Social housing must do better

Finance Minister Bill English didn’t mince his words when giving his view on state houses:

. . . Governments had been “grossly irresponsible” over Housing Corporation not knowing much about its houses or the tenants.

He said the nationalised housing industry “is a disgrace”. . .

Housing Corp was a poor performer and about a third of its housing stock was the wrong size, in poor condition and in the wrong place. That stock was worth about $5 billion and it was $5 b being wasted.

“There are going to have to be changes so we can stop wasting it, and we are going to learn a lot from Christchurch.”

Christchurch had “a half-clean sheet” to restart social housing.

“It is actually pretty shocking the wastefulness and politicisation and the crappy conditions that we make vulnerable people live in. So yes, we are pretty motivated about it because of the benefits for the tenants and the economy and for the Government’s books.

“It’s been a revelation to me that we run this huge asset base with all these vulnerable people and Government hasn’t known about its own tenants, it hasn’t known much about its own housing stock, it’s just been grossly irresponsible.

“We want to get Presbyterian Support, Ngai Tahu, Salvation Army, Housing Foundation involved in supplying these houses and put pressure on our own organisation, which has a record of poor performance.” . . .

The usual suspects are labelling this privatisation.

It doesn’t matter what you call it and who owns the houses, they will still be publicly funded and it wouldn’t be difficult for charitable organisations to do better than Housing Corp.

Fewer jobless

Unemployment dropped in North Otago in the three months to March, in spite of the loss of more than 100 jobs at Summit Woolspinners.

. . . Figures released by the Ministry of Social Development on Friday indicated that the number of people claiming the unemployment benefit at the Oamaru Work and Income service centre fell from 172 at the end of December, to 146 at the end of March.

The number claiming the domestic purposes benefit also fell, from 349 at the end of last year, to 338 at the end of last month. Southern regional social development commissioner John Allen said some former Summit employees were still out of work following the closure of the plant in February, but many had already found new work in the area.

”The local labour market is reasonably buoyant and we’re seeing former Summit employees find work in a range of industries including meat processing and manufacturing jobs. Seasonal employers are continuing to recruit, again in meat processing, or have just finished hiring for the upcoming season. There are also a number of vacancies for skilled trade workers.

”Most of the employers we work with appear to be positive about the labour market, especially the engineering, construction and agriculture sectors, although this can vary across industries and seasonal factors can impact on benefit numbers.” . . .

A drop int he number of unemployed is a sign of economic recovery.

It could also reflect a change in emphasis with benefit reforms. Those who could work are being treated as job seekers and getting more help to find jobs.

That’s better for them, their families, society and the economy.

Why welfare reform matters

Helping people help themselves

Welfare reforms developed by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett passed into law yesterday.

“The changes we’re introducing will modernise and simplify the welfare system,” Mrs Bennett said.

“They will also ensure work expectations and social obligations are balanced with the right incentives and support.” . .

“The legislation also introduces new social obligations to ensure children in benefit-dependent homes get quality Early Childhood Education, are enrolled with a doctor, get their Well Child checks and are in school if they are school-age,” Mrs Bennett said.

The law will also require Jobseekers to be drug-free, and will allow benefits to be stopped for outstanding arrest warrants.

“Over 40 per cent of jobs advertised with Work and Income require a drug test. It is simply unacceptable that many are unable to work and take up available job opportunities because of recreational drug use.”

An actuarial valuation based on the expected durations of all current beneficiaries shows the lifetime costs to be $78 billion.

The investment approach will target interventions and support to those most at risk of long-term welfare dependence.

“By investing in people sooner, we can actually start to break that cycle of dependence.”

“Jobseeker Support will include those capable of work and those who are temporarily exempt, but will soon be able to work,” says Mrs Bennett.

This includes those currently on the Sickness Benefit, who according to work capability, will have a part-time or full-time work expectation or a temporary exemption until they are work-ready.

People currently receiving Women Alone or Widows Benefit will retain their higher rate of benefit when they transfer to Jobseeker Support and along with those on the DPB, they’ll also retain current part-time benefit abatement rules.

“Benefit rates will remain unchanged and there will be extra support for those who want to work but need more help to get them ready,” says Mrs Bennett.

