Many years ago we did some assertiveness training at one of our former workplaces. The gist of what we can remember was that there was a big difference between assertive and aggressive behaviour. There was also recognition that assertiveness represented reaching a balance between one's rights and responsibilities.
The Government yesterday announced a series of social obligations for beneficiaries; this from the Beehive website:
Social obligations mean better outcomes for children
Incorporating important health and wellbeing goals into welfare reform will help ensure children get the best possible start in life says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.“Social obligations will ensure dependent children of beneficiaries access and benefit from vital education and health services,” says Mrs Bennett.“These services are particularly important for vulnerable children as many currently miss out; we have an opportunity to address this through reforms.”“These obligations are reasonable and achievable and they reflect the expectations most New Zealanders have of parents, this is a positive move for vulnerable families.”Around 125,000 beneficiary parents support more than 220,000 children.Social obligations require all beneficiary parents to ensure their children:
- attend 15 hours a week Early Childhood Education (ECE) from age 3
- attend school from age five or six
- enrol with a General Practitioner
- complete core WellChild/Tamariki Ora checks
These social obligations are consistent with the Government’s Key Result Areas, the White Paper on Vulnerable Children, manifesto commitments and the confidence and supply agreement with the ACT party.“We are mindful there may be barriers like geographical location or capacity so parents will need to make reasonable steps to achieve these goals.”Our intention is to work with and support parents to comply in the best interests of children and if they struggle to comply for any reason they could be referred to specific support services to get further help.“But where barriers do not exist and parents don’t meet these obligations, graduated sanctions could apply,” says Mrs Bennett.The graduated sanction process will see parents receive three reminder opportunities to comply before a maximum 50 per cent financial sanction applies.“We have made it easy to re-comply, with plenty of opportunities and in the interests of the child, have capped the sanction at 50 percent.”
We see these "social obligations" as a sensible and pragmatic move by Paula Bennett. Welfare payments comprise a significant portion of Crown expenditure. However a small and growing number of people see them as their right, even though some of them have never worked or paid tax.
We say this, because with "rights", even perceived ones come responsibilities. By putting in place a set of child-centred responsibilities, the Government is sending a signal to beneficiaries that the welfare of their children is vital. The Government has chosen a set of measures intended to ensure that children get the best start in life.
Sure; there is a punitive aspect to these changes. But no beneficiary is going to have their benefit cut immediately, with a three-reminders scale being incorporated. Clearly, parents should get the message loud and clear by the time they receive a first or second warning.
8 comments:
"Social obligations"
Choice, the right to choose, so beloved by the right-wing, so vehemently espoused by National Party MPs and bloggers who champion the present Government, is being killed, extinguished by the very people who proclaim it's importance.
It's a very sad situation the country finds itself in now. The Government is proving itself over and over to be authoritarian and dictatorial. What's worse, is your craven support for these measures. Because you are in a position of power (not on a benefit, are you?) and ideologically supportive of the Government, you are a willing enabler of this programme.
"It's for their own good", you'll probably be thinking. Worse, you'll probably claim that you're "thinking of the children", as Luudman says on her equally craven post.
Very sad, KS. Just as you couldn't see the logic in the 'taniwha' case, you can't see it here.
I am just concerned at the double standards and expectations that the government has for for different recipients of subsidies and benefits.
I also worry that the expectation of attending 15 hours of childcare and the resulting penalty if they don't has been properly thought through. I am a great supporter of ECE but it didn't suit both of my children and it may not be so easy to enforce (or be fairly enforced) as it seems.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/polluters-benefit-beneficiaries-bashed.html
Lindsay Mitchell, another supporter of the Bennett's proposals claims that any problems with the initiatives will be identified and monitored. In my experience National makes these decisions with little prior analysis and is prepared to just mop up the mess later. This occurred with their idea to demand that beneficiaries seek budget advice before receiving financial assistance, the creation of the housing New Zealand call centre and the sacking of local staff and the change of focus in ACC.
In every case there was a lack of due diligence in scoping the effects of the decisions before acting on them and real suffering was experienced by people who had real need. What can sound reasonable in a superficial sense can be very different in reality. http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/polluters-benefit-beneficiaries-bashed.html
"Sure; there is a punitive aspect to these changes."
"A society is judged on the way it treats its most vulnerable"
By the words of your own mouth, this Government punishes its most vulnerable and you cheer them on.
I read that you lead the Church service on Sunday, Keeping Stock.
Did you tell them of your support for punishing the vulnerable?
@ Norm - you're right; I'm not on a benefit, and I never have been, even though at times in my life I have been unemployed. I am an owner of multiple businesses employing more than 40 staff, a number which has increased by around 30% in 2012 alone.
I absolutely stand by my comments. These changes are intended to improve the outcomes for children of beneficiaries. It is already a legal requirement to enrol children at school by the age of six, so what is wrong with enforcing that law? Likewise, do you think it is socially responsible for parents not to enrol their children with a healthcare provider?
At the risk of repeating myself from the main post, rights are balanced by responsibilities.
PS: Coming in here and chucking around accusations of cowardice is a recipe for getting offside. Please read the rules before posting.
@bsprout - point taken with regard to ECE not being a fit for some children. From what I've read, the requirement will be that the person has taken reasonable steps to enrol a child in ECE. If it doesn't work out, I am sure that there will be some flexibility.
@ Marty - Nice try, but you left out the words from my own mouth about the three warnings before any action is taken. If someone is foolish enough to ignore warnings about non-compliance, they must accept the consequences of their inaction.
And surely ensuring that the children of beneficiaries have access to education and healthcare is actually a strong signal as to how this government views vulnerable children.
PS: For the record, I don't preach; I was leading the worship/music.
"If someone is foolish enough to ignore warnings about non-compliance, they must accept the consequences of their inaction."
Yes, they will have their children further punished by Paula Bennett. You really like this, do you? I mean it's all a bit of a distraction so people will stop hammering the government for it's abysmal handling of pretty much everything, but surely you're smart enough to see that? Or is that what you like about it?
Post a Comment