<I>

  <&>Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English Version One</&>
  <&>Copyright 1998 School of Linguistics & Applied Language Studies</&>
  <&>Victoria University of Wellington</&>

  <&>side one</&>
  <&>14:56</&>
  

  <WSC#DGI043:0005:IM>
      doesn't accept that figure

  <WSC#DGI043:0010:IM>
      he says he can't tell where the figure came from

  <WSC#DGI043:0015:IM>
      evening brian <&>15:00</&>

  <WSC#DGI043:0020:BE>
      good evening

  <WSC#DGI043:0025:IM>
      if you can't tell where it came from how do we know it's WRONG

  <WSC#DGI043:0030:BE>
      oh actually i now know where it came from <latch>

  <WSC#DGI043:0035:IM>
      oh you do <latch>

  <WSC#DGI043:0040:BE>
      i've had a rather useful discussion with the treasury ON this
      matter and um if i could just go through the story a little

  <WSC#DGI043:0045:IM>
      yep

  <WSC#DGI043:0050:BE>
      um the question that was asked was a question about household
      incomes <O>inhales</O> and the answer about household incomes is
      about the top THIRD of households have a MARKET income of about
      forty three thousand dollars a year or perhaps a fraction more
      than that <O>inhales</O> and that's the correct answer to the
      question <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0055:BE>
      now the figure that the treasury generated was for another
      purpose and what that was based on was not on households <O>inhales</O>
      but essentially on um <&>exhales noisily into phone</&> what
      they call families but on groups which are used for social
      welfare er administration purposes

  <WSC#DGI043:0060:IM>
      <?>with you</?> we er had that explained to us just a moment ago
      so we're up to speed on that <&>16:00</&> <{><[>so</[> the other
      thing is <.>then</.> the question is the figure they generated
      treasury generated they generated it for what purpose

  <WSC#DGI043:0065:BE>
      <[>good oh</[></{>

  <WSC#DGI043:0070:BE>
      <O>inhales</O> well um you can guess what they generated <?><.>it</.></?>
      for what purpose

  <WSC#DGI043:0075:BE>
      it is that in fact that the um government is um planning to er
      impose user <&>pronounced as ugder</&> charges and it's got to
      decide on whom it's going to <.>u</.> charge <.>the</.> um put
      the user charges and its going to do that on um on the basis <.>of</.>
      apparently of the social welfare criteria <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0080:BE>
      that would mean that a um a couple apparently <.>will</.> er
      with children will be treated as a single unit <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0085:BE>
      a couple of people <O>exhales</O> living separately would be
      treated as a single unit

  <WSC#DGI043:0090:BE>
      what they're going to do with a <O>tut</O> cohabitating couple I
      don't know but you may well have to end up with sort of the
      department of social welfare sort of and the department of
      health and the department of inland revenue and the department
      of housing all rushing round finding out whether he and she <O>inhales</O>
      living in the same flat <O>inhales</O> are married or not

  <WSC#DGI043:0095:IM>
      has the government looked at the general figure being forty
      three thousand dollars <&>17:00</&> worked out that they can't
      afford to bring it in at that level and then thought thirty
      three five's a <{><[>good one</[>

  <WSC#DGI043:0100:BE>
      <[><O>inhales</O></[></{> no i don't think that's the way it
      happened at <drawls>all</drawls>

  <WSC#DGI043:0105:BE>
      <.>i</.> um um <quickly>i mean to say</quickly> in most um of
      the things that have been happening in the last month or so have
      been <.>sh</.> through sheer <O>inhales</O> misadventure and
      incompetence rather than general plot um

  <WSC#DGI043:0110:BE>
      in fact it was only about a month ago that the minister of
      EDUCATION said that he thought the figure might be <O>inhales</O>
      TWENTY eight thousand dollars so the government's been aware for
      some time that it's going to be a figure <.>at</.> <.>w</.> <.>a</.>
      at the low end of the scale yeah

  <WSC#DGI043:0115:IM>
      this is to spook us?

