ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Logen Ninefingers]

No I'm not. I am responding to your post, and everything you said, implied that all beneficiaries are bottom feeders.




I agree with you. I was simply pointing out to you, that beneficiaries do have real obligations.




OK, so you felt uncomfortable applying for assistance so made a decision not to go through with it. That is fine, and your choice, but don't judge others for making a different choice. The fact that you have sufficient savings to do that, is admirable, but again, don't judge others for not having that ability. Some of us work hard (or have worked hard all our lives) but in jobs that do not pay even close to the average wage. Many of those people have minimal ability to save. The only reason I have been able to do that (and invest some of those savings) is because I made a decision to live full time in my caravan. I had spent years post divorce, working full time to pay rent (and raise kids) - I made zero headway. I have saved more money over the past five years since I moved into my caravan, than any other time in my life. But not everyone is in the position to do what I did, so they work their butts off and make very little financial headway. Some of those people are now the beneficiaries you so despise. You don't know other people's stories. I have put myself out there here at ST, from the day I first joined up. I basically laid all my cards o on the table and have been an open book. I did that for a reason. Firstly, because I am an inherently, and sickeningly, honest person. I over share personal information because I am a WYSIWYG kind of person. But I have also shared my **** here, as a way to (hopefully) educate people, and open their eyes to the fact that we are all different, we don't all fit the same mold, but we are all human beings with something of value to contribute. I have been a beneficiary in the past. I beat myself up constantly, feeling guilty and ashamed for being a solo parent raising four kids, struggling to put food on the table and having to accept help from food banks at times. Not being able to afford the cost of a school camp. Having to tell your kids you can't afford to buy milo this week. Feeling like the ****tiest parent when your youngest child points out that they never get new clothes - just their sisters' hand me downs. Do you have any idea what that is like? I swore I would never ever put myself through that again, yet here I am. Only able to work x amount of hours a week (due to health issues) and being "topped up" by WINZ. But you know what? This time I refuse to feel guilty, and I refuse to feel ashamed. Because social assistance is there for precisely this reason, and none of us should be made to feel worthless, for having to accept it.

"There, but for the Grace of God" - is a timely reminder, that none of us ever know what is around the corner, or where our life will end up. There are no guarantees about anything - whether we will even wake up tomorrow. I am not religious myself, but I find the saying apt and relevant to many of these "discussions" - any one of you could suddenly find yourself in the position of needing government assistance. Yes, even you.

These days if I have a period where I don't work, I live off my savings. I am simply not going to go onto a benefit. It is not something I want for myself. I want to go through my entire life without going into a benefit. If others want to go on it 'temporarily', good on them I guess. Personally, I won't be doing it.

I don't get this 'but for the Grace of God go I' stuff.

There are people with mental health issues & neurodivergence who get up every day and go to work. It is a matter of self discipline and self respect.

[/QUOTE]

I have said nothing other than that beneficiaries should have to meet regularly with case managers and should have to declare extra income. If that is 'demonising beneficiaries' or something then I don't know what to tell you.

As far as I am concerned, people like you are why we have the social safety net we do. Good on you for being a good parent, hopefully you are instilling good values in your kids & providing an environment of love and care. If you are someone who has generally been on the recieving end of bad luck and ill fortune, why on earth should you be down on yourself for utilising the safety net? There is not a person who this site who would begrudge a person in your situation from utilising a safety net, it is the people who choose a benefit as a life-style choice who people take aim at.

If there is 'judging' going on, it is more likely to be coming from the fantasists on the Left who think that life can be made 'fair', and who call people who vote for National and ACT 'selfish' and worse.

[moka]

Some of you will find this interview with David Seymour interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkHxljMLOGE

David Seymour on being tied up in endless rules and regulation.
25:38 Early childhood education centers are just a classic example. You know they tell me they get a weekly update on the new rules the ministry has made. They have to open with 303 rules to comply with every day. They have to keep a record of every bit of food that has been given to kids for three months.

I think that the rules are there to protect the children because childcare has become a for-profit game, and children suffer as a result. I see private equity is involved.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game

Now an increasing chunk of $2.3b a year in taxpayer funding is collected by for-profit providers, and ultimately passed on to investors.
A Stuff analysis found the biggest four childcare businesses received around a fifth of all government funding allocated to ECE in a financial year, amounting to more than $450m.

According to Ministry of Education data, in the 2022 calendar year $242m went to Best Start Educare, owned by Chloe and Wayne Wright; $78m went to Provincial Education Group, owned by Busy Bees Australasia, in turn owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan; and $80m went to Evolve Education Group (Lollipops Educare), owned by an Australian private equity firm.
Evolve Education Group is the country’s second-largest daycare company. It was publicly listed on the NZX until it was sold for $46m to Australian private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners in 2022.
And international research suggests on average, the for-profit sector – particularly large chains – is poorer quality.

