-
Debate
- JENNY SHIPLEY
- If New Zealand is to realise its potential as a nation we need the skills, the ideas, the
creativity and the work of every one of us. That's what makes strong nations successful.
"To those who say that this is not the business of Government I reply that Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, cannot continue to increase funding of programmes seeking to solve problems, when the answers sometimes lie elsewhere, in the complex areas of personal and family relationships, responsibilities, and self discipline... "
The Coalition believes that if we are to succeed we must share the responsibility of meeting people's social expectations from within our country's available resources. We must take the responsibility of making choices and debating what choices must be made.
- We believe New Zealanders want solutions that will make a positive difference. They
are worried about children's health, fatherless families, young people at risk, mental illness and
the unemployed. They want the underlying causes addressed. Not just the symptoms.
The Coalition Government believes addressing these issues can only be achieved in partnership. We must find consensus on what Government can do, on behalf of the taxpayer, and what New Zealanders and their families can and must do for themselves to solve these problems.
If money was the only problem we should have fixed these concerns already. In 1980 New Zealand spent $12 million per day on health, welfare, education and superannuation. In 1990 we spent $49 million each day. Today we spend $68.5 million each day. Yet concerns remain. Government programmes are making a positive difference, not a negative one. We must ask the right questions and expect answers.
- STAKES IN THE GROUND
Here are the six key social policy principles which the Coalition Government believes must be applied to all areas of social policy work:Principle 1
That everyone has a responsibility:
-- to themselves
-- to their families
-- to their communities
-- to other taxpayers
-- to societyPrinciple 2
Taking part in paid work underpins economic independence.Principle 3
Work expectations and income support obligations should be linked to a person's capacity and ability to work.Principle 4
Government social assistance must be designed to encourage people to help themselves.Principle 5
Government assistance should focus resources on those most in need.Principle 6
Government social services will work to strengthen families. - It's our country's future, our children's future, our taxpayers' future, that's at stake here
in terms of obligations and opportunity. The Government believes we must talk with each other,
not past each other. We must develop a consensus on how to respond to the important and
complex issues affecting people's lives.
This will lead to public policy changes. Government hopes it will also lead people to thinking how they too can change in ways that will make a difference overall to their own families and communities.
To those who say that this is not the business of Government I reply that Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, cannot continue to increase funding of programmes seeking to solve problems, when the answers sometimes lie elsewhere, in the complex areas of personal and family relationships, responsibilities, and self discipline.
- If we want all New Zealanders to be the best they can be we must reverse the socially
and economically damaging trend of long-term benefit dependency. The Government believes our
goal of reducing unemployment must now be matched by clear programmes which attempt to
reverse the growing trends in domestic purposes, sickness, invalids and ACC claimants.
Work, whether for wages or in service to the community, is often pivotal to people maintaining self-esteem and personal dignity. The Employment Strategy is designed to attack long term unemployment and maintain job seekers' self esteem, work habits and connection to the community.
- In the area of welfare, the Government intends to increase the emphasis on paid work
in achieving personal economic and social independence. We are therefore determined to
improve the services that provide income and employment assistance to people and to make
community work opportunities available as a stepping stone, where necessary or appropriate. Work first
is the approach.
Active case managers, working alongside people to see that they gain the skills and work experience necessary to find a full place in the work force, will be the focus of the future. We will be putting more effort into helping people identify their work capacities. We would expect them to take up work to match that capacity when appropriate work is available. This principle will be introduced across all working age benefit groups.
- Where necessary the Government will look at welfare programmes and the incentives
and disincentives around the existing benefit descriptions and streamline them into a more
clearly understood and fairer system. We may have to rub out old definitions and create new ones
in order to establish the right environment and send clear signals.
There will be changes but there will be no across the board benefit cuts as was necessary in 1991 when benefit payments were ahead of wages.
Source _ Prime Minister The Hon Jenny Shipley Parliamentary Speech 17 February 1998 "Speech to Open 1998 Session of Parliament"
- BONNIE ROBINSON
Bonnie Robinson is the executive officer of the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services.Let us be clear this renewed interest in social responsibility is not, at long last, recognition of the need to balance economic and social policy. It is an attempt to use morality to explain away the unexpected social and economic outcomes. And this is where the policy nonsense begins.
" Like much of our recent policy prescriptions, New Zealand is not alone in this discovery of the `new moralism'. It has been imported in large part, like many of our previous silver bullets, from the extreme right-wing ideologues in US - where the call is on for a return to Victorian morals and Dickensian welfare. "
The argument goes something like this. "After all we've done to reform the economy, the least those unemployed people could have done was get a job; the least those sole parents could have done was get off the benefit, the least those poor people could have done was get a little bit wealthier. As a nation we cleared the deck (with a `razed earth' economic policy) so nothing was standing in an individual's way _ no more bloated government spending on health, education and decent levels of benefits to hold us back, so surely people must be better off. The fact that, as the Department of Social Welfare's briefing paper to the Coalition Government stated "Economic and employment growth have not reduced total number of working-age beneficiaries" (DSW, 1996) has therefore been a cause of mystery and indignation to those who have held fast to the silver bullet of economic reform.
