ACT Solutions Needed Urgently - Brash
A new report showing just over half of the 200,000 New Zealand children living below the poverty line are Maori and Pacific Islanders is a further vindication of ACT policies and pointer to how urgently they are needed, says ACT New Zealand leader Dr Don Brash.
The report, commissioned by a coalition of child advocacy organisations called Every Child Counts, has found that ''a combination of high dependency on welfare benefits, high rates of single parenthood, and a concentration of workers in the manufacturing industries keep Maori and Pasifika families trapped in poverty."
"ACT has been saying since its inception that welfare dependency, particularly dependency on the sole parent benefit, creates a poverty trap that has ensnared Maori and Pacific Islanders in disproportionately high numbers," says Dr Brash.
"The solution, however, is not more of the same policies that created the problem.
It is not, as the Greens have already demanded in their knee-jerk response to the report, higher benefits and a higher minimum wage.
"Nor is it, as report co-author Hone Kaa has demanded, a shift away from what he calls 'a Pakeha approach'—whatever that might be—to the problem of a 'brown underclass.'
"Poverty is no respecter of race. Nor are its cures. There are approaches that work and approaches that don't.
"Another one that won't work is a government task force, such as Dr Kaa is also seeking, likely to be stacked with politically correct lobbyists with a separatist agenda.
"The government must press ahead with its overhaul of our welfare system, not just to get more beneficiaries into work or training, but with a view to uprooting the very culture of dependency whose disastrous results for children this report so tragically highlights.
"It ought also to reinstate youth rates and thus pave the way into work for thousands of youngsters currently condemned to the dole because employers can't afford to take them on.
"I don't want to see an underclass of any colour. I don't want to see any children of any race living below the poverty line. With that in mind I'll be delivering a major speech on the entire subject of welfare reform in the near future," Dr Brash concludes.
ENDS
A Time for Choice
Click here for a downloadable copy of this speech.
Keynote address to the ACT Upper South 2011 Regional Conference
14 August 2011
On November 26 this year, New Zealanders face a choice.
That choice is often couched as “left” or “right.”
The ACT Party and I are often portrayed, by those who don't like us, as "far right."
Allegedly, we'd find Attila the Hun collegial company.
This of course is a shabby smear of a party that stands for individual freedom, by those who don't.
And in fact, as Ronald Reagan once famously observed, the choice today is not so much between left and right as between up and down; between a future … and no future worth speaking of.
America faces that choice again now. So do we. And it was never so stark.
In essence we can move up to a future where we have choice ... or down to a black hole where we don't.
Up to a future where the state exists for people … or down to a black hole where people exist for the state, as depicted in such frighteningly realistic novels as George Orwell’s 1984.
Up to a future unshackled by Big Government … or down to a black hole where communism and fascism have won politically what was denied them militarily: the subjugation of individual citizens to Big Brother.
Up to a future where enterprising New Zealanders are free to prosper by their own efforts … or down to a black hole where prosperity is something we're supposed to be ashamed of.
Up to a future where tall poppies flourish … or down to a black hole of Tall Poppy Syndrome, triumphant.
Up to a future where governments spend responsibly … or down to a black hole where we and our children are lumbered with involuntary debts foisted on us by governments borrowing recklessly to finance their bribes.
Up to a future where industrious New Zealanders are free to keep most of the money they earn, to spend (or save) as they choose, or down to a black hole of ... Phil Goffism: "If it moves, tax it. If it doesn’t move, pass a law to make it move. And then tax it."
Up to a future where people are free to do as they please on their own property provided it doesn’t damage the property of others … or down to a black hole where little Hitlers tell you what colour you may paint your house.
Up to a future where Kiwi kids come out of school fully able to read and write and equipped with all the skills needed to flourish in an open economy … or down to a black hole where too many teachers are themselves ill-equipped to teach.
Up to a future where all children are born because they are wanted … or down to a black hole where breeding unwanted children is a taxpayer-funded meal ticket.
Up to a future where all New Zealanders are genuinely equal before the law … or down to a black hole of racial separatism, where people have special statutory status based not on the content of their character but on the colour of their skin.
Up to a future where New Zealanders are free to air their differences in robust and fearless debate … or down to a black hole where free speech has been shut down by the stifling constraints of political correctness.
Ladies and gentlemen, this last is the most ominous threat from those who would take us on the downward path to a black hole. (Let's call them "Downers." If that makes the rest of us “Uppers” … well, I can assure you it’s an entirely legal high!)
By an insidious process of attrition, the Downers have achieved a double-whammy in recent years. By dumbing down education and the media, they've trivialised political debate to the point where it’s no longer a contest of ideas but a quest to establish which politician is the most "cool." That leaves the Downers free to get on with their agenda. That’s one whammy.
