Observing the wailing and teeth-gnashing that has accompanied the latest welfare reforms, a visitor could be forgiven for assuming the Government is hellbent on introducing Dickensian-era workhouses to New Zealand.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The new sanctions unveiled by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett are not an attempt to deny assistance to the children of beneficiaries, but to ensure they get it.
Yes, beneficiaries who do not comply with the new regime will have their benefits slashed, but only if they fail to do things that are manifestly in the interests of their children. Those things are: ensure they receive 15 hours a week of early childhood education from the age of 3, ensure they attend school from the age of 5 or 6, ensure they have access to a GP and ensure they undergo basic health checks.
For the overwhelming majority of the country's 125,000 beneficiary parents, the new regime will make not a jot of difference. What parent does not want their child to gain an education or be seen by a doctor when sick or injured? For the small minority who would rather the way they treat their children remain behind closed curtains, the new regime may well prove inconvenient. That is not a cause for dismay, however, but celebration.
Every child deserves a decent upbringing and the opportunity to develop to his or her full potential. Simply handing money to bad parents is no guarantee that their children will be fed, clothed or loved.
We could not agree more strongly, especially with the last paragraph quoted. The leader writer then provides a couple of high-profile examples:
The wider Kahui clan was reportedly receiving more than $2000 a week in benefits when 3-month-old twins Chris and Cru suffered the injuries that caused their deaths. There is no reason to believe that more money would have made a difference. Similarly, four adult beneficiaries were living in the Rotorua home in which 3-year-old Nia Glassie was mortally injured. Would larger state payouts have prevented her from being stuffed in a tumble dryer, beaten and hung from a clothesline?
The problem in both cases was not the level of state support, but values. A small section of society has so lost touch with the notion of right and wrong that it does not even recognise the obligation to take care of its own.
Once again, we agree wholeheartedly with the words of the Dom-Post's editorial writer, who has absolutely nailed the issue of values, and of a complete indifference to the notion of right and wrong. And it is at these parents; the ones right at the margins that Paula Bennett's announcements this week are targetted.
In closing, the leader writer throws down the gauntlet to the Labour Party and the Greens in particular; read on:
The minister's reforms are an attempt to fix the problem by using benefit payments to remind those tempted to neglect or abuse their offspring that with rights come obligations. By any standard, the new "social obligations", which will take effect next July, are measured, moderate and compassionate. Beneficiaries will not be penalised for failing to use services that do not exist in their areas and, before any sanctions are imposed, they will be given three opportunities to comply with the new regime. Furthermore, the minister is promising the speedy restoration of entitlements once failing parents do the right thing.
Instead of condemning the new measures, Labour, the Greens, Plunket and beneficiary advocate groups should be applauding Mrs Bennett for having the courage to tackle a problem that decades of well-intentioned but ineffective policy-making have failed to remedy.
This is an outstanding editorial. If people are prepared to look beyond the howls of outrage from the usual suspects, they will see that Paula Bennett's aim is to improve outcomes for children who had no choice about the circumstances into which they were born.
It is to her credit that she is not prepared to condemn them to the scrapheap, but that she is actually taking tangible steps to improve their lot.
14 comments:
You're trolling again Edward. Start your own blog if you want to talk about what you want to talk about. I put the time and effort in here, so I set the agenda. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.
It's not trolling, it's valid to highlight the reasons why you set the agenda as you do, and why Bennett is drip-feeding her welfare announcements. Why are you increasingly afraid of having that pointed out? Surely you're proud of everything the government's doing?
Did you do the same to my comment, KS?
Plunket...should be applauding Mrs Bennett?
Does it give you even a little pause for reflection that they are not, Keeping Stock?
Why do you think that Plunket isn't cheering Ms Bennett?
@ Edward - I make no secret of the fact that I am a partisan blogger. But I am the one who puts the time and effort in to maintain a blog, so I choose what gets published. The blog does not exist for you to push your barrow; as I have suggested, set up your own blog, and we'll see how long it lasts.
@ Cam Korda - I would have thought that Plunket would be only too happy to endorse child-centred policy initiatives. Getting children from beneficiary homes into healthcare and education is giving them a far better chance of success in life.
It may be possible that my original comment didn't get through, so I'll try again.
Russel Norman revealed today from the Government's own cabinet paper that around 2,200 parents were expected to have their benefits cut in the first year. Given that many families will have more than one child we are talking about more than that number of children who will directly suffer from their noncompliant parents.
Russel got no direct answer to the question about what will happen to these children, probably amongst our most vulnerable. There was also no answer regarding whether this policy was either moral or ethical.
I checked the moderation queue bsprout, and there was no sign of your comment; thanks for posting again.
Non-compliant parents do create a dilemma. But what else can you or Russel come up with to make them comply with pretty simple things which are undoubtably in their children's best interests; education and healthcare? Ought we just let them continue to be non-compliant, and condemn the children to the scrap-heap?
Celia Lashley suggests that if you keep hitting struggling parents with punitive responses, outcomes generally become worse. Her book "The Power of Mothers" has worthwhile alternative suggestions.
"Ought we just let them continue to be non-compliant, and condemn the children to the scrap-heap?"
No we should punish the children further by cutting off their means of support because their parents don't do everything that Paula Bennett says. Could try educating the parents, but that's not nearly as fun or as good a distraction.
Edward; no-one's benefit is going to be reduced until they have had three warnings. If three warnings isn't education enough, you'd have to question the fitness of some people to be parents.
"If three warnings isn't education enough, you'd have to question the fitness of some people to be parents."
Are you for real? You think a couple of threatening letters from Paula Bennett constitutes parenting education? And people say the Nats have run out of ideas...
Look, this is a punitive regime targeted towards the children of beneficiaries. Can you honestly not see that, or are you being deliberately disingenuous because you find it hard to stomach?
I am normally brutally hard on this National-led government, because I expect them to be better than Labour or the Greens. In so many areas, the John Key government has been an abject and utter failure, proving they have no baseline principles and no low to which they won't stoop to remain in power.
This, however, I consider to be a very good move. It is a sad fact that some will not care for their offspring. The DomPost editorial mentions only two of those cases. We all know there are many, many others, and to think that simply throwing more (taxpayer) money at those people would solve the problem is simply living in dreamland.
As for your question, bsprout, the answer is: that is why CYFS exists. If, even after punitive measures have been applied, some people choose to not take the most basic care of their children, then it becomes a safety issue and the children should be removed into a home where they have some chance of surviving until adulthood. It is a sad fact in our society that some simply do not deserve, and cannot handle, the multiple blessings of parenthood.
Post a Comment