AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

16/04/2010

Erana Kaye-Berghan

[address]

Mob: [phone number]

Ph: (09) [phone number]

To the Social Services Committee,

This submission is from Erana Kaye-Berghan.

I do not wish to appear before the committee to speak to my submission.

I do not support this bill because it is likely to have negative effects on the health of the most vulnerable of New Zealanders. This bill offers a quick fix that is likely to decrease unemployment rates in the short run. But in the long run it is likely to have detrimental effects on the health of the most deprived populations in New Zealand and lead to further health inequalities. I agree with the Bill’s general intention to encourage and assist people into paid employment, as unemployment is associated with a diminished health status (Baum, 2008). With some changes, this bill has the potential to be much more equitable while still maintaining a work focus. However, I believe the methods currently proposed in this bill are overly simplistic and unjust.

Specifically:

Clause 27, Section 102A: “to accept any offer of suitable employment, including temporary employment or employment that is seasonal or subsidized” (Social Assistance Future Focus Bill (No. 125-1), 2010, pg18).

Work environments are a significant contributor to health (WHO, 1986), not just in terms of the physical environment but also as a source of life satisfaction and meaning. The workplace can improve a person’s self-esteem and self-efficacy both of which have a positive influence on health (Siegrist, 2004). Similarly, Faragher, Cass and Cooper (2005) completed a meta-analysis of over 500 studies and found a strong correlation between poor job satisfaction and the experience of mental illness such as depression. Given the amount of time a person spends in his or her workplace it is no wonder that a person’s employment has such a profound influence on their wellbeing. In light of this, it is unjust to demand a person accept any offer of employment that does not satisfy a degree of personal satisfaction. In addition to this, Maori unemployment is currently more than three times that of Pakeha (Statistics New Zealand, 2010). This clause will force many Maori into unsatisfactory employment. Maori already experience higher rates of mental illness among many other health problems than non-Maori so an increase in the previously wide health disparities can be expected (Robson & Harris, 2007). Any piece of legislation that promotes inequitable outcomes should be discarded. Finally, for people to be able reach their health potential, they need to have control over the choices influencing their health (WHO, 1986). This clause restricts a person’s ability and right to choose employment.

To avoid the negative consequences of ordering people into the first available employment opportunity, I suggest that a definition of “suitable employment” is added. This definition should place strong consideration on the employment seeker’s definition of “suitable employment”. It should be a broad definition so that individuals are able to personalise it to employment that will provide adequate satisfaction. In addition to this, the bill should allow the maximum possible level of freedom in selection of preferred employment. This could be achieved by allowing sufficient time for a person to seek out and prioritise preferable employment opportunities.

Clause 16, Section 54DA: “Sickness beneficiary may be required to comply with work test - The chief executive may, by notice in writing, require a person who is granted a sickness benefit under section 54 to comply with the work test from a date specified in the notice if the chief executive, having regard to the certificate and any report obtained under section 54B, is satisfied that the person has, while receiving that benefit, the capacity to seek, undertake, and be available for part-time work. ” (Social Assistance Future Focus Bill (No. 125-1), 2010, pg12).

Many of the clauses in this bill provide caseworkers with the sole responsibility of assessing an applicant’s eligibility for social assistance. Clauses containing terms such as “suitable employment” are just one example of the room for interpretation by individual caseworkers. However, clause 16 provokes particular concern as it requires the caseworker to assess whether they personally believe that applicant/recipient of the sickness benefit is capable of pursuing part-time work. Although this clause dictates the caseworker must give “regard” to any information given under section 54B of the Social Security Act 1964, section 54B merely describes the medical certificate that must be supplied in order to be eligible for the sickness benefit (Social Security Act (No. 136), 1964). It is unrealistic that caseworkers are able to gain a full understanding of the illness and personal circumstances being experienced by an individual from their desk at Work and Income. This means that they are not equipped with the necessary information to individually make this decision. Currently, clause 16 increases the likelihood of inconsistency and inequitable treatment in determining the outcome for those on, or applying for the sickness benefit. Furthermore, the legislation requires that caseworkers assess the applicant based on their view of the applicant’s circumstances. It is likely that the caseworkers own beliefs, prejudices and availability of information will influence their decision. Additionally, pressures from government to reduce social assistance payments may further influence their decisions. This has the potential to result in severely inequitable outcomes if not monitored closely. Discrimination and inequitable treatment are root causes of unequal health outcomes (Ministry of Health, 2002).  This clause poses a threat to those who are already unwell by leaving loopholes for discrimination and inequitable treatment in the legislation. This needs to be addressed to ensure social justice in New Zealand.

