Lifting Children Out of Dependency

This week, NZCPR Weekly examines how well New Zealand's welfare system lifts sole mothers and their children out of dependency, (printer-friendly view>>>), NZCPR Guest Tommy Thompson shares his experience of introducing ground breaking welfare reforms in Wisconsin, and the poll asks whether National's welfare reforms go far enough. Please don't forget to pass this newsletter on to anyone interested in welfare reform...    

The release of the National Party’s welfare policy has brought a predictable clamour from the defenders of the present welfare system. Such was the protest that one could be mistaken for thinking National was proposing to abolish welfare entirely! Hardly. 

National is in fact merely proposing that single parents on the domestic purposes benefit undertake 15 hours of employment, training or job-search activities, once their youngest child is aged six.[1] This is hardly earth-shattering or radical thinking. It is of course, a sensible change and long overdue.

At present there are 96,000 sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit, 36,000 of whom have children aged six or more.

Although this is a very small step towards real reform it is at least a step in the right direction and marks a fundamental shift from what we have had for the last nine years.

Ensuring a social safety net is in place is a key responsibility of government. New Zealand’s social welfare system was designed to ensure that those who are incapacitated and genuinely unable to support themselves are provided with long-term security. But for those who are capable of earning their own living, welfare support should be temporary and designed to give them a hand up to work and independence.

These were the principles upon which our welfare system was based. It was recognised by the architects of the system that long-term reliance on benefits for people who are able-bodied is very damaging, especially when children are involved. 

The problem is that if benefits are readily accessible and work requirements are weak, it is all too easy for welfare to become a trap, and a rort. With only the unemployment benefit being subjected to a work test, the domestic purposes benefit - as well as the sickness and invalid benefits - have locked many people in welfare dependency who are quite capable of working for a living.

Ministry of Social Development figures reveal that in the twelve months to the end of June, although New Zealand faced a critical shortage of workers, the number of sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit fell by only 27. This is an astonishing indictment of a welfare system that is unable to make people independent of state support and highlights a major problem that we face. Not only do we have proportionately more sole parents on benefits than most countries in the developed world, but very large numbers remain on welfare for extended periods: almost 70,000 have been on the domestic purposes benefit for over a year with 34,000 over 4 years, and 11,000 over 10 years.[2]

In the recently published report “A Fair Go for All Children”, the Children’s Commissioner identified some 170,000 children who live in single parent poverty.[3] The report finds that work is the key to reducing child poverty: “Supporting parents in work and ensuring they gain financially from their employment is critical to reducing child poverty”. 

For years the OECD, which monitors welfare programmes in member countries, has raised concerns over New Zealand’s high rate of single parent welfare dependency - the second highest in the OECD. They have found categorically that sole parent welfare dependency is the prime cause of child poverty, with the risk of children growing up in poverty being at least three times higher in jobless sole parent families than in families where someone works for a living. 

The OECD believes that New Zealand’s reliance on the Domestic Purposes Benefit is excessive because the incentives for mothers to move back to work are not strong enough. As a result, they have found that we spend far more than most OECD countries on income support for sole parents.[4]

An examination of those OECD countries that have far lower rates of child poverty and single-parent unemployment than New Zealand highlights the key difference between us. None of them have a separate benefit for sole parents. Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal and Austria, to name but a few, have welfare systems that provide sole parents with a range of additional supports - largely through family or child payments - but there is no special stand-alone benefit.[5] In those countries there is a strong recognition that the only way for sole parents and their children to avoid the poverty trap is through the workforce.

In comparison, countries like Australia and the UK, which have stand-alone single parent benefits similar to our domestic purposes benefit, also struggle with high rates of child poverty and sole parent dependency. It is therefore clear that the problems we face in New Zealand have been caused by the domestic purposes benefit having been established as a stand-alone benefit by the labour Government in the seventies. If we had stayed with the old system of supporting single parents through other benefits, New Zealand’s rates of child and single parent poverty would be at the low end of the OECD rankings.  

During the nineties, when the United States was facing similar problems of increasing child poverty and sole parent dependency, moves were made to find a better system. One of those at the forefront of change was Tommy Thompson, the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin, a farming state of 4 million people had more generous welfare benefits than many other states and as a result had one of the country’s highest rates of sole parent welfare with more than 100,000 mothers on a benefit. 

The reforms introduced by Governor Thompson were so successful that not only did he reduce sole parent dependency in Wisconsin by a whopping 96 percent, but his programmes formed the basis of President Clinton’s 1996 sweeping social welfare reforms which aimed to “abolish welfare as we know it”. 

