The Nation review: Paula Bennett on drama queen domestic violence stats

21
1

Screen Shot 2014-05-25 at 12.25.59 pm

You really have to see the train-wreck of an interview Paula Bennett pulls off today on The Nation.

With Judith Collins and Hekia Parata’s demise, National need to promote one female talent and this has prompted a very head girl routine from Bennett who is on her best behaviour for the position of Deputy Leader whenever it next becomes vacant. Sadly for beneficiaries, Paula’s job application means she has to embody the mean spirited ideologically generated welfare myths that give rump National Party voters indigestion in the morning. That was evident in Bennett’s ridiculous interview today, because when you strip back the work sets the unemployed free rhetoric is the cruel truth that National have no problems letting children in poverty suffer because National’s individual responsibility philosophy is nothing more than sophistry to legitimise not lifting a finger to counter the injustice of social inequality.

Put simply it’s poor people’s fault for being poor and starving them and their children will teach them not to have more children. Paula’s burning the benefit to save those lazy bludgers reliant on that benefit. Give a bludger a fish and they’ll eat for a day. Force a bludger to go to work to fish even though that job is on the other side of town and costs more in travel than they get paid, and they’ll eat less than just giving them the fish in the first place.

The “Yeah nah” poverty and inequality denial of the National Party is akin to creationists confronting dinosaur bones. The Government rejected plans to include beneficiaries in a package to help families with newborn babies, despite official advice they were the most vulnerable but Paula says “Yeah nah”. A year-long project has found many poor families feel “trapped” in unemployment by the cost of study, lack of transport, poor health, past criminal records, the time demands of dealing with multiple agencies, and by low-paid casualised work which is less secure than a benefit but Paula says, “Yeah nah”. Statistics New Zealand data released yesterday revealed in the year to June, food prices increased 1.2%, resulting in the highest price since July 2011 but Paula says, “Yeah nah”.

National have invested so much time into warping the anger at beneficiaries into a leash to keep the suburban focused on hating a vulnerable group rather than ever question National’s continued corporate welfare that no matter what the experts or academics or health officials tell National, they will always choose to make lives blighted by poverty even more precarious so that Talkback radio rednecks can sleep happy.

At one point in the interview, Bennett actually insinuates that because NZ over report domestic violence that we were somehow being drama queens by pointing out how poorly we rate globally. He glib attitude towards domestic violence is as distasteful as her glib attitude towards child poverty and her glib attitude towards manufacturing excuses to disqualify people from welfare.

Hilariously Lisa Owen calls her Paula Benefit by mistake at the end of the interview. I choked on my coffee laughing.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Panel was CEO of the Death Star, Phil O’Reilly, the venerable Jeanette Fitzsimons and political journalist Andrea Vance. They all had good insights, Phil needs the next Government to stop sucking up to the Dairy Industry and invest wider throughout the economy and needs new mates in Labour. His neutrality on Labour’s economic platform suggests he knows he may need to start working out ways for him to work with a Labour-Green Government.

21 COMMENTS

  1. “Hilariously Lisa Owen calls her Paula Benefit by mistake at the end of the interview. I choked on my coffee laughing.”

    Yes, I was wondering whether Lisa was saying that by accident, or actually with intention. In any case, it is a misspelled name, as it should be “Paula BENESHIT”, meaning all she ever does is SHIT on the beneficiaries her Ministry and its departments are supposed to “look after”.

    I was also shocked by what Paula answered to the questions by Lisa Owen. Those that did not see and hear the interview must turn on the TV and watch the Nation on TV3 tomorrow morning (Sunday), or try On Demand a little later.

    We got a repetition of her ideologically driven mantras, of “work will set you free” messages, that additional benefit payments or an increase in benefit levels is NOT what she and the government want. She clearly said, they did not want benefit receipt to become a “lifestyle” kind of choice. Now, we have heard all that before, I am sure.

    As Martyn writes, in essence she is saying, that child poverty amongst beneficiary parents is either non existent, and where it is, it is the “fault” of the parents, as they are according to her idea not able to budget.

    She claimed that half of parents on benefits were not claiming additional extra hardship support (e.g. food grants or so), and those that need it, they can claim it. What she did not say was, that after two such grants “clients” are sent to budget advisors, and denied further grants in a year. The budget advisors are paid by MSD and told to tell people to prioritise and to live off benefits, no matter whether it is possible to live off them or not. That is part of the contractual deal these “advisors” sign when getting contracts with MSD.

