In conclusion!

I have enjoyed this journey of looking through the ages of social welfare. This journey has enlightened me on just how important it is to have a welfare state. It was interesting to note that historically, the wealth and vitality of New Zealand actually dictated more of an ideal and comfortable life for beneficiaries. Now we see the economic strain our country is in and how that is now dictating the changes that are being made. It became clearer for me to understand just how much impact neoliberisim had on this country and the ripple effect it is still creating, not only in welfare but for society at large. These impacts are inevitably affecting our children, not only through the economy, but through education. This will in turn have either a negative or positive outcome for our precious tamariki. I for one will now follow information on policy changes and reforms with a new found interest.   

The times thay are a changing!

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

(Dylan, B. n.d.).

The times are certainly changing for many beneficiaries across New Zealand.The Education Minister has, in my opinion made it quite clear that her aim is to shift as many people as possible off the benefit. I do believe that Ms Bennett does have some good ideas; I just do not know if her approach has been adequately thought through, I do challenge the fact, that where are all these jobs going to come from?

In September 2012 Paula Bennett released a cabinet paper detailing a range of new commitments that parents on state benefits will have to meet. One of the obligations that were outlined was for those children of beneficiaries from the age of 3 years would have to attend a Government approved ECE service for 15 hours per week. This has excluded Parents as first teachers (PAFT) and HIIPY parent based children groups. The paper reveals that all working-age beneficiaries with preschool aged children will be required to take 'all reasonable steps' to have their child attend a licensed ECE service for a minimum of 15 hours a week until they start school ( News for early childhood education, 2012).

 The Child Forum (2012) summed it up when they stated this. “The introduction of compulsory ECE for children aged from 3 years heralds a major change in social and educational policy in New Zealand. It is being brought in via the Ministry of Social Development instead of through the Ministry of Education, and without widespread consultation and public debate”.

This it seems is going to put a lot of financial pressure on these families that are already struggling in this hostile economic environment. If they do not comply with the Government regulations their benefit will be cut by 50%. Ms Bennett has been quoted as saying the 50 percent cap is “in the interest of the child” and the parent can re-comply” (News for early childhood education, 2012).

 I do not know if it is just me but I cannot see that how it can be in the best interest of the child if there is only half the total amount of money coming into a house hold because mum, or dad (whoever is the sole parent) decides that it may not be the best thing for their child to be attending an early childcare setting. Or even more concerning that they do not like the choice of the centre that is near them and do not have transport to others. Will half the amount of benefit equal half the amount of food and essential living items?

“Until now, parental access of childcare and support with early education has been a parental choice. This policy change signals movement toward the educational institutionalisation of children from a younger age. Compulsory ECE is being brought in, for the children of beneficiary parents, opening the door to a possibility of extending the age for compulsory education downward to 3 for all New Zealand children” (News for early childhood education , 2012). Does this signal a new era of compulsory education for children?

 

There is a lot of debate around the fact whether centre based learning is the best for children, or is at home in a familiar environment, with at least one parent, more beneficial? Research into the effects of children in non parental care in Norway has shown that if the care is of good quality these children form lasting attachments to non parental care givers. This has helped their social interactions with other adults and seemed to, according to Campell, Lamb and Hwang,(2000),“show better social competence through all their years of school to the age of 15 than children who did not attend childcare (Campell, Lamb and Hwang, 2000, as cited in (Unheim & Drugli, 2012,p.5.). This study was done on children in full time care however there was mention that children that attend childcare for shorter times also showed signs of the benefits of social competence.

In contrast to the belief that socialisation of learning seen in the centre environment is best, is philosopher, Jean –Jacques Rousseau’s idea that children should be left to naturally grow without the pressures of having to perform to a certain educational standard. Rousseau also felt that children did not need to be socialised, favouring learning the knowledge and realities of life in stead (Stables, 2003).

Early childhood teacher’s have voiced their concerns that they may feel under pressure to accept children into centre if they are sick, due to their parents being penalised if not having children attend for the required amount of time (News for early childhood education, 2012).

In the early childhood setting it is important to build strong relationships between, teacher’s children and their families. A report into the thoughts and recommendations of the compulsory early childhood attendance for 3 and four year olds produced these concerns from teachers. Teachers felt that by, “requiring a group of parents to use ECE in this way is expected to create a number of difficulties and make the job of teachers and ECE service providers a lot harder (The state of early childhood, 2012).

