Editorial: Lost in translation

New Northland MP Matt King - seen here on election night - should already be learning the key lesson that much of what he says will be misinterpreted, editor Peter Jackson says.

Matt King has only been in Parliament for a matter of weeks, but he should already be learning the key lesson that much of what he says will be misinterpreted. It was always thus perhaps, but he has become part of a much less forgiving political system in this country, spawned in part by by MMP, and in much greater part by the advent of social media, which gives everyone the chance to have their say in public.

Mr King will never provide a better example of that than the response to his wishing Regional Development Minister Shane Jones luck in his proposal to get the unemployed working. Criticism of his party's performance in that field over nine years in government might well be warranted, but the reaction to his assessment of the policy espoused by Mr Jones, with whom he probably agrees rather more than he disagrees, was not.

The way this newspaper reads it - and it conducted the interview that led to the story - is that Mr King agrees that no one who is unemployed should receive 'free' money. He said he agreed with the principle of working for the dole, for reasons including the need to instil a work ethic, but wanted to know how it was going to work.

He agreed with Mr Jones that sanctions (loss of benefit) would be needed to encourage some to work, and pointed out that unless Labour and the Greens agreed with that, which so far they had not, his plan was not going to work. So far so good.

He also spoke of his first-hand knowledge of would-be employers who could not find the willing hands they needed, the major problems being drugs and attitude. No argument there, surely. But hold the bus.

One correspondent, who supports working for the dole, expressed disappointment in Mr King for "bagging" Mr Jones, and accused him of displaying the "same old do nothing National" opposition. Excuse me? How does agreeing in principle but expressing doubt that the idea will get past the major coalition partner amount to bagging, negative or "carping at a good idea?"

Mr King has every right to question the details, and the enthusiasm with which Labour will endorse Mr Jones' proposal. Mr Jones has himself conceded that the idea had not been "embraced by the entirety of Cabinet". Bet it hasn't been.

Persuading Labour and the Greens that welfare sanctions (anathema to both) will be needed to persuade some to pick up a spade won't be his only challenge. We also need to know how these work schemes are going to be funded and managed. If Mr Jones is expecting a government department to organise them he can probably give up all hope now. The other option would be to pass the buck to local councils, and you can bet your bottom dollar that whatever they think of the principle they won't be keen.

Prior to 1989 councils had work gangs. They owned things like spades, shovels and wheelbarrows. Not now they don't. All the menial stuff has been contracted out, and councils are simply not equipped to run work schemes. If they are going to turn the clock back they will need great wadges of cash, and ratepayers won't be keen to fork out.

It's all very well to paint a picture of thousands of unemployed people repairing roads and getting rid of noxious weeds, which has long been NZ First policy (as repeatedly and commendably expressed by Winston Peters), but it's a huge leap from policy to practice.

Mr Jones can expect huge public support for what some will no doubt see as a gratuitous assault on those who, for no fault of their own, cannot find paid employment, but until he spells out the detail there is no way of judging whether it will be feasible, let alone have the desired effect.

Meanwhile Mr King copped it from all directions for expressing his doubts that Mr Jones' Working for your Country plan will ever get past the theoretical stage: 'National did nothing for the North. At least Shane is trying to do something;' 'National didn't see fit to make changes over the last nine years - now they are the opposition they suddenly have answers?''What did your government do to get jobs in the region? I say you are the one with a poor attitude.' 'What is his solution? Oh right, he has none.'

There were more rational responses; 'If people are fit and able to work why shouldn't they be made to? Unless a person has medical reasons and is unable to work then there should be no excuse.' ' ... To be fair to them there is a generation or more needing training in work ethic, humbleness and sense of pride. This won't be fixed overnight. Yet (no work no money) can be a motivator. Government subsidies, funded work schemes and 18 months' basic training will go a long way to fix this.'

Then there was: 'Not only the youth on the dole. I know many people in their 30s to mid-50s who have been on the dole for three to four decades and they're still on it. They need a purpose to get up daily. Start using marae, public halls or other buildings to run courses Monday to Friday beginning at 8am to 4pm, starting with literacy, numeracy and helping them to get a driver's licence, all done up till lunchtime, then get them to do some work in the community to instil some pride and self-esteem in their lives. I'm sure not all of these people want to be on the dole.'

Wonder what the reaction would have been if Matt King had said that.

The sad MMP fact is that the negotiations that begin after we vote and that sooner or later produce a government will always see some campaign promises abandoned. It cannot work any other way. It would be nice to know just what 2017 promises bit the dust before Labour and NZ First did their deal, but the determinedly transparent politicians who reached that agreement aren't especially keen to tell us.

The best we can hope for at the moment is that we will work it out for ourselves, piece by piece, as election promises are floated as policy and are either supported by the other party or not. Or simply sink without trace.

It is also becoming increasingly obvious that all is fair in love and election campaigns, and that some of the more blatant appeals for our votes have lost some of their lustre now that those who made those promises are now in a position to deliver on them. A billion trees to be planted? Might be some issues with that. Ten thousand houses a year? Bit of work to do there. Re-entering Pike River mine? Maybe in March 2019. If it's safe. And possible. And after we've spent $23 million - on what?

Working for your Country seems likely to fall into the discard category. And that would be a great shame. Mr Jones, in his inimitable fashion, has eloquently expressed the value of such a scheme to members of his immediate family, and hardly needs to expound on what it could do for whole communities, such as the Far North.

Mr King's doubts, however, are likely to prove well founded. Public support for Mr Jones' plan will count for nothing if he can't persuade Cabinet that it's a good, feasible idea, and that there's a place for tough love. He seems likely to have his work cut out for him there.

And in case you thought Mr King was alone in falling foul of Facebook last week, there was this offering too - 'Whore of the rich Jones shame.' At least social media is a land of equal opportunity.