Then, if someone does rise above the mush and say something meaningful and challenging, he or she gets chopped down for being "polarising." That’s the other whammy. Polarising!? For Heaven's sake! Isn't the whole idea of having political parties that they put forward differing ideas – even radically differing ideas – and fight them out? That they set out precisely to polarise? That we take it in our stride as intelligent adults and choose among our competing suitors?!
Salman Rushdie, himself the object of an ayatollah’s fatwa, pointed out that freedom of speech is nothing without the right to cause offence. Of course, this is not to say we should go round causing offence all the time; just that being offended is not a licence to censor.
I urge you to immerse yourselves in the spirit of Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it."
I'd also commend to your attention Section 14 of our own Bill of Rights, which says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."
That includes my right to say separatism is wrong, even if supporters of separatism are offended by my saying so! Let me say in passing I shall go right on saying it whether it causes offence or not. But I shall also defend to the death the right of separatists to disagree with me. May we please just have the debate without all the infantile umbrage, without people trying to close it down by whining that they’ve been offended?!
The right to impart opinions of any kind in any form even includes the right to say women are less productive because of their periods. The statement might be wrong, and the hapless Mr Thompson produced not a shred of evidence for it, but one shouldn't be able to be so readily destroyed by the Ayatollahs of Screech for expressing an opinion that is wrong. Voters should ask themselves what has happened to us as a society when such lynch-mobbery can prevail by sheer decibel power.
In this regard, I was reassured by news that several businesses had pulled out of the Employers and Manufacturers Association not because of Mr Thompson's comments but because of his dismissal for them. Of course the EMA had the absolute right to dismiss Mr Thompson – don’t get me wrong about that – but it augurs very badly for a future of "up" if it did so less out of genuine conviction that Mr Thompson's comments were wrong and reprehensible, than out of fear of the Ayatollahs of Screech.
I could, and shall, make similar comments about Lord Monckton's recent visit here. His Lordship is a distinguished critic of the view that climate change is man-made. He thinks we're being had by the Global Warmers, and produces powerful arguments to that effect. Astoundingly, almost no one in New Zealand was prepared to front up to him! The Greens initially agreed to debate with him on TVNZ's Q&A programme. Then they pulled out, prompting me to comment that the Greens had turned yellow. Being unable to find anyone who would debate Lord Monckton, Q&A itself pulled out, apparently not confident that its interviewers were up to the task of playing devil's advocate with someone they already disagreed with. Same deal on Close-Up.
In other words, one of the key figures in the debate on one of the pivotal issues of our time came to New Zealand … and was ignored by our main television network! Again, it's their prerogative, but it bodes ill that the state-owned channel is so beholden to politically correct theology. I congratulate TV3’s The Nation, and Leighton Smith’s programme on Newstalk ZB, for showing that, once again, it takes private enterprise to do the job.
Actually, freedom of speech should be indelibly etched into our DNA via the Treaty of Waitangi. Freedom of speech is foremost among the "rights and privileges of British subjects" bestowed on all New Zealanders by the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century, the British prided themselves on valuing eccentricity over conformity, on untramelled freedom of speech. Thousands of New Zealanders went on to give their lives for this freedom. We should rage, rage and rage again against anything which threatens its demise.
What else, then? What else does ACT New Zealand say is necessary for a Future of Up?
Since this is a speech about the basic principles which alone can secure such a future, I can do no better than quote from ours:
The […]Party seeks a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.
We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values:
• Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
Oh, wait! That doesn't seem to be the one. It sounds like us, but ...
Ah! In fact it's the National Party's statement of principles! No wonder I had something to do with the National Party at some point! It's an excellent statement of principles. I absolutely endorse those principles. The problem is, the National Party itself too often ignores them.
A government whose spending is 36% of GDP, higher than at any time during the Clark/Cullen Government, can scarcely be called "limited."
A government that continues to tax at punitive levels can hardly be said to be promoting competitive enterprise and rewarding achievement.
A government that is contemplating forcing us into KiwiSaver can hardly be said to be upholding personal responsibility.
A government that denies young people the right to work at youth rates can hardly be said to be upholding individual freedom and choice. Nor can a government that forces parents to send their children to the local school, even if it is poorly performing, or is single sex when parents would’ve preferred co-ed, or vice versa.
A government that appears to have no intention of honouring its promise to scrap the Maori seats and that tolerates the continuation of other race-based statutory privileges can hardly be said to be promoting equal citizenship.
And so on. You get the picture.
Of course, ACT's statement of principles is very similar to National's. And we actually mean them.
