https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1209/S00294/qa-shane-taurima-interviews-paula-bennett.htm
|
| ||
Q+A: Shane Taurima interviews Paula Bennett |
||
Q+A: Shane Taurima interviews Paula
Bennett
“You have to have that stick at
the end.” Paula Bennett on her tough approach to new
social obligations for benefits.
On cutting people’s
benefits for not meeting the social obligations, Paula
Bennett says, "The sanction is very much at the end of what
will be quite a long and intense process.”
In her
maiden speech, Paula Bennett said, “Good government should
stay out of people’s homes.” Now she admits that while
she’s “grappled” with it, she feels she has to go into
some of the homes.
Minister gives assurance that
when services aren’t available, “they won’t be
sanctioned…. If they can’t attend an early-childhood
education, they will not be punished for
that.”
Cutting the benefit is “not what we want
to do… it’s an absolute last resort.”
Only a
small number of the most vulnerable people will actually be
tested to see if they’re complying: “We do not test
everyone to check that they’re complying. We don’t
have the resources, and, in fact, some of them will comply
without us checking on them and we don’t need to, so we
take a subset.”
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV
ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus
1.
Thanks to the support from NZ
ON Air.
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q
+ A
SHANE TAURIMA INTERVIEWS PAULA
BENNETT
GREG
Social welfare is being reformed this week. Paula
Bennett introduced legislation reducing the number of
benefit categories in making beneficiaries prepare for
work. If suitable employment is turned down, the benefit
will be cancelled. Beneficiaries also need to enrol their
children with a GP and in early-childhood education when
they’re just 3 years old. And if they don’t, they
stand to lose half their benefit. Shane Taurima spoke to
Minister Paula Bennett on Friday afternoon and began by
asking her why we need these new social obligations
requiring beneficiaries’ children to be in education and
enrol with doctors.
PAULA BENNETT –
Social Development
Minister
Well, we have a
lot of vulnerable kids in this country. And depending on
your definition of vulnerability, a lot of them are on
benefit. And when we look at that, we know that there is a
high percentage of Maori and Pacific Island kids that are
not enrolled in early-childhood education. Every bit of
evidence that I’ve seen says that they would have better
outcomes later on if they get that real kick-start in
life.
SHANE So
how many kids are we talking about? Just so we can see how
big a problem we have.
PAULA
Right, so overall there is about
220,000 children that are on benefit, if you like. Their
parents are on benefit. About 31,500 are aged 3 and 4
years old, and we don’t know the exact percentage of which
are not enrolled in early-childhood education or enrolled
with a GP.
SHANE
So why do you think that those parents aren’t
doing these things now?
PAULA
I think it’s a combination. I
think one is that they aren’t aware of the value of
early-childhood education in particular, are unsure how to
access the services. I think there are barriers there.
And as I say, if they don’t sort of give that level of
importance to early-childhood education, then they’re not
enrolling their children and getting them to
attend.
SHANE They’re going
to get a fairly quick lesson, though, now, aren’t they?
Because you’re saying if they don’t do these things,
you’re going to cut their benefit.
PAULA
Well, there will be very clear
expectations on them that that is what we want, but we will
work with them really intensively, one-on-one case
management. We’ll only be dealing with those that we
deem to be most vulnerable, and, you know, it’s really
about support and encouragement. The sanction is very much
at the end of what will be quite a long and intense
process.
SHANE
But you’ve got fairly clear expectations that if
they don’t do this, you’ll cut their
benefit.
PAULA
Well, we do, but, however, we’re going to work
with them to break down some of those barriers. I think
sometimes just— I mean, at the end of the day, you kind
of have to have that stick at the end so that they will—
so that you get behavioural change, really. So without it,
you’re not seeing the same sort of
levers.
SHANE So
you are using a stick?