Tommy Thompson, the former Governor of Wisconsin and President Bush’s former Secretary for Health and Human Services, is this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator. He explains how he went about changing the system:

“When I was Governor of Wisconsin I heard frequently from parents on welfare - especially mothers - about how much they wanted to leave welfare behind and build a better life for themselves and their children. These conversations led to a number of very important lessons. Firstly, the government has an absolutely crucial role to play in helping those who can’t provide for themselves. However, we have to be smart about how we help them. We have leant that just giving money without any expectations creates a cycle of dependency that leaves many families mired in poverty and abuse, unable to take control of their lives. Secondly, the government’s support must be focused on helping people find and succeed at work.  This means not just helping them to find good jobs but also requiring them to take the jobs and to succeed in them.” To read the full article, click the sidebar link>>>

While opponents predicted that the changes would bring disaster, the opposite turned out to be the case. By supporting sole parents in four key ways - through child care, transportation, jobs skill training and a requirement to work - more and more welfare families left dependency to enter the workforce and the world of self-sufficiency. 

Wisconsin’s successes were adapted by states across the US with the same positive results. Eventually, the realisation that the new system was working in unprecedented ways to help families escape the welfare trap, led to a complete overhaul of the system of support for sole parents by Congress, replacing Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) – the equivalent of our domestic purposes benefit - with a programme of assistance conditional upon work, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 

As the Economist reported in an article “From welfare to workfare” in 2006, after peaking in 1994 America's welfare caseload fell by 60 percent over the next decade, from 5 million to 2 million families. Welfare mothers found work with the biggest increase among those who had never been married. Their employment rate leapt from 44 percent in 1993 to 66 percent in 2000 and the poverty rate, instead of rising sharply, dropped from 15.1 percent to 11.3 percent. 

States responded to the new federal welfare targets and the greater flexibility provided by the new programme by overhauling their welfare offices, in some cases turning over the whole process to private firms. Many offices stressed work from the moment people stepped through the front door, sometimes signing them up for job-training sessions as soon as they applied for welfare. Some states required applicants to try job searches before they could be eligible for cash benefits, shifting much of the money they were doling out as cash benefits, into programmes that supported work - child care, health care, transport subsidies and so on. 

Margie Davis of Project Match, a non-profit agency that offered job-search and other services in Chicago, explained how many women followed a well established path - a job, a better job, then a career: “After leaving welfare for a job at the checkout till, they got enough training and education, often with government help, to become nurses, teachers or social workers. Those jobs not only boosted their pay, but also provided better health insurance and schedules flexible enough to let them care for their children more easily. As a result, the quality of some women's lives has improved dramatically. As those lives evolve, I also get to go to a lot of weddings”.[6]

National has signaled that it is time that New Zealand tackled the well-documented problems faced by sole parents and children living in entrenched welfare dependency and for that it should be commended. It is an area long-neglected by Labour whose policies have increased social dependence not reduced it. 

But the question remains as to whether tinkering with the system will ever be enough. Maybe it is time to bite the bullet and replace New Zealand’s stand alone sole parent welfare benefit – the domestic purposes benefit - with a system based on the successful models overseas that have prevented welfare dependency and the poverty trap becoming the significant problem that it is for sole parents and their children in New Zealanders today.

A grateful thanks to those who have supported the work of the NZCPR - I cannot continue without the backing of readers. If you would like to help, please click here>>>  
NZCPR POLL
This week's poll asks: 
Do you think National’s reform of the domestic purposes benefit goes far enough?  
To vote click here>>> 
(Readers comments will be posted here>>> daily) 

FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1 John Key, National’s Benefits Policy 
2 Ministry of Social Development, Benefit Factsheet DPB June 2008 
3 Children’s Commissioner, A Fair Go for All Children
4 OECD, Babies and Bosses
5 OECD, Benefits and Wages: Statistics
6 Economist, July 27 2006, From welfare to workfare

NZCPR ADMIN

Please forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. 

To help support these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK click here>>>

To join the mailing list for this free newsletter please click here>>>

Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our website Soapbox Series?

If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum subscribers post up information for the public to view daily.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box 984, Whangarei.

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly periodical from the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com, established in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.  

If you have a change of address, please note your old address and your new one and click here>>>. To unsubscribe, please click here>>> and send. 
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a different address and you will need to submit that one)

Making a Difference

This week, NZCPR Weekly looks at the whether individuals can make a difference (printer-friendly view>>>), NZCPR Guest Sheryl Savill explains why she started the petition to hold a Citizens Initiated Referendum on the smacking ban, and the poll asks whether a smack should be a criminal offence.    