I propose that individuals receiving or applying for the sickness benefit undergo a more comprehensive assessment. I suggest that this includes an in home assessment by an independent party, for example, someone contracted in that does not work directly for government.  Furthermore, a small board of caseworkers should review each case. The board should be from a range of professional backgrounds and ethnicities but hold equal status within the group. This will provide a range of diverse perspectives and values. The board should review all the information available, both from the independent assessor and medical practitioner. Using such a system would assist in arriving at more equitable decisions as there would be more than one persons values and experiences weighing on the decision. This would also improve consistency of decisions as the boards would see many applicants and could refer to previous conclusions to assist in coming to new decisions. Improving consistency and comprehensiveness of eligibility determination were also recommendations suggested by the Controller and Auditor-General’s review of the case management of sickness benefit beneficiaries (Controller and Auditor-General, 2009).

Clause 13 (Section 3,4 and 5) and Clause 51 (1 and 2): Abatement (Social Assistance Future Focus Bill (No. 125-1), 2010).

On a more positive note, I strongly agree with the increase in threshold for income testing for the domestic purpose benefit, widow’s benefit, invalids benefit and veteran pension as outlined in clauses 13 and 15. As discussed earlier, employment is a source of self-efficacy and self-esteem, which are both health promoting. The increased threshold encourages those who are able to work to seek part-time employment without punishing them by abating their benefit. Unfortunately, these increases don’t apply to individuals receiving the student allowance benefit. This discourages students from earning extra income that may well be needed, as it will only be justified if they are earning substantially higher than their allowance. Decreased income is associated with diminished health as it limits an individual’s ability to make healthier lifestyle choices and seek appropriate health care when necessary (Robson & Harris, 2007).

I would like to see the income-test threshold increase for student benefit allowance beneficiaries also. It is inequitable to increase the threshold of all the other main benefits at the exclusion of the student allowance. Given the money the government intends on saving by getting more people off benefits and back into employment, I think this is a feasible suggestion.

In summary, requiring people to accept any offered employment is unjust. Individuals should retain the right to choose where they are to be employed. Eligibility for sickness benefits should have a greater focus on individual circumstances and therefore more comprehensive eligibility testing should be implemented. Also, income testing for student allowance beneficiaries should be increased in accordance with the other primary benefits. More broadly, when addressing social assistance policies the government should not be hasty in its decision-making. Those on benefits are likely to be the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Changes to benefits can have a strong influence on these people and often this may be in less obvious, indirect and unintended ways. The government should endeavour to take a holistic view of the effect of their proposed changes and consider the long-term indirect consequences.

With many thanks for your consideration,

Yours sincerely,

Erana Kaye-Berghan

Reference List

Baum, F. (2008). The New Public Health. Victoria, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Controller and Auditor-General. (2009). Ministry of Social Development: Changes to the Case Management of Sickness and Invalids’ Beneficiaries. Retrieved April 14, 2010 from http://www.oag.govt.nz/2009/social-development/

Faragher, E., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. (2005) The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Health: A Meta-Analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105-112.

Ministry of Health. (2002). Reducing Inequalities in Health. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Robson, B., & Harris, R. (2007). Hauora: Maori Standards of Health IV. A Study of the Years 2000-2005. Wellington, New Zealand: Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare.

Siegrist, J. (2004). Psychosocial Work Environment and Health: New Evidence. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 888.

 Social Assistance Future Focus Bill 2010 (No. 125-1)(2010). Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0125/9.0/versions.aspx

Social Security Act (No. 136) (1964). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0136/40.0/whole.html#dlm361919

Statistics New Zealand. (2010). Household Labour Force Survey: December 2009 Quarter – Media Release. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/employment/householdlabourforcesurvey_mrdec09qtr.aspx

World Health Organisation (WHO). (1986). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: WHO.