Should I be angry or pleased about an article in Salient, "How to rip-off WINZ"?
The more exposure this crooked, corrupt system gets the better I suppose. But encouraging people towards the lowest common denominator behaviour is not going to make things better. Its the old, if you can't beat 'em you may as well join 'em trick.
The article, published this week , detailed ways for people to get the most out of the Work and Income system – including cell phones, clothes, abortions, vasectomies, dental care and furniture.
Salient editor Steve Nicoll said the article was factually correct and not misleading anybody.
"We are providing a service, telling people about what Work and Income offer. We don't advise anyone to do anything that is against the law," he said.
It may be legal but it isn't ethical. I know it's supposed to be funny but it's not funny when this is what we are telling our supposed 'best and brightest'.
Woman of the day
41 minutes ago
5 comments:
As the person who wrote that particular article I was most unhappy with the headline the story got. It is not an article on how to rip off WINZ - its the only article I know of on what benefits and subsidies are available - the stuff case managers should be telling their clients. Sure, some parts are written with tongue firmly in cheek, but our supposed "best and brightest" can distinguish that from the serious side of the article. Some case mangers would be surprised at what they can give their clients.
Given the relatively large debt that many students have to shoulder these days, I think the article isn't entirely unexpected. Maybe it will highlight the fact that students are increasingly having to shoulder the burden for inadequate funding of our Universities.
Students are essentially being ignored in the clamour for more funding from all sorts of other groups some who are more effective at getting funding for their causes.
It's not surprising that students are feeling the pinch based on the following information:
Government funding for universities has been declining since the 1990s and students are increasingly being asked to fill the funding deficit.
Between 1991 and 2002, government funding for universities dropped from 73% of total operating revenue to 42%, and a Deloitte study last year shows the figure is now just 37%, compared to 46% for comparable Australian Universities.
And in stark contrast to this countries like Ireland provide over 90% of funding for their teritary institutions.
The real issue is that these "benefits" are available in the first place when they bloody should not be.
Dave did an excellent job not of telling students what they can get but informing taxpayers how friggin' angry they should be that these benefits are available to people who really don't need them in the first place.
Lamentable, but nothing new in this article.
Hardly ethical, but what we would expect from a corrupt clique determined to stay in power. Dish out more of their own money to the populace, in the form of benefits, grants, etc, - except tax cuts, and the result can only be more votes for Labour.
The future is bleak.
winz makes it so hard to find information and is constantly trying to not pay people what they need and kick them off the benefit they really need. they dont care and unless you know someone in winz they'll never help you get the most out of your benefit they just try make it harder so you'll give up and they dont have to pay you.
i say its a good article, people have the right to know what they are entitled to and thats what this article is!!
WELL DONE!!
Post a Comment