Fran O'Sullivan: Welfare vision lost in translation

A day after his Orewa speech Don Brash was musing over the mixed reaction to his plans to tackle the sacred cow of social welfare.

The public did not seem to get the point that the speech was geared more towards the deleterious impact on people living lives of welfare dependency rather than a simple slash-and-burn, benefits-cutting exercise.

"That's the real point," he said.

His Orewa speech did touch on the "vision thing" - in parts. But the overall message was diluted by reaction to heartless suggestions such as getting young single mothers to adopt their children out rather than going on to domestic purposes benefits.

The purpose of our phone call was to get Brash to front up publicly over his unintended slight to Maoridom at Ratana, when he said that nearly half of all Maori children were dependent on welfare payments.

His PR team had corrected the subsequent Orewa speech notes to use the more accurate percentage of one-third before he gave that pivotal address.
But they did not issue a correction to the previous day's Ratana speech until pressured by the Herald.

This rubberiness over the use of statistics does nothing for the National leader's image. Brash assured me he was livid over the mistake, which was based on an error by the parliamentary library.

But it is rather disquieting that his research team - which includes seasoned analysts such as Peter Keenan - did not pick up the error until after the damage had already been done at Ratana. It was "one hell of a number" was Brash's response to why he had gone big on the faulty statistic.

Couple that with the pumped-up numbers Brash used at last year's Orewa speech to underpin his attack on Maori privilege and the impression is one of policy being made on the hoof, with numbers picked out of the air for their shock value, rather than a sophisticated attempt to delve behind the figures and grapple with the reasons behind some disturbing trends. This is not a good look for a political party led by a former Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The subsequent tardiness of his social welfare spokeswoman, Katherine Rich, to publicly back Brash's speech is another disquieting factor. To what extent Rich was consulted has been glossed over by both players - this is, after all, an election year.

But it is clear from Rich's comments to Herald political reporter Kevin Taylor that she had some concerns about the process which underpinned the speech.

I can't help thinking that if Rich had been appropriately brought into the frame - and the figures exhaustively probed by her and Keenan - then the outrageous exaggeration of numbers of Maori children dependent on welfare would not have emerged in the first place.

The speech might also have had a more holistic effect if it had included a focus on the issues that stop people easily getting back to work.

As it is Brash's speech simply did not have the galvanising effect achieved by former US President Bill Clinton, who promised to "end welfare as we know it" on achieving office. The way he tackled the issue of people living lives of dependency was to institute time-limits for benefits.

On August 22, 1996, Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which he said provided "a historic opportunity to end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility and family".

Among the key elements: strong work requirements, performance bonuses to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work - including increased funding for child care so parents could move into work without harming their children.

The critical element was the five-year time limit for receiving "Aid to Families with Dependent Children". After that period expired, welfare recipients would be withdrawn from "dependency" and forced to go it alone. Inevitably, many people found it difficult after their benefits were withdrawn.

But the rigorous enforcement of the time limit helped to force people to plan for their future and seek work, with the states providing back-up welfare assistance where needed.

Today, Prime Minister Helen Clark will outline her Government's plans for a universal benefit in place of the hotch-potch of differing payments for sickness, unemployment, domestic purposes relief and so forth.

But unless Clark puts a legislative time limit on the benefit, it will not bring the desired response.

What also intrigues is the fact that Clinton was not content with his mid-1990s reforms.

He had also looked at the option of allowing workers to privately invest a part of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts - but the proposal lost focus during the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Until our politicians tackle welfare with Clinton's vision and courage the problem will endure.