    Budget advisors solve nothing, and special needs grants should not be needed in usual circumstances, because we need to look at raising base benefits, which could all be done smartly, by saving admin costs and more, by perhaps introducing a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some top ups for special circumstances may be all needed to top that up, but it would do away with the endless harassment by WINZ case managers and so, and save hundreds of millions, which could go into topping up benefit levels.

    Paula Bennett should also have been challenged by Lisa on this:
    “What works and what doesn’t: How a job affects mental health”,
    See ‘The Wireless’ from Friday 7th March 2014:
    http://thewireless.co.nz/themes/hauora/what-works-and-what-doesn-t-how-a-job-affects-mental-health

    ‘WORK ABILITY ASSESSMENTS DONE FOR WORK AND INCOME – PARTLY FOLLOWING ACC’s APPROACH: A REVEALING FACT STUDY’:
    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/16092-work-ability-assessments-done-for-work-and-income-%E2%80%93-partly-following-acc%E2%80%99s-approach-a-revealing-fact-study/

    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15463-designated-doctors-%e2%80%93-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc/

    Sadly Bennett never seems to be challenged by the MSM on these kinds of topics, where WINZ are slowly and gradually (behind the scenes) implementing the same kind of regime for sick and disabled on benefits, that have failed so terribly in the UK.

    Is this a subject too “hard” to investigate, or is it, that MSD are refusing to comment and present info by way of OIA requests?
    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/how-is-government-evaluating-its-welfare/

    http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/evaluation/investment-approach/key-findings.html

    • I have put my reply for further down but Budget Advisors solve nothing. They have done a lot for the people on benefits, where the food grant is no longer they actually ask for managers discretion. Beneficiares are allocated sets of amounts per year depending on family size for a singe person and 2 children it is $350 per 6months so they get $700.00 per year. If they get sent to our budgeting service we sent them back with the budget sheet and also a cover letter wanting to know why he or she was sent in the first place. In the state welfare legislation does not state that they have to provide a budget sheet.

      Budget Advisors do alot for people either on benefits or non beneficiaries. They are often the ones that stops power disconnections, repossessions plus helping put food on the table.

  2. For a mainstream media (MSM) journalist Andrea Vance was rather honest and clear about the fact, that sadly, beneficiaries are “invisible” as potential party voters, as so many of them do not vote.

    So far at least, Labour has clearly not made any effort, to get more of those dependent on social security benefits interested in voting. Best Start will only appeal to some, but apart from that, Labour has (as usual) offered f*** all to the poorest of the poor out here.

    I would appeal to those on benefits though, to this time make the effort, and at least vote Greens or Mana for their party vote, as otherwise the prospects are grim for you all.

    Giving Bennett and the NatACT gang another term will embolden them, to really strike hard with further “reforms”.

    We must NOT allow that to happen!

  3. . A year-long project has found many poor families feel “trapped” in unemployment by the cost of study, lack of transport,

    Next week I start being a student again. Due to National’s changes to the eligibility of the Student Allowance this means that I’ll have to borrow for living costs. Because the amount that you can borrow for living costs hasn’t gone up at all since 2007 or earlier this means that the amount I’ll be getting will be $34 dollar per week less than I was getting on the unemployment benefit and I get all the added costs of going to uni as well. If I had known that I was going to be worse off going to uni I wouldn’t have signed up.

    What National have created with their attacks on the unemployed and upon education is a group of people with absolutely no hope for the future. They can’t afford to live on the UB and they can’t afford the study to help get them off the UB and the WINZ ‘courses’ that they get forced to go on don’t help anyway. All they do is provide more government funding for the private sector. Actually, those courses did at least take reality into account – they paid for the travel to and from the course. WINZ knows that you can’t live on the UB and other benefits.

    I’m pretty sure that for some other beneficiaries, such as those on the DPB, it’s much worse.

  4. You’re being too kind suggesting Paula Bennett assumes this kind of heartlessness to get ahead career wise. I’ve looked into her eyes and there’s no sign of humanity, all polished brittleness, face contorted into a stepford wives smile. She’s a crunchy crayfish, that one, all exoskeleton. If there is an empathy gland it’s a shrivelled, dried up little thing. As the saying goes, you’d be better off teaching a pig to sing than expecting any softening.

    • It’s called “psychopath”. They’re incapable of empathy. But I think that’s being harsh on psychopaths. It’s not often I turely consider an individual to be evil.

  5. To ALL those who only saw the Nation this Sunday morning, and not the interview with Paula “Benefit” yesterday, TV3 have DOCTORED (re-edited) the INTERVIEW!!!

