-
-
Donate – Register for Newsletter
-
Weekly Poll
Loading ...-
-
Your Views
-
-
-
Social Media
-
-
-
NZCPR CAMPAIGNS
-
Lindsay Mitchell
In the early 1990s the National government introduced welfare reforms that were met with enormous resistance and provoked a good deal of public sympathy for the plight of beneficiaries. The reforms featured benefit cuts which reduced most incomes by around 10 percent, with some losing as much as 25 percent.
A huge amount is said about child poverty, but bugger all about what causes it. By the end of last year 13, 634 of the babies born in the previous 12 months had a parent or caregiver relying on a benefit. 48 percent of these caregivers were Maori.
Obligations are well known to people with jobs. They have obligations to their employers to be there on time, to observe the conditions of their contract and generally toe the line during their hours of employment. Working parents are obliged to put their children in some sort of care, be it formal or family-based. In return they receive a pay packet that furnishes their needs and wants, not dissimilar to a benefit, though usually more generous.
The NZ Herald recently ran a poll asking whether National was right to use its veto to override Labour MP Sue Moroney's private member's bill to extend Paid Parental Leave (PPL) from 14 weeks to 6 months. After 16,000 votes were submitted, sixty percent of respondents had answered yes.
Welfare reforms the government will legislate for later this year have been typically denounced by opposition politicians and child advocates. Many have railed in particular against the idea that mothers with children as young as 1 year-old will be expected to be available for part-time work, which, incidentally, may involve as few as 12 hours per week.
The matter of children and the benefit system has long concerned me. It began with the death of Wairarapa toddler Lillybing (Hinewaoriki Karaitiana-Matiaha) in 2000....
Listening to the response to National's welfare policy on talkback radio you would think National had proposed really radical reforms in the run up to next month's election. From opponents claiming the abortion rate will soar, to supporters cheering long overdue moves, people seem to believe John Key's announcements are highly significant. Are they?
Earlier this year the National government appointed a working group to look at ways of reducing welfare dependence. The group has consulted widely, too widely in my opinion. But they wanted to be seen to be making a fair job of it. The conference they ran at Victoria University in June gave the first public indications that all would not be plain sailing, and it was naive to assume it could be. The traditional left/right divide became quickly apparent with many attendees characterising the initiative as ‘beneficiary bashing’. Prominent in the detraction were Sue Bradford, the Child Poverty Action Group, the ex Children’s Commissioner, and various church and community groups who have latterly joined forces to form an alternative welfare working group.
Last week I made the following submission to the Social Services Select Committee...
The National government's long awaited welfare reforms are at best a rehash of previous efforts to reduce the cycle of dependency. At worst, they may increase it. What better way to worsen inter-generational dependency than tell people on the DPB that if they want to avoid working they should have more children?