The current annual reapplication for the Unemployment Benefit will apply to all those on the new Jobseeker benefit.

The opposition thinks these reforms are beneficiary bashing.

On the contrary they are designed to ensure those in genuine need get the assistance they require and help those who could support themselves to become independent.

As it was, the welfare system trapped people on benefits and didn’t provide support some people need to be able and willing to work.

That came at a very high cost for those on long term benefits and those of us who pay for them.

Helping people into work improves their long term prospects and decreases the long term costs of welfare.

What’s the problem with welfare reform?

Labour and the Green Party are continuing to oppose National’s efforts to ensure the welfare system provides a safety net and not a hammock or a noose.

They try to pretend they’re helping the vulnerable but that’s just the soft bigotry of low expectations.

The welfare system should be ready and available for people in need.

For most that need is short-term and temporary, for a few it will be longer term and for some it will be permanent.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that those who can look after themselves do so and help those who could but don’t.

The opposition would prefer to keep people beholden to the state while National is working hard to help them become independent.

What’s wrong with this?

No greater upskilling than work

Quote of the day:

But for the unemployed, especially the young and unemployed, there is no greater upskilling than being in the paid workforce, being productive, and learning to do a good job.Rodney Hide.

This was part of his second column promoting the idea of auctioning the jobless on TradeMe.

The first column is here.

Dodgy numbers

Last week Social Development Minister Paula Bennett issued media releases which said the future focus was helping to reduce the number of people on benefits and benefit figures were under forecast.

Yesterday the Herald on Sunday featured Labour’s Jacinda Ardern saying more people were on benefits.

So who’s right?

Kiwiblog has the figures:

Let’s look at the actual data, in terms of increase or decrease each year. For DPB they are

• 2008 +2,128
• 2009 +9,007
• 2010 +3,576
• 2011 +1,365
• 2012 -5,112

I think we now understand why Jacinda left the 2012 figures off. What I don’t know if why the Herald on Sunday did.

Let’s do the same with Invalid’s Benefit numbers.

• 2008 +3,419
• 2009 +1,537
• 2010 +67
• 2011 -1,062
• 2012 -472

And for those interested in the Unemployment Benefit.

• 2008 +7,760
• 2009 +35,820
• 2010 +756
• 2011 -7,120
• 2012 -6,217

They all show the same thing. The increase in benefit numbers started in 2008 (under Labour) and worsened in 2009 as the Global Financial Crisis struck.  Despite patchy economic growth since 2009, benefit numbers in all three categories have fallen in the last two years.

And Lindsay Mitchell provides more analysis which shows Ardern is wrong.

Opposition MPs are supposed to show up government failings but it’s not at all clever to use dodgy stats to do it.

Reporters are supposed to check facts and provide balance, the one who wrote this story failed on both counts.

Catching spongers

Associate Social Development Minister Chester Burrows has announced new measures to prevent, detect and catch welfare fraud.

“We know that the vast majority of beneficiaries are honest and do the right thing, but a small minority take advantage of the welfare system. Let’s be clear – welfare fraud is a crime, committed by criminals, for their own benefit at the taxpayer’s expense, and we treat it as such without excuse,” says Mr Borrows.

“National promised to clamp down on welfare fraud, and I’m pleased to deliver on that promise today.”

The first initiative is to amend the law to create a new offence targeting partners or spouses of beneficiaries who are convicted of fraud.

Relationship offending last year cost over $20 million and makes up one third of welfare fraud prosecutions. 

“Currently there are few options available to prosecute partners who know or benefit from such offending, leaving the entire debt with one partner,” says Mr Borrows.

“Prosecuting partners who profit from welfare fraud will ensure that both parties who profit from the crime are punished, and will help the taxpayer recover the lost money faster.”

The second key initiative is to introduce new ways of working with beneficiaries who have previously been dishonest with MSD.  These new measures include greater verification of information and less access to self-service transactions, and will cover around 1000 beneficiaries each year.

“This approach will give MSD a package of tools which can be tailored to target the way an individual has been dishonest before.  It is a sensible step to make sure that those who have ripped us off once cannot do it again,” says Mr Borrows.