Can an individual make a difference? 

Sheryl Savill would like to think so. Sheryl is the instigator of the Citizens Initiated Referendum petition on smacking. Launched in February last year, her petition asked the question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” 

Sheryl, a young mother of two, whose husband is a police officer, is this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator. In her article she explains, “I am not normally one to get involved in politics or public demonstrations. But when I realised how the anti-smacking bill would directly affect the way I was raising my children, I just knew that I had to do something. And I discovered very early on that I wasn’t the only one who felt this way - many of the parents I talked to thought the bill was ludicrous. So ludicrous, they felt that there wasn’t even a need for a petition… surely our politicians weren’t that blind”. 

Well, Sheryl, it appears that they were (and are)! 

The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill - which repealed Section 59 of the Crimes Act to remove the defence of “reasonable” force for parents who physically discipline their children - was passed by the vast majority of Parliament in May last year. Only 8 MPs voted against it: ACT’s Rodney Hide and Heather Roy; New Zealand First’s Winston Peters, Ron Mark and Pita Paraone; United Future’s Judy Turner; and the Independents Gordon Copeland and Philip Field.  

Both Labour and National changed their stance on the issue, originally intending to allow their MPs exercise a conscience vote, but ultimately requiring them to vote along party lines. This turnaround was particularly damaging for Labour as before the 2005 election, the Prime Minister went on record stating, “As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No-one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court”. 1

The resignation of Philip Field from the Labour Party in February 2007 had a major influence on the Prime Minister. Field’s resignation cut Labour’s majority and forced the Government to turn to the Green Party - but their support came at a high price which included government backing for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.

For many New Zealanders the Prime Minister’s u-turn became symptomatic of the inherent problems with MMP. It demonstrated that under MMP parties are quite prepared to abandon any principles they might have held in order to retain power. It showed that under MMP, the needs of the electorate and the good of the country are all too often relegated to secondary considerations. 

Under the new law, any parent who uses any sort of force – verbal or physical - to discipline a child is breaking the law. And while the Police have the discretion not to prosecute a particular case, all cases must nonetheless be investigated by the Police and Child Youth and Family. That takes the state right into the heart of the family, judging parents and dictating how they should or should not raise their children.

Sheryl explains that this was one of the main reasons that she started the Referendum petition: “The government was intruding yet again into the lives of parents, and as a mum, I was really concerned about the impact that this type of bill would have on my family. To remove and undermine a parent’s authority in their own home is a treacherous area for the State to wade into”. To read Sheryl’s article click the sidebar link>>>

And the horror stories that are starting to emerge are very worrying with children as young as five telling parents that they have rights and threatening to report them to their teachers or the Police if they try to discipline them. If you have concerns about the effects of this new law, please feel free to share them when you vote in the poll.

The law change proved to be very damaging for Labour, as the trend series for the Colmar Brunton political opinion polls shows. According to the poll taken in May 2007, just after the passing of the Bill, support for Labour had dropped from 39 percent in mid-April to 31 percent, their lowest poll rating since February 1997. In comparison, National rose in the poll from 49 percent to 56 percent, their highest poll rating since September 1990. With July’s Colmar Brunton poll showing Labour on 35 percent and National on 52 percent support, history may well show that for Labour, the anti-smacking bill was the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

Sheryl Savill’s petition for a Citizens’ Initiated Referendum is New Zealand’s forty-second petition since the CIR Act was introduced in 1993. While referenda have been proposed on matters as diverse as outlawing battery hens, saving forests, and changing the flag, only three have been successful so far. They were the 1995 firefighters referendum, supported by 87.8 percent of voters, and the 1999 proposals by Margaret Robertson to reduce the number of MPs and by Norm Withers to introduce tougher sentences for violent crime. They gained 81.5 and 91.8 percent support respectively. 

Parliament’s Clerk’s Office, which is checking whether the petition has been signed by 10 percent of registered voters, is expected to deliver the news on its success or otherwise by August 23^rd. If successful, the government must announce the referendum date within a month, and the ballot must then be held within a year. 

Undoubtedly, the best time to hold a citizens initiated referendum is at an election. It ensures a far higher turnout at a much lower cost. However, it appears highly unlikely that the Prime Minister will want anti-smacking “nanny-state” accusations clouding the election campaign, even though putting her own political interests ahead of the wishes of the public will cost taxpayers an estimated $10 million – the cost of holding a stand-alone referendum. 

