On the welfare reform proposals
November 2nd, 2011Remember the so called ‘underclass? Remember when John Key in 2007 went walking down McGehan Close in Owairaka, and took 12 year old Aroha Nathan to Waitangi in his Crown limousine? Key’s promises to tackle the problems of the underclass have subsequently proved to be hollow.
Earlier this year, the residents of McGehan Close delivered their own verdict on the Prime Minister’s use of their street for a political stunt. A fortnight ago, Key conceded that the situation of the underclass had, if anything, got worse, not better:
Prime Minister John Key has acknowledged that the “growing underclass” he promised to tackle in 2008 has probably grown further – rather than decreased – during his first term in government….He said he had visited a number of budgeting services and food banks “and I think it’s fair to say they’ve seen an increase in people accessing their services. So that situation is there.”
Comes another election, and National is at it again. It seems hellbent on using the plight of the poorest families in society for its electoral advantage. There is no reason to think the changes to welfare eligibility being mooted will improve the lot of the children who will be the eventual victims of the policy reforms. Mainly because the jobs that would make the proposals feasible – or more to the point, would make the policy irrelevant – are simply not there. The current government knows it. Even the NZ Herald knows it.
Given the known jobs deficit, this can only mean that the nice, likeable Mr Key is willing to make the lives of some of the most disadvantaged children in New Zealand more miserable, for electoral advantage. Quite a guy.
On the evidence, there is no lack of motivation among people already out to chase the few jobs available. Our readiness to do so has made the world news. In January, the Australian ABC News reported with incredulity how 5,000 people had turned up to apply for 150 near minimum wage jobs at a new supermarket in Manakau.
In May, over a 1,000 people queued for hours for 140 jobs at a supermarket in Hamilton. In September, another 1,000 people applied for 170 supermarket jobs in the Christchurch suburb of Ilam.
What these desperate events indicate is that people are already doing all they can to find work. (They need to be helped, not stigmatised.) That’s why benefit levels fell to historical lows immediately prior to the global recession.
Regardless, the welfare reform policies being mooted will crack down in particular on the solo parents who are struggling to raise children on their own. There is a myth that most women on the DPB are the irresponsible, promiscuous teenage mothers of the underclass. That’s why John Key once described being on the DPB as “breeding for a business”.
In fact, as Scoop keeps on arguing, the numbers of teen mothers on the DPB are a tiny, declining minority. The rate of teen pregnancies among 15-19 declined last year. Sure, to the extent there is a problem of long term dependency, it can and should be targeted – but without stigmatising every single person on a benefit, given that thousands of them are heroically raising the next generation on a pittance of state support.
A far, far greater proportion of those on the DPB are – or were – middle class women left to raise children largely on their own, after a divorce or relationship breakdown. Many of them have already suffered a decline in income and living standards as a result. National now intends to make their hard job even harder.
The current government seems to regard parenting as such an unimportant task that solo mothers should be forced into work testing when their child is one, into part-time work when their youngest child is five, and into fulltime work when the youngest child is 14. Latchkey kids, as we all know, are never a problem.
This approach not only treats every solo parent as a backsliding welfare bludger – it is bound to fail when the jobs they are being forced to train for and apply for, simply do not exist. Even more rare are the jobs that will pay a wage that makes the related childcare/transport costs sustainable, and/or likely to lift the children involved out of poverty. The process is one of pure, cynical politics. It is being pitched at the working poor and the struggling middle class, in order to re-assure them that no one else is getting it any easier.
What National is proposing to do is to scrap the existing benefit system (ie, sickness, DPB, invalids benefit, widow’s benefit, unemployment benefit etc) and reduce them to three new categories, all defined by the ability to work. Everyone on unemployment and sickness benefits – plus solo parents with children over 14 year of age – will be placed on a Jobseeker Support Benefit and be required to look for fulltime work.
Solo parents with younger children would get Sole Parent Support but would be required to undergo work testing when their child turned one, and would be expected to work part-time when their youngest was 5. Those with major, permanent disabilities will be placed in a separate category, and will be work exempt.
Allegedly, the changes will remove 46,000 people from the benefit rolls, put another 11,000 into part-time work, and save $1 billion within four years. The figures are the stuff of fantasy. (Or parallel causation. During the boom years of the 2000s, some 120,000 came off the benefit rolls without the level of compulsion now being proposed.) To get the policy on the rails, the government is budgeting to spend $130 million a year to provide support such as training, help with childcare costs, and medical treatment. Given the current jobs outlook, that expenditure looks more like pouring money down the drain.
“National’s package.” the NZ Herald sniffed in its editorial, “would be convincing, however, only if it were accompanied by one creating jobs.” To repeat: in the absence of a meaningful job creation package, the welfare reforms will impact mainly– and deliberately – on those women who are trying to raise children on their own. The reforms will also impact on the children themselves, since inevitably, they will have less access to their mothers during years when they are highly vulnerable. All for a social and economic return that is about as illusory as winning Lotto.