PAULA
There is a stick at the end of it,
yeah. Look, I have looked at this upside down, inside out,
read all of the evidence, taken the best advice I can. The
reality is for a percentage of our population, their
children are not achieving and getting the kinds of
opportunities that they should have in life. I’ve been
in too many classrooms of 5-year-olds and seen the kids that
haven’t been in ECE that are really struggling. It does
affect those that are at the more vulnerable end. That
definition of vulnerability goes to low socio-economic,
those that might have been in the attention of Child, Youth
and Family previously and those that are just simply
disadvantaged. If we can give them an advantage, let’s
give it to them.
SHANE So what happens
where those services aren’t
available?
PAULA
Well, they won’t be sanctioned. That’s a
reality. So, we know that there are very real barriers.
The Minister of Education is working very hard to put more
resources in there and get services where they want them.
If they can’t attend an early-childhood education, they
will not be punished for
that.
SHANE So
you know from the outset that these obligations may not be
achievable because of lack of services, because of a lack of
a place at the local kindy or at a
GP?
PAULA But I
also know that there’s empty places in some centres. And
even though they in some cases put on transport, they
identify the children, they go out and try and get them
there, they’re not attending, so this might be the lever
that gives them that kind of opportunity to get
them.
SHANE So
if solo mum Jan can’t get little Johnny into daycare
because there’s no place, you’re not going to cut
Jan’s benefit?
PAULA
No, we are not.
SHANE How can cutting
a benefit be good for the child – the child that we’re
saying is paramount in all of it?
PAULA
It’s not what we want to do,
it’s not the intention of the policy is to be cutting a
whole lot of people’s benefits, so we will have worked
through a whole lot of processes before that. And to be
honest, I would expect them to be well connected to either a
community organisation that can help them. Because I think
if you get to a point where they’re just point blank
refusing to and can’t see the benefits of it, then we’ve
possibly got bigger problems than just whether or not their
child’s attending early-childhood education. So it is an
absolute last resort, and the reality is that without a
sanction, you aren’t using that kind of lever to get the
kind of behavioural change that we’re looking for for
those children.
SHANE
Let me quote the Maxim Institute. ‘Families know
their children best. They’re the best place to know if
their children would thrive in an early-childhood setting or
if they would do better at home in the care of an adult that
they trust.’ They have a point, don’t
they?
PAULA They
do, actually, yeah, and I can certainly see the merits of
that argument. And believe me, I have tussled with this
one quite a lot because there’s a part of me that sort of
says, you know, parents should be, absolutely. But I have
seen enough evidence of these really vulnerable kids that
are not getting access to what is freely available in most
cases and which they can access, and they’re the ones that
are falling behind. They’re the ones that I’m now
dealing with at 16, 17 years old. They’re the ones that
I see in my youth justice facilities. They’re the ones
that teachers say, ‘I can tell you which children have and
haven’t been in early-childhood education. And we’re
right on the back foot, and I’m not sure if we’re ever
really going to catch them up.’ So if I can give them
that chance at the beginning, you know, I’m going to.
And I don’t think that every child actually needs to be in
early-childhood education, but I do think it benefits those
that are most vulnerable so much that that’s why I’m
doing this.
SHANE
So you don’t believe that all children should be
in early-childhood education, but you’re forcing it to
happen, though.
PAULA
For some of those most vulnerable, I
am.
SHANE For all
beneficiaries?
PAULA
Yeah, it is an expectation for all beneficiaries.
However, we will only be dealing with those whom we class as
vulnerable. So we’re going to be taking data, we’re
going to be collecting information. We know a lot
already. We know those that are on
benefits—
SHANE
Can I just stop you there? Can you explain or
break it down what you mean by vulnerable? So are you
saying that not all children of beneficiaries will be
subjected to these obligations?
PAULA
There is an expectation that they
will be, but we won’t be testing that many of them, so we
will only be looking for compliance for a certain population
of that. The Cabinet papers say that we’ll be looking at
around 20,000 to 25,000 children in a year, and we’ve got,
you know, 220,000 children on benefits, so that’s a very
very small subset of
that.
SHANE So
just so that I’ve got it clear, we’re just talking about
a certain section of these kids?