- Like much of our recent policy prescriptions, New Zealand is not alone in this discovery
of the `new moralism'. It has been imported in large part, like many of our previous silver
bullets, from the extreme right-wing ideologues in US - where the call is on for a return to
Victorian morals and Dickensian welfare.
In the US the first approach to shaping up the morally flabby among us is to apply the mechanisms of the neo-classical economic reforms to the social agenda. This fits in nicely with New Zealand's `more-of-the-same' zealots. Their approach is one of financial incentives and disincentives. Perhaps only the NZ Treasury could write social policies based on the belief that you can buy good parenting - they called their proposals `well child' but I think what they really meant is `sell child'.
Under this creative piece of social policy if your child truants from school, you loose a bit of your benefit (that you might have needed to keep the electricity connected, put food on the table or pay the doctor's bill). This money will now will be paid to the school or another social service agency to hire a social worker or whatever else it takes to get your recalcitrant child to school. Presumably if you missed the appointment to get your child immunised you would also loose part of your benefit (that you might have needed to buy the school shoes to get your child to school) but which now will be paid to, who, the HFA, your doctor?. If, as a result of constantly loosing bits of your benefit, you need to swallow your pride and beg for a food grant, you will be offered compulsory advice on how to balance your budget.
I wonder whether it has struck anyone in Treasury yet what a stunning contradiction of the basic libertarian tenants of free market economics such a policy would represent. Far from any pretence at a level playing field, this form of `social responsibility' could represent one of the greatest exercises in social engineering proposed since the Soviet Unions collectivisation of industry.
- The evidence shows therefore that many of the welfare reform policies that the US has already implemented and evaluated, and that NZ is unfortunately proposing to emulate, are nonsense. They make no sense socially or economically, and they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of policy makers of the cause unemployment, welfare use and family break-up - the social problems they seem so desperate to solve.
- The data shows quite clearly that the problem of unemployment has almost nothing to
do with too many work-shy people. In fact, if anything the reverse is the problem - too
many people wanting a paid job, and those who have one are working harder and longer. The
labour force participation rate (the proportion of people in a job or actively looking for one) is
just about higher than it has ever been. Paid work has become more and more important in
people's lives. I would suggest that some of the most prevalent `absent fathers' are those working late
at the office, in our intensified, deregulated workforce.
Without adequate job growth, unemployment will continue to be a problem. Blaming unemployed people does not create one job, and only adds to the stigma which makes it more difficult for people who have been out of work, to be given a fair go by potential employers. Indeed when some economic theorists suggest that an economy such as ours actually requires unemployment at around 6%, blaming unemployed people is dishonest.
- While it may be true that the number of people on benefits is rising partly because of increased unemployment there is no evidence that as has been suggested, "five year olds dream of being on a benefit". A Government study in NZ found that benefit use is largely short term, with only 5% if unemployment beneficiaries, 31% of DPB and 8% of sickness beneficiaries receiving a benefit continuously over a three year period. An American study found that only 10% of recent welfare recipients grew up in households that frequently used welfare. This study found that poverty, rather than welfare use, was the problem for families.
- Despite all the rhetoric emphasising the importance of family life, there has been a
policy drift away from recognising the costs and demands of parenthood. New Zealand is one of
the meanest countries in the OECD when it comes to financial support for families with children.
Families have increasingly found themselves on the wrong side of a growing divide between
rich and poor, with serious consequences for children. Often family-based policies (even when
they have positive elements) represent yet another source of pressure on families - whether its
abolishing youth allowances, promoting earlier hospital discharge or mainstreaming. The role
of families and the wider community in providing care for children, people with disabilities,
the frail aged and others does need to be recognised, but with
adequate supports. Services need to develop a partnership with families, not just dump on them.
What people under pressure - whether they are families caring for disabled children, sole parents or long term unemployed people - what these people do not need is more pressure, more blame or more shame. They usually need a hand up not a put down. It is true that shame and guilt is a part of being human, but without forgiveness and reconciliation the new moralism risks parodying a sick new secular religion of blame. We will have moved from poor economics to poor theology and the poor will be the victims yet again.
