by Catherine Delahunty
On Friday, the Child Poverty Action Group co-hosted an excellent all day seminar on welfare issues at Auckland University. The speakers included Australian academics and researchers Paul Smyth, Eve Bodsworth and the legendary Professor Peter Saunders (i.e. not the Peter Saunders whom Paula Bennett appointed to advise the Government’s Welfare Working Group and who writes Islamophobic novels in his spare time).
Meeting the "good" Professor Peter Saunders
There were great presentations from economists Paul Callister and Keith Rankin, former Commissioner for Children Cindy Kiro, Manuka Henare of the Mira Szazy Research Centre, Wellington Peoples Centre advocate Kay Brereton, and Sue Bradford. Louise Humpage and Alternative Welfare Working Group Chair Mike O’Brien also provided very useful analyses of the current debate.
The first speaker was Paula Rebstock, Chair of the Government’s Welfare Working Group. Everyone appreciated the fact that Paula came and presented the parameters and process of the Government’s Working Group, even though many of us did not agree with the definition of the “problem”. There is common ground between the Welfare Working Group other presenters at the seminar that the welfare system needs change and that Work and Income is not great at assisting people to find appropriate work. After that, an ideological divide emerges.
Metiria and I were just glad to be there as we had been “uninvited” to the Welfare Working Group Forum in Wellington earlier this year.
One of the highlights of the day for me was Keith Rankin’s suggestion of a Public Equity Benefit for all, based on the recognition that most of us already receive a benefit in the form of a tax concession or Working for Families support at some stage in our working lives. He busted the notion that the only beneficiaries of state resources are people defined as ‘beneficiaries’.
I loved Cindy Kiro’s challenge to our self interest by investing our best in Maori and Pasifika children as the future caregivers of an ageing population. The Australian speakers were very clear that the ‘unrelenting focus on work’ approach had not reduced inequality in their nation and that sole parents were struggling, not only with the requirement to work 30 hours per fortnight after their youngest child turns 6 but with the internalised expectation that working away from the children to provide financial support was the only valid role for a sole parent.
Speakers agreed that the labour market has changed and its globalised and casualised nature is disconnected from a welfare system that defines you as either in full time work or unemployed. Kay Brereton’s front line experience was a testament to outdated and punitive policy and inconsistent implementation (a polite term for a culture of cruelty).
There was some great discussion of the role of the state as a punitive institution versus a facilitative institution, with clear interest in the latter model.
A low-light for me was Paula Rebstock quoting people with disabilities as wanting to work as a justification for the punitive model. The urge to shout “get real and challenge employers, not the vulnerable” was almost overwhelming.
It was interesting to consider the public view of welfare and to what extent we should be talking less about “redistribution of resources” and more about “addressing economic inequality” or “investing in children”. The final comment made by Sue Bradford expresses my view that although we must reframe and connect with public concern for the vulnerable using new language, we also cannot avoid the ideological divide on welfare. A welfare system based on children’s priorities struck a deep chord with this audience. I just hope more well fed and well financed people can hear this.
UPDATE: The seminar presentations are now available here.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Catherine Delahunty on Sat, September 11th, 2010
Tags: Alternative Welfare Working Group, Peter Sauders, welfare reform, Welfare working group
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I quite agree, Catherine, we should be building the capacity of our children and youth to be responsible and fully functioning members of society. While that involves an investment now, the long term benefits will be immense! Where’s the commitment?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
Catherine,
Can you please clarify this statement a bit more: “I loved Cindy Kiro’s challenge to our self interest by investing our best in Maori and Pasifika children as the future caregivers of an ageing population.”
I think my confusion concerns the word “caregivers”. On my first reading I interpreted this statement in a _very_ negative way. I hope I am misinterpreting what you wrote.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
This makes me so sad, and mad.
I agree with all they say about the benefits of work. It is true that people do get out of the habit of working, but mostly people really do want to work. And it is good for them (dangerous dirty minimum wage jobs excepted, maybe).
But to punish the unemployed for being unemployed and/or sick is stupid in good times. In a recession it is stupid and mean.
Addressing abatement rates, the way they accrue and the level, and barriers to part time work like low pay, expensive transport and impossibility of quality child care is a much better approach.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Sprout said, “I quite agree, Catherine, we should be building the capacity of our children and youth to be responsible and fully functioning members of society.”