We start from the classical liberal premise that individuals own their own lives; government doesn’t. Self-ownership means individuals have certain inherent rights and responsibilities; government's role is to protect those rights … and not assume those responsibilities.
Now, since this proposition bucks the statism inculcated by stealth in our schools and other institutions over generations, it's not possible to achieve a society that conforms fully to it overnight. But the upward path is one that goes in that direction: individual freedom and responsibility, limited government. ACT is wholly committed to that upward path.
Over the next few weeks, I'll be outlining policies that will help get us on it. In fact, I’m happy to announce some of them right now:
* We'd make serious inroads into government spending, so that we don’t have to keep borrowing $300 million a week, and can reduce and flatten personal and company taxes.
* We'd scrap the ETS. Whatever you believe about the human influence on the climate, why should New Zealanders be lumbered with an all-sectors, all gases, tax on greenhouse gases when none of our major trading partners is?
* We'd make sure schools were places of learning, not social engineering. Learning would include the basics, including grammar, spelling and punctuation. Parents would be given vouchers with which they could choose which school, state or private, they sent their children to.
* We'd radically reform the welfare system so as to provide a simple, sensible and secure safety net for those in genuine need, but not a hammock for those who could support themselves. We'd change the rules around the DPB, to avoid its being used as a lifestyle choice by under-educated young women to their own enormous detriment, and the detriment of thousands of children born unwanted, often to be abused and even killed. That cannot go on!
* We'd abolish the Maori seats in Parliament and get rid of all other forms of race-based statutory privilege. All New Zealanders would have the equal rights guaranteed by Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi.
* We'd overhaul the RMA so that the current presumption that property owners must seek permission to do anything on their own land was reversed.
* We'd amend the Bill of Rights to include property rights. This is an old idea whose time has certainly come.
* We'd restore Youth Rates, and the 12,000 jobs that have been denied youngsters by their absence.
This list is not exhaustive. It is indicative of the approach ACT New Zealand takes toward the parlous situation confronting the country. We opt for freedom rather than coercion. We treat causes rather than symptoms. We know that, at this critical juncture in our nation’s history, boldness rather than timidity is needed.
We already have some significant runs on the board from our time in partnership with our National Party colleagues: Three Strikes, slightly more business-friendly employment law, the 2025 Taskforce, the Productivity Commission, nudging the Government toward liberalising ACC, regulatory reform, and so on. But there is much more to be done, and the need is urgent.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am passionately ambitious for our country. I don't want to see it simply catch Australia; I want it to give Australia the same trouncing it does on the rugby field! I don’t want it to be a place where our children come to visit from time to time, but a place where they choose to live because here they can get rewarding job opportunities, a world-class education for their children and a safe environment.
Once, we were such a place, with policies that rewarded the pioneering initiative for which we are rightly renowned. We can be so again. Free people are unstoppable. Together we can restore Paradise.
Down with Down. Let’s choose … Up!
Bribing Politicians' Chickens Come Home To Roost - Brash
ACT New Zealand leader Dr Don Brash says an article on today's Stuff.co.nz headed "Pre-teens dream of kids and dole" is an indictment of the entitlement mentality and generations of politicians who have created and pandered to it.
The article, by Imogen Neale, begins, "Lots of babies, lots of partners, lots of houses and lots of benefits. Welcome to the career dream of young boys already failing in the education system."
It goes on to describe how Alison Sutherland, who works in Wairarapa schools with children who have behavioural problems, says many of the boys she deals with – who haven't even reached their teenage years – can only see being the father of children and living with their mothers ahead.
Ms Sutherland says youngsters opt out of education and employment "because they see babies as a source of income." She adds they have a "complete lack of understanding of what being a good parent might entail."
In many cases they're just emulating what they see at home: "They live with mum, who often has a number of children and boyfriends. Their reality is that the men in their lives live off mum, so they say, `Why would I get a job? I don't need one, I'll be like whoever the chap is who is living with mum at the moment'."
"ACT has long argued that the present welfare system makes precisely these sorts of outcomes inevitable," says Dr Brash.
"We would end this immoral arrangement whereby youngsters unfit to be parents are effectively bribed by vote-seeking politicians to have babies for their cash value: babies whom in many cases they go on to abuse and kill.
"It saddens me as a politician to say it, but In this sense, politicians have been the worst child-abusers of all for decades now.
"At the upcoming election my party will be proposing education and welfare policies that would end this iniquitous, inhuman racket as soon as possible," Dr Brash concludes.
ENDS
Use Delay To Repel Prohibitionism
News that the Government’s alcohol reforms may not pass before the election should be celebrated rather than lamented, says ACT New Zealand Youth Affairs Spokesman Hon Heather Roy.