    In the original one screened at 09:30 am on Saturday, 12 July, at the end of the interview Lisa Owen says thank you to “Paula Benefit”, but in the re-screened one this Sunday morning, that misspelled word (“Benefit”) had been cut and replaced with the correct one, being her name “Paula Bennett”!

    I wonder how often such “doctoring” of interviews is being done? This incident was so damned obvious, and I would like to know, did Paula Bennett ask TV3 to “edit” the last words by Lisa Owen, or did TV3 do it out of their own initiative?

    What was not edited though was Paula Bennett’s STUPIDITY and lack of proper English, where she repeatedly used the word “incidentses”, creating a kind of “double plural” of the word “incident”.

    Hah, what a joke, but it shows, if you have the right (wing) “mindset”, it is not skill, intelligence or educational qualities, that counts for the Nats, it is spouting off their propaganda, and you will have a job with them, and get a nice high salary for doing it.

    A former sole parent beneficiary, that was able to take advantage of more generous welfare in her days, is now leaving ones in similar circumstances she was once in out in the cold.

    Shame on you, Paula “Bullshit”.

  6. In Reply to Marc saying that Budget Advisors get paid by MSD to do as they want. I have to say you are so wrong. Yes there is funding available to help with some of these advisors wages because this service is free to the community not everyone can do it voluntarily and just like those in the community they need to be paid by someone.

    That people don’t get helped from Budget Advisor’s are also so wrong. When beneficiaries come or sent by work and income, it is basically to see where all the money has gone apart from the rent, power, food and water.It is basically because they have exceeded their food allowance or always going back for power disconnection?

    Saying that they do nothing for the clients well they are the ones that negotiate with work and income to make sure that the client or beneficiaries are receiving all that they should be getting, making sure that some money is redirected onto that power so disconnection is a thing of the pastor avoided. Making sure that they apply for TAS or Temporary Assistance of which a lot people don’t know about. I have written so many letters directy to wellington concerning beneficiaries that have been turned down for food, one because of the partner been stood down for not meeting work obligations. THAT WAY OF THINKING DOESN’T HELP THOSE THAT ARE ON BENEFITS OR LOW INCOME OR ANY INCOME.

    • Theresa, your loyalty to your job is admirable however it seems you are attempting to somehow justify the unjustifiable. People need the tools to better their lives, they also need a hand up and ongoing support in order to reach the ultimate goal of a financially secured future. Making them feel as though they are worthless without a job only gives them lower self esteem, therefore less desire to achieve, a ‘what’s the point, I give up’, mentality and most likely helps towards an outcome of depression, children see this existence as the norm and the cycle starts again. Just as with anyone, when treated with decency and respect, the majority will excel, treating people on benifits as though they are worth less than the working has not really been helping a great deal has it? Perhaps it’s time to empower them with a more supportive, positive, less critical approach.

      • yes you are right but if people don’t go out and ask for help then things remain the same for them. Being in a low income situation is very depressing especially more so when you have children but staying home and not doing something about it is the worse thing that you can do. If you engage a budget advisor for free to sit down and listen to start then work some plan out and at the same time they will try and find that extra dollar that work and income is hiding from you.

        My advice to all low income earners and beneficiaries is to get up and go vote this election. AND PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE MMP that’s what got National in last time.You must vote otherwise forever hold your views of how hard you have been treated.

    • Saying that they do nothing for the clients well they are the ones that negotiate with work and income to make sure that the client or beneficiaries are receiving all that they should be getting, making sure that some money is redirected onto that power so disconnection is a thing of the pastor avoided.

      That’s nice but why isn’t the case manager doing that?

      • Because they are trying to hold onto that money so it makes their job look good just like the police are doing

            • A non-answer. Why is that?

              The simple fact of the matter is that if WINZ are paying you to do the job, which I suspect that they are, then they’re not saving money by giving the job over to you. It would be far cheaper for the case managers to do their job properly.

              • Your ideas are set that winz pay for me to do my job but you don’t know for sure. Well keep on guessing or whatever pleases you.

      • Yep, budget advisors do hard work, and deserve respect for helping individuals, but on the other hand, they are used by MSD and WINZ to “teach” people to “live within their means”, which will not be enough, even when claiming the capped TAS (temporary additional support).

        They are taken advantage of by WINZ, to apply a “smartening up” and “belt tightening” approach, and while now and then some extra benefit entitlement may be fought for and gained, this will NOT change the damned system, which is based on keeping those on benefits poor, humble, afraid and makes them almost crawl on their knees, to “beg” for support they should be getting anyway.