Key presumably still believes the DPB is about breeding for a business. He and the party he leads appear to be living in denial about the social and economic realities of divorce – which peaked as recently as 2005 in New Zealand – and marital breakdown. (It is all too understandable why some of the men involved might want to vote for such policies, in order to make the lives of their former partners more miserable.)
There is, I’d argue, a current of misogyny underlying the reforms. These are women bashing policies, as well as being welfare bashing proposals. For that reason, there would be some merit in launching an election boycott by women voters of the political parties that are proposing these changes – until, at the very least, a viable job creation package is put up alongside them.
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
Print this post
Parliament Headlines
Headlines
Headlines
Headlines
Headlines
17 Responses to “On the welfare reform proposals”
By lyndon on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
Links…
Govt Announcement – Key Speech – Labour – Greens – Mana
Bennett ritually sacrificed to Mary Wilson on Checkpoint
Rob Salmond on Pundit
By Norm on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
If it is true that “there is no lack of motivation among people already out to chase the few jobs available”, why do orchardists have to bring people in from overseas, every year, to pick fruit? Why are the “motivated” locals not willing to do this work?
By Andy on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
Time for a little education Norm, Those Orchard Jobs that they have to import workers for are paid by piece rate (i.e the number you pick is what you are paid for) they actually work out at the end of the day to around $4 per hour, however with government subsidies on paper it looks like $15 per hour, what you will find is that they then charge workers for accomodation, equipment, clothing, food, electricity etc etc (all govt subsidised of course) the workers are then left with next to nothing-but they do it anyways as when they take those few dollars home they are worth a lot more in their country than locally here..It is one of the biggest scams in New Zealand.
What is needed here is real jobs, with decent livable wages, not sending our work off to China/India making that country prosper while our own suffers in the name of a short sighted quick buck. Bring back apprenticeships I say, but wait if all our manufacturing/trades are now taken care of offshore then why bother? We need to retain our best and brightest by making high quality goods for a premium market that will always outsell cheap mass produced rubbish, now all we need to do is to get a government to back the idea and work for real change..
By Dollar Bill on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
‘why do orchardists have to bring people in from overseas, every year, to pick fruit? Why are the “motivated” locals not willing to do this work?’
casual work that pays less today than it did in the 80′s is not a job
why would a beneficiary jeopardise the steady income and rent payments on the benefit, for the irregular income of seasonal work – the possibility of stand down periods, missed payments and employment related costs obviously make such work uneconomic and unpalatable.
You also missed this point – (Or parallel causation. During the boom years of the 2000s, some 120,000 came off the benefit rolls…
By Gemma on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
Gordon – this is a very insightful article. Yes, the elephant in the room is “where the hell are all the jobs?” Perhaps a National supporter out there knows the answer to this inconvenient question. If you do, please enlighten us and while you’re at it, please let John Key know where these irritatingly elusive jobs are hiding, so he has at least something to substantiate his predictable beneficiary bashing.
Of course, a minority of people exploit the welfare system. This is true of any system, such as ACC, private insurance, etc. While unethical, illegal conduct should be criticised, it is not fair to make assumptions about the all recipients of a system’s benefits based on the crookedness of a few beneficiaries.
Clearly, most people want to work. That thousands of people have queued, presumably for hours, for jobs that they, statistically speaking, have a low chance of getting shows that these people are motivated job seekers. For anecdotal evidence of people’s motivation, look at the situations wanted column in your local newspaper. In my area (North Shore, Auckland), I have noticed an increase in work wanted ads. Consider that when you telephone to enquire about an advertised vacancy, the employer sometimes advises that he or she has already been inundated with enquiries. Having worked in supported employment services (see http://www.asenz.org.nz for more information), I have experienced employers saying that, for example, over 100 people have telephoned about one minimum wage job.
Don’t undermine your critical faculties and empathy by buying into National’s predictable cruelty, which is designed to evoke kneejerk, nasty and ignorant responses.
By Ray on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
The obvious solution to the beneficiary problem is to put all benificiares on to the Pension. National says there is no problem with coping with a rapidly increasing number of people receiving the pension. It is just people on other benefits that are a problem. People under 65 can be called ‘temporarily retired’ instead of unemployed.
It must be odd for a 64 year old unemployed person to turn 65 and be transformed from a drain on society to being a old age pensioner who deserves to be looked after…
By Robert on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
Very ugly politics are practiced by Paula Bennett. In Australia Tony Abbott and John Howard fully supported the maximum generosity towards the likes of 18 year old solo mums. Surely women should be encouraged to have children at 20 rather than 40 and given declining immigration the more the better. Really in NZ its just jealousy by burnt out overs 30′s gone to seed who no one would want to have sex with or those trapped in a loveless marriage. The problem is NZ is a small isolated backwater- so young ladies having good healthy sex is resented.
Beyond on that the restructuring the system is to the tired old formula and does nothing to recognise the problems- that until recently the distinction betweeen the sickness and invalids benefit was purely administrative and in most cases those on the sickness benefits were moved to the Invalids benefit after a year as the sickness was a purely transitory benefit. Psychiatric diagnoses are random, non scientific and in many cases those who have been on the benefit for years won’t even have a diagnosis. Any sort of work testing can only be accurately done in terms of physical capabilities .