PAULA
That will be tested on whether or
not they’re complying. The others – we expect them to,
but we won’t be checking up to see if they
have.
SHANE What’s the
point of these obligations if some don’t have to meet
them?
PAULA Well,
it’s the same with work testing, to be honest. We have a
work-test obligation across, you know, most of those that
are on benefit. However, we do not test everyone to check
that they’re complying. We don’t have the resources,
and, in fact, some of them will comply without us checking
on them and we don’t need to, so we take a subset. In
this case, we’re going to take a subset of who we consider
to be most
vulnerable.
SHANE
So, if we go back to Jan, if Jan wants to keep
little Johnny at home, she can?
PAULA
Well, it depends whether Jan’s
tested or not or whether or not those case managers are
actually, sort of, working with her and seeing whether or
not she needs to, but it depends on Jan’s own personal
circumstances. But there is an expectation that all
parents that have children aged 3 and 4 that are on benefit
will have their children in early-childhood education, but
we won’t be checking all
31,500.
SHANE It
sounds like you’re stigmatising those parents. Are they
worse parents?
PAULA
No, and I hear what you’re saying there, because
I struggle with it. And at the end of the day, my focus is
really really firmly on those children. And I look at it,
and I go, ‘If you know what we know, so we know the
benefits of early-childhood education, we know that getting
enrolled with a GP, having those well-child checks is hugely
beneficial for those children who are struggling most, and I
know who they are and I can do, I just can’t in all of
honesty sit back and say that how it is now is as good as it
gets for those kids.’
SHANE Tell us about
another announcement – the beneficiary who turns down a
suitable job and has their benefit cancelled. The critics
call it harsh.
PAULA
Well, in this day and age, it’s kind of hard for
a lot of people to get a job, and I really accept that. So
surely if there is one that is suitable, you should take
it. And we don’t all get to go in our perfect job first
off. In fact, we’ve probably all worked in jobs we
didn’t want to. I think if there’s a job that you are
suitable for, you should take it. And if you don’t, I
think you’ve cut out your right to have
benefit.
SHANE
Let me give you a couple of examples of where
benefits were almost cut. A young woman living in
Wainuiomata – they wanted her to work at a coffee cart on
the Petone waterfront. She had to start work at 6.30am,
and because she had no car, she had to catch two buses,
travel for an hour and walk there. That doesn’t seem
fair.
PAULA No,
so was her benefit
cut?
SHANE No,
it wasn’t.
PAULA
No, and it wouldn’t be in this circumstance
either, because that doesn’t sound fair and
reasonable.
SHANE Let me just
clarify that her benefit hasn’t been cut, but she is
appealing it now.
PAULA
Okay. It doesn’t sound like she can get to the
job, so that wouldn’t be fair if she couldn’t get to the
job. So, I mean, it’s hard for me to know all of the
circumstances around it. So there is a degree of
reasonableness around it, but equally I think if you can,
then you should be.
SHANE
In your maiden speech and let me quote, ‘Good
government should stay out of people’s homes,’ these
obligations, these expectations, the stick that you spoke
about before, that’s not staying out of people’s
homes.
PAULA No,
no, and I tell you, I grappled with it. It’s not sat as
comfortably— you know, I’m not doing this because, you
know, I’ve all of a sudden become hugely interventionist
or I want to get into everyone’s
homes.
SHANE Did
you change your mind?
PAULA
No, I—
SHANE Do we need to
go into these homes? Well, that’s
what—
PAULA In
some of them we do. I suppose I have because I have seen
the evidence. I see too many kids that are struggling and
not getting ahead in life, and I see it cyclical. I see
this happening generation after generation, and I want to
make a difference, and I’ve got an opportunity to do that
and I’m taking it. So with all of the knowledge that I
have gained in my time as a minister, which is nearly four
years, and with all of the advice I’ve got, I am, I
suppose, going into some of those homes. But it feels like
it’s for the right
reasons.
SHANE
Great place to leave it. Thank you very much for
your time.
PAULA
Thank
you.
ENDS