        It is sad to see that some defend the system as it is, because the system is rotten, and is intended to be harsh and draconian, also to keep people away from even bothering to apply at WiNZ.

        That is how far we have got. There should though not be a need to force people to fight for the basic necessities, and WINZ managers are instrumental in keeping costs down, make no damned doubt about it, they have to meet targets and show they do all to save costs and reduce benefit claims and those not working.

        They even apply certain “expectations” (pressures) to doctors, to not write sick and disabled off as too sick to work, even when they have serious mental health issues now.

    • Quote: “Saying that they do nothing for the clients well they are the ones that negotiate with work and income to make sure that the client or beneficiaries are receiving all that they should be getting, making sure that some money is redirected onto that power so disconnection is a thing of the pastor avoided. Making sure that they apply for TAS or Temporary Assistance of which a lot people don’t know about.”

      Theresa, as much as I appreciate the work of “budget advisors”, what you fail to realise is, they do not solve the systemic issues. Budget advisors work within the existing system and do a lot of tedious case work for those sent to them by WINZ, and those seeking their service on their own initiative. Budget advisors are busy drawing up budgets and trying to help people to prioritise. Yes, some budget advisors also do more and go with their clients to WINZ, and ensure they get what they should be entitled to.

      But my argument is, that WINZ tend to pay many clients less than they are entitled to, simply because they do not tell them what their whole entitlements are, unless expressly asked. Even then some are misinformed. Many on benefits are not that familiar with the ins and outs of the welfare system, so they do not know their full rights and entitlements. This should not be allowed to happen, and case managers should have a duty to inform applicants of any benefit top up component they may qualify for, while also checking their needs and living costs.

      With all the time and efforts spent by budget advisors on individual cases, all you do is make clients adapt to the rather unfair system, and not challenge the systemic issues there are. The TAS (temporary additional support) is a disgrace also, as it is capped as a percentage of the base benefit. There used to be a Special Benefit, which only very few still get, who have received it without interruption since it was abolished under the last Labour led government. The Special Benefit allowed case managers more discretion to offer clients additional support, as it was not capped. So it could cover more of the costs clients have, just for ordinary living expenses.

      Labour did away with it, and brought in a worse form of “additional support”. The accommodation supplement has also not been increased for years, and as a whole, benefits have fallen behind wage and salary income, making it impossible for many to cope.

      Budget advisors are being used by WINZ to put pressure on clients, to force them to live “within their means”, which in too many cases is though impossible, as I know from friends, associates and others having been on benefits and getting the TAS. The TAS is not covering living expenses some have, especially in places like Auckland and Christchurch, with very high rental costs.

      I know people who work as budget advisors, and they have confided to me, that they are forced to tow the line, and not become antagonistic towards WINZ staff, which means, not get too critical. The services employing advisors are bound by contracts which tie their hands.

      Only few advocacy services that work with beneficiaries, and usually those not just being “budget advisors”, do dare to speak out and challenge the system. One such group is Auckland Action Against Poverty, but they are not liked by the Minister and many working for the MSD and WINZ, because they speak out more than is welcome.

      You can write hundreds of individual letters to the Minister and the Ministry heads in Wellington, they have a dim view of individual cases presented to them, and will continue to enforce an unjust, increasingly less sympathetic, cost focused regime, regardless of criticism and appeals. Only by pushing for change of the whole system may things have a chance to get better.

      And “discretion” by WINZ managers is also limited, they have budgets to meet, and if one client gets some extra treatment, the costs will be “saved” on others. They may spare the odd individual in extremely harsh circumstances, but at the same time treat new ones through the doors less sympathetically, creating new injustices. Hence in that sense, you are fighting lost battles, picking up the pieces near the bottom of the cliff. That helps some individuals, but fails to do so for many others. All the advisors you have will not change the system and advise all on their rights and entitlements.

      • Everything you have said is true and yes we need more like AAAP on board and that budget advisors should not put WINZ first and it does take unity to be able to move forward, that is why I have always believed that budgeting goes hand in hand with knowing the legislation because to me that is how you fight the current system.
        I did voice at one meeting that the accommodation supplement does not work it should be based on what you are paying for rent not which area you live in and the answer was that it will cost a lot for the govt.

  7. “At the end of the day we provide literally million and millions of dollars a week in assistance to those that are on welfare and are unable to work.”

    Ah, sorry Paula, but it’s not “you” who provides that money. That “we” is the people of NZ. If “we” say there needs to be extra support, don’t act all butthurt like it’s “you” i.e. the National Government, who is being asked to give.

Comments are closed.