Bradford Sue: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Bradford Sue: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18202] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 In the run-up to the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament this afternoon media reports once again led me—and quite a few others I believe—to expect that we were finally going to be informed of the Government’s intentions with regard to major reform of our social security law through a universal benefit among other things. However as has happened over and over again in the last 4 or 5 years the reality of today’s pronouncement has proved somewhat anticlimactic. Once again we are told by the Prime Minister that “reforms to the whole structure of the benefit system” will take place but at a time yet to be advised and of a nature that remains clouded in mystery. 
Thus we still do not know after some 5 years what the Government is actually planning and how it will impact on the reality of beneficiaries’ lives or how it will differ from some of the proposals emanating for example from ACT’s welfare spokesperson Muriel Newman who also advocates for a single benefit. Although the Green Party certainly supports simplification of the welfare system and the creation of a single base benefit with a second tier for disability dependants and so on we are also quite apprehensive about the possibility that the reform Labour is talking about may actually mean a benefit cut for some people. We will certainly be opposing any universal benefit unless it is established at a level that makes people better off rather than worse off than they are now. Twenty years of structural unemployment and a still-growing gap now between rich and poor in this country will not be resolved until and unless we have a Government willing to take steps that help lift all children and adults out of hopeless poverty not just some of them. 
This brings me to the second part of the Prime Minister’s very limited statement concerning welfare that these reforms “will make case management of clients back into work the essential focus”. This only serves to accentuate all that Labour and National have in common when it comes to their attitude towards welfare and beneficiaries. While Labour is undoubtedly more progressive and compassionate in its overall approach to people on benefits it is clear that Steve Maharey and his colleagues are playing both ends against the middle in trying to undercut National by playing to those voters who like nothing more than a political campaign that demonises beneficiaries. Helen Clark’s talk of increased case management into work sounds suspiciously like National’s Work First policy. Even Labour does not seem to recognise that some people through illness or injury or through the fact that they are responsible for caring for children on their own simply should not be harassed into thinking paid employment is the only or the best option for them if they are to be considered valid citizens of this country. 
I thought Tom Scott’s cartoon in today’s  
Dominion Post  
was quite brilliant. It shows a woman slaving over the kitchen sink with a baby and toddler at her feet amidst the sort of glorious domestic mess those of us who bring up children know all too well. The headline of the newspaper on her couch reads: “PM wants more women working”. Indeed Labour does want more women working but at what price will this happen? And why does the sheer hard work of bearing and raising children not count? 
Like National Labour continues to support systemic economic discrimination against the children of beneficiary parents through its Working For Families package which perpetuates the system by which families where one parent is in the paid workforce automatically get more State assistance than a beneficiary family. Like Don Brash Labour seems to think that we should do more to punish sole parents even to the extent that Steve Maharey and Dr Brash are now in a bidding war over how much the penalties should be for mothers who cannot or will not name the father of their child. 
Overall Labour continues to say that sole parents should have as their primary goal in life a return to the workforce as soon as possible. This totally neglects the reality that bringing up children well is a full-time job and traditionally has been for many parents. This neglects the fact that all children in all family circumstances are different and that while a beneficiary family may be better off financially by going back to work it may not be better off emotionally or physically. A stressed unhappy mother trying to balance the demands of her children and herself with those of an employer who does not necessarily have much or any recognition of her personal needs can only make a difficult family situation worse. This can become even harder when children have particular problems with physical or mental illness injury or intellectual impairment. Above all this attitude—that paid work must come first—also flies in the face of a simple human reality: that the job of looking after babies and children and creating a loving nurturing environment for them to grow up in is work and should not be systemically denigrated by the State. 
All this is not to disparage however the good progress that Labour is making on issues like childcare out-of-school care and paid parental leave. Women should have real choice and that means the choice to enter or stay in the paid workforce while they have children as well as the choice to stay at home. Progress on paid parental leave and real pay equity must continue and I was interested in the Prime Minister’s remark about the move in the UK towards a whole year of paid parental leave. It is certainly worth noting that one of the most significant changes the Government could make towards ensuring the workforce is more attractive to women would be through increasing the minimum wage. 
It is instructive to compare Dr Brash’s Orewa welfare proposals with Steve Maharey’s policies over the last few years. While Dr Brash is leading a disgraceful right-wing surge on welfare Labour has nothing to crow about. For example not only does Mr Maharey have a bill currently before the House to increase penalties against domestic purposes benefit recipients who will not or cannot name the child’s father he has also proposed in the past 2 weeks that sickness and invalid beneficiaries be subject to more stringent health tests including extending the use of accredited doctors in a scheme similar to that of the Accident Compensation Corporation. What is more he has recently announced another plan whereby Work and Income case officers will visit the homes of all long-term unemployed beneficiaries in certain categories without it appears giving them an option of alternative arrangements. This is quite reminiscent of the intrusive activities of the benefit control units. 
The current dissolution of the Community Employment Group is also a disgrace at a time when Labour says it is making helping the long-term unemployed into work a priority. The Community Employment Group has 15 years of experience in working with community sector organisations creating jobs for long-term unemployed people especially in our more disadvantaged communities. Yet much of the Community Employment Group’s institutional knowledge and most experienced field staff are now likely to be lost simply because Government last year caved in to an attack from the right. We are going to be left with no part of the public sector that understands or can actively support genuine community economic development as one of its tasks. That is an indictment of Labour’s current direction. The consequence of the Community Employment Group’s disappearance will hit home only when unemployment begins to rise again as it inevitably will. It is the unemployed and the community sector itself that will suffer again. This is highly ironic from a Government that talks so much about understanding and supporting the third sector. Earlier than this we also saw the Jobs Jolt initiative with its “limited employment locality” no-go zones work testing of 55 to 59-year-olds for the first time and the use of drug testing as a benefit enforcement tool. Unfortunately Don Brash and Steve Maharey do seem to be engaged in something of a bidding war against the poor. 
Beyond the welfare issue the Green Party had also hoped that the Prime Minister’s statement might contain some detail about housing and how more low and middle income people might have more of a chance of achieving homeownership in this generation. Unfortunately like welfare no detail seems to be forthcoming at this time. Access to decent affordable housing is one of the biggest social and economic issues facing New Zealanders at the moment yet no clear solutions beyond what the Government has currently put into place are yet on offer. I am looking forward to the announcement when the Government does make it—I just wonder when it will be. 
Ideally the Green Party would have liked today’s speech to contain initiatives such as a new social security Act based on principles of sufficiency simplicity and equity; a universal child benefit that would not only help all families—low income ones most of all—but also could assist with capital for home deposits; the announcement of a rise in the minimum wage to at least $12 an hour; increased resources for State and third sector social housing where income-related rents could apply; more help for families trying to buy their first home; and a universal student allowance system. 
However it is clear that these and many other measures of basic social and economic justice are not likely to happen until there is a rather more significant Green Party presence here in Parliament and perhaps even in Government than the one we have today. 
Finally I would like to say just a few words about National’s treatment today of Katherine Rich. While Miss Rich and I clearly reside at very different points of the political spectrum I believe she has a genuinely compassionate approach to social welfare issues and more understanding of them than many in the House. It is a real pity that her empathy and experience have been cast aside as yet another woman is treated so dismissively by her party’s current leadership.