It is a big ask for society to build capacity in children if their parents are not “responsible and fully functioning”. Benefits support people in genuine need, but they also enable irresponsibility and dysfunction. Therein lies the conundrum for reformers.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
I cannot understand the willingness to use our justice system as our most active welfare agency to manage young people with mental health issues, drug addiction and deal with those who are unemployable. The costs of imprisonment and justice cycles are high, lawyers cost far more than social workers and prisons are more expensive than supported hostels and training centres. Some concentrated support and training for those who struggle to function effectively within our society will only save money in the long term if those same people move out of the justice system and dependence on benefits.
As a teacher I constantly see children who have parents who lack basic parenting skills, live in poor housing that contributes to ongoing health issues, and where poverty limits choice and opportunities. Special Education support is underfunded and stretched, social workers have unmanageable work loads, mental health struggles with staffing and facilities and spending favours prisons. It is common knowledge that a child’s formative years shape the future adult, yet funds spent on early childhood have been cut and 28% of our children live in poverty. http://www.conferenz.co.nz/conferences/child-poverty-nz-summit
It is not about throwing money at a black hole, but investing in properly targeted support and giving existing agencies the funding and facilities to enable them to work effectively. Other countries do this, why can’t we?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
sprout says “I get the impression that many who comment here decry spending money on disfunctional parents and families. ”
The problem is with many dysfunctional families, the money IS spent on them but it doesn’t make much difference.
So we end up spending huge money on these families AND spending at the other end on the justice system and prisons.
You scenario is that we either spend the money on them earlier OR we spend more later on prisons etc.
It’s not always that simple. For many dysfunctional families we are spending huge amounts at both ends. Obviously the initial “investment” didn’t work.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do this. We just need to be very sure we are spending on areas / programmes that have high success rates.
The costs for some of these interventions can be huge. We have nurses driving large distances to do a single child vaccination because the parent has never bothered to get vaccinations. And they get to the family’s home and they have not kept their appointment – they aren’t there. Half a day wasted (again) for a nurse who should be vaccinating dozens of children in half a day.
We have residential youth correction programmes that make $90,000 per year jail cells look very cheap by comparison. Maybe it’s worth it – if it works. If it hasn’t changed anything then it is a huge waste of money.
But that’s the point. The cost of interventions is huge. We need to make very sure the money we spend is making a big difference.
Because there is an attitude out there that if we do this, it will AUTOMATICALLY improve things. It’s not always the case as sometimes after all the effort and cost, the difference is minimal or non-existant.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
It seems there is big money in child poverty.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Lindsay, in that sentence, “enable” is doing a lot of work. It’s not clear to me that the Christmas 1991 benefit cuts reduced the amount of dysfunction in our society, when they reduced people’s ability to eat adequately. Could you explain the change that you would like, and the steps by which it will lead to the result you would like?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
The answer to your questions could fill a book jc2. People need work and they need constructive relationships. As it stands welfare undermines both. It has to revert to temporary assistance for most; a last resort with family, friends and other NGOs stepping in to help first.
I wouldn’t advocate cutting benefit levels. Or withdrawing existing benefits except when a job is available and rejected. The main focus has to go on preventing young people going on to them. People would adjust their life choices if welfare stopped being a viable long-term alternative to self-support.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Photonz1-I quite agree about the cost for the conference, I provided the link because of the reasons stated for calling it.
“I’m not saying we shouldn’t do this. We just need to be very sure we are spending on areas / programmes that have high success rates.”
There are heaps of schemes and initiatives that have proven track records of success and Catherine mentions one in a following post. I agree with your caution regarding the use of funding but lets stop the prevaricating and start doing something!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Lindsay, yes it’s complicated. So here’s a made-up policy, for the sake of argument: there’s a date in about two years’ time, and nobody born after that date will receive, or cause anyone else to receive:
– Working for Families
– state subsidies for health care
– unemployment or domestic purposes benefit
– state assistance with collecting child support from a non-custodial parent
– an old-age pension
If you have a different policy-for-argument that you prefer, please outline it.
