Part A: Pieces of Legislation

1. The Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill

The purpose of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 was to guarantee a living wage to all workers who work a standard period of time, and thus making sure that they are either on or above the poverty line. This bill is a member’s bill, introduced by Hon Sir Roger Douglas, from the Act Party, on 23rd of February 2010. Its purpose is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983, through the provision of differing levels of minimum wages for 16-17 year old workers, who are defined as “youth”, and other workers (New Zealand Parliament, 2010).

The Minimum Wage Act 1983 has been previously amended in 2005, by the Minimum Wage (Abolition of age discrimination) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by Sue Bradford from the Green Party (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). This bill amended the definition of “adult” worker; to be of the age of 16 years rather than 18 years, and repealed the definition of “youth worker” (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). This change was done to stop the Governor General from prescribing minimum wages that discriminate on the basis of age. The proposed changes in the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill, is to essentially erase the changes made by Sue Bradford. It repeals section 4 of the original Minimum Wage Act 1983, and substitutes it with a section that allows the Governor General to prescribe minimum wages that discriminate on the basis of age, through the introduction of the term “youth worker” again (New Zealand Parliament, 2010).

This bill has negative implications on health promotion and the health of the population in several ways. Firstly, this bill promotes age discrimination, which violates Article 23 of the universal declaration of human rights (2008) that New Zealand signed up to. Secondly, the bill jeopardises youth wellbeing, as several “youth” will be working in the same jobs and conditions of other “adult” workers, but will get paid less for it, putting them in a lower income bracket, and in high risk of future low socio-economic status, and poverty (Baum, 2008). Thirdly, the focus on youth employment policies, takes the spotlight off more important policies to do with youth education, sufficient housing, and nutrition, which are more likely to have a positive effect on youth employment, and their wellbeing in the future (Moodie & Hulme, 2004). Finally, the bill enables employers to hire cheap labour, and attain higher profits, thus causing a larger disparity of income and power between employers and employees, which is known to have negative mental and physical health implications (Baum, 2008).   

2. Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill

The governance of the Auckland region has been a cause of concern for at least the past 50 years (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). This bill is a Government’s bill, introduced by Hon Rodney Hide from the Act Party, on the 10^th of December 2009, and had then been passed on to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, to receive public submissions till the 12^th of February 2010. This bill is also the third and final bill required to implement the Government’s decisions on governance arrangements in Auckland. The bill’s main aim is to amalgamate the present eight local authorities of Auckland into one structure, which will be the new Auckland Council, by November 2010; the Auckland Transitional Authority is set up to carry out these changes (New Zealand Parliament, 2010).

To implement these changes, the bill outlines how many organisations will be disestablished, and their staff and assets moved to new or different organisations (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Firstly, twenty to thirty local boards will be set up, with distinct decision making roles, and will sit alongside the governing body of the council, rather than operate in a hierarchical relationship (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Secondly, seven Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) will be set up, and these will be council owned, and controlled (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Three CCOs have already been approved; these will govern the Water Care Services Ltd., The Regional Transport Authority, and a Waterfront Development Agency (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). The four new CCOs will be in charge of Economic Development, Tourism and Events, Property Holdings and Development, Major Regional Facilities, and Council Investments. Thirdly, in July 2012 there will be a single rating system across Auckland, but till 2012 there will be a provisional rating system (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Lastly the assets and liabilities of the existing local authorities will transfer to the New Auckland council on November 2010, and the existing policies will also be transferred and will be in effect for a maximum of five years, then they are reviewed (New Zealand Parliament, 2010).

The local boards are set up as the second tier of governance after the Government, and will most likely follow Government instructions and interests (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). These local boards, which are set up instead of the local authorities may then reduce the representations of the diverse community groups in Auckland, and thus will diminish democratic processes over time (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Each Auckland community has its own unique character, assets, and population. Local authorities are chosen by the community, and have great knowledge of each of their community’s needs and heritage (Moodie & Hulme, 2004). However replacing them with Government bodies, will reduce the likelihood of meeting each community’s real needs, and may instead follow Government interests, such as enhancing tourism and economic development, instead of implementing sustainable policies and development (Moodie & Hulme, 2004). Moreover, the bill mentions Maori representation and participation; however, this seems to be artificial, because if their assets are essentially under the Government’s control, then they have in effect lost governance over their taonga (Reid & Robson, 2007). Lastly, the plan to create CCOs seems to be similar to the initial neo-liberal steps that were taken in the 1980s, where state assets were then later privatised, and this was known to have caused several job losses and adverse health outcomes in the long run (Howden-Chapman, 2005).      

3. Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill 2010

Social Assistance and the welfare system is mainly designed to assist citizens who are not able to support themselves or their families due to unemployment, underemployment, hardship, unskilled labour capacity, disability, or other similar reasons (Baum, 2008). This bill is a member’s bill, introduced by Hon Paula Bennett, from the National Party, on the 23rd of March 2010, and had then been passed on to the Social Services Committee, to receive public submissions, till the 14^th of May 2010. The bill seeks to re-examine and reform the current welfare system. These changes are said to be made for the purpose of introducing an unrelenting focus on work rather than dependence on the state, which meets the programme commitments made by the Government prior to the election (Bennett, 2010).