The third new initiative is to formalise information sharing links between ACC, Inland Revenue, Housing New Zealand Corporation, New Zealand Police, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

“Sharing information between Government agencies will allow us to detect or catch welfare fraud sooner.  Bringing these key agencies together will also help catch high value fraudsters whose deception extends across multiple agencies.

“It’s vitally important that the public has every confidence in the welfare system and these measures, alongside a range of smaller initiatives included in the package, will give MSD the tools it needs to achieve this.”

The left is spinning this a beneficiary bashing.

It’s not. It’s ensuring public money is used for the right purposes and Lindsay Mitchell points out it could also protect vulnerable women from spongers.

The culprits might be relatively small in number but the more than $20 million that is lost to this fraud is not an insignificant sum.

There are many more pressing needs for it.

Money doesn’t mend the harm

In New Zealand we have people facing a nightmare finding staff in spite of relatively high levels of unemployment.

In South Africa welfare perversion has gone even further:

In a sign of just how bad things are in parts of South Africa – some women are deliberately trying to harm their unborn babies in order to claim disability benefits.

Sky News reporter Alex Crawford has been to Port Elizabeth, where she met women who admit to drinking heavily during pregnancy in the hope their child will be born with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. . .

There’s more on the video here.

Both our sons had brain disorders. They were undiagnosed but presumed to be genetic. They definitely weren’t deliberately inflicted.

Looking after them was hard, even with wonderful support from extended family, friends, their doctors and organisations like Plunket and IHC.

No amount of money could make it easy.

The extra welfare payments these women are hoping to get is supposed to be for the extra costs of caring for a child with disabilities.

It won’t cover the cost of the full care needed, it won’t compensate for the extra difficulties the families face nor will it mend the deliberate harm done to the children and society.

Scarce resources can’t be scattered

The  Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group’s report “Solutions to Child Poverty” has led to inevitable calls for more welfare, but as Finance and Social development Ministers Bill English and Paula Bennett say, it’s not that simple.

 “The Government acknowledges that many families are finding times challenging, and I thank the group for its report, which feeds into a great deal of work that is already underway,” Mr English says.

 “This Government is tackling some difficult and complex issues including welfare reform and the White Paper on Vulnerable Children, while spending billions of dollars  to support those in most need.” 

Mrs Bennett says the Government welcomes  ideas and some of the report’s recommendations may get taken up  while some others have already been addressed. 

“For example, there is merit in the suggestion of community hubs and a warrant of fitness for homes. Meanwhile, we’re already ensuring beneficiary teen parents are in education.”

However, the Government would not support universal child payments.

“It is those on the lowest-incomes who are in the greatest need so any new spending needs to be tightly targeted,” she says.

Mr English said net core Crown debt had risen from $10 billion four years ago to more than $50 billion today and, in difficult financial times, the public expected policies to be costed and evidence-based.

“New programmes are worth funding only if they change people’s lives for the better.

“Too often, governments have, for political reasons, persisted with programmes that have been ineffective and expensive.

“But if the answer was simply to throw more money at the problem, it would have been solved years ago,” he says.

There’s never a good time to scatter money and now, when the government is already borrowing so much it’s an even worse time.

Limited resources must be directed where they will do most good.

The Government’s consistent approach has been to encourage people off welfare into work, while protecting vulnerable children, maintaining support for low-income households and strengthening the economy.

The Government has ensured more families have warmer, drier homes, better access to health services, better protection from abuse, and greater support to help people off welfare into work.

All state houses will be insulated by the end of 2013 and the $347 million Heat Smart scheme has already insulated 190,000 homes since 2009.

The $24 million Rheumatic Fever programme has targeted 44,000 children in the worst affected areas and funding for free doctor’s visits for under six year olds has gone up by 50 percent over three years.

The White Paper for Vulnerable Children contains more than 30 measures. Welfare reforms include extra childcare to help young parents remain in education, along with social obligations to ensure children get the education and health care they need. 

“We know children are better off in homes where at least one adult is working and long term, children who get the education and skills which lead to good jobs stand the best chance of breaking inter-generational hardship,” Mrs Bennett says.   

This is about not only helping families now but breaking the poverty cycle by equipping the children for work in the future.