Also I remain unconvinced that people should be forced into any type of work regardless of education, class and prior work experience. I do not believe it is a benevolent state that forces people into downward mobility. Its is cruel and counter productive. Simply giving people menial work and rating the success of psychiatry and rehabillitation by how many solo mums and patients are forced into it- is not an example of social welfare- its just USA style populist politics.
By Marian on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
I’ve just published a book called “7 Risks for Single Mothers; & the Art of Managing Them” where I identify ‘criticism and hostility’ as one of the seven major risks that a single mother has to manage, if she is to avoid an early death. These political reforms institutionalise criticism and hostility towards single mothers (not so much of a risk for single fathers) and will also intensify risks to New Zealand children’s well-being.
By Joe Blow on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
And I can’t believe that Guyon Espiner has been trying to spin National’s welfare policy as “not quite beneficiary bashing” on the 6 o’clock news over the last few days.
What a chump!
By Lindsay on Nov 2, 2011 | Reply
You ought to get to grips with the welfare dependent sole parent population:
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/sole-parenting/index.html
For instance, the research linked to states that at least a third of benefit-dependent sole parents started on welfare as teenagers. The figure is not conclusive. My research leads me to believe the upper limit is probably a half.
By donna on Nov 3, 2011 | Reply
“the research linked to states that at least a third of benefit-dependent sole parents started on welfare as teenagers.”
So what? What are we to take from this? That that welfare should not be available to teenagers, no matter what their circumstances? That if you go on welfare as a teen then have a baby later you better not need to go on a DPB or we’ll kick yo ass?
The MSD report itself is a more equivocal. It notes “sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected”, and that “some sole parent benefit recipients who parented early will have difficulties across a number of domains, which may include a long history of poor mental health, substance abuse, and experiences of violence and abuse.” Isn’t stigmatising welfare as the government and the WWG have attempted to do just entrenching that disadvantage?
By Lindsay on Nov 3, 2011 | Reply
Donna, I don’t know why you get so aggravated. I don’t want to punish anyone. Yes, the report finds greater disadvantage than might have been expected. Yes, sole parents are disproportionately affected by negative social indicators. So, as a panacea for those negative social indicators, also present in the early seventies, has the DPB been a success? I think the DPB has trapped more women and their children than it has released. Stigmatising welfare isn’t the answer but neither is suspending judgement about why so many women are on it. I’ve worked with a few people on the DPB and it doesn’t enable them. It certainly doesn’t build self-esteem. The question is how can we divert young, unskilled, educationally disengaged girls, many of them Maori, from viewing the DPB as a viable option? They are just kids who deserve to live their own lives in their own right.
By Mary on Nov 4, 2011 | Reply
At last someone has pointed out that most DPB recipients are there because of relationship breakdown, and only a very low percentage are ‘teenage mums’. Women left on their own with very little if any financial support from the ex-partner have enough of a struggle without the stigmatising that the new proposals will increase.
By glenn on Nov 4, 2011 | Reply
Lindsay, if you think that a woman asking questions is getting aggravated then you are being misogynistic.
By SaD on Nov 5, 2011 | Reply
Sterotypes are Dangerous.
If the Nats are going to use sterotypes ( breeding solo mothers ) in such a nasty cynical way, does that make it fair to play the ‘ greedy jew’ sterotype against john key?.
He of all people should know how bad and dangerous sterotypes can be.
Isnt it interesting how the greedy, grasping jew sterotype still has such traction?.
Dangerous powerfull things sterotypes.
By Leon Henderson on Nov 9, 2011 | Reply
To stop Key and his merry gang of greedy capitalists, vote NZ Green Party (Party Vote) and either Labour or Mana (Electorate Vote) and, of course vote MMP.
By Leon Henderson on Nov 9, 2011 | Reply
Norm: hope you took careful notice of what Andy wrote; it is no fun slaving in an orchard in New Zealand Norm – you ought to try it some time!!! As Andy says, it’s piece-work where you get paid a miserable pittance for filling big bins up (that are carried around by a forklift). There is much more to it as well than just grabbing fruit off a tree, on each tree only some of the fruit will be suitable, and the rest not ready yet, and you’ve got to be able to tell which is which, and it slows you down!!!
As Andy said, the “pay” per bin utterly stinks, even the hard-core professional pickers twenty years ago had a hard time scraping out a “living” doing it, but I’ll tell you what Norm, the bin-rates HAVE NOT CHANGED!!! You get “paid” the same per bin as you did twenty years ago!!! You are not covered by even the measly Minimum Wage because you are not employed by the hour, and essentially are forced to operate as a self-employed contractor.
Also as Andy said, the orchard owners are notorious for the extortionate “rents” they make their workers have to pay for even staying in a pup-tent in the orchard: they will whack you around seventy dollars a week for sleeping in your pup-tent.
Try it sometime Norm, see how yer like it!!!