  <WSC#DGI043:0120:BE>
      <O>inhales</O> <slowly>no i think what happened</slowly> <O>exhales</O>
      was that the government made some commitments on er december the
      nineteenth package without understanding what the commitments
      WERE <O>inhales</O> and i think what's happened is that <O>snorts</O>
      every time they try to work out the logic of those commitments
      which WERE um to cut g r i to cut <O>inhales</O> the um standard
      of living of people on top income tax to introduce user
      <&>18:00</&> pays into the welfare state those sort of things
      every time <O>inhales</O> they've tried <.>to</.> to think about
      it the problem's got more and more COMplicated and i <.>think</.>
      although it is TRUE that there's spooking <laughs>um</laughs>
      <.>of</.> <.>of</.> of the public i think it's more spooking the
      government <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0125:IM>
      they've got to come up with an answer by the end of july though

  <WSC#DGI043:0130:BE>
      well <.>i</.> <.>the</.> the <.>adVICE</.> i mean to say <.>i</.>
      <.>i</.> <.>if</.> if they've learned ANYTHING from the last
      month it is that they can't DO it by the end of july <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0135:BE>
      er you see it took us a long TIME to create the welfare state

  <WSC#DGI043:0140:BE>
      the first person who actually PROPOSED what it was the nineteen
      thirty eight social security act was harry atkinson and he did
      that in <O>inhales</O> eighteen eighty TWO and then <.>in</.>
      <.>as</.> and then <.>s</.> sixteen years later we have the old
      age pension and then FORTY years later we get the social
      security act and then it's another year before they implement it
      <O>inhales</O> so we're talking about something that evolved
      over a very long period <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0145:BE>
      now the point IS that you <.>can't</.> you know desTROY these
      things quickly

  <WSC#DGI043:0150:BE>
      you've got to actually <.>reconstr</.> well you <&>19:00</&>
      can't destroy them in a constructive WAY quickly <O>inhales</O>
      so the advice i think that <.>any</.> you know any SENSIBLE <O>inhales</O>
      politician who perhaps took the day off and <.>went</.> you know
      went for in my case it would be for a tramp or something he'd
      realise that in fact <.>the</.> the economy <.>th</.> <.>th</.>
      <.>th</.> <.>th</.> the proposals to redesign the welfare state
      <O>inhales</O> were just a total SHAMBLES that nobody APPEARS to
      know very well what they're DOING that in fact there are five or
      six departments all operating and those departments er <.>ha</.>
      there's no coordination going on between the departments that
      individual departments are shifting their positions quite
      quickly which suggests that they don't have much stability of
      view <O>inhales</O> and while all this is happening in his <.>area</.>
      <.>in</.> <.>in</.> <.>in</.> in the administrative and policy
      area there is a sort of a MASSIVE CRISIS <.>of</.> going out in
      the public and which i think the easier way is to describe fear
      and confusion and the politician you know went for <?>a</?>
      <drawls>long</drawls> tramp and just thought about that and
      listened to the birds and so on then <O>inhales</O> CAME back i
      think we'd say right everything on hold

  <WSC#DGI043:0155:BE>
      we <&>20:00</&> won't do anything for the budget um <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0160:BE>
      we might have a green paper or something like that or we might
      have a bit of a discussion but we're not going to do anything in
      a major way

  <WSC#DGI043:0165:IM>
      well there's no point in doing that though is there

  <WSC#DGI043:0170:BE>
      <O>inhales</O> well <.>i</.> <.>m</.> put it this way um

  <WSC#DGI043:0175:BE>
      if you don't <,> try and think through things carefully <O>inhales</O>
      there are two things