It’s also about changing expectations.

Some people will never be able to be independent and a compassionate society must look after them. But those who can look after themselves must be encouraged to, for their own sakes, that of their children and the social and economic welfare of the country.

Saying it doesn’t make it so

In an interview which paints a very unflattering picture of the factions in Labour, Josie Pagani also says:

Labour needs to reclaim the debate about welfare reform, which has been wholly owned by the right. “They don’t believe in it and we do.

She’s right that Labour is losing the welfare reform debate but she is wrong that the right, or at least the part of the right occupied by National, doesn’t believe in welfare.

The left like to paint the right as heartless and opposed to any form of welfare but saying it doesn’t make it so.

It’s not heartless nor is it uncaring to expect those who can look after themselves to do so while providing help for those who can’t.

And the people most likely to be upset by low expectations for beneficiaries are the ones Labour likes to think of as their voters – low paid workers who, like the mythical neighbour of the mythical roof painter, used by David Shearer, take exception to working hard to pay taxes to support those who could be supporting themselves.

Some people will always require assistance and I don’t think any of the parties in parliament deny that.

Where there is a difference between right and left, is that the ones with hearts wants people who could help themselves to do so, rather than letting them languish on long term welfare with all the poor outcomes to which that leads.

Helping those who could support themselves to do so is not just better for them, it’s better for those who can’t help themselves. The more people in work, the less call there is for tax payer assistance, which makes it much easier for those who really need help to get it.

What’s fair?

Todd suffered brain damage during his birth which left him with multiple disabilities.

Exactly one year later our son Dan was born with an undiagnosed condition which left him with multiple disabilities.

Neither boy passed any developmental milestones. They didn’t learn to smile, roll, crawl, walk or talk and both were functionally blind and deaf. They were unable to do anything more for themselves when they died, by coincidence within a few days of each other when they were aged six and five respectively, than they could the day they were born.

Todd and his family got a lot more help than we did because he was eligible for ACC and Dan was not.

You could say that wasn’t fair and people with similar disabilities should get similar assistance regardless of whether they’re caused by accident or illness.

Labour MP Andrew Little has suggested that and no doubt it will be an attractive idea to some.

But would that be fair?

ACC is a contributory scheme, fully funded by levies.

How fair would it be to impose on wages, salaries and taxpayers the huge increases in levies which would be needed to cover non-accidental incapacity?

If there’s ever a time to decrease take-home pay, it’s not now when so many budgets are over-stretched and we’re all being encouraged to save more.

It would be even more unfair in the future if Little’s other suggestion of moving from a fully-funded model was changed to a pay-as-you go which could impose even greater liabilities on future generations.

Life isn’t fair. Sometimes the government can do something about that but sometimes the cost is too high.

MSD privacy holes

Keith Ng followed a tip-off that parts of the Ministry of Social Development’s corporate network could be accessed from public computer kiosks in WINZ offices.

What he found wasn’t so much leaks as gaping holes.

This looks like more than a systems failure.

Any organisation which has private information ought to have someone who ensures that it is kept private and can’t be accessed accidentally or deliberately by anyone not authorised to it.

Ng is a freelance journalist and spent almost a week uncovering this huge security lapse. If you want to support his work you can make a donation here.

Who cares when the carers don’t?

The White Paper on Vulnerable children launched by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett yesterday contains more than 30 proposed initiatives to target the 20 to 30,000 children in need.

Proposals include:

• New legislation to make Chief Executives of Social Development, Health, Justice, Police, Housing and Te Puni Kokiri jointly accountable for achieving results for all vulnerable children.
• Regional Directors & Children’s Teams to coordinate individualised responses locally.
• New Child Protect line to triage calls appropriately. Many people are concerned about children but don’t want to call Child, Youth and Family. This new line will be the first point of contact and ensure the right response.
• Vulnerable Kid’s Information System to be put in place.
• Comprehensive risk predictor tool to be developed alongside Auckland University to identify vulnerable children before they are abused and get them the help they need.
• Ongoing support to families who take in a child to be provided by non-government organisations.
• More specialist trained caregivers for high-needs and high-risk teens.
• Review of Child, Youth and Family complaints process and parental leave provisions, with a view to extending these to families who take on a child permanently.
• Screening of people working directly with children to be established through a legislated vetting process and we will encourage social workers to register with the Social Workers Registration Board.
• Tough new restrictions for abusers through child abuse prevention orders to allow judges to stop child abusers from gaining access to children.
• Child protection orders could mean that another baby born into a potentially abusive environment is removed from that parent’s care. 

