A difference of approach

Over the past two decades, we've seen a significant rise in the number of sickness and invalid's beneficiaries. National and ACT think this is a Bad Thing, and from their history in the 90's, it's easy to see what their policy would be: slash benefits to "encourage" the "malingerers" (many of whom suffer from mental illness or terminal disease) to join the workforce by threatening them with starvation. The government has a different approach. Firstly, they're paying for medical care where this will help people rejoin the workforce. While arguably this should be done via the public health system rather than the welfare system, there's no question that it's a good idea; contrary to national's slander, very few people want to be sick, and practically everyone will leap at the opportunity to enjoy improved quality of life. And for those with permanent disabilities, they've increased funding for employment support - meaning greater access to the workplace. It's a clear difference of approach, centered around carrots and opening opportuinities, rather than sticks and threats of starvation - and I know which one I prefer.