The select committee considering the reforms says it needs more time.
“There’s been a lot of grandstanding among the other parties, whose default position is one of authoritarian, Big-Brother-knows-best kill-joy-ism,” Mrs Roy observes. “The fact that there’s a clamour from the usual suspects for more laws, more restrictions and higher prices doesn’t mean the select committee should succumb to that clamour.
“Recent tragedies do not justify prohibitionist knee-jerking. The proposed changes, had they been in effect, would not have prevented these heart-breaking events.
“I for one will be voting against splitting the alcohol-buying age between 18 for bars and 20 for off-licences if that survives the select committee’s deliberations. It is insulting and absurd to tell 18-year-olds they can be trusted to vote but not to purchase alcohol from supermarkets.
“ACT stands for individual freedom, whose flip-side is personal responsibility. It is the inculcation of that ethic into the culture, rather than the heavy hand of government, that will enable us to better counter the problem of irresponsible drinking. I hope, in its extended deliberations, the select committee takes that into account,” Mrs Roy concludes.
ENDS
Children’s Ministry Just Election-Year Gimmick
Labour’s proposal to set up a Children’s Ministry and disband the Families Commission is little more than election-year window dressing and will do nothing to curb New Zealand’s appalling rates of child abuse and neglect, ACT New Zealand Welfare Spokesman Hon Heather Roy said today.
“Labour MPs still seem to think that the solution to the world’s problems is to set up more Government departments and employ more bureaucrats; they are deluded if they think this will solve anything,” Mrs Roy said.
“New Zealand already has a small army of Ministers and departments to deal with child welfare; the Ministry of Social Development, the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission and the Ministry of Youth Development, and yet too many of our vulnerable children are still subject to terrible abuse and poverty.
“The Families Commission was set up by Labour to keep Peter Dunne happy, it was window dressing then and it is window dressing now. All Labour is suggesting is changing the window display.
“It is ridiculous to think the government can fulfil the role of mothers and fathers; we have families to protect children and the Government should only get involved when things go badly wrong.
“ACT has long called for assistance to be targeted where it is needed most by appointing mentors to teach parenting and life skills to families who are most at risk. Instead of diverting more money to bureaucrats in Wellington the Government must direct funding to the front line and tackle child abuse head on,” Mrs Roy said.
ENDS
The Social Cost Of Economic Failure
Hon Heather Roy Speech to ACT Annual Conference; Barrycourt Accommodation and Event Centre, Parnell, Auckland, Saturday, March 12 2011.
Ladies and Gentlemen
On Tuesday this week Rikki Ngatai-Check was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17 year non-parole period for murdering a toddler in his care. He kicked 2 year old Karl Perigo-Check to death.
This brings to 59, since February 1998, the number of children who have been killed by people close to them.
The figure is a conservative one as it does not include those for which there was no conclusion in the investigative or Court process. As an example- the Kahui twins did not figure in the list compiled for me by the Parliamentary library as no-one has been convicted of their killings.
Hundreds more children have been injured and an inestimable number continue to live in situations where they are subjected to psychological or physical abuse. The social cost of this is seen in statistics across almost every sector. Yet still, successive governments have spent increasing amounts of money, largely for ‘ambulances at the bottom of the cliff’.
After a particularly horrifying series of child murders the Helen Clark led Labour government convened a cross-party working group to look at the issues, but it achieved nothing. It sounds good, assumes everyone will agree to a course of decisive action but in reality a multi-party group just diffuses responsibility. Any suggestion that the dependence mentality created by welfare is a contributing factor is dismissed out of hand.
Another working group was convened by the current government - the Welfare Working Group. It was a panel appointed by Cabinet to investigate aspects of New Zealand’s welfare system and the group reported back on February 22nd.
This was the same day as the Christchurch Earthquake, so the Welfare report was understandably lost but is beginning to be talked about now. It is at times like this that a well-functioning welfare system is most needed.
The earthquake’s devastation, loss of life and injuries commanded attention. It has brought out the best in many and I spent a day with the Farmy Army shovelling silt with others from around the country.
Kiwis are generous and compassionate in times of tragedy and hardship. People’s reaction to the earthquake highlights New Zealander’s sentiments towards other kiwis undergoing hard times.
Our largest step towards the welfare state in the period of the depression years led to Michael Joseph Savage’s welfare system. Savage was a popular Prime Minister because he offered people hope. He himself said he wanted to “let people govern themselves”. His 1938 Social Security act introduced a free health system for all and put in place comprehensive welfare benefits.