 

 

References

 

Child Forum (2012). The state of the early childhood and education sector in 2012 and outlook for 2013. Retrieved from. http://www.childforum.com/policy-issues/surveys-and-ece-sector-a-family-data/988-state-of-early-childcare-education-sector-2012-outlook-for-2013.html#ixzz2ReR66aQx

Child Forum (2012) News for early childhood education. Retrieved from. http://www.childforum.com | |

Dylan, B. (n.d.). The Times They Are A-Changin' Lyrics ( Lyrics Freak, n.d.). Retrieved from. http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob+dylan/the+times+they+are+a+changin_20021240.html
 

Magnuson, K., Shager H. ( 2010) Early education: progress and promise for children from low- income families. 32 (9), pp. 1186-1198.  Retrieved from Children and Youth Review.

Stables, A. (2003) Education for diversity making differences. Hampshire England:Ashgate.

Three News. (2011). Best News. Send kids to pre-school or lose be Retrieve from. http://www.3news.co.nz/Send-kids-to-pre-school-or-lose-benefit/tabid/1607/articleID/268921/Default.aspx

Undheim, A. M., Drugli, M.B. (2012). Experiences with full –time child care attendance on young children in Norway; Parents and early childhood teacher’s views, 3 (1), 1-15. Retrieved from AEI/ Australian Education Index.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The introduction of DPB (Domestic purposes Benefit)

In 1973 legislation was passed introducing the beginning of the Domestic Purpose Benefit. This benefit was intended to give mothers who had lost their husbands, or who were not being financially supported by their husband’s, security to raise their children. Men were also allowed to claim this benefit if they were raising one or more children independently. Women who lived alone and cared for incapacitated relatives could also claim this benefit (“1973 DPB Legislation introduced”n.d.).

The stereo typed family of mum and dad and the kids was very much changing around this time, bringing with it the need for such a benefit. However this came with much criticism from some suggesting that it was encouraging beneficiaries to become complacent about returning to the workforce. Others argued that it was the right of the mother to stay home and raise their children without having the help of financial support of the men (“1973 DPB Legislation introduced”n.d.).

The Government has put together figures estimating that only a third of all domestic purposes beneficiaries have been on the benefit since teenagers. This figure has been challenged by writer Simon Collins (2010) as incorrect.Collins maintains that “responding to an official Information Act request, Ministry head Peter Hughes to economist Susan St Jhon that 52 per cent of mothers on the DPB and aged 29 or under at the end of last year first received the DPB or EMA as teenagers” (Collins, 2010).

There have been accounts of people staying on the DPB for prolonged amounts of time. One women was reported to of been on the Domestic Purposes Benefit for almost 30 years (Brennan-Tupara, 2011). She apparently is one of a long list of beneficiaries that have been receiving the benefit for long term. Statistics that were taken by Brennan- Tupara (2011) from the Ministry of Social Development reveal that 1647 people have been on the benefit for longer than 15 years. When we looked at the beginning of the blog and saw the reasons for the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit being introduced and then look forward 40 years to now, I  cannot help wonder if some are taking advantage of the social welfare system. The changes that the Ministry of Social development are starting to implement, such as the compulsory 15 hours a week ECE participation for children of beneficiaries and the compulsory work test scheme (this is where beneficiaries are tested for their eligibility to be able to go out to the work force) continue to have an effect on the numbers of people on the benefit?It will be interesting to look at these things more closely and I suppose keeping an open mind. It is easy for people to put beneficiaries in a one size fits all case, but is really that simple?

 Important statistics about DPB

• There were 97,000 New Zealanders on DPB for sole parents in February 2010. This is up from 90,000 in February 2009 - an increase of 8 per cent.
• 43,000 sole parents on DPB have a child aged six and over. Over half had one child and 30 per cent had two children.
• Māori make up 38 per cent of DPB sole parents who will be work-tested, while Pacific Island people make up 8 per cent of this group.
• 12,500 DPB who will be work-tested have recent work experience or have completed training.
• New Zealand is one of the few countries in the OECD to have no work expectations for sole parents with children aged under 18 years.
• 15 per cent of sole parents on DPB have been in some paid work during the last year.
• Statistics show the number of sole mothers who work full-time has increased significantly in the last 15 years.
• Sole mother full-time employment rates increased rapidly when work tests were previously introduced for people receiving DPB (1997-2003). (Ministry of Social Development n.d.).