  <WSC#DGI043:0180:BE>
      first of all you're gonna make the most TERRIBLE mess and we're
      seeing that <.>al</.> already <O>inhales</O> and then i suppose
      it doesn't really matter if politicians <&>pronounced as
      politations</&> make messes <O>inhales</O> but in fact I know
      and i'm sure from talkback YOU know HOW much um disruption there
      is in the public and if by an accident the government <.>were</.>
      on er july the thirtieth was to get <.>the</.> get it right most
      people wouldn't believe them

  <WSC#DGI043:0185:BE>
      they no longer trust the competence of the government to get it
      right <O>inhales</O> and that would mean that <O>exhales</O> er
      we'd have a situation where the government would almost
      certainly er lose er more er more competence in the polls
      <&>21:00</&> more votes in the polls and would go out the back
      door <O>inhales</O> so er you know in the next election so the
      sensible thing would be to tie ho and try and get it right and
      not only get it right <O>tut</O> in the technical sense but to
      try and take the people along with you

  <WSC#DGI043:0190:IM>
      all right so let's try and get it right in the technical sense

  <WSC#DGI043:0195:IM>
      what's the answer

  <WSC#DGI043:0200:BE>
      <O>inhales</O> oh i <?><.>m</.></?> think myself <.>that</.> <.>i</.>
      <.>i</.> <.>i</.> i think there <?>are <.>s</.></?> is a role
      for user charges <.>in</.> <.>in</.> <.>in</.> in the economy
      <O>inhales</O> <.>wh</.> um but <.>i</.> i think the <.>fact</.>
      the notion of a widespread use is not nearly appropriate for
      instance <O>inhales</O> user <&>pronounced as udger</&> charges
      in health are likely lead to an insurance system <.>an</.> and a
      system rather like the um american which is probably the most
      inefficient health system <.>in</.> in the world <O>inhales</O>
      so <.>i</.> in my sense in each technical area you've got to
      look at <.>it</.> look at what the circumstances are and then
      try and identify what you really want to do <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0205:BE>
      again in the area of g r i i happen to take the view that in
      fact um that we should have <.>a</.> um a universal <O>voc</O>
      <&>22:00</&> er benefit but only for very <.>hi</.> <.>hi</.> um
      <.>for</.> for people much older than sixty and i've said on a
      number of occasions that i hope <O>inhales</O> that er um when i
      reach the age of seventy <O>inhales</O> that will be about the
      age of the universal benefit <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0210:BE>
      i think there's a case again for g r i <laughs>trying to</laughs>
      um to increase the age of the incomes tested g r i which you've
      got at the moment <O>inhales</O> but let me tell you the sort of
      MESS that the government has got itself into <O>swallows</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0215:BE>
      remember it said <O>inhales</O> that it wanted to <.>intr</.>
      introduce the royal COMMISSION proposal on um on retirement
      income

  <WSC#DGI043:0220:BE>
      the royal COMMISSION said that from the age of sixty to sixty
      five you'd be on the unemployment benefit and after that you
      would go onto g r i <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0225:BE>
      now the government <O>snorts</O> sort of has chopped about fifty
      <.>million</.> fifty dollars a WEEK <O>inhales</O> so that
      there's now that sort of gap between the unemployment benefit
      and g r i so you see a decision they made last december has
      MUCKED UP the <&>23:00</&> possibility of getting coherent
      decision um in july <O>inhales</O> so what you have to do is
      look at EACH case bit by bit that's what technicians do try and
      <.>ab</.> <.>a</.> um get the objectives not be too ideological
      try and just get it right

  <WSC#DGI043:0230:IM>
      so they go to us er next election having promised a balanced
      budget and every other thing they promised and they can't
      present any of it

  <WSC#DGI043:0235:BE>
      well i think the first thing is that um they've already er um
      reduced er gone back on some of their promises

  <WSC#DGI043:0240:BE>
      i think the current euphemism is you AMEND promises <O>inhales</O>
      um

  <WSC#DGI043:0245:BE>
      perhaps it's not right to balance the budget

  <WSC#DGI043:0250:BE>
      <.>i</.> you know i'm quite willing to er <O>exhales</O> to er
      <O>exhales</O> review that and talk about it in a reasonably
      sensible way