[Logen Ninefingers]

David Seymour on being tied up in endless rules and regulation.
25:38 Early childhood education centers are just a classic example. You know they tell me they get a weekly update on the new rules the ministry has made. They have to open with 303 rules to comply with every day. They have to keep a record of every bit of food that has been given to kids for three months.

I think that the rules are there to protect the children because childcare has become a for-profit game, and children suffer as a result. I see private equity is involved.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game

Now an increasing chunk of $2.3b a year in taxpayer funding is collected by for-profit providers, and ultimately passed on to investors.
A Stuff analysis found the biggest four childcare businesses received around a fifth of all government funding allocated to ECE in a financial year, amounting to more than $450m.

According to Ministry of Education data, in the 2022 calendar year $242m went to Best Start Educare, owned by Chloe and Wayne Wright; $78m went to Provincial Education Group, owned by Busy Bees Australasia, in turn owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan; and $80m went to Evolve Education Group (Lollipops Educare), owned by an Australian private equity firm.
Evolve Education Group is the country’s second-largest daycare company. It was publicly listed on the NZX until it was sold for $46m to Australian private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners in 2022.
And international research suggests on average, the for-profit sector – particularly large chains – is poorer quality.

Since when did Childcare become 'big business'? Probably since government started pouring billions of dollars into it to buy votes. We now have 'childcare' on an industrial scale. I don't know what Michelle Duff and her 'investigation' is ultimately proposing as an alternative though. But knowing the left wing tendancies of Stuff there will be great umbrage being taken at the very notion of 'profit'.

Here are some potential 'solutions':

1/ One parent in each household goes back to minding the child during the day, and the child goes into a kindergarten for a limited number of hours per week only for education & socialisation purposes & not as the 'child minding while the parents work' institution that it has become. The state withdraws funding in accordance with this new paradigm, and the 'for profit' daycare centres go broke.

2/ Daycare stays as it is, as a 'child minding while the parents work' situation, but private sector ownership of these facilities is banned & the whole system is run by the state as a kind of 'KiwiDaycare' system at the taxpayers expense....effectively extending state oversight of the child from when they can crawl to when they leave secondary or tertiary education.

If you are a fan of cradle to the grave socialism then you will be out of your seat and cheering for option 2.

[justakiwi]

Solution 1 is exactly how it used to be when I was a Kindergarten Teacher, and then a mother. It was straight out preschool education with zero day care component.

Solution 2 - most families no longer have the above option as they both need to work to support their families. The Kindergartens have had to modify their service away from purely “education” to meet the need for all day care. Which has been a huge shame in my opinion.

As for your suggestion that the government should provide this service themself - are you kidding me? They can’t even provide an acceptable Aged Care service or Dementia Care service. What on earth makes you believe they could deliver an early childhood education/day care service? And I mean ANY government- not just Labour.

Since when did Childcare become 'big business'? Probably since government started pouring billions of dollars into it to buy votes. We now have 'childcare' on an industrial scale. I don't know what Michelle Duff and her 'investigation' is ultimately proposing as an alternative though. But knowing the left wing tendancies of Stuff there will be great umbrage being taken at the very notion of 'profit'.

Here are some potential 'solutions':

1/ One parent in each household goes back to minding the child during the day, and the child goes into a kindergarten for a limited number of hours per week only for education & socialisation purposes & not as the 'child minding while the parents work' institution that it has become. The state withdraws funding in accordance with this new paradigm, and the 'for profit' daycare centres go broke.

2/ Daycare stays as it is, as a 'child minding while the parents work' situation, but private sector ownership of these facilities is banned & the whole system is run by the state as a kind of 'KiwiDaycare' system at the taxpayers expense....effectively extending state oversight of the child from when they can crawl to when they leave secondary or tertiary education.

If you are a fan of cradle to the grave socialism then you will be out of your seat and cheering for option 2.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Solution 1 is exactly how it used to be when I was a Kindergarten Teacher, and then a mother. It was straight out preschool education with zero day care component.

Solution 2 - most families no longer have the above option as they both need to work to support their families. The Kindergartens have had to modify their service away from purely “education” to meet the need for all day care. Which has been a huge shame in my opinion.

As for your suggestion that the government should provide this service themself - are you kidding me? They can’t even provide an acceptable Aged Care service or Dementia Care service. What on earth makes you believe they could deliver an early childhood education/day care service? And I mean ANY government- not just Labour.

They are not my proposed solutions, they are the only other options besides the 'for profit' situation that we now have & which the Left hate. I'm just sick and tired of the Left howling about situations they themselves have created by more and more state subsidies and funding. And I certainly agree with you that government wouldn't be able to deliver a better service than what the private providers do; it would be a disaster - lots of little 'gulags for kids' dotted across the country.

