Welfare reforms will reduce crime - SST

Print

Tue, 31 May 2011 12:10p.m.

Garth McVicar (NZPA)

Garth McVicar (NZPA)

By Dan Satherley

The Sensible Sentencing Trust says the Government's proposed social welfare reforms will reduce crime and over time, inspire people to get back into work.

Trust spokesman Garth McVicar says the current welfare system allows would-be criminals to spend their days scoping out people's houses, instead of working.

“Many beneficiaries see their welfare payment as ‘pay-day’ and something they had earned and were fully entitled to as of right," says Mr McVicar.

“Allowing beneficiaries to stay home and simply wait for the next ‘pay-day’ is creating a cesspool environment that has caused most of the social failings facing New Zealand today.”

Mr McVicar told 3 News beneficiaries need to be made to work, otherwise they find other things to do with their time.

"A lot of the offenders don't like the fact they were on a benefit when they committed the crime, but also once again, a large number of reports we get from victims…are able to say the offender in [their] case was able to case out [their] house or able to loiter around the streets because [they were on a benefit]."

Click the video tab for Political Editor Duncan Garner's wrap on the state sector cuts

Former Green MP Sue Bradford says the changes are the "most serious and harmful welfare reform our country has seen since the foundations of the welfare state were laid in the 1930s".

She says the crackdown will actually increase crime, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health problems and suicides.

Mr McVicar rejects her assessment, saying it's "not rocket science".

“The welfare system has encouraged and funded failure. It has destroyed hope and created criminals and many thousands of victims.

"Some people will call it tough, we call it a common sense, back to basics approach."

3 News asked Mr McVicar if he had any evidence the welfare system itself was responsible, given that there are plenty of people on benefits that don't commit crimes.

He acknowledged that in the line of his work with the SST, he generally only meets beneficiaries that have committed crimes.

"We can only talk of the snapshot of people and the victims we deal with, which brings us into contact with quite a large number of offenders of course," says Mr McVicar, "so we are only talking a snapshot of that."

"Whether that's a fair reflection on society as a whole, I think it would be."

When asked why other countries with less generous welfare schemes often have higher crime rates, Mr McVicar said welfare was only part of the problem, saying the loosening of parole restrictions was another factor.

He says beneficiaries should have to work, or at least prove they're making an effort to find employment.

“If the state is paying the ‘wages’ then the beneficiary must agree to the same terms and conditions as employees in any other industry are required to do," he says. "That may be compulsory drug testing or reporting to ‘work’ at a required time and place.”

3 News asked Mr McVicar how people were supposed to find work if they were already working for the Government. He said it didn't have to be full-time.

"Whether it's one day's work a week, or two days' work a week, at least do something so that their mentality comes back to thinking there are no free lunches.

"It's basically trying to overcome that mentality that you can stay at home and get paid to stay at home."

He acknowledged paying a fair wage instead of a benefit would cost the Government more in the short term, but the long-term benefits would see more people in work, which would lead to less crime.

It costs much less to pay someone a benefit than keep them in prison. 3 News asked Mr McVicar if he believed taking away someone's benefit could potentially see them turn to crime in order to pay their way.

"No. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'd certainly accept that if there was evidence of that."

The SST has long argued for personal responsibility, so why blame the system? Mr McVicar says it is because the system is destroying people's belief in personal responsibility.

"There is an element that, once they become dependant on the state, they lose the will and the drive to become self-dependant.

“The state can never replace personal responsibility and the attempt to do so has destroyed the dreams of thousands of people who want financial independence, to own their own home and raise a proud, patriotic and prosperous family.”

The Government has appointed eight current Cabinet ministers to consider recommendations made by the Welfare Working Group.

They include cutting payments to people who fail to look for work or attend counselling sessions, sending new parents back to work soon after their child is born and providing reversible, long-term contraception.

The ministers on the panel are Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett, Finance Minister Bill English, Justice Minister Simon Power, Health and State Services Minister Tony Ryall, Education Minister Anne Tolley, Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce and Women's Affairs Minister Hekia Parata.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

04 Aug 2011 03:30p.m.

Shane wrote:

Poor or not some people are just evil and want what you have regardless. Crime will never go away.

What we want to be doing is enabling potential victims the means and rights to protect their life and property, thats where the true benefits can be found.

Dont reduce the number of criminals, stop people being victims and you can have a 2 fold effect.

03 Jun 2011 10:11a.m.

Carlos wrote:

This is a true fact..........something about "idle hands and the devils work" ?!?!!

03 Jun 2011 01:03a.m.

Nick wrote:

@ TWA
You are soooo full of it.
Work for the dole? Or work for minimum wage? Either way, the 'hard working' taxpayers will be paying for it... and still whinging.
They already have council/parks and reserves/road markers and I don't see any ads for them needing more. How many of those workers will no longer have jobs; afterall, the council will be able to hire 'dole bludgers' and the taxpayer will pay the wage/benefit instead.
I say again, YOU the taxpayer will pay my wage, and YOU the taxpayer will still find something to bleat about. You can't have it both ways, either the taxpayer funds the benefit, more jobs get created (did I say that out loud?), or the tax payer funds the minimum wage for 'working for the benefit'.
I guess you would be happy if i committed a crime and did community service - then I would be working for free. Shit, I'd still be getting the benefit though (my mistake).
You show me where the jobs are and I will get off the benefit. Did I mention though that I have a criminal record (employers don't take too kindly to that though). A record I got while working not while the was on the benefit.

SST is saying what the National supporter wants to hear. I suggest anyone who disagrees come back to me with some logical explanation otherwise.
You can't find one though can you?!!!!!

01 Jun 2011 12:55p.m.

Mouthguard wrote:

Talen, it seems the words you are trying to find are: "thank you".

01 Jun 2011 01:44a.m.

Davo wrote:

Once more McVicar and Co. are pandering to their redneck demographic by by pushing forward their usual brand of extreme and extremely ignorant ideas pertaining to crime and justice. The more he rants on about something he knows little about the more he exposes himself for the idiot he is.

31 May 2011 11:15p.m.

TWE wrote:

I never said they should work full time as 'slave labour' but if they all did a couple days a week or whatever the equivalent time is to make up their benefit on the minimum wage, the community would be far better off in many different ways. I don't see any reason why it could not be implemented. I put this to you all: Is it unreasonable to expect able-bodied people to put something back into the communities whose taxes help them to live?

31 May 2011 10:32p.m.

Clarke wrote:

@katrina no I am not unemployed, but good try. I just wondered whether you would get off your over proportioned backside to get out and work the 10 hours it would cost to pay you an unemployment benefit... by the way, when were these people supposed to be arranging interviews etc. Except they cant as katrina wants them at her home tending her vege patch, hope you at least pay the overseer minimum wage. If any of them give you any lip now, you feel free to beat em yes Sir re. National got well and truely booted out of power the last time they tried the Master / slave system. I do wonder whether anybody with any kind of religion would ever vote National or ACT as helping out those less fortunate and in need is hiding in the bible somewhere, and anyone voting for National has to be breaking that rule.

31 May 2011 07:46p.m.

Brett wrote:

Yeah... why not... lets give it a go!

Lets face it, their are plenty of people out there who are sitting on their arses waiting for there dole/DPB money each week who have no incentive to work. By making them work one or two days a week we can at least try to change attitudes and as a tax payer i'll feel happier knowing i'm getting something back in return.

The whole idea of the dole is for those who temporarily loose their jobs and is there as a temporary measure while they find another, in no way is it designed to be long term.

There are plenty of people out there waiting for someone to do something for them, we need to change attitudes, make peoiple more accountable for their own actions and make people independent and not stand their with there hands out waiting for the government to come along.

While we're at it why don't we limit families to three children and if you want more kids then fine but your not getting anything extra from the government.

31 May 2011 06:49p.m.

stuart wrote:

i bet these guys have never spent time on a benafit i find it offensive that he thiks its a fare snapshot just to look at those who commit crime and on a benefit not all beneficiary do that and to think crime whodunit increasing is a joke befor any one can Jude what its like on a benefit they should spend at lest 2 months on it with no othere sores of income some one needs to stand up as say no not again how bout the rich paying more instead off hurnt the ones who cant afford it or pay workers what they are worth not the joke minamin way is im so pissed off time to tack down the nats

31 May 2011 05:50p.m.

Alex wrote:

@TWE: They're not stealing ipods so they have a dozen different ipods to listen to. They're stealing them to sell so they can buy food (and yes, probably alcohol, and drugs, and all sorts of things right-thinking people like you would disapprove of. But that's because they're shunned by a system that sees them as surplus to requirements -ie., they are unemployed - and they don't see anything more to life. And why should they? They perceive that no one cares about them, so why should they care about anyone else?).