National KNEW their bennie bash breached Bill of Rights
Welfare reforms discriminatory, Attorney-General finds
National's flagship welfare reforms have been found to unfairly discriminate against 43,000 solo mums and dads. In a report just tabled in Parliament, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says the reforms breach the Bill of Rights Act on three grounds by discriminating on the basis of sex and family and marital status. He finds the breaches cannot be justified under the Act.
In a windowless room beneath Parliament, the National Party creche once a month has a Bennie Bash Pinata strung up for the kids to play with. Each National Party child is given a 'Paula' batten and they bash the bennie pinata until they crack its head open to feast on all the creamy taxpayer benefits.
THEY KNEW IT WAS DISCRIMINATORY BUT DID IT ANYWAY! It just get's worse and worse doesn't it? After claiming the 'dream was over' this sanctimonious and pompous Minister then said in Parliament about her discrimination that National tried to hide by releasing the report late yesterday,
"I think that is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable".
WTF? Paula not only admits it is discrimination but she says most NZers would agree with it?
Well I don't agree with it Paula! I think it is disgusting and you are simply creating the next generation decimated by the effects of poverty! Your experience as a solo mother has given you no empathy just a smug self righteousness that justifies you passing discriminatory law that actually makes the lives of solo mother children WORSE! It is sadistic, it is cruel and it is out right discrimination, and they bloody well knew it!
Forcing the sick back to work, discrimination against solo mothers, damaging the welfare of those children, making beneficiaries leap through more work testing hoops in a 7.3% unemployment environment with the threat to cut the benefit altogether is a disgusting social policy aimed at being divisive to pit NZers against NZer and which will only cause more damage.
Can I also just salute the courage of the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson who has stood against the Government over the 3 strikes law by pointing out they were also against the Bill of Rights. Finlayson is a true patriot and despite the demands of his Party is prepared to stand up for the human rights of ALL NZers, not just those who voted for his party.
posted by Bomber @ 7:07 am
14 comments
14 Comments:
I also salute Chris Finlayson.Fairness is all I ask!!!!!
So if Finlayson is a true patriot, why is he voting for bills that he says, as A/G, breach the bill of rights?
How is asking woman whose children are at school to apply for a job a breach of their human rights?
Oh, and by the way, I also salute Finlayson. I'd almost be prepared to put money on his objecting to proposals for the demise of public service broadcasting as well. I'd also bet he sometimes wonders about the likes of Paula Bennet, and even John Key having the mental capacity to consider things others categorise as "unintended consequences"
What the fuck does this government will be the outcome from these policies proposed?
Thankfully I'm not in the category where I can't sustain a minimalist lifestyle, but those that are - those Pulla Bent neshnools should ask themselves to what extent would they have gone (indeed DID they go!!!!) to support their chillun. But after all Pulla Bent actually did'nt have it as bad as what she would wish to claim.
DID Pulla actually claim any supplements? (i.e. over and above the basic DPB rate)
DID Pulla engage in any activity that WINZ (or its predecessor) would consider additional income affecting her benefit?
Now this woman (pardon me for presuming to give her the title of a Ms or Mrs) now expects others to be judged by different criteria that she was privy to.
Come on Paula - Fess up ya burnt out piece of jet trash!
How is asking woman whose children are at school to apply for a job a breach of their human rights?
Grin - are you suggesting Finlayson is lying anon?
Hmmmm - is he Big News? If he is that is disappointing.
Beneficiaries need to be force to take birth control. If they disagree with that option they need to be sterilised to prevent breeding future generations of Beneficiaries. If they refuse both options they will not receive a benefit.
Of well...it infringes some esoteric section of a non-binding wish list. What, do you expect the Government to back down on a policy that has been begging to happen since the late 90's??? Ha
The public can decide at the next election if this "infringement" warrants changing horse.
National and The Maori Party are together on this one, so it's about time there was some action taken.
I await the next stratospheric poll rating with amusement.
This policy was inevitable...and will be followed eventually by a fully fledged compulsory "work for the dole"
scheme when the finances begin to squeeze with the retirement of the baby boomers.
Do you expect NZ to give out "free money" in future when the taxpayer to retiree ratio really begins to bite?? Mate, this is just the start. The social security net as we know it will change permanently across the developed world. It is inevitable.
How is asking woman whose children are at school to apply for a job a breach of their human rights?
It's not. And Chris Finlayson didn't say it was. He said that asking a woman whose children are at school to apply for a job, while not asking the same of a woman who has never had children, is unreasonably discriminatory.
How is paying a woman $20 an hour to work as a receptionist a breach of her human rights? It's not. But it's discriminatory if you pay a man who does exactly the same job $22 an hour.
Beneficiaries need to be force to take birth control. If they disagree with that option they need to be sterilised to prevent breeding future generations of Beneficiaries. If they refuse both options they will not receive a benefit.
Fu-cking trolls. Nuf said!
@ Independently wealthy from an almost independantly self-sufficient.
Couldn't agree more that something fundamental needs to change - but there are one or two things I wonder about when those that claim independence (or self-sufficiency) post:
How did that wealth or self-sufficiency come about: was it at a time when there was no student loans? did they gain that wealth purely as a result of investments during boom times (basically a period of being astute combined with a period in history)? Is it purely the result of "old money"? are they happily in receipt of state superannuation whilst having the means of independantly supporting themselves-as opposed to NEEDING it (and that raises a whole new set of questions when they try to claim the right of receipt whilst denying others same)...
Yes there are some fundamental changes needed especially when you try to reconcile finite resources with growth at all costs.
The current path just means we're destined for more gated communities, a growing "under class", greater increases in recidivism, a diminishing somewhat-educated elite trying to hold all those savages at bay-vying for stiffer sentences and lock-em-up-one-by-one (till when?.... presumably till half the population is locked up), and a growth in brain singed p freaks who've sought their escapism in what seems to be the easiest option-indeed some in the Maori Party would be well aware that many of their consituency, as well as others such as the offspring of the independently are well aware of how we've all enabled that perceived "easy option"! (One or two front current affairs programmes).
Labour didn't do as well as they were promising in 1999 (especially in their third term), but already this lot have shown they're incapable of anything original or constructive - and it doesn't matter even if they've tried to hitch their wagon to the Maori Party just to try and gain some wider credibility.
Yes independently wealthy, it will change, but this crapola is just dog whistling schtick.....saves $100m, costs an extra $88m to administer, no jobs anyway for them to be forced into.
Typical brainless National spineless excuse for thinking...
Isn't having (multiple) children when you knowingly can't afford to raise it on your own and thus need the state to do it for you a breach of human rights - the rights of the child(ren) and the rights of the taxpayer you are forcing to pay for it? Isn't the dpb and WFF a breach of the human rights of people who can't have children?
What I find really funny is that Labour have been handed all this 'bad policy stuff' lately and they still appear to be asleep at the wheel! Where's the opposition! 'Fatty Bennett - mining our country ... sacking Jim Bolger! It just goes on.
Well maybe (not unlike those Catholics opposed to condoms and other methods of birth control with claims to a high moral fibre), they haven't yet figured out what's causing it.
Still, maybe they're too busy dealing with other issues of abuse
Post a Comment
<< Home