[moka]

Since when did Childcare become 'big business'? Probably since government started pouring billions of dollars into it to buy votes. We now have 'childcare' on an industrial scale. I don't know what Michelle Duff and her 'investigation' is ultimately proposing as an alternative though. But knowing the left wing tendancies of Stuff there will be great umbrage being taken at the very notion of 'profit'.

Here are some potential 'solutions':

1/ One parent in each household goes back to minding the child during the day, and the child goes into a kindergarten for a limited number of hours per week only for education & socialisation purposes & not as the 'child minding while the parents work' institution that it has become. The state withdraws funding in accordance with this new paradigm, and the 'for profit' daycare centres go broke.

2/ Daycare stays as it is, as a 'child minding while the parents work' situation, but private sector ownership of these facilities is banned & the whole system is run by the state as a kind of 'KiwiDaycare' system at the taxpayers expense....effectively extending state oversight of the child from when they can crawl to when they leave secondary or tertiary education.

If you are a fan of cradle to the grave socialism then you will be out of your seat and cheering for option 2.

A better solution is provide more support for community run not-for-profit centres such as kindergartens, which was the way it was. New Zealand Kindergartens is a Not-For-Profit Incorporated Society and registered charity.

How childcare became a business

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300814789/the-jugglenaut-how-childcare-became-a-forprofit-game

The number of community-run, not-for-profit daycares has plummeted in the past decade.
Private providers, once a quarter of the education and care market which caters for most children, now make up 62%. While these were once primarily run by single operators, large daycare groups have increasingly swallowed up smaller centres.

Regulations have changed over time to allow this. Where once only 50 children were allowed at a centre, and 25 if they were under 2, in 2011 the National government bumped it up 150 and 75 respectively.

Government subsidies tied to providing “20 Hours” ECE for 3-to-5-year-olds were initially designed for not-for-profit providers, such as community-run centres and kindergartens. But lobbying from the Early Childhood Council and the for-profit sector meant a last-minute change by then education minister Steve Maharey to include them.

[moka]

Beneficiaries do already have many obligations.

I see that if you are a parent on Jobseeker you are expected to enrol your child in an approved early education programme. But after doing a bit of research today the privately owned centres are usually too expensive.

Larger centres had economies of scale and aggressive tactics which made it “incredibly hard” for small, not-for-profit centres to compete. Over time this meant families were worse off, she said. “In some communities, unless you can afford it, there is now no choice at all.”

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/edu...forprofit-game

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on...ons/index.html
Your obligations while getting payments from us

https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/obligations/obligations-for-getting-jobseeker-support.html

You're expected to take reasonable steps to meet social obligations as a parent or a caregiver. These are to ensure your dependent child(ren) (including any child you get Orphan's or Unsupported Child's Benefit for) are:
enrolled with a health practitioner or a medical practice that's part of a Primary Health Organisation (PHO)
enrolled in and attending one of the following from the age of 3 until they start school:
an approved early childhood education programme, eg,
Kohanga Reo, Punanga Reo, Aoga and other programmes with a language and culture focus
parenting and early childhood home education programmes
kindergartens
preschools
childcare centres
playcentres
home-based care services, or
Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu - The Correspondence School, or
another approved parenting and early childhood home education programme
up to date with core Well Child/Tamariki Ora checks if aged under 5, at a Well Child/Tamariki Ora provider, eg:
Plunket

[moka]

Some of you will find this interview with David Seymour interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkHxljMLOGE

In the interview Seymour comes across as “woke.” There are several definitions of woke and the one that I am using is a person or corporation who pays lip service to reform, but does not actually achieve those necessary goals for a more egalitarian society, and in fact upholds the status quo.

David Seymour 27:35 I've got it here little card that I carry that's probably quite useful and it just says speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person, use my time on Earth to leave the planet and people better than I found it, be self-aware and take responsibility for my actions, be kind to myself today…

Speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person David….
0:13 there is a political party called Te Patu Maori that represents this very divisive vision

[thegreatestben]

A person and a political party are very different things

[Logen Ninefingers]

In the interview Seymour comes across as “woke.” There are several definitions of woke and the one that I am using is a person or corporation who pays lip service to reform, but does not actually achieve those necessary goals for a more egalitarian society, and in fact upholds the status quo.

David Seymour 27:35 I've got it here little card that I carry that's probably quite useful and it just says speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person, use my time on Earth to leave the planet and people better than I found it, be self-aware and take responsibility for my actions, be kind to myself today…

Speak well of others so you can recognize the best in each person David….
0:13 there is a political party called Te Patu Maori that represents this very divisive vision

Te Pati Maori is very divisive though.