  <WSC#DGI043:0255:BE>
      i think if you get into government and <.>you</.> <O>inhales</O>
      you find you made mistakes i think er mister bolger's quite wise
      to er own up and let's say er they go into the election as did
      the labour government in nineteen thirty eight and they have a
      proposal for the redesign of the welfare <&>24:00</&> state <O>inhales</O>
      and they put that to the electorate and if it's as good as the
      proposal in nineteen thirty eight they'll win with an increased
      majority

  <WSC#DGI043:0260:IM>
      mm <{><[>the real</[>

  <WSC#DGI043:0265:BE>
      <[>you don't sound</[></{> er quite convinced <{><[>because the</[>

  <WSC#DGI043:0270:IM>
      <[>well <.>i</.></[></{> i'm trying though brian

  <WSC#DGI043:0275:IM>
      i'm <.>just</.> all these experts and people flying things at me

  <WSC#DGI043:0280:IM>
      i'm trying desperately to <{><[><unclear>word</unclear></[>

  <WSC#DGI043:0285:BE>
      <[>what i</[></{> was going <.>to</.> what i was trying to imply
      was that i suspect that if <.>in</.> <.>in</.> <.>the</.> in the
      current situation if they went to the electorate ON a redesigned
      welfare state the electorate would reject it <latch>

  <WSC#DGI043:0290:IM>
      mm <latch>

  <WSC#DGI043:0295:BE>
      and that's partly because they haven't got it right

  <WSC#DGI043:0300:IM>
      <O>tut</O> what about means testing things like that with g r i

  <WSC#DGI043:0305:BE>
      well i think that's a good illustration of the government not
      understanding issues that were involved

  <WSC#DGI043:0310:BE>
      now <.>in</.> <.>in</.> <.>i</.> <.>a</.> among the
      proFESSionals among the experts there are two terms one is which
      is INCOMES test and the other one is MEANS test

  <WSC#DGI043:0315:BE>
      now for most people they don't make that distinction and i
      regret to say the government hasn't also <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0320:BE>
      let me tell you what an incomes test is <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0325:BE>
      what they look at is how much your income is and then
      <&>25:00</&> they change the <.>en</.> your entitlements
      according to that <O>inhales</O>

  <WSC#DGI043:0330:BE>
      the best known incomes test that we have is the tax system which
      is <?><.>the</.></?> the amount of tax you pay depends on your
      income <{><[>right</[>

  <WSC#DGI043:0335:IM>
      <[>yep</[></{> yep <latch>

  <WSC#DGI043:0340:BE>
      so that's an income test

  <WSC#DGI043:0345:BE>
      now a MEANS test differs from an incomes <&>pronounced as
      incymes</&> test because it involves investigation of ASSETS <O>inhales</O>
      and <O>voc</O> i think it would be very UNUSUAL for a national
      party to want to start investigating <O>inhales</O> <laughs>um
      rich er</laughs> elderly people's ASSETS and it's worse than
      just assets because a means test CAN include <O>inhales</O> and
      in nineteen seventy four <.>th</.> so sorry seventy one this was
      the situation <O>inhales</O> on the number of pairs of
      UNDERPANTS you had <O>inhales</O> and they can also in a means
      <.>test</.> er the most extensive ones look at your RELATIVES
      and say well your relatives ought to be looking after you

  <WSC#DGI043:0350:IM>
      mm <latch>

  <WSC#DGI043:0355:BE>
      so i don't think the government actually proposed a MEANS test

  <WSC#DGI043:0360:BE>
      what it MEANT to propose was an incomes test and as i said i
      happen to support tax <,> er income tax

  <WSC#DGI043:0365:BE>
      i think it's a good way to fund er fund a government so i don't
      have any problems with <&>26:00</&> incomes tests at all
      providing it's not too onerous <&>26:02</&>
</I>