I started this column by asking whether an individual can make a difference. Sheryl is definitely making a difference. 

In my own way, I would like to think that I am also making a difference with the New Zealand Centre for Political Research. As many of you will know I established the NZCPR straight after the 2005 election, when I found that my nine-year Parliamentary term had suddenly come to an end. I believed that a public policy think tank could make a real contribution to changing the future direction of New Zealand by using research, publications and open public debate to promote the power of the free market as well as the benefits of liberty, responsibility and limited government. 

While most people were very encouraging, many said I would not be able to find the funding. However, I decided to put my trust in the readers, believing that if they agreed with what I was doing they would support me. 

In many respects the NZCPR has been an outstanding success. NZCPR Weekly is delivered to leading decision-makers and discerning readers through what is probably the country’s largest electronic mailing list, and, thanks to the enthusiasm of recipients, NZCPR newsletters are regularly circulated around the Internet - even making it onto Fox News!

The NZCPR website (www.nzcpr.com) has grown in popularity now attracting around a million hits a month and evolving into a veritable treasure trove of services designed to keep readers well informed with live local news feeds on the HOME page, international feeds on the MEDIA page, and political feeds on the PARLIAMENT page.  

The NZCPR FORUM (http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/index.php) is an important part of the operation for it is here that your opinion counts. The wealth of weekly comments from readers can be found in HANSARD, the HOUSE is the window into Parliamentary business, and the GENERAL DEBATE features commentary and information that NZCPR subscribers would like to see promoted more widely.   

Christine Davey is a Forum contributor who is making a real difference. Mother of a P addict, Christine wanted to highlight how this dangerous drug is destroying lives. She started the blog “P” and the NZ Community on our Forum and has now built a comprehensive resource on the damage caused by P. Through the blog, Christine has gained the confidence to speak out, to challenge Members of Parliament, to write press releases, and now to become the Spokesman on Drug Issues for the Sensible Sentencing Trust.  As she recently explained to me, “All this has come about because you invited me to join your Forum 2 years ago - and look where I am now!” (To read Christine's story visit her blog on http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20)

With your assistance, the ideas communicated through the NZCPR are making a real difference and are helping to shape the future direction of New Zealand. But while our influence continues to grow, funding remains a real struggle. The New Zealand Centre for Political Research has become a full-time commitment, taking all of my time and effort to keep it going. If you value the work of the NZCPR, then please help me – I can only continue on with your support... if you would like to help, please click here>>>  

NZCPR POLL
This week's poll asks:  
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? 
Please feel free to share your experiences of the new anti-smacking law. 
To vote click here>>> 
(Readers comments will be posted here>>> daily) 

FOOTNOTES:
All articles can be found on the NZCPR RESEARCH PAGE - click here>>>
1 TVNZ News, PM’s stance on smacking questioned

NZCPR ADMIN

Please forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. 

To help support these newsletters and receive your free EBOOK click here>>>

To join the mailing list for this free newsletter please click here>>>

Why not submit your burning issue for publication on our website Soapbox Series?

If you enjoy political debate visit the Debating Chamber forum - many of our forum subscribers post up information for the public to view daily.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or post at PO Box 984, Whangarei.

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly periodical from the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com, established in 2005 by former MP Dr Muriel Newman.  

If you have a change of address, please note your old address and your new one and click here>>>. To unsubscribe, please click here>>> and send. 
(Please note - if you get back a message saying the address is not on the mailing list, it means you are subscribed under a different address and you will need to submit that one)

Education Matters

This week, NZCPR Weekly asks whether education in New Zealand can be improved, the NZCPR Guest Dr Kevin Donnelly explains how standards can be raised, and the poll asks whether parents should be free to chose to send their children to independent schools as well as state schools.   

Education matters. If we are really serious about building a first world economy, then we must ensure that every child – no matter what their background – is given the skills to contribute to their fullest possible extent to our nation’s future. 

That is why it is surely a national disgrace that one in five New Zealand children leave school without the most basic reading, writing or maths skills. Since the vast majority of New Zealand children – around 96 percent - attend state schools, it is the government that must be held accountable for this massive failure. After three terms in office, there can be no excuses. 

Education has always been the lifeline to a better future. Generations of parents have struggled and sacrificed in order to ensure that their children gained the qualifications needed to secure a job with good career prospects. 