Source _ Bonnie Robinson "Social Responsibility or Bringing Back the Shame: Every Silver Bullet Leaves A Cloudy Trail" paper to Conference on "Social responsibility: Whose Agenda?" Massey University Albany 12-15 February 1998
- JONATHON BOSTON
Jonathon Boston is the Professor of Public Policy at Victoria University in Wellington.I believe that we live in a moral universe in which the responsibilities of individuals, families, firms and institutions are both extensive and exacting. Having said this, any attempt to codify these obligations, let alone monitor or enforce them, is bound to prove both complicated and controversial.
It is often claimed that rights and responsibilities are logically connected and that one of the weaknesses of welfare programmes during the post-war era is that individual's rights have been stressed at the expense of their responsibilities. In fact the nature of the moral and logical relationship between rights and responsibilities is highly complex, and while in most cases rights entail responsibilities, the reverse does not necessarily hold true.
"In short, unlike the situation in other important policy domains, such as economic and environmental policy, the social policy area is characterised by a relative dearth of good data, a lack of policy specificity, poor monitoring and reporting requirements, and relatively little independent research..."
The protection of fundamental values, such as human life, liberty and dignity, is dependent upon the existence of a clear, legally binding set of civil, political, social and economic rights. Any move to circumscribe, diminish or take `the focus away' from such rights needs to be firmly resisted.
- My legislative proposal has been referred to by various commentators as a Social
Responsibility Act. It is critical to note here that the proposal is markedly different to the
government's suggested Social Responsibility Code. Hence the two ideas must not be confused.
The proposal for a Social Responsibility Act arose following the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1994. In particular, it arose from a recognition that the reporting and accountability measures imposed on NZ governments in relation to the management of economic and fiscal policy which by international standards are very exacting were not matched by similar measures in the social policy arena.
- There is a general lack of agreed principles to guide social policy development and governmental interventions in the social arena. Thus, whereas the Resource Management Act 1991 enunciates principles for the `sustainable management' of the country's resources and the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 specifies principles for `responsible fiscal management' there are no similar legislative provisions in relation to social policy. This of course reflects, among other things, community disagreement over basic social priorities and values, such as the nature of equity or social justice, and thus a lack of consensus on the ultimate social objectives to which government policy should be directed.
- Leaving aside the lack of statutory requirements, the actual monitoring by government agencies of social outcomes, and the social effects of government policies, is seriously deficient. For instance, the task of monitoring the possible impact of the 1991 benefit cuts in relation to hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, overcrowding and access to health services was initially left mainly to voluntary agencies. The government simply refused to provide the funding for comprehensive social impact monitoring. Interestingly, this lack of governmental monitoring drew explicit criticism from the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
- Whereas the Treasury is mandated to report to the government on all policy proposals with `financial, fiscal or economic implications', there is no requirement for policy proposals to be subjected to a thorough social impact assessment (including their likely effects on income distribution). Nor are there formal requirements for the government to consult with interested organisations prior to taking significant policy initiatives which have major social consequences.
- Government funding for social science research is relatively limited. As a result of the abolition of the Planning Council in 1991, and the demise of the NZ Institute for Social Research and Development in 1994, there are no specifically dedicated centres for social policy research. While university researchers, the Family Centre in Lower Hutt and BERL have furnished some assessments of social policy, they do not have the resources to undertake a comprehensive monitoring and assessment role.
- NZ is a signatory to various international agreements and covenants. Some of these refer specifically to social rights (eg the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). While the government has passed legislation (eg the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993) giving effect to most of the political and civil rights which are outlined in the relevant international covenants, it has so far eschewed the passage of legislation setting out in a comprehensive manner NZ'ers social rights and entitlements (eg in relation to education, employment, health care, housing and income support). Thus, NZ has no equivalent of the European Social Charter which specifies the rights of citizens in relation to employment, vocational training, health, social security and social welfare services.
- In short, unlike the situation in other important policy domains, such as economic
and environmental policy, the social policy area is characterised by a relative dearth of good data,
a lack of policy specificity, poor monitoring and reporting requirements, and relatively little
independent research. This lack of information and transparency necessarily impedes high
quality decision making and makes it more difficult to hold policy makers (and their advisers) to
account. Accordingly, there is a good case for requiring governments to be more open about their
social policy objectives and to implement appropriate monitoring and reporting mechanisms. One way
of making sure that this happens would be for Parliament to enact legislation specifying the nature
of the government's legal obligations.
Source _ Jonathon Boston "The Idea of a Social Responsibility Act for Aotearoa New Zealand" paper to Conference on "Social responsibility: Whose Agenda?" Massey University Albany 12-15 February 1998
- BILL BRADFORD
Bill Bradford is the Project Development Officer of the Auckland People's Centre.When the government first started talking about turning their attention to social issues and the concept of social responsibility, my heart sank.
I imagined a process that began with the government, treasury and assorted other Right-wingers talking social issues up to the point where there appeared to be a crisis. Opposition parties and community activists would ineffectually argue that there was no crisis and then, amid talk of taking the tough decisions for the good of the nation, a further programme of attacks on the living standards of the poor would be introduced.
