I’m sure it wasn’t deliberate, but what is it with Sir John Key “gate-crashing” the news agenda, on the same day his political protégé is gearing up for a set-piece speech?
Sir John’s excoriation of US Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan as “reckless, provocative and dangerous” will have been music to Beijing’s ears, but he also ran the risk of upstaging Luxon’s big moment.
This is not the first time Key has usurped the party leadership’s quest for political oxygen. In late September, his widely disseminated op-ed that ridiculed the government’s Covid elimination strategy as rendering New Zealand as “a smug hermit kingdom”, trumped National’s pending announcement on opening up New Zealand and switching to a suppression strategy.
But despite the lingering desire of National’s last elected Prime Minister to court the press and stick his oar in, Luxon made some solid headway over the weekend asserting his leadership mantle at the party conference.
After a sequence of unforced errors and self-inflicted gaffes, even some of National’s lifers have been remarking to me that they’re yet to be convinced that Luxon has the sure-footed smarts to skipper the party to victory next year. Luxon’s set-piece address may have helped quell those doubts. It was a ready-made conference speech, chiming with the wants and needs of the party’s true believers, seeking to energise the base with some generous portions of red-meat.
The lightning rod of the government’s co-governance agenda is clearly being lined up as a key battleground issue in 2023. But it was an interesting decision to make the foundation of his conference address something less expected – a solutions-based policy pitch on tackling long-term benefit dependency. It’s the sort of policy announcement that enables the Opposition to seize control of the narrative.
With tens of thousands of job vacancies, across all skill levels, currently going begging, it’s hard to overstate what a fiscal and moral failure the massive increase in Jobseeker Support dependency is. Since Labour came to office, Jobseeker Support recipients have soared from 123,042, to 170,763 today. Despite the recent down tick by 11,000 over the past year, that still represents a 41% increase.
The bigger concern is the growth in long-term dependency. 61.5% of current Jobseeker recipients have been drawing that benefit for more than 12 months and those numbers have climbed by 54% since December 2017.
In Canterbury, the upward curve is even more pronounced, jumping 80%, from 5658 to 10179.
National is taking aim at the 18-24 year old age group on Jobseeker Support. Those numbers are up 44% nationally, from 23808 to 34083. However, once again it’s a bleaker picture in Canterbury, with a 60% increase in the number of 18-24 year olds receiving Jobseeker, lifting from 2367 to 3771.
Luxon’s best line was lamenting welfare’s descent from being a safety-net to “a drag net that pulls the vulnerable in”. Six weeks ago, I challenged National to spell out how they intend to succeed on tackling welfarism. Finally, they’ve started lifting the veil on their social investment approach, taking direct aim at those under 25 years old on Jobseeker. After three months grace on that benefit, sanctions will apply for the laggards who refuse to engage.
Free job coaching for people under 25 who’ve been unemployed for three months or more is a new initiative, as is the big juicy carrot of a $1000 bonus for staying employed for more than a year after being unemployed for more than a year.
But this mix of hands-on help, financial rewards and the big stick is simply not ambitious enough. Only 13,000 of the 105,000 long-term Jobseeker beneficiaries are under 25.
The carrot-and-stick approach should transcend age groups to drive transformative change in securing value, purpose and independence to the lives of so many drifting Kiwis.
National is fiddling at the edges. Bolder, broader changes are needed.
But despite the lingering desire of National’s last elected Prime Minister to court the press and stick his oar in, Luxon made some solid headway over the weekend asserting his leadership mantle at the party conference.
After a sequence of unforced errors and self-inflicted gaffes, even some of National’s lifers have been remarking to me that they’re yet to be convinced that Luxon has the sure-footed smarts to skipper the party to victory next year. Luxon’s set-piece address may have helped quell those doubts. It was a ready-made conference speech, chiming with the wants and needs of the party’s true believers, seeking to energise the base with some generous portions of red-meat.
The lightning rod of the government’s co-governance agenda is clearly being lined up as a key battleground issue in 2023. But it was an interesting decision to make the foundation of his conference address something less expected – a solutions-based policy pitch on tackling long-term benefit dependency. It’s the sort of policy announcement that enables the Opposition to seize control of the narrative.
With tens of thousands of job vacancies, across all skill levels, currently going begging, it’s hard to overstate what a fiscal and moral failure the massive increase in Jobseeker Support dependency is. Since Labour came to office, Jobseeker Support recipients have soared from 123,042, to 170,763 today. Despite the recent down tick by 11,000 over the past year, that still represents a 41% increase.
The bigger concern is the growth in long-term dependency. 61.5% of current Jobseeker recipients have been drawing that benefit for more than 12 months and those numbers have climbed by 54% since December 2017.
In Canterbury, the upward curve is even more pronounced, jumping 80%, from 5658 to 10179.
National is taking aim at the 18-24 year old age group on Jobseeker Support. Those numbers are up 44% nationally, from 23808 to 34083. However, once again it’s a bleaker picture in Canterbury, with a 60% increase in the number of 18-24 year olds receiving Jobseeker, lifting from 2367 to 3771.
Luxon’s best line was lamenting welfare’s descent from being a safety-net to “a drag net that pulls the vulnerable in”. Six weeks ago, I challenged National to spell out how they intend to succeed on tackling welfarism. Finally, they’ve started lifting the veil on their social investment approach, taking direct aim at those under 25 years old on Jobseeker. After three months grace on that benefit, sanctions will apply for the laggards who refuse to engage.
Free job coaching for people under 25 who’ve been unemployed for three months or more is a new initiative, as is the big juicy carrot of a $1000 bonus for staying employed for more than a year after being unemployed for more than a year.
But this mix of hands-on help, financial rewards and the big stick is simply not ambitious enough. Only 13,000 of the 105,000 long-term Jobseeker beneficiaries are under 25.
The carrot-and-stick approach should transcend age groups to drive transformative change in securing value, purpose and independence to the lives of so many drifting Kiwis.
National is fiddling at the edges. Bolder, broader changes are needed.
Mike Yardley is a writer and broadcaster - including with Newstalk ZB. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
So National's policy to get and keep more people in work is to give them a grand after they've kept a job for a year, as long as they couldn't be bothered to get a job for at least a year before that.
So practically, this is how this will play out.
People at the 6-12 month mark of drawing Jobseeker benefit will go " I could get a job now but I'll stay on a benefit until I reach the 12 month mark so I can get the $1000 bonus." [Even though they would have made a lot more if they'd just worked]
Then after picking up their "loyalty bonus" many will say "screw this" and go back on a benefit again.
Having a job should be financial reward in itself. Using taxpayers money to congratulate people who manage to stay in work for a year is ridiculous.
Sounds like we're bribing people to work. If that's the case, NZ is buggered!!
I worked for around 50 years. Does that mean a National government would of given me a 50 grand bonus when I retired or just 25.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.