My own family was no different. My parents came from an era where children were forced into work from primary school. They watched as kids who were no brighter than they, but had been allowed to stay at school, gained better jobs and higher wages. As a result, my brother and I were the first in our family to achieve any sort of higher qualification. That we both gained doctorate degrees is a tribute to the ambition of our parents, who were determined to see us succeed, as well as to our own resolve not to let them down. 

But education has changed dramatically since the days when we were students. Even during the 20 years that I was a teacher, the system has undergone an inexorable transformation. Great people who had traditionally been ‘called’ into teaching from a variety of other career paths are now locked out by the new teacher training requirements. The surrender of the education system to the excesses of radical feminism and political correctness has meant that rather than simply ensuring that girls caught up with boys in the achievement stakes, boys are now regularly left behind, with men having been all but driven out of the profession. And with an army of 4,000 public servants governing the school sector, it is little wonder that teachers these days feel they spend half of their lives filling in unnecessary forms and complying with a mindless bureaucracy instead of teaching. 

Dr Kevin Donnelly, Director of Education Strategies and author of the book “Dumbing Down”, is our NZCPR Guest Commentator this week. In his opinion piece “How Effective is New Zealand’s Education System?” Dr Donnelly states:

“It is clear that New Zealand students in mathematics and science are consistently outperformed by students in countries like Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Belgium and the Netherlands. Talk to tertiary academics, employers and parents and the consensus is that standards have fallen with many students leaving school unable to write a grammatically correct, lucid essay, complete basic algorithms without a calculator or demonstrate a broad knowledge of New Zealand’s history, social institutions and culture”. 

He goes on to explain, “There is an alternative approach to strengthening New Zealand’s education system.  Based on research undertaken by two European academics Ludger Woessman and Eric A Hanusheck, the best way to raise standards is to free schools from provider capture by giving them the freedom and autonomy to compete and best respond to the demands of the market place”. To read Dr Donnelly’s article, click the sidebar link>>> 

Around the world, progressive governments have understood the huge improvement in standards that result from establishing a competitive marketplace in education, whereby schools compete to lift student achievement. Whether they are run by churches, charities, businesses or special interest groups in the profit or not-for-profit sector, research shows that private sector schools are, on the whole, far more responsive to the needs of students and the demands of parents than government schools. In some countries like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, where there is a well established education marketplace with state and private schools operating in concert and parents free to take their education funding to the school that best meets their children’s needs, political opposition to private schools is virtually non-existent. (To read the experience of a New Zealand student who spent her final high school year in Sweden, click here>>>)

That is certainly not the case here. In New Zealand, the whole education sector is now highly politicised, including the curriculum itself. The government’s agenda is being foisted onto the schools, as any cursory examination of the school curriculum will show. “Gender issues” are being pushed onto children as young as five, a strong anti-business bias comes through, and the multitude of arguments in favour of man-made global warming would lead students to believe that there is a crisis and a scientific consensus when we know that is far from the truth.1 

Political opposition to private sector education – largely spearheaded by the powerful teacher unions - can be intense. Any moves towards greater parental choice in education or increased school autonomy, is strenuously opposed. The argument is usually that greater school choice will only benefit the rich kids, disadvantaging the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth! 

In New Zealand, parents who want to send their children to a non-government school are forced to pay a significant financial penalty. That involves paying the cost of private school fees on top of the taxes they pay to finance government schools. In effect, this means that while well-off families can meet the expense of paying ‘double’ school fees, the vast majority of families cannot. Nor can the disadvantaged afford the property values that would enable them live in neighbourhoods with a decent state school. 

As a result, New Zealand children who are being failed by their local state school are priced out of any alternatives by government policy: zoning laws that force children to attend their closest school, no matter how bad it is, and funding restrictions that prevent education funding from being used for non-government schools. This is in spite of well-known research that overwhelmingly shows that the educational outcomes for such children would improve if they had free access to independent schools.

Whether we like it or not, in the state school system, teachers and their administrators are forced to serve their political masters - the government. While they invariably do all they can to ensure that students get a good education, they simply do not have the same freedom and autonomy enjoyed by educators in the private sector. There, survival depends on firstly ensuring that students succeed to their highest potential, and secondly, that their parents - who pay the bills - are well-satisfied with their progress. In other words, while the state sector has its focus on the smooth running of the system, the private sector has its focus on student success. 

In the United States, the Charter School movement is demonstrating how public schools can make exceptional progress in lifting standards and improving student outcomes, by freeing them up from bureaucratic constraints and introducing some of the disciplines of the marketplace - including performance contracts for student achievement. There are now more than 4,000 charter schools operating in more than 40 states, with many charter school operators now running networks of successful schools. 2