"Eventually policing Jenny Shipley's Code of Social Responsibility would become one of the core activities of community organisations that were set up to help people. Another disgraceful episode in the continuing saga of appeasement of the Right would be completed..."
Community organisations would be asked to contract to carry out these attacks. The Labour Party and the Alliance would condemn the programme, community groups would vow not to have a bar of it, meetings would be held, resolutions passed condemning the programme, protests would be held.
Government officials would start visiting community organisations, promises would be made along with veiled threats. A few organisations would sign contracts. A trickle of other organisations would follow, then as panic over missing the boat set in, the trickle would turn into a flood.
Then the self-justification would begin. Community organisations would earnestly tell each other how they had made the tough choice. There would be talk of subverting the programme from within, of needing to keep close to where the people were, of short-term pain for long-term gain, of the futility of opposing the inevitable.
Eventually policing Jenny Shipley's Code of Social Responsibility would become one of the core activities of community organisations that were set up to help people. Another disgraceful episode in the continuing saga of appeasement of the Right would be completed.
Of course we survive these episodes. Even the victims of government programmes adjust somehow to a new low in their standards of living, usually by withdrawing even further into their misery, by cutting themselves off from the rest of society and sliding off into the hidden world of alienation and despair that is now home for too many NZ'ers. The rest of us continue on, trying to convince ourselves we are decent people doing our best.
- If Jenny Shipley wants social responsibility we should give her social responsibility.
We could start by looking at what we mean by the term. For example, we might decide that it
implies a set of criteria that should be applied to every area of activity. We might think it a good idea
to start at the top by making sure every government action complies with standards of social
responsibility which include ensuring every person has access to a job, to decent housing, to
quality healthcare.
The list of social responsibility indicators that could be devised is endless. We could demand social responsibility from the multi-nationals and the financial sector, insisting they invested back in the social infrastructure of the communities from which they draw their wealth. The academics among us could research the social and economic effects of a broad Code of Social Responsibility. Overseas experts chosen by us could be brought in to attract maximum media attention. Public meetings could be held throughout the country and social responsibility action groups formed. A partnership with Labour and the Alliance to keep the issue alive in parliament and the media, and they could announce they would dismantle any programme put in place by the government immediately if they were elected. They could also announce that if they become government they would ensure that all funding was cut to organisations that collaborated with the government over social responsibility.
We could organise a community boycott of any social responsibility programmes we opposed, and of any groups who contracted to carry them out. We could work with unions to try to organise industrial action that would make it difficult to implement any programme the government put forward.
- When the Right responds by trying to narrow down the debate to benefit fraud or the
high level of poverty among single parent families instead of putting our fingers in our ears we
could admit there are problems and have clear solutions for them, solutions that take us to the heart
of the power relationships that dominate the country, solutions that are clear, fair, can be
widely understood and would be popular.
Traditionally the Left has been strong when talking about rights and has ignored responsibilities. The Right has been the opposite. We could tie the two together. For example, we might say the state has a right to expect every person has a suitable job. It also has a responsibility to run an economy that ensures there is a job available. We could agree that parents have a responsibility to care for their families but insist that they also have a right to access of the means to do so.
Source _ Bill Bradford "Social Responsibility or the Politics of Appeasement" paper to Conference on "Social responsibility: Whose Agenda?" Massey University Albany 12-15 February 1998
Top of Page
This Letter's Main Page
Stats | Subscribe | Index |
The Jobs Letter Home Page | The Website Home Page
jrt@jobsletter.org.nz
The Jobs Research Trust -- a not-for-profit Charitable Trust
constituted in 1994
We publish The Jobs Letter
Social Responsibility - whose agenda?
from The Jobs Letter No.74 / 6 March 1998
JENNY SHIPLEY BONNIE ROBINSON JONATHON BOSTON BILL BRADFORD
The government intends that its Code of Social Responsibility be fully debated before its principles are written into government polices. It hopes the code will influence the behaviour of parents, neighbours and beneficiaries and make it clear to them what is expected in order "to meet their responsibilities".
The Code will be the philosophical under-pinning of the new super-Department now being created out of the merging of the New Zealand Employment Service and Income Support. As such, its principles will influence what we can expect from future government services in terms of employment and training, and the support of unemployed beneficiaries.
Our Media Watch reports that a widespread debate is indeed in progress spurred on by the household distribution of a public discussion document on the Code, and also last month's Social Responsibility Conference held at the Massey University Albany campus. In this special feature, The Jobs Letter presents some aspects of this debate so far.
Jenny Shipley is the Prime Minister. These are some edited highlights from her 17th
February speech to open the 1998 Session of Parliament.