His architecture has been added to by successive Labour and National governments. However, some of the consequences could not have been anticipated by Savage. The product of the welfare state we see today is a mix of those who use a benefit for short-term assistance right through to those for whom welfare has become a life-style. The introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in 1973, ACC in 1974 and the 1977 National Superannuation added hugely to the cost of welfare so that now New Zealand has a welfare state that is unsustainable, both financially and socially. Few New Zealanders have a problem with the welfare system being used as a short term hand-up in times of need but most object to welfare as a lifestyle. Not only is this is bad for the country it is also bad for the families involved.
As the Welfare Working Group pointed out “the unintended consequences of unconditional benefits have been intergenerational welfare dependency, high rates of poverty, poor child outcomes and poor physical and mental health”.
Today 13 percent of the adult population is receiving a benefit compared with 2 percent in 1960.
Approximately one in five kiwi children live in a benefit-dependent household. For every six workers one person is on a benefit.
There are many worthwhile initiatives being pursued or developed that aim to improve the lot of our young people. However, it doesn’t matter whether we are discussing health, welfare, education or any other policy area that impacts on our young people, the fact is that there are only three sources to fund these: each of us personally, all of us (government) or someone else (charity). Consequently, the entire process is an exercise in rationing and this frequently becomes a game for decision-makers of ‘picking winners’. This is no way to pursue social development.
The Welfare Working Group says it has taken an “expansive and fundamental review of New Zealand’s welfare system”. It looked at a guaranteed minimum income and social insurance but said that the large costs and transactional problems made them untenable. Their conclusion was to continue with a social assistance approach but with significant reform.
The group recommended to government that it establish a new single work-focussed welfare payment (called Jobseeker Support) to replace all current benefits and establish a new delivery agency responsible for the implementation of Jobseeker Support. In all the report makes 43 recommendations under 8 key reform themes.
The report makes some sound recommendations around reducing welfare dependency. The focus is on moving people from welfare into work but just moving numbers around won’t work. A really expansive and fundamental review would have looked more broadly – private employment insurance would have been considered alongside re-instating youth rates and the impact of a rising minimum wage on those who struggle to get work. It would also have spent much more time looking at the interaction of tax and welfare policies.
Andrew Gawith, director of Gareth Morgan Investments commented this week that “An ideal for any welfare system is to provide income support without reducing the financial rewards from working and having tax policies which effectively apply to all types of income”.
A recent UK report (the Mirrlees Review) highlights lessons we could learn. The report’s authors outlined that an ideal welfare system is one which fully integrates tax and welfare benefits. They pointed out that a flat income tax combined with a universal minimum income paid to every citizen would achieve the elusive solution. This approach improves the incentives to work compared with the current system and is more constructive than the hit it with a stick approach of moving long-term beneficiaries into work.
It’s time this option was investigated more thoroughly – the country desperately needs some inspirational policy.
The only way that we can comprehensively address social needs is to improve economic performance. When everyone that can work is employed; when Governments consistently create and sustain surpluses; and when the private sector is growing and profitable; only then will the amelioration of Kiwis’ social needs be realized.
Increasing economic performance comes down to having more people and/or plant. A limited number of people can only produce so much and even after the barriers to performance are lowered, their output is still self-limiting. Our best and brightest are still leaving our shores and are replaced via immigration. The inevitable side-effect is the need for time to re-establish social cohesion.
The other way to produce more is to be able to move, transform, assemble and replicate products, put simply to use our existing resources more efficiently. New Zealand is light on plant and machinery and there is little incentive and even less capital to grow this. Our infrastructure is out dated and lacks capacity for large-scale growth. In short, we have a ‘chicken and egg’ economic development model and unless this cycle is broken by fundamental reform of both supply, GDP and our tax base, and demand, for social services paid for by Government, the outlook for our future – and therefore for our children cannot be any better than ‘more of the same’.
The ACT Party has debated, nudged and proclaimed for as long as I can remember that the economy needs radical change. The reality is that the current variation on Labour’s ‘borrow, spend and hope’ policies will not move our economy towards sustained growth.
In election year, it is more important than ever that we make clear to voters that the consequences of failing to reform our economy includes a legacy for our children and grandchildren of societal dysfunction. Our campaign must be fresh, new and hard-hitting. As Mahatma Gandhi wisely said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
ENDS
Hon Heather Roy response to the Prime Minister's Statement
Hon Heather Roy response to the Prime Minister’s Statement; Parliament; Wednesday, February 9 2011
Welfare reform is something the ACT Party has spoken passionately about since its inception. I congratulate John Key on his speech yesterday for his focus and for his words on welfare reform. He said that a Government is judged by how it cares for the sick and vulnerable. That is too true. He said that 200,000 children are trapped in welfare homes. That is 200,000 children too many. He said that those who can work should work—and he is right.
