Friday, April 4, 2014


There she was, Sue Moroney, Labour List MP, climbing into Paula Bennett following her revelation that several thousand persons receiving the Job Seeker support payment had their benefit cancelled when they left the country without first advising WINZ of their intention to do so.     "More beneficiary bashing" she said, echoing the criticism of the Greens and various advocate groups.

Ms Moroney conveniently ignored the fact these rules were in place when she was part of the Government.    The only thing different is that data matching is catching out those skipping the country for whatever reason without telling WINZ.    You're not going to get any argument from me that those receiving the Job Seeker support payment should be able to travel overseas on compassionate grounds (and that is provided for in the legislation) but equally, it is non-negotiable that overseas holidays when you are supposed to be available and looking for work in NZL is a big fat no, no.

It is mystifying to me why Labour would choose to make this a cause célèbre.   This is not something likely to resonate out there in voter land.   To the contrary, taxpayers will applaud the fact that persons choosing to rort the system are being caught and held to account.

Perhaps the answer can be found in Ms Moroney herself.    Since she was first elected to Parliament in 2005 she has managed, by dint of her own 'hard' work, to increase her National Party opponent's majority each and every time. 



Adolf Fiinkensein said...

So please extrapolate the trend and calculate by how much she might lose in September.

The Veteran said...

Errrrrr ..... unfortunately as a List MP and one of the silent T's sycophantic underlings she is assured a high place on 'their' list so, even when she looses, she wins (and the country looses).

Such is the nature of MMP.

Psycho Milt said...

This is not something likely to resonate out there in voter land.

I know that the National Party struggles with this concept, but for many people political expediency isn't the gold standard for deciding between right and wrong. No doubt a significant majority of voters are happy to see ex-bludger Bennett turn against her former colleagues, but a significant minority are sickened by her. This story is part of a long-running series in which Bennett, living testimony to the usefulness of offering beneficiaries paths out of wasterdom, pitches propaganda stories in which beneficiaries exactly like she was are villains. "More beneficiary bashing" is a totally apt description of it.

Anonymous said...

The crux of the matter is being 'available for work.'
WINZ, or whoever, rarely if ever dish out work on the day.
If only they did!
Jobseeking and recruitment is a lengthy process.
Roles maybe advertised for as long as a month before candidates are selected for interview.
Interviews may take place over a week or two and there maybe second or third interviews as well.
And then the employer may take several weeks longer before deciding who to give the job to, if they decide to fill the vacancy at all.
Furthermore, in this day and age, jobseekers can still look for work while overseas.
They can surf the websites for jobs and still keep in touch with the recruitment agencies by cellphone and/or email. Likewise employers can still keep in touch too.
It may also be that that 'holiday' may include a look for jobs whilst abroad, a visit to that Sydney recruitment firm or whatever.
It's a matter of where you draws the line.
A week away overseas probably will not impact one one's jobsearch but of course several weeks most probably would.


Watcher said...

"WINZ, or whoever, rarely if ever dish out work on the day.
If only they did!"

During the recent lean time my son was made redundant. Everyone in the family was seeking new opportunities but it was lean pickings.
Reluctantly he registered for unemployment after months of no success.

WINZ was a total waste of time.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Silly boy! Mis=read your post, Vet!

The Veteran said...

PM ... spot on with your summing up ... quote a significant majority of voters are happy etc vs a significant minority of voters are sickened etc.

And that's the point of my post. Why would you seek to pander to a significant minority over a significant majority of voters especially when Labour has signalled no intention of changing the rules endorsed by them when they were last in Government.

Dumb or stupid. Your pick.

Nookin said...

Is moroney a noun or an adjective?

Rex said...

GIven your poor grasp of language, Nookin old girl, it's hardly surprising you had to ask.

Nookin said...

Troll is out of bed early I see.

Rex said...

Yawn. You can do better than that surely? Actually, you probably can't as your best efforts are abusive semi-literate bombast. Why are you so boring do you think?

Nookin said...

I am not going to engage, rex. First, you are simply intent on being offensive in whatever transient persona you adopt and second, I have to work for a living -- something you probably wouldn't appreciate.

Rex said...

Thanks for proving my point, now run along.

liberty said...

The SB has been a MP since 2005.
It says it all
Labour doesn’t have a lot of depth in its ranks.
Has-beens and non entities.