State intrusion in the lives of its citizens requires caution and safeguards.

But when the people who should be caring for their children don’t, the right of the children to protection trumps that of the carers’ right to privacy and autonomy.

Old system wrote beneficiaries off

Interesting statistics of the day from Eric Roy:

In 2004, 66% of people on Sickness Benefit and 45 % on Invalids Benefits were interested or very interested in looking for work.

Of 539,000 disabled people surveyed in 2006, more than 40% were working – 75% full time.

The current assessment system for people receiving Sickness or Invalids Benefit tells us a mere 6.5% are fit for part-time work. . .

It’s difficult to believe that so many people on Sickness and Invalids benefits were interested in working eight years ago but only 6.5% are fit for at least part-time work now.

Simply put, the old system has been writing these people off and ignoring the fact that work is important; socially, financially and therapeutically.

National wants a welfare system with services and attitudes that help people reach their potential and change their lives for the better.

The Opposition and their supporters who are criticising National’s welfare reforms are arguing against helping people help themselves.

Some people will never be able to support themselves but that is no reason to not encourage, and where necessary help, those who can to do so.

 

 

For the sake of the children

People taking part in today’s national day of action against welfare reforms are taking offence where none is intended.

The reforms aren’t directed at people in temporary need who are doing their best to find work.

They’re not aimed at people who will always require assistance nor at those who are already looking after their children well.

It’s aimed at people who could work and don’t and at those who take money for their children but don’t care and provide for them as they should.

I have only second-hand knowledge of what it’s like to be brought up in a family where parents don’t put their children first, ensure they have the health care they need and make the most of opportunities for education.

This correspondent to The Listener (not on-line) has first-hand experience:

I wish the Government had introduced the new conditions for receiving a benefit when I was a child (Politics, September 22).  Then maybe I wouldn’t have had a childhood plagued with preventable illness, illness that has continued to affect me into adulthood.

Perhaps I would have gone to school. Maybe even learnt to value education and understood what it meant for my future. Maybe i would have stayed at school and gone on to university. Moved up the socio-economic ladder. Perhaps I would have felt someone cared about what happened to me.

Unless you’ve lived the life, you don’t understand it. Beneficiaries are in a different category of citizen. they lose themselves in the day-to-day dysfunction and chaos of their lives; their children’s health and welfare are often not a priority.

All the doo-gooders out there tut-tutting about the Government’s decision need to get a reality check. When it comes to a taxpayer-funded benefit, the rights of the parents don’t come into it. the priority should always be the health and welfare of the children.

This is one woman’s experience. It doesn’t mean that all beneficiaries don’t make their children a priority but it does show why there is a need to ensure that the right to a benefit is balanced by the responsibility to look after the children for whom at least some of the money is given.

Welfare reforms champion children

The people behind tomorrow’s national day of action against welfare reforms  simply don’t get it.

The reforms they’re protesting about aren’t desinged to villify beneficiaries. They’re designed with a mixture of carrot and stick to help them become independent.

The Listener gets it:

Although it’s true the Government is wielding a rather large stick, it also aiming to improve beneficiaries’ diets with plenty of carrots. And importantly, in many cases it is their children who will receive the real benefits.

Among beneficiaries there is a relatively low uptake of early childhood education. And yet, according to an OECD report, investment in early childhood education has among the highest net social benefits of all public investment, particularly for children who would otherwise be greatly disadvantaged.

Not all toddlers are lucky enough to spend their days with loving parents who play with them, cook with them, clean them, read to them and help them learn how the world works.

The sad truth that is that for some toddlers, a few hours each day at preschool – it might be a kohanga reo or other language nest – are likely to be far more nurturing and educational than those spent at home.

