Phil Goff is right that this is a "nanny state" approach and that the National Party is hypocritical after using the "nanny state" label against the Labour Party ( & the Green Party) during the last term of their government. In this case however New Zealand should be hot for nanny.
Brunette says :
"So congratulations to National for tackling the tough and arguably the most important welfare reforms first. It sends a strong message to the electorate - that National cares enough about the future of everyone in New Zealand to make some unpalatable decisions that the left have never had the balls to make." - Brunette
"Between 8500 and 13,500 16 and 17-year-olds are not in education, training, or work at any one time; 90 per cent of these people will go onto a benefit once they turn 18, and around 1600 are already on a special benefit for 16 and 17 year olds." - NZ Herald
If a 17 year old is not in education, training or work then they are going nowhere. Society cannot afford to have members who are not contributing and these individuals deserve better.
Posts
3 comments:
Furthermore, a 16 or 17 year old is the responsibility of their family (this includes extended family). They are not the responsibility of a taxpayer funded state. Taxpayers have their own children, parents and retirements to secure. A 16 or 17 year old not yet working should remain with their family and undertake further training if they cannot find work. Doing nothing at the expense of others should not be an option. Where entire families break down completely or children are orphaned, there lies a responsibility for the state. The responsibility in that instance is very much greater than providing a regular dole payment.
2 words: youth rates
national fails again: targets those too young to vote
Mort you are gonna have to exp[and on that comment.
What are you saying about youth rates ?
Post a Comment