I don’t see teenagers immediately ceasing to explore sex. How do you see them adjusting their life choices with regard to accidental pregnancy?
I don’t see there ceasing to be a non-zero rate of unemployment. How do you see structurally unemployed people adjusting their life choices?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
So good ideas here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ideas
Earlier this week the New Zealand Social Entrepreneur Fellowship held one of its twice annual retreats in Auckland. Ideas talks to NZSEF chief executive vivian Hutchinson; Emelina Afeaki-Mafile’o of social agency Affirming Works; Darren Fraser of fair trade clothing company Micah Clothing; Alexandra Lee of Architecture for Humanity, and Ngahau Davis of Northland’s He Iwi Kotahi Tatou Trust.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“[benefits] also enable irresponsibility and dysfunction.” An overly high income beyond the individuals contribution to society because of inherited wealth, or from being a money juggler, enable irresponsibility and dysfunction. This is far more costly to society than the irresponsibility of a small minority of beneficiaries.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
” If you have a different policy-for-argument that you prefer, please outline it.”
I did. Time limits and exemptions.
” I don’t see teenagers immediately ceasing to explore sex. How do you see them adjusting their life choices with regard to accidental pregnancy?”
Sex need not lead to pregnancy. If accidents occur – I envisage far fewer of them – again I put up my alternative. Support from family etc first.
” I don’t see there ceasing to be a non-zero rate of unemployment. How do you see structurally unemployed people adjusting their life choices?”
Re-iterated, my focus is on the young. The prospect of having to be self-supporting would lift the acquisition of skills.
For structurally unemployed there would still be the dole and in times of recession, extensions can apply. But the system should be based on ‘normal’ conditions; not exceptional.
The reason I put these proposals up is because I don’t think the public will buy or wants a radical re-invention of welfare. Just a re-invention of its application. These proposals are electorally viable in my opinion.
Thanks for the civil engagement by the way.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Personally, I think a better solution to the problem of mis-spent welfare is to re-direct some of the money into services such as health care and education. If schools had more funding, then there need not be many expenses other than clothing in order to send a child to school. What about provision of school lunches (and breakfast for that matter) to all children? Then there would be no need for kids to go hungry, at least while they are at school. It would also provide an opportunity to ensure kids are getting nutritious food for at least one meal a day.
With a better funded primary health care system (funded through extra taxation if need be), then there would be no excuse to not take the kids to the doctor when they need it. Then one could justifiably come down hard on the parents when children were not given proper health care; the excuse of no money would no longer be valid.
Of course all these things cost money. What needs to happen within society as a whole is for a great big list of priorities to be made, and then work out how much can be funded, and how it can be funded. Easier said than done … but are the bulk of people really happy with the priorities that recent National and Labour governments have decided upon, or do they simply feel there is no other alternative to Tweedledee and Tweedledum?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Expanding on my post concerning Catherine’s statement that “I loved Cindy Kiro’s challenge to our self interest by investing our best in Maori and Pasifika children as the future caregivers of an ageing population.”
Someone marked it down, when all I was really asking was for clarification on what it actually means. When I first read this, it sounded like this was advocating investing in Maori and Pasifika children so they could become a lower caste which looked after rich old people. I’m sure that is not what was meant (I hope)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I was at the seminar, and that was not what Cindy Kiro meant.
She was referring to the fact that Maori and Pasifika have relatively high birth rates, while the birth rates among other ethnicities is much lower.
Therefore an ageing, and largely white, population will need to be financially supported by an increasingly Maori and Pasifika working age demographic.
So we need to invest in Maori and Pasifika kids to encourage them to get them to stay in New Zealand and maximise their incomes and therefore the tax they pay, as it is that tax base that will be needed to support predominantly Pakeha retirees.
Catherine could perhaps have used the term “providers” rather than “caregivers” – that would have better summarised what Cindy Kiro meant.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
If time-limits are to exist, will it be comp\ulosry for employers to employ? And how many b’crats will it take to exempt…..?
As for ungenuine need, who defines this, a rich person?
As for miss-spent wek\lfare…how defined? Yes dysfuncy\tional families exist…. but to deny the parents their welfare harms the child does it not… unless of course we have state orphenages, no, orphenages that are privately run…I think Dickons wrote about these….
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)