 

 

 

 

 

References

Brennan-Tupara, 2011 Single mum on DPB for decades. Stuff. Co.nz Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5652215/Single-mum-on-DPB-   for-decades

 Collins, S. (2010). Many mums on benefit since teens. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10664607

 New Zealand History online [N.Z H], 1973 DPB Legislation introduced. Retrieved from

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/page/legislation-introduce-dpb

Ministry of Social Development Domestic Purposes benefit fact sheet future progress (n.d) Retrieved from http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/factsheets/future-focus/domestic-purposes-benefit.html#ImportantstatisticsaboutDPB6

Three News, 2013. Beneficiary numbers spike in December quarter. Retrieved from

Beneficiary numbers spike in Dec quarter - Story - Politics - 3 News http://www.3news.co.nz/Beneficiary-numbers-spike-in-Dec-quarter/tabid/1607/articleID/283422/Default.aspx#ixzz2QUCi8qsH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way it was.

The way it was.

  I found this quote on a Government website interesting. It said “The original vision of social security was to grant not only freedom from poverty, but also dignity and a sense of citizenship” (Maharey, 2000). I wonder if most beneficiaries would agree with this statement today?

In 1938 the Social Security Act was passed. This was described as the “cornerstone of today’s Social Security system. (Maharey, 2000).  An independent review by the 1969/1972 Royal Commission on Social Security brought about changes such as an increase of double the amount families were receiving on the Family Benefit.  This increase echoed the “boom” of economic growth the country was experiencing after the war, and which had an impact on the amount beneficiaries would receive. This however was short lived as the economy plummeted, unemployment rose, and the country experienced, what would be a “prolonged period of recession” (Barnes, Harris, 2011).



Reference

Barnes, J., Harris, P (2011). Still kicking? The royal commission on social policy 20 years on. Retrieved from. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj37/37-still-kicking-the-royal-commission-on-social-policy-20-years-on.html

Maharey, S. (2000). Social Welfare in New Zealand. Beehive.govt.nz. The official website of the New Zealand Government. Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/8642

 

 

 

 

The Government makes their mark!

I was very interested to read the effects that neoliberalism had on New Zealand in the early 1980's. I had heard the term used before, but without really understanding what it meant. The Oxford Dictionary ( Stevenson & Waite, 2011) describes the word Neo- Liberal as "denoting a modified form of liberalism, tending to favour free- market capitalism". To me this definition, made sense as to what the Labour Government did at the time.
Neoliberalism came about after the 1984 Labour Government, led by David Lange, introduced radical social and economic reforms. 

This example of what happened around this time seemed to come from an authoritarianism type of leadership. (This is where a follow the leader type of dictatorship emerges). At the time this was, and still is referred to as Rogernomics.  Easton (1997), explains that the economic reforms of the 80’s were not overly supported by the majority of economists but rather from a “small group within Treasury and the Reserve Bank developed a set of ideas and analysis, which was then imposed on the rest of the government economists, and ultimately the nation (Easton, 1997). 

These policies had devastating implications for New Zealanders,as steady wealth transferred to overseas corporations. ( Museum of Nnew Zealand Te Papa Tongaewa n.d.). These effects are still being felt today, as we see state owned assets in the hands of off shore companies. The idea of charter schools is another example of a neoliberal approach on decision making, affecting all New Zealanders.  

 

Reference list

Bramhall, S. (2010). Uncensored Updates on World Events, Economics, the Environment and Medicine. Retreived fromhttp://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2010/01/26/in-new-zealand-they-call-it-rogernomics/
 

Easton, B. (1997). The relevance of Rogernomics. Retrieved from. http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/1997/11/the_relevance_of_rogernomics/

 

Musuem of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/WhatsOn/exhibitions/SliceofHeaven/Exhibition/SocialWelfare/Pages/Rogernomics.aspx

Stevenson, A., Waite, M. (EDs.)  (2011). Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford  New York.Oxford University Press.

 

 

 

 

 

Social Welfare: Beneficiaries in Society.

Kaiora everyone. My topic is about the Social Welfare system in New Zealand. I am looking at beneficiaries in society and how they are portrayed. This, in my opinion, is a huge social topic as there will, it seems always be a divide in how society feels about people on benefits. To narrow the topic of beneficiaries down I have chosen to focus on sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. I am interested in the recent Government initiative of making it compulsory for children of beneficiaries to attend ECE for at least 15 hours per week. How will they make this work I wonder? I do wonder why the free choice of whether you actually want your child to attend early childhood education or not could be taken away simply because you are a beneficiary! The Government’s initiatives in this area have not always been welcomed with open arms. I for one sometimes wonder who they are actually considering when they release these policies. It does appear that in many cases the children are the ones that lose out in this forever competitive world of politics! I am looking forward to reading into further how beneficiaries are portrayed in society and if some of the policies that Government have implemented or are considering implementing are going to have a positive or negative effect on how beneficiaries go about making their place in society.