meticulous minutes of the proceedings of the South Taieri waste water and rabbit control board in 1922. Although even in 1922 I suspect most people would have avoided him at the said august bodies Xmas party.
More poor guessing Sanc. I'm not a meticulous minute keeper.
DeleteBut talking about record keeping, Stuff looked at some records and put some perspective on all these greedy farmers:
" The tight criteria meant few farmers were eligible for the payment. In 2009, 20 Hawke’s Bay farmers received the payment.
" Mr Barham expected a similar number would receive the payment this year as the region came off the back of the driest six-month spell since 1950."
But hey, farmer bashing's ok because they're all rich pricks who moan too much and never pay any tax.
Pete's right Sanc, if he was really that anally retentive he wouldn't have been able to get his head shoved so far up his own arse!
Delete"But hey, farmer bashing's ok because they're all rich pricks who moan too much and never pay any tax."
DeleteNot sure who is "farmer bashing" on this particular site. All that is being pointed out is the disparity between the conditions under which the State provides income-assistance to some groups in society as opposed to others. Anything more would appear to be a projection on your part.
"Farmer Bashers", I know who it is, its the Mum and Dad investors of course, theyre to blame for everything
DeleteI agree with Pete George. "farmer bashing's ok because they're all rich pricks who moan too much and never pay any tax."
Delete