How National will deliver social services
How National will deliver social
services
The National Party’s reluctance to reveal its policy plans passed the point of diminishing returns quite some time ago. Trying to control the way a political debate unfolds is one thing – but deception of the public is something else. The money quote in yesterday’s Merrill Lynch report was that National has been telling insurers privately more than it has been speaking publicly about its plans for an ACC scheme central to the public’s workplace security and wellbeing. Don’t we deserve to be told about John Key’s plans for our own compensation scheme - before he informs the Australian insurers who stand to profit from the changes?
On a related front yesterday, Key introduced an
interesting moral distinction. Yes, in 2002 he did ask
parliamentary written questions about Tranzrail in which
his family trust held 30,000 shares, but he had sold the
shares before he commented publicly about rail
privatization. With respect, that’s not the point. The
point was in the asking, not in the telling. Ordinary
shareholders do not enjoy the privilege of using
parliamentary written questions to extract information from
which they potentially stand to gain. The timing of a
decision to sell – or to buy – shares is an economic
activity arguably more to the benefit of John Key, Citizen,
than John Key,MP.
In Britain, careers have been
damaged beyond repair by the use of parliamentary questions
for economic gain. There is no evidence that was the
intention here. What the public deserves at the very least
though, is an apology from Key for blurring the lines. The
distinction is so basic that even a perception does damage
to the institution – put simply, MPs should not be holding
shares in enterprises that they are subjecting to
parliamentary scrutiny. .
Despite yesterday’s
events, it seems unlikely that National will suddenly become
any more transparent – to the public at least - about its
policy intentions. Its corporate friends may continue to
get more information. By default, we have only the evidence
that can be gleaned from speeches and press releases.
Earlier this week, John Key said at the close of his Journal No. 40 videoclip on sports
funding that : ‘ National is going to have a better
balance on where money is spent in government. The
announcement I made on sports funding is just one example of
that.” Key then went on to list all the various government
departments and agencies with a role in sports funding. So
many bureaucrats, so much scope for duplication. So, we
probably should be taking Key at his word, and treating his
sports funding proposals as a model for how he plans to
manage the bureaucratic business of government, once
elected.
The big bucks – and the obvious place for
an agenda of small government and social renewal - are in
social services, which has always been a politically fertile
era for National. To avoid scaring voters, National has
shelved most of the welfare bashing tendencies that formed
the core of Don Brash’s Orewa II speech in 2005 - but
given the way the economy has been heading south for most of
this year, those issues seem ripe for a comeback.
There is never a good time to be poor. This year
though, New Zealand has entered its normal business cycle
downturn just as the triple whammy of rising oil prices,
soaring food prices and the global credit crunch have hit
the country. Already, this is starting to send beneficiary
numbers upwards from their recent historic lows, and those
figures will become very apparent before the election
campaign begins in earnest.
What Key has in mind has
less to do with the details – say, the numbers on
invalids and sickness benefits – than with changing the
entire mode of social services delivery. As Derek Senior
pointed out in a 2006 paper for AUT social service
delivery have de-volved considerably in recent years from
central government to community organizations. While NGOs
may have not been engaged in actually setting the benefit
levels or the entitlement rules, they have been doing just
about everything else.
Instead of allocating grants
for such work, the state has built up longer term,
contractual relations with the community sector. Those
contracts have had consequences for the scale, the
professionalism and the relative permanence of NGO social
service arrangements. Currently, there are a raft of NGOs
employing skilled and professional staff rather than unpaid
volunteers, and they form an essential outreach arm of
Internal Affairs, and the Ministries of Health, Social
Welfare, Education etc.
National, if it is to make
any real inroads into spending on social services will be
out to change many of those relationships. More is st stake
than mere platforms for delivery. At times, NGOS also
perform a useful role as social critics of government
policy. Because of their daily experience at the coalface,
they tend to speak out when policy is unworkable, will
identify how it needs to be changed or call for extra
funding when it is needed. Governments of course, don’t
always respond.
At its best though, this inherent tension in the NGO relationship with government has a definite upside. Officials can use fair criticism to fine tune delivery, and thus protect their political masters and the public at large from the unforeseen consequences of policy. It is not a perfect situation. Some of the criticism from NGOs tends to be rote, and the sector is relatively compliant for good reason – the $446 million Pathways to Partnership package announced in February for instance, allows for virtual 100 % funding inputs by government.
However, the current situation is better than the alternatives waiting in the wings. Community organizations from Barnardos to Plunket to Rape Crisis ( not to mention the various organizations that promote Treaty issues) can currently get on with the job with a fair degree of independence and funding stability, while still playing a valuable role for the public as social critics within our democracy.
If National does win the election, it is
likely to change how this NGO sector interacts with
government. To any freshly empowered Treasury bean counter,
the degree of professionalism and contractual permanence of
some of the current NGO relationships will very likely be
seen as unduly expensive. When you don’t understand or
care much about root causes, cheaper can always seem better.