And in turn, the chances that their main caregiver might be able to give them a much better future are more likely to be enhanced if that person is engaged not just in a supportive community of other families but, eventually, in some kind of productive activity that brings in an income. . .

The statistics are quite clear – people in work are better off than those on welfare, even if they’re on a similar income.

It’s undeniable that, given the failure of this and most other governments to triumph over the global financial crisis, there will not always be jobs for beneficiaries in this new regime. But it is also undeniable these reforms are not solely about punishing vulnerable people. In some cases, it is about championing vulnerable people – who just happen to be under the age of five. . .

It’s not the children’s fault that their parents are on a benefit and that the family income is too low.

But it is successive governments’ fault that too many people have been allowed to languish on benefits when they could be working.

The reforms aim to get more people into work for their own sakes and for the sake of their children.

 

From protester to MP and back

It hasn’t taken former MP Sue Bradford long to get back to her former vocation as a protester:

Anti-poverty campaigners protesting the Government’s welfare  reforms have chained themselves to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)  Auckland regional office.

About 20 people took part in today’s protest at the office  in suburban Ellerslie, entering the building and chaining themselves to  equipment.

Inspector Lou Alofa of the police northern communications  centre said up to six people had been arrested.

“We have several people who have chained themselves to one  of the pillars there and police are working towards a resolution,” he said.

It was reported left-wing protester and former Green MP Sue Bradford was among  those at the protest.

They are protesting against reforms designed to get people off benefits and into work which is a big step towards relieving poverty.

How genuine is their concern about poverty when they are showing they’d prefer people stay dependent and poor?

Address cause or treat symptoms

That there is a problem of children growing up in poverty is unquestioned.

But most of those who are calling for action on it are directing their pleas at the government to address the symptoms.

Lindsay Mitchell points out that most fail to acknowledge the cause:

. . .  “Wilson and Stoughton (2009) report that about 18 percent of New Zealand children are born to a parent on a main benefit (about 13 percent are born to a parent on the DPB). . . .”

Most people are on a benefit temporarily and will join or return to the workforce as soon as they can.

Some people will never be able to support themselves.

The problem is people who could work who don’t, not because they can’t but because they won’t.

The government’s welfare reforms are aimed at these people for their own sakes and that of the society and the economy. Yet among the strongest opponents of the reforms are the people who want action on poverty.

They are short-changing the people on whose behalf they’re purporting to advocate if they want relief of the symptoms without accepting the need to address the causes.

78.1b reasons for welfare reform

The welfare system costs $78.1 billion over the working lifetime of beneficiaries.

The valuation report, which cost the Government $800,000 to  prepare, is the first of its type in the world and designed as a measuring stick  for the likely cost of the welfare system.

The figure is based on the number of beneficiaries in the  system in 2011 but uses 20 years of data to map their behaviour.

Using figures from this year, the cost is 10 percent higher  at $84.9 billion.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says the report  shows the huge cost of beneficiaries and emphasises the importance in changing  the path of youth welfare dependency. . .

The break down of costs is:

• Benefit:      $17.8 billion
• Invalids      Benefit: $19.1 billion
• Accommodation      Supplement: $10.2 billion
• Sickness      Benefit: $7.2 billion
• MSD      Expenses: $6.8 billion
• Woman      alone/widow’s benefit/Orphan’s benefit/unsupported child/DPB       carer/emergency benefit: $5.1 billion
• Unemployment      benefit: $4 billion
• Recoverable      hardship assistance/net loan cost: $4 billion
• Disability      allowance/child disability allowance/childcare subsidy: $3.4  billion
• Loans:      $0.4 billion
• Total:      $78.1 billion (as of March 2011) but $84.9 billion using June  2012      figures. The total figure does not include costs associated with  welfare      like family court costs.

Ms Bennett says taxpayers spend $22 million a day on the  welfare system and this needs to be reduced.

The report is intended to help the Ministry of Social  Development focus on the most important areas, especially long-term welfare  dependency. . .

Some people will need welfare permanently because they will never be able to support themselves.

Most people require only temporary support.

The problem area is those whose need is temporary but whose dependence becomes permanent.

The shorter the time people who could support themselves are in receipt of a benefit the better it is for them, society and the economy.