The State of the Nation

Today, we had a bit of a Twitter debate about welfare. Amy wrote this awesome blog about it, and it's inspired me to share my view. I'm not really in the habit of blogging my political views as I am politically quite conservative, and I think that it shocks a lot of people. I guess I am in the habit (whether intentionally or not) of shocking people, so maybe a political blog is in order today.

A little disclaimer - this is MY view only, not that of my friends, family, or importantly, employer.

So, welfare. At the moment, there are lots and lots of different kinds of help the State can give to people in need; from Working For Families tax credits to the Unemployment Benefit to Sickness Benefit to Community Services Cards to Special Needs Grants. There are relatively strict criteria to meet to be eligible for a benefit; some have stand-down periods (ie the Unemployment Benefit), and some have income thresholds (Community Services Card), others are on an 'as needed' basis.

However, these criteria can make it difficult for people to be eligible for some benefits - people who are genuinely in need. For example, a student who is not eligible for Student Allowance (his parents earn over the maximum threshold - even though his parents offer no financial assistance), but who is currently on summer break and who gets fired (unjustifiably) from his employer will not meet the requirements of the Unemployment Benefit, despite being in need because:

1. Despite getting the 13 week stand-down period waived because he is taking legal action against his employer, he is a student, and therefore is not looking for full time work (a requirement of the Unemployment Benefit)

2. He is a student, and therefore should apply for a Student Hardship Benefit through StudyLink.

3. He is not eligible for Student Allowance because his parents, despite not helping him financially, earn over the maximum threshold. He should apply for an Unemployment Benefit though WINZ.

See the circular argument that goes on? This is the issue that Marcus faced when he was fired from his job - he had to go on fun CV writing trainings and job seminars and all sorts of exciting things. In the end, he was told by WINZ that his best option would be to give up studying (at this stage, he had 6 months to go to complete his degree), then he would be eligible for an Unemployment Benefit. He made a decision to not return to university if that's what it took for us to be able to get through this period, and upon returning to WINZ, was told that actually, because his partner (me) was a student, he wouldn't be eligible for the Unemployment Benefit after all, and that the best option was for me to give up studying also. WHAT?!?!?!?

Welfare needs to have strict criteria, but we also need to make sure that people in need are recieving help.  It's a delicate balance, and I feel that I am entitled to an opinion on New Zealand's welfare. I pay taxes, and have done for 8 years. I went to a decile 5 primary school (I'm not even shitting you when I tell you that when my brother and I left the school, it dropped to a decile 3. Probably just a coincidence, but it gives you an idea). I had friends growing up whose parents were on benefits. I am a Brownie leader, where the vast majority of my girls' parents get some kind of state assistance. My mum works in a welfare-type role in the community. I have volunteered with the Breakfast in Schools Programme (and am good friends with the person who pushes it in Porirua), I have volunteered with the Books in Schools Programme. I am interested in welfare generally, and have done both law and policy papers on welfare. I have been active politically in welfare reform.

I know that a huge proportion of New Zealanders receive some kind of state welfare or assistance. I know that the vast majority of them do so without ever abusing the system. I know that for some people, a stigma attaches to being a beneficiary. I also know that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world where we have third generation beneficiaries (and unconfirmed, but apparently, at least 10 forth generation families have been established by the BRC) . And by that, I don't mean there are three generations of families who have, at some time received some sort of benefit, or a Community Services Card or Accommodation Supplement. I mean families where the grandparents are on SB/UB and have raised their children on it. The parents have raised their children on beneficiaries, and these children have grown up to be dependent on the state. How is this okay? Can anyone argue that this is okay?

Yes - the majority of beneficiaries are good people caught in a bad situation. But surely, one beneficiary (if only it was just one!) who spends their UB on alcohol and cigarettes instead of food and clothes for their children is one too many. I believe there should be some sort of shame attached to being solely reliant on a benefit. I don’t think that the shame should come from the rest of society – lots of people need a hand up in their lives, and we shouldn’t make them feel bad about it. However, people should strive to do better for themselves and their children – like the majority of those on the benefit DO.

Most beneficiaries have to rely on state assistance for a relatively short time, and once they get their hand up, are perfectly capable of fending for themselves. I don’t think we should take away from these people or make it hard for them; I really don’t. But I think there is a huge difference between a ‘hand up’ and a ‘hand out’, and the one we need to be cutting down on are ‘hand outs’. It’s not actually a right to receive a benefit – it’s something that in many other countries in the world, you would not be entitled to. It is something that we should respect and earn.

So what do we do?

First, I think that it should be mandatory for people to accept a job they are offered while on a benefit (so long as they have the skills to do the job and it is reasonable to expect them to do it i.e. meets the minimum wage, commuting issues etc). I know the standard for state houses is that you can reject 2 houses, and must take the third or you get dropped down the waiting list. A similar system would be helpful for UB.

I think there should be a time limit of being on the benefit. I know this is a hugely controversial issue, but I really think that it’s not okay it claim the UB for 35 years – SURELY in 35 years, even with no skills, you can find SOME job, or at the very least, get into some of the many free, community based education programs to upskill. I don’t like the idea of having a set time for everyone and every benefit – obviously 5 years for a person on the UB is totally different to 5 years for someone on the SB. However, I do think that all benefits should be strictly audited every 6 months. Yes, it is going to take time and money, however, it’s important that we are helping to push these people forward and move them to a better place.

Any money you get from a benefit should not be able to be spent on alcohol, cigarettes or gambling, or luxury items like ice cream and candy. We already have purchase cards (like debit plus cards with a pre-loaded amount of money on them). You should be able to use them as you do now, in the normal supermarket line – but they should decline if there is any ‘forbidden’ things in the trolley – like cigarettes. All purchases should have to be made off this card (rent, power, food), and the beneficiary should also receive a small amount of cash for use for discretionary items like alcohol. Things like bus fares should also be paid out in cash (but accounted for).

I think this idea is better than the hassle/shame of using literal food stamps, and giving beneficiaries some cash is a good way to help them learn to save and budget. If they want to have a party, that’s fine – but they need to save/budget their cash until they have enough to purchase what they want. This is a good way to ensure that parents are buying food for their children rather than spending it at the TAB. This wouldn’t affect people who were already doing the best for their children either, as they would already purchasing for their kids first.

Education is a huge part of getting people to a place where they can be financially responsible. This goes not only for beneficiaries, but generally in society. ‘Money sense’ should be taught from a young age in schools. Children need to learn the value of things. I shit you not, a friend of my moved out of home and called me about 2 weeks later asking why her lights didn’t work.

It turned out that she had no idea you actually have to pay for power, she just assumed it came with the house. These are basic life skills that parents should be teaching their children, but sadly, don’t always. Kids need to know about credit cards and HPs and bank loans and mortgages. Until I was 4th year at university and incidentally learned it through a class, I had no idea what a mortgage really was – and my parents did teach me about money. Unless we know the value of a dollar and basic life skills like saving and earning money, we will never be able to help stop the cycle of poor financial skills.

Welfare fraud isn’t as common as it’s made out – it really isn’t. But when it happens, we should throw the book at these people. They are stealing from you and me, they are stealing from the country, and we should not stand for that for a second. We need to set high standards and expectations – receiving welfare isn’t a right, it’s a privilege, and it’s something that we shouldn’t take for granted.

We need to look after our children, and we need to demand that others do so too. Like Amy said, children can’t learn without food in their tummies, and if they can’t learn, the cycle will continue.