|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
4 November 06
Will
migrant workers take our jobs?
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
As
predicted the latest benefit statistics show that welfare
continues to increase with almost 2,000 more people claiming
they are either too sick to work or can’t find jobs, than
three months ago. That takes the total number of working age
beneficiaries to 282,000. This includes 41,000 people who are
on the dole, 100,000 able-bodied sole parents who are paid to
stay out of the workforce until their youngest child is 18
years old, and 123,000 beneficiaries who claim they are too
sick or disabled to work.
To
put this into perspective, back in 1973 the equivalent
figures, adjusted on a population basis, would have been just
around 40,000 working age New Zealanders received benefits,
including 16,000 sole parents, 12,000 invalid beneficiaries,
10,000 sickness beneficiaries and fewer than 3,000 unemployed.
The
main reason the numbers back then were so low was that the
system was well designed and managed. Welfare was available to
help those in need but the assistance was not overly generous
and for those capable of working, it was temporary. People on
the dole were required to find jobs, sole parents were only
given a benefit to support them out of violent relationships,
those on the sickness benefits were expected to get well, and
many on an invalid benefit worked in sheltered workshops. In
other words, the Kiwi work ethic underpinned the whole welfare
system, with self-sufficiency and independence from the state
being key objectives.
I’ve
been on a benefit myself and can confirm that a common sense
approach is the best way. Extended periods of time on welfare
can be very is demoralising.
Helping
beneficiaries to regain their dignity, by assisting them to
earn their living and support their family, should be the key
goal of welfare. That means providing support while they get
their lives back in order. Whether it’s help with child
care, transport, financial planning, or relocation, welfare
case managers should be empowered to facilitate their journey
back into the workforce.
If
the programme is to be effective, it also means requiring
beneficiaries to do something in return for their benefit. The
most effective programmes have been shown to be those that
require a full time contribution of work experience, job
search and training so that the choice each day becomes: “Do
I want to work full-time on this government programme or would
I prefer to get a proper job with prospects and better
rewards?” Experience shows that most prefer a job!
And
for the minority of beneficiaries who are on welfare as a
lifestyle choice and have no intention of working, their
benefit should be stopped. If the able-bodied are not prepared
to make an effort, taxpayers should not be forced to support
them.
None
of this is rocket science. It is the way New Zealand’s
welfare system used to run and it is what has made the reforms
in the USA so successful.
But, in spite of their rhetoric, it is not Labour’s
way.
The
Prime Minister, in the clearest signal yet that Labour’s
welfare reform plans are simply cosmetic, has decided to
prioritise jobs for Pacific Islanders ahead of jobs for
unemployed New Zealanders. In response to calls from the World
Bank and Pacific leaders for New Zealand and Australia to set
up seasonal migrant Pacific Island worker schemes, Helen Clark
has pledged her support. In contrast the Australian Prime
Minister, John Howard, has rejected the scheme, fearing it
would disadvantage poorly educated unemployed Aborigines who
have traditionally used unskilled jobs in rural industries as
a stepping-stone from welfare to work.
Helen
Clark, however, sees this migrant worker scheme as a way of
achieving important personal objectives. Not only will it
reinforce Labour’s commitment to their
Pacific
Island
voting base and improve her international reputation, but it
will also get rid of a highly irritating annual embarrassment.
Every
year her government is forced onto the back foot by the high
levels of publicity that surround the failure of the
Department of Work and Income to successfully fill seasonal
fruit picking and horticultural jobs. Stories of apples
rotting on trees while beneficiaries turn up only for a day or
two before quitting to go back onto a benefit, does nothing to
help Labour’s poll ratings and nor does it engender support
from its traditional worker voting base. So rather than
solving the problem of getting unskilled beneficiaries –
almost a third of who are Maori – successfully into such
entry-level jobs, the Prime Minister intends to import migrant
workers from the Pacific.
Professor
Helen Hughes, a senior fellow at the Australian based Centre
for Independent Studies has looked at the question, “Should
Australia
and
New Zealand
open their doors to guest workers from the Pacific” and
co-authored a report which is featured as our NZCPD guest
commentary this week. Helen’s conclusion is that such a
scheme is not only ill advised for Australia and New Zealand,
but for the Pacific Islands as well. With 1.5 million people
unemployed and underemployed in the region, a migrant worker
scheme for 10,000 to 38,000 would be a ‘cruel deception’,
which would shield Pacific governments from need to pursue
economic reforms.
In
her report (click to view
>>>) she provides an interesting comparison
between Australia and New Zealand’s approach to Pacific
immigration, noting that while 24 percent of Australian
residents were born overseas, only 2.4 percent were born in
the Pacific, whereas of the 19 percent of New Zealand
residents who were born overseas, 34 percent were born in the
Pacific. She states that too great a reliance on immigration
from the Pacific has given rise to serious social problems.
She says,
“Many Pacific islanders in
New Zealand
are less well integrated into the economy and society than
Pacific islanders in
Australia
. In New Zealand, they remain geographically segregated into
the second and third generations. Most live in highly
concentrated communities in Auckland. Welfare dependence
contributes to young Pacific Islander gangs, notably in
Auckland. Compared with 16% of the total population, 26% of
Pacific islanders receive some form of government benefit in
New Zealand. The experience of Pacific migrants in New Zealand
diverges from that in Australia because Australia has
preserved selectivity of its migrant intake”.
She further warns that the proposed Pacific
migrant worker scheme will create a huge “temptation to
overstay”, noting that Australia already has 50,000
overstayers and New Zealand 25,000, and she describes how some
countries have addressed this problem.
“Despite large numbers of temporary
immigrants, Singapore has a minimal overstaying problem
because employers are subject to severe fines and threatened
with custodial sentences if they break the laws governing
immigrants. An authoritarian regime would be a high price to
pay for a guest worker programme not to spill over into
illegal long term migration. It is unlikely that Australia and
New Zealand would wish to emulate Singapore in this
respect.”
Since Helen Clark first announced the
seasonal migrant worker scheme, details have emerged that $7.8
million is going to be spent on policing measures including
immigration compliance officers and labour inspectors. Under
the proposed scheme, employers will not only face serious
penalties if their workers overstay, but they will also have
to prove that they have done everything they can to “train
and upskill the domestic workforce” before being able to
recruit migrant workers.
I can’t help feeling that if a proper
probation period for new workers was re-introduced so that New
Zealand employers can hire applicants without experience
knowing that if it doesn’t work out there would be no legal
claims, and if the government did its job of insisting that
all beneficiaries capable of working get jobs, then I suspect
a misguided Pacific Island migrant scheme would have little
appeal.
The poll this week asks whether you
support the concept of an unskilled Pacific Island guest
worker scheme for New Zealand?
Click
here to vote >>>
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPD Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
To
leave a comment:
NOTE: The forum moderator
reserves the right to edit material that may be objectionable
or offensive.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
Send this
page to a friend:
|
