Editorial - July 31, 2012

Giving life to dreams

Mr Sabin's actions to date in terms of lifting Northland's economy might prove to be ineffective but he should at least be given the chance to demonstrate he has begun a process that could benefit everyone who lives in the region.

It won't have taken Mike Sabin long to learn that pleasing all the people all the time is impossible. Eight months into the job of representing the Northland electorate in Parliament, he has already fallen foul of those who seemingly do not share his view that working for a living is infinitely better than existing on a taxpayer-funded benefit.

'Seemingly' because even his critics apparently accept that the dignity of work has great value. Their major problem seems to be that they see no jobs for beneficiaries, so they reject his philosophy lock, stock and barrel. As indeed they have rejected Mr Sabin's government's moves to coerce solo parents into paid employment once their children reach a certain age.

One would trust that no government in this country would deprive the unemployed with benefits if there were no jobs for them to take but that hasn't stopped former MP Sue Bradford and others of her ilk screaming blue murder.

Last week, Mr Sabin again stood accused of 'dumping' on a particularly vulnerable group in society, the teenage mum. Not surprisingly his assertion that some teenage girls see state-funded motherhood as a career option has raised hackles - the same hackles that were raised when his predecessor, John Carter, expressed similar views a generation ago - but he is almost certainly right. The evidence might be anecdotal but the writer is well aware of some young women who have apparently made just that decision.

So what has Mr Sabin said that is so offensive? He was quoted last week (July 26) as saying the reality was that thousands of young teenagers were staring down the barrel of a collision with an adult benefit. True. He was quoted as saying that, like everyone else, these young people have dreams, hopes and aspirations but often, through no fault of their own, find themselves in challenging situations where they will struggle to achieve those dreams, hopes and aspirations. The challenge for communities, and for parliamentarians, was to find ways of addressing that.

Hardly to the right of Genghis Khan, although Mr Sabin might be a touch naive if he believes that every young New Zealander makes his or her teenage years with dreams, hopes and aspirations intact. One of the great tragedies of New Zealand as we know it today is that many young people have had their dreams, hopes and aspirations beaten or starved out of them before they reach their teenage years. Therein lies another challenge for communities and parliamentarians.

He went on to say the social welfare reform he was speaking to represented an investment in young people, a belief that they have dreams and backing them in achieving those dreams, in part by devising a balance between rights and obligations. The reward for those young people, he said, would be more than the chance to earn a living. It would be finding a purpose in life, about building self-esteem and self-respect. The same reward the lucky ones (he might have said) get when they do something every day that contributes to the world.

Precisely how that represents dumping on some of the most vulnerable people in the community is not immediately apparent, to the writer at least.

One might see it as a realistic appraisal of the problems facing too many young people, and an ambition to make their lives infinitely better than they are now, or ever will be while they are reliant upon the taxpayer to sustain them and their dependents.

The real argument is why some young people arguably make poor choices that, as things stand, will effectively consign them to beneficiary status for years into the future, what might be done to persuade them that better options are available and how they can be equipped to take up those options.

Mr Sabin's critics are quite right to point out that, by and large, there are no jobs just waiting to be filled by beneficiaries, or anyone else.

A correspondent to this newspaper last week was hardly breaking new ground by suggesting a large part of the problem is New Zealand's "abysmal" economy, and that Mr Sabin's job was to do something about that. (She was on thinner ice when she complained that the current government's tax cuts for the "well off" had dramatically exacerbated the problem; the most comprehensive and expensive tax cuts in modern history were granted to the 'middle class' employed in the guise of Working for Families, an extension of the welfare state that Labour only conceded was a tax cut in the heat of last year's general election campaign).

Mr Sabin might well feel a little miffed by that particular barb. Long before he was elected, he was talking about his plans to convene an 'all-of-Northland' summit that would examine the factors that were hindering the creation of money and jobs in the electorate, and has now done so, little more than six months after his election.

He now claims those summits identified significant problems and opportunities that he, supported by an wide-ranging advisory group, will be addressing.

To say that his job is to put in place policies that will grow the economy and produce jobs, and that not only is that not happening but the opposite is occurring, is unfair. Criticism of political motives and lack of results, when it is as ill-informed as this, offers nothing.

Mr Sabin's actions to date in terms of lifting Northland's economy might prove to be ineffective but he should at least be given the chance to demonstrate he has begun a process that could benefit everyone who lives in the region. If some believe he is not doing enough, or is wasting his time, they should tell him so but unless they have some better ideas they might do him the courtesy of letting him get on with it and showing us his capabilities.

They would also do well to consider that the subject of getting newish mums into paid employment can be, and has been, subject to the vagaries of differing political agendas.

It's not that long ago Labour was exhorting women to get back into work as quickly as possible once they had delivered their babies - that's why so much taxpayer money was directed to providing subsidised day care for very young children.

Now we are hearing from all quarters that the longer Mum can stay at home with her infant the better. Perhaps our politicians could make up their minds.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the writer believes that a newborn's needs include the security and routine that can only be provided by a full-time parent, and that the longer it enjoys the undivided attention of a parent the better. Whether the taxpayer should be called upon to make that financially easier is another issue.

In the meantime it seems bizarre that women who have jobs and careers should be urged to return to work as quickly as possible by placing their infant children in care (as they were by Helen Clark's government) while solo parents should be spared the obligation to seek work and/or the skills that will make work available to them lest their children be scarred.

You can't have it both ways. And to consign children who have produced children of their own to beneficiary status for their lifetime is cruel beyond anything Mr Sabin or the government he is part of have suggested, or are likely to suggest.