But it is easy—very easy, in fact—to stand up in this Chamber and say these things, and much harder to do the real work and to act. I was very disappointed, I have to say, in the Hon Annette King’s address. She decided to spend 10 minutes attacking Mr Key for what he said yesterday, yet whenever she is given the opportunity she talks about the wonderful policy work she is doing in the area of welfare reform. Well, where was the talk of that in her speech? She had 10 minutes to positively put forward what she wants to do for the vulnerable in our society. The truth of the matter is that in 9 long years in Government, Labour did not manage to get on top of this issue.
Here is the situation: in 1970 we had 37 workers for every person on a benefit. By 2000 there were five workers supporting every person on a benefit. In December 2010 the ratio was 6:1. Under the current Government at least things have improved slightly, but this is a shameful position for a country to be in. We have 2.2 million people employed in this country, but 353,000 people are on welfare benefits—a ratio of 6:1. Welfare dependency amongst working-age New Zealanders is reaching unsustainable levels financially and it has done huge damage to this country socially.
Far from reducing the number of people on welfare, subsequent welfare policies from National and Labour Governments have taken the opposite path. Their policies have increased the number. We have just had notice of an increase in the minimum wage; both National and Labour Governments must take responsibility for this. National has steadfastly refused to reinstate youth rates. These initiatives push people out of work and on to welfare. National has also entrenched middle-class welfare by refusing to alter the Working for Families policies, which make more people than ever dependent on the State.
The Welfare Working Group has put forward some very sound proposals. There are a lot of them. Some of the proposals are excellent and are things that the ACT Party has proposed for a long time. Some are considered to be a tough love approach. That may well be the case, but it is time that we got tough. It is time that we had the courage to do the things that will make a difference. This might mean lifting the age at which a young woman can get the domestic purposes benefit. It might mean having time limits for benefits. These things might be tough, but they put the incentives in the right place and allow people to take ownership of their lives. These are the decisions that we have to make.
When we talk about what is tough—and again I congratulate the Prime Minister on focusing on this issue in his speech yesterday—it is too tough to stomach the environment in which far too many of our precious young children live in, where they are abused and in some cases—too many—are killed. The Lillybings, the James Whakarurus, the Nia Glassies. Welfare dependency has created an environment where the abusive relationships, the suffering that these small children have experienced, means we have a society that none of us in this House should be comfortable with.
ACT is the only party committed to true welfare reform and we will push the Government as far as we can in terms of getting the incentives right. There are many things we could do to send the right signals. We could be purchasing our own accident and unemployment insurance, which would put the emphasis, the incenvives, in the right place. We need to get the economy in a position where it can support the truly vulnerable, where welfare functions as a safety net not a hammock that is so distended that we cannot tell the truly vulnerable from those who would like to climb out and get on on their own.
Michael Joseph Savage would turn in his grave if he could see how successive governments have trapped ever increasing numbers of New Zealanders on Welfare. He was popular, because he offered people hope. He said “let people govern themselves”, and when we think about welfare reform, that should be foremost in our minds.
ENDS
New Zealand Welfare System Unsustainable
Welfare dependency amongst working age New Zealanders is reaching unsustainable levels, and the rising rate of unemployment is set to make it even worse, ACT New Zealand Finance Spokesman Sir Roger Douglas said today.
“At present there are 353,000 working age people on some form of welfare benefit. Combine this figure with those receiving Working for Families and superannuation, and that number jumps to 1.3 million – that's 1.3 million New Zealanders receiving support from the 2.2 million New Zealanders working to pay for it,” Sir Roger said.
“Far from reducing the number of people on welfare National has taken the opposite path: increasing the minimum wage and not reinstating youth rates – pushing people out of work and on to welfare – and entrenching middle class welfare by refusing to alter Working for Families.
“The people who suffer most from excessive welfare are beneficiaries – rather than working, and being self-sufficient, they are robbed of their dignity by being forced to live at a subsistence level.
“Having so many people on a benefit also hits taxpayers with two costs. Not only must the country pay the actual cost of the benefit, but it foregoes tax revenue from those who are not working – revenue that can only be made up by taxing workers at even higher levels than they already face.
“The spiralling number of working age people on a benefit is one of the reasons that New Zealand is falling further into debt and remains so poor in relation to the rest of the developed world. Only ACT is committed to welfare reform; we will give people the opportunity to purchase their own unemployment and accident insurance and ensure that welfare functions only as a safety net, not a safety blanket,” Sir Roger said.
ENDS
Heather Roy's Diary
Let Them Know It’s Christmas Time
Christmas is upon us. You just need to take a walk down Lambton Quay, Queen, George or Colombo Streets to witness the same festive spirit. This morning some carollers were singing one of my favourites as I passed on my way to Parliament.