Will churches and corporates become more closely
involved in service funding and delivery? You can bet on
it. So far in New Zealand, we haven’t had that much
difficulty in separating church and state, or keeping
corporate and non-profit roles apart in the provision of
social services. Worldwide, these lines are fast becoming
blurred - and the sort of safeguards and standards needed to
retain the secular delivery of social services is still a
controversial work in progress. Even Barack Obama for
instance, has promised to overhaul and expand George W. Bush’s
‘faith based’ initiatives, which entail funding
religiously based organizations. Obama sees this sector as a
key ally in his campaign to help the needy.
Not surprisingly, this is causing some concern among liberal Democrats who oppose any form of state funding of religious groups – a concern that Obama has tackled head on, by saying that the country’s problems are too big to be solved by government action alone. "I believe that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques," Obama said in a recent speech, while still defending the constitutional distinction between church and state.
The safeguards that are required to keep that distinction alive ? Religious groups receiving state funds cannot be allowed to evanglkise, Obama insists, among the people that they help, and nor could they discriminate in their hiring practices, on the basis of religion. Faith-based groups could only use federal dollars for secular programs. In addition, Obama committed himself to ensuring that taxpayer dollars would only go to "programs that actually work."
New Zealand may need to
specifically re-impose similar requirements on the
charitable organizations and corporates that will receive
state funding for social services in future.. We need to
ensure that regardless who delivered the services, the tone
and content of delivery – and the workplace conditions -
remain strictly secular and non-profit. So far though, this
debate has been couched solely in terms of efficiency and
waste – ie, in the language Key used to discuss sports
funding. And who isn’t in favour of trimming unnecessary
bureaucracy, of cutting waste and duplication, and of
freeing more resources for frontline staff?
Behind
that rhetoric though, what new structures for social service
funding and delivery does National have in mind? Some
changes will be pretty obvious. You would expect a
centre-right government to promote corporate opportunities
for the sponsorship of social services, and to devolve as
much delivery as humanly possible to large, church-based
voluntary organizations. Being cheaper however, should not
be enough to clinch the contract. Anti-drug programmes in
schools for instance. should be required to prove that they
will actually work, and not serve merely as feel-good
expressions of concern about social problems, at the
taxpayer’s expense.
Key will be looking for major
cost savings and culling of ‘bureaucrats.” At the very
least, expect a stock-take of all social services currently
contracted for by government, quickly followed by steps to
rationalize the delivery of services - under the roof of one
super-agency. Key is rumoured to be a very big fan of the
Australian charity organisation Mission Australia.
With or without the advice of Crosby Textor, Key
would regard Mission Australia as a large, business
friendly, religiously motivated community provider of many
services that are currently spread in New Zealand across
disparate organizations. The rationalisation of those NGOs
would be a politically marketable approach for National to
take. Mission Australia could well be directly employed to
midwife the changes to New Zealand social service delivery,
via its own public/private partnership with a Key-led
government. At the very least, Mission Australia will be
much cited as a model to emulate.
One super agency
would enable a degree of political control over a sometimes
compliant, sometimes feisty sector. Some NGOs would be able
to swim with the tide. The degree of corporatisation that
has already occurred among such groups as Presbyterian
Support Services or ( even) at Auckland City Mission would
enable them to adapt to the new reality, and to survive.
Other groups may not be so flexible, or as fortunate.
What is driving this agenda, beyond mere ideology ?
Well, a programme of tax reduction and smaller government
cannot be seen to be cutting and running away from social
services as a result. The next government needs to look
engaged. Therefore, a cheaper model has to be found and
implemented, one compatible with enhanced corporate and
voluntary sector delivery. The language of charity (and a
helping hand to those who have earned the right to it) will
become the new norm. We will be hearing much less about
needs, entitlements and the root causes of violence and
poverty.
As Key indicated, his stance on sports
funding is a model for what he has in mind for wider
processes of government. Yes, some savings from cutting down
on the bureaucratic ‘back office’ in sports funding will
be shifted to schools, to help fund their sports activities,
he promises. ( How and by what formula, who knows.) “ But
also [there will be] funding [for] extra-curricular sports
clubs, through either Regional Sports Trusts, or directly,
through the clubs.”
Got the drift ? Direct funding
to those peddling the services, rather than more operational
funds for those currently at the educational coalface.
Substitute ‘welfare delivery’ for sports. Think about
church voluntary groups and profit driven ‘regional
trusts’ having a more direct line to taxpayer funds. In
future, will the government be interested in funding only
the groups that are helping it to put a smilier face on
social problems?
Right now, we need to know what
co-ordinating structure Key has in mind. Basically, will a
new agency be empowered to negotiate all of the social
services contracts and dole out all the funds - and what
role, if any, will Mission Australia be playing in such
developments? As yet it is still unclear whether Key has
told the Salvation Army, Presbyterian Support Services,
Barnardos, Rape Crisis and Plunket etc anything about how
he plans to manage the state’s business with the
vulnerable sectors that those NGOs currently serve. They
really should be asking him – because, as in most other
policy areas, National is not telling us.
ENDS