The bill seeks to essentially reform some of the welfare state policies, in order to have a more productive and efficient workforce in New Zealand (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Firstly, sole parents with children six years and older are to be work-tested and required to look for part-time work, and in 2011, those with Sickness Beneficiaries will face the same obligations when assessed in order to participate in part time work. Secondly, benefit rates are to be increased annually in line with the increase in living costs, but those who are still receiving an Unemployment Benefit after a year are expected to reapply (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Thirdly, Employment Plans will be made for beneficiaries, to assist them to move towards employment, thus focusing on what they are able to do, rather than what they can’t do (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Finally, abatement rate thresholds, and childcare assistance thresholds for high income earners will be increased, and there will be stricter application of eligibility criteria for the Invalids Benefit (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). 

The reforms suggested in this bill, seem very similar to the welfare reforms that were made in the 1980s in New Zealand, which consequently increased the inequity of social determinants of health like income, employment, education, and housing (Howden-Chapman, 2005). Bennett (2010), states that the bill has commitment to fairness, by having an unrelenting focus on what people can do rather than what they can’t; this however leads to the categorisation of marginalised groups as “unworthy” of getting benefits. The stigmatisation of those under welfare benefits is commonplace in neo-liberal policies, as they shift from the notion of “universal care”; which is outlined as a human right in Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2008), to the notion of a residual ‘welfare safety net’ only given to those who are “worthy”, but already in deep poverty because of lack of preventive measures (Baum, 2008). Moodie & Hulme (2004) state that these inequities in a society will have a larger negative impact on the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the children, sole mothers, the disabled, and the marginalised ethnic groups. Inequities in the social determinants of health shapes people’s exposure to virtually all psycho-social, behavioural, and environmental risk factors, that lead to physical and mental health problems (Graham, 2004). Coburn (2000), states that not only do the inequities, caused by neo-liberal policies, have negative physical and mental health implications for marginalised groups, but it also promotes social exclusion in a society. Moreover, neo-liberal policies, such as the potential of this bill, may lead to the “managerialism” of the welfare sector, thus shifting the social services towards private providers who employ unskilled staff at lower wages, in the public health field (Baum, 2008).

Part B: Submission

12^th May, 2010

Social Services Select Committee

Parliament Buildings

Wellington, New Zealand

Dear Sir, Madam

This submission is from a health promotion student studying the Bachelors of Health Sciences in the University of Auckland, on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill.

I enclose two copies of the submission, and would like to give an oral submission, when the committee is considering submissions.

Yours Sincerely,

Mary Loka

Bachelor of Health Sciences student

University of Auckland

09-XXX XXXX    021-XXXXXXXX

________________________________________________________________________________

Submission

to the Social Services Select Committee

on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill

1.     Executive Summary

1.1: Introduction

Health Promotion always has a holistic view of an individual, seeking to meet not only their physical health needs, but also their mental, social, cultural, and spiritual needs. Therefore health promotion practice has to work in different levels; the individual level, the family and community level, the organisational level, and the societal level (Baum, 2008; also see Figure A). According to the Ottawa charter, a health promoter’s three key functions are to advocate for communities’ needs and rights, mediate between the community and those that hold the authority, and enable communities to have control over their health and life (Baum, 2008). Moreover, two key principles in the practice of health promotion, is empowering communities, rather than having a power-over relationship with them; and to make sure that community interventions promote equity, by being specifically tailored for marginalised communities (Baum, 2008).   

Figure A: The Dahlgren-Whitehead Model

Reference: Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. 1991. Policies and Strategies to Promote Social Equity in Health. Stockholm, Sweden: Institute for Futures Studies.

• Supporting the increase in benefits and Employment plans

Increasing benefit rates annually in line with the increase of living costs seems to be a good step towards equity, and enabling beneficiaries. Moreover, the Employment plans which are designed to assist beneficiaries towards employment, and support them in economic and social participation, are also good steps towards empowerment. However, these suggested policies need to have a holistic view, and take into consideration other structural policies that will indirectly have an effect on employment. (Howden-Chapman, 2005; Baum, 2008; New Zealand Parliament, 2010).

• A Sustainable Future, with a Holistic View

Social Assistance policies should have a sustainable focus; that is to help create a productive future for communities, by giving them the right resources that will help and enable them, and the generations after them (Moodie & Hulme, 2004). Sustainable policies should also have in mind the Government’s responsibilities to protect and enable marginalised communities, in order to reduce inequities, and create a healthier and more cohesive society (Coburn, 2000; Davis & Howden-Chapman, 1996). King (2000), states the importance of protecting vulnerable groups, who suffer from inequitable distribution of determinants of health and health status; such as children, sole mothers, the disabled, and Maori. The Government should take these communities into consideration when making any policy reforms, as they hold responsibilities towards their wellbeing, according to the universal declaration of human rights, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

• Key Recommendations:

• Social Assistance policies should be made to address the existing inequities in society which affect marginalised groups such as:
  • Children and Sole Mothers
  • Disabled
  • Maori
• Social Assistance policies should not be made to stigmatise beneficiaries as “unworthy”. Instead of looking only at employment as the only means to get beneficiaries in and out of getting benefits, have a more holistic approach to enabling and empowering them.
• Social Assistance policies should address other social determinants, because when these are addressed, people would feel healthier, and enabled to work. For example addressing:
  • Education
  • Housing
  • Social Cohesion

2.   Body of submission

2.1: Addressing marginalised groups