“Feliz Navidad, Feliz Navidad - Prospero Año y Felicidad” rang out loudly.
This duet outdid the lofty standard we have come to expect from kiwi artists; it was a truly angelic harmony. When I turned to look for its source, I was faced with an entirely different reality. A young man and a young woman - brother and sister I think - neither much more than 18. Both looked like a roast turkey dinner would do them good. To the side a small cardboard cut-out read “Homeless – Anything Helps” and a welt grew in my chest.
The few minutes I stood and listened were bitter-sweet. I was proud to be a kiwi as six others extended a charitable hand; I was saddened that in 2010 so many are still marginalised. I truly believe we are much closer to the people we could be, the people we aspire to be, during the holiday season. A heightened sense of empathy and community forms the foundation of a better New Zealand. Over this Christmas season hundreds, if not thousands, of Kiwi’s all over the country will give generously of their time. When I see the kindness of these men, women and, children a different type of welt grows in my chest.
It is problematic however that so much store is put on fixing things with legislation. Our law today is so complex, more complex than New Zealand has ever known. We see this in legislation aimed at helping those that have fallen on hard times. Section 69-F-A of the Social Security Act sets ‘financial means assessment for home-based disability support services’. This section was amended 16 times in the eight years between 1997 and 2005.
Unfortunately it is not an exceptional case. Coming to grips with the many and varied ways that we legislate to try and fix problems such as poverty, homelessness and inequality is a full time job. All too often we see that continuous expansion and stretching of the safety net trapping, rather than helping, the disadvantaged.
When we observe the elderly, the young, and the roughed up, Kiwi’s respond without hesitation. We help. We give selflessly. It is amongst the primary things that humbles me about our nation and people. But we need to stop and take a moment to ask ourselves as a nation how we allow those in trouble to rise up. Our current efforts are of virtuous intent but they are evidently not working.
It is often said that even if we were to round up all the economists in the world and tie them end to end, they wouldn’t reach a conclusion. There is some truth in this. One thing that economists do agree on though is the power of incentives. This holds in regard to New Zealand’s income curve - as it changes so does each Kiwi’s inclination toward their place on it. When the government overreaches its role in society it needs to fund it. That money comes from us, the taxpayer. When government takes more money from its citizens, the majority do not change their behaviour but there are two important groups that do respond to incentives particular to them: the wealthy and the financially strained.
When the incentives are wrong two things happen. Wealth either moves from, or is never created on, our shores and a greater number of people receive a government benefit. The end result is that more people require government assistance to live while fewer provide the government with its income. When the remaining workforce is pressed on, the cycle perpetuates itself. As an example the invalids benefit rate has increased 70 percent over the last decade, a period in which our population increased 12 percent.
Over the last half century the proportion of working age people on a benefit has increased almost seven-fold. Today about one in five Kiwi kids live in a benefit-dependent home. Dependence necessarily strips us of our independence. Exclusion from the workforce can be highly disenchanting and de-motivating. In our haste to support we can hurt those we are trying to help. For decades New Zealand’s politicians have promised to close the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. This Christmas I would sleep a lot better just knowing that we were working towards a nation of ‘haves’.
There will always be those who cannot provide for themselves. There will always be those who need a hand up from hard times. The government alongside the wider community has a limited role to play in supporting them but shouldn’t forget that people can and do overcome adversity with a hand up rather than a hand out. Too many, for too long, have borne the burden of misdirected solutions of governments from across the political spectrum. It’s time we stop and think: How best can we make 2011 a prosperous and happy New Year for all?
Lest We Forget
The funeral service yesterday of Private Jack Howard, a Kiwi soldier killed while serving with the British paratroopers in Afghanistan is a timely reminder of the dangerous environments our deployed kiwi troops are working in this Christmas. Far from their homes, their families and friends I send my best wishes to those on duty this Christmas while they work towards a more secure, safe and free world. Best wishes also to their families – ‘They also serve who sit at home and wait’.
Heather Roy's Diary
A Glimmer of Hope for Welfare Reform
I often wonder what Michael Joseph Savage would have to say about the welfare state if he was to stumble across it today. Labour's first Prime Minister, socialist to his core, union man and architect of the 'Welfare State', I find it hard to believe that he ever envisaged what the welfare state has become today. Would he have been content to have large numbers of working age New Zealanders on benefit income for long periods? I doubt it very much.
Savage was popular because he offered people hope. He himself said he wanted to "let people govern themselves". His 1938 Social Security Act introduced a free health system for all and put in place comprehensive welfare benefits.
