Kerre Woodham: Two fingers back at you

Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett. Photo / Natalie Slade

Put me in a power suit and call me a Nat-lover, but I really don't see the problem with the Government going after beneficiaries who are taking the piss.

I would never, ever live in a country that didn't have a welfare system. I think a safety net for the most vulnerable is a fundamental requirement for any decent society. And we could do a lot, lot better when it comes to helping those who really need it.

At the same time, I don't see why people should be able to stick two fingers to the taxpayer and rort the system.

The announcement this week that the Government will cut the benefits of those beneficiaries with outstanding arrest warrants makes perfect sense.

More than half of the 15,000 people with outstanding arrest warrants are beneficiaries and their benefits will be cut, or reduced by half if they have dependent children, until such time as they come forward and "straighten things out", as Minister Paula Bennett put it.

This comes hard on the heels of another announcement that people on unemployment benefits will face sanctions if they refuse to apply for jobs out of fear they will fail required drugs tests.

Under the current system, people on the dole can pass on applying for jobs that require drug tests and they won't face any penalty.

Under the new policy, which will come into force next July, people who fail drug tests will be given a warning and a reasonable period of time to stop using drugs before they face another test - although what constitutes a reasonable period of time hasn't been quantified.

If unemployment beneficiaries refuse to apply for a job that requires drug testing, they will have to agree to give up any use of drugs, take the test or their benefit will be halved. If they fail a test or refuse to take one a second time, their benefit will be suspended until they agree to provide a clean drug test within 30 days. If they refuse to do this their benefit will be cancelled.

Beneficiaries aren't being unfairly singled out with this policy.

Most people in paid work have clauses in their contracts that allows their employers to send them down the road if they turn up for work drug affected.

And more to the point, it sends a signal that a benefit is not a birthright. It is a stopgap measure to help those who really need it.

It seems incredible that in the 70s, it was recommended that the unemployment benefit be pegged to the average wage so that those who were forced to apply for it weren't seen as second-class citizens.

Clearly, it was felt at the time that it was inconceivable that anyone would choose to go on a benefit rather than work.

I think that for the most part that is still the case today.

Most people on benefits, given a choice, would rather be working than subsisting on the pittance that makes up the benefit.

But there are a minority who think it's clever to rip off their fellow New Zealanders - I even had a caller this week who said he had a bet with his mates that he could go on a benefit for a year and spend the year sailing round the Hauraki Gulf courtesy of the Government.

He's nine months into his year off, courtesy of a sickness benefit, and couldn't be more pleased with himself.

The sooner bludgers like that are given the message that the benefit is a privilege, not a right, the better. And the Government's going the right way towards delivering that message.