Today RNZ is running an article entitled, Do you know what people on benefits actually get?
If you don't, you won't find out from the article, which is mostly a testimony to the evils of inequality and supporting quotes from the Helen Clark Foundation and economist Shamubeel Eaqub.
There is just one sentence that contains anything resembling an answer to the headline question:
"He said [Shamubeel Eaqub] the fact that the JobSeeker basic benefit is $361 a week for single people over 25 without children, compared to $538 a week for people on NZ Super might surprise some people."
He chose the lowest benefit.
The Ministry of Social Development now reports annually on what people on benefits receive. They call their report, Total Incomes Annual Report which reflects that the 'basic benefit' is just one part of the total income.
I am not going to pass comment on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the incomes. But I am going to provide what they are.
If you are unable to read the following graph, go to the report, page 9.
Click to view
There was nothing to prevent the RNZ reporter, Susan Edmunds from reproducing the same chart in order to best answer the question she posed. Or Shamubeel Eaqub drawing from it.
Yet again RNZ shows its total lack of balance.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
13 comments:
Lindsay, the reason NZers rightfully do not trust journalists is because the write rubbish like this "If Luxon stays, the country blunders on".
In a little over a year Luxon's government have
- tamed extraordinarily damaging inflation (remember the cost of living crisis?),
- returned the country to growth,
- changed the immigration settings to improve migrant quality,
- maintained positive immigration,
- signed a significant trade deal and started negotiations on a new 'economy saving' trade deal,
- reduced crime
- taken on gangs (contrary to your predictions, police are very happy with the results of Nationals initiatives to police gangs, initiatives which worked in Australia) ,
- and set ambitious targets for the entire public service.
Strangely, I don't remember you writing about any of the Luxon government's outstanding achievements!
Before you criticize others, a dose of inward reflection and an attempt at objectivity, could be in order?
Mr Hanley ( we presume?)
Sir, you do not get it. Luxon was elected on 2 main policy planks - i. economic recovery and ii. elimination of radical and discriminatory Maorification of NZ. He is addressing the first. He is ignoring the second. He has breached the trust of those who voted for him. He/ National will pay for this in 2026.
Again, we ask you : why is he taking this stance?
I didn't write, "If National stays, the country blunders on". I wrote specifically about Luxon's opposition to the Treaty Principles bill and how, if the issue of what the treaty means isn't decided we will blunder on as a country. That's what I believe but it is only opinion. I am not a journalist. Did you have any comment about the content of this particular post?
Mark - tell us all why Luxon will not support the Bill, nor support the concept of democracy ?
Lindsay, you joined the untrusted journalist fray.
Instead of writing a balanced dispassionate article, you picked one issue you didn't agree with and used it as an excuse to call for Luxons head (if Luxon stays).
Journalists and bloggers will keep losing the public's trust if you can't write even handed, factually accurate articles.
Luxon has 9 years to solve the TOW issue. Race has already been addressed in the coalition agreement so the TOW principles bill (which has been given plenty of exposure by Luxon) isnt required until the next 'Clark advised' axis of evil rules the government benches..
With so much fixing required (isn't it great to see so many roadworks underway) Luxon doesn't have resource or time to reduce crime, fix the health system, sort.out education, fix.public finances, sign trade agreements, and solve the tow..
How about writing an article about all the great things Luxon and his team have achieved since inheriting a financial and social disaster from Clark, Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson, and Little.
I think this was a case of a clickbait headline not matching the content very well. Eaqub supplied the basic benefit for each category correctly, and made the point that a single superannuitant got quite a bit more than a single younger person. The rest of the article was about poverty and inequality in NZ and how the situation differed in Australia. I spend my time between the two countries, so that gap interested me. One thing missed however is that superannuation in Australia is means-tested, whereas everyone 65 and over in NZ gets basic super if they apply for it.
MH what has this article to do with Luxon? Perhaps if he sacked the boards of TVNZ and RNZ we’d have more balanced news coverage and you’d have nothing to complain about.
MSM , are failing to provide balanced journalism in any area and it is reasonable for Lindsay to point out they aren't doing it wrst welfare payments. Failing to act as the fourth estate, which was their role traditionally as journalists needs correcting. Biased articles not considering all aspects of an issue are called propaganda .
We are becoming very intolerant of it in MSM , and they need to be told that constantly.
I complained to Susan and she said she couldn't because it will use all her data LOL So never expect the full story because she doesn't have enough data
"Eaqub supplied the basic benefit for each category correctly ..." In NZ there are three main benefits: Jobseeker, Sole Parent Support and Supported Living Payment. He gave the basic rate for one (single, aged 25+) and compared it to Super, which MSD does not class as a 'benefit'.
Super may not be classed as a benefit, and it's certainly something the age-group often have a sense of entitlement about (I know, being 68). But it's still something given directly by the state, and at a time of life when many recipients would be more prosperous than the average 25+ single unemployed person. But my point was more that the article title was misleading as a guide to the content. On one of the few occasions where I've featured in the press, the heading attributed to me something that someone else in the piece had said (and which I didn't agree with). Article headings are often sloppy, or clickbait-y.
Attacks on super come from left and right. Sure we all get it if we ask at 65. If you work or have other income it is added to gross super and your overall rax for the year rises. Each income source is not taxed at the lowest M rate separately as some believe. Means and asset testing to convert super to a benefit will require more officials, checks and so forth annually and , of course, more attempts to dodge. No one will agree on where cutoff points are for assetts in kind or cash. Mr Equib is a highly paid chap who wants an ,,equalised, , society, except in true animal farm style he will be an elite. Simply saying someone on super gets so much and someone on the dole gets less is simplistic and implies those on super do not deserve it. For those on super who own their own homes the rise in value may well be their biggest asset rather than large sums in the bank. Inevitably we will have a capital gains tax which will create lots of work for accountants and be subject to fiddles and ,,adjustments,,. If the problem is really property then apply a property sales tax of x percent on all sales . I am on super and need to top it up to avoid going backwards. I work in a mental ward doing work that is not for everyone. I pay a higher rate of tax for my two or three full days of work. I have no issue with that. Added penalties or super surcharge cuts as susan st john would like are mean and punitive
Anon 1052. The relevance is... it is a bit rich for Lindsay to moan about the media whilst she engages in exactly the same practices as the untrusted media.
As you will see from my comment, I encourage all media and bloggers to write balanced factual articles. I would much rather get back to communicating suggested solutions, than continue challenging unfounded and unbalanced opinions.
I agree with your tvnz rnz board comments. Luxons team are already replacing the tvnz and rnz board members..... Aug 24. Beehive.govt. "I am delighted to appoint Brent Impey, Gracie MacKinlay and Mads Moller to the RNZ Board, and John Fellet to the TVNZ Board,” says Mr Goldsmith."
Post a Comment