Savage was of course from a very different time. Kiwis then had had the depression and two World Wars to contend with and Savage's intention was to help people to be able to help themselves.
His architecture has been added to by successive Labour and National governments. The product of the welfare state we see today is a mix of those who use a benefit for short-term assistance right through to those for whom welfare has become a way of life. The introduction of the DPB (Domestic Purposes Benefit) in 1973, ACC in 1974 and the 1977 National Superannuation added hugely to the cost of welfare so that now New Zealand has a welfare state that is unsustainable, both financially and socially.
ACT has long championed meaningful welfare reform and we were pleased to support the establishment of the Welfare Working Group (WWG), chaired by Paula Rebstock, in April this year. In August the group released an issues paper that expressed concern at the large numbers dependent on a benefit for long periods. As at June 2009 about 170,000 kiwis have been on a benefit for more than five out of the previous ten years. The WWG noted then that "The resulting unintended consequences have been intergenerational benefit receipt, high rates of poverty, poor child outcomes and poor physical and mental health".
There is nothing new in this. Welfare reform has been talked about at each election I have been involved in (since 1996) and debated by political groups and social agencies with various solutions postulated in an ad hoc way for all this time. It is pleasing to see the commitment of government to focussing on these issues by convening the WWG and even more encouraging this week to seeing the launch of the WWG Discussion Document - Reducing Long-Term Benefit Dependency, The Options.
The 125 page document is a comprehensive picture of the current state of welfare and proposes a raft of options that could be put in place to deliver improved outcomes for beneficiaries, their families and communities and the taxpayer. Chair of the WWG Paula Rebstock says "Fundamentally, we are asking New Zealanders to consider whether it is time for major change in the way we think about and deliver welfare".
Options range from the status quo through to what will be perceived by some as radical tough-love type proposals. There will inevitably be criticism by some that there is too much on the table, but having now been in the position of putting discussion documents together it is much better to have all options discussed in a healthy debate.
Some of the options that ACT has promoted and that I'm personally keen to see progressed are the expectation that most beneficiaries will be required to actively seek work, time limits for benefits, intensive case management for those most at risk of long-term benefit dependence and scrapping the complex system of grants and supplements and establishing one benefit payment.
Also put forward as options are a number of "carrots" or incentives such as moving people with part-time work from the benefit system to the tax system by having an in-work tax credit, increasing the financial incentives for people working part-time to work more hours by having a higher deduction rate when they earn less or increase the deduction rate for people with no work expectation.
Although "carrots" can be costly the emphasis is in an investment approach with up-front spending ultimately saving billions in future welfare bills.
I was particularly pleased to see proposals of cross-agency collaboration. For too long government departments have operated as silos because it is convenient for them to do so. Jealously guarding their 'pots of gold' rather than putting people as the central focus will never solve the social issues we face as a nation.
Welfare, education and health - alongside other agencies such as ACC and Disability - are inextricably linked and it is frequently the same individuals and families that are known to each. Case management plans involving discussions with all relevant organisations are the way forward. The impetus for this though rests I believe with the political will of Ministers to co-operate and lead by example.
The WWG is calling for public submissions by 24 December and will report their recommendations to government by the end of February 2011. Let's hope that they will be courageous in tackling the very real issues of welfare dependence head on. Welfare was always meant to be a hand-up, not a hand-out. Michael Joseph Savage was right in wanting to "let people govern themselves" and to give kiwis hope. Some things never change.
If you are interested in the options put forward by the WWG the Options Paper can be found here: http://ips.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Index.html
Lest We Forget - Mining Tragedies
It has been a week-long tragedy for New Zealand as we have mourned the loss of 29 men at the Pike River Mine. We take for granted the dangers that miners put themselves in every day, and today it is timely to remember all of the New Zealanders who have lost their lives since our first mines opened in 1842.
On 21 February, 1879 34 miners were killed in an explosion caused by a lit candle in a Kaitangata, Otago mine accident.
The Brunner mine accident occurred on 26 March, 1896. An explosion killed 65 coal miners in New Zealand's worst mining disaster.
12 September, 1914: Huntly mine accident where 43 coal miners were killed in an explosion at Ralph's Mine, Waikato.
There was a second major Huntly mine accident on 24 September, 1939 when 11 men were asphyxiated by carbon monoxide at the Glen Afton coal mine.
The Strongman mine accident on 19 January, 1967 was caused by an explosion killing 19 miners near Greymouth.
And now the Pike River mine tragedy will enter our history books. Two explosions on 19 and 24 November 2010 result in the deaths of 29 coalminers at the Pike River mine on the West Coast. It is this country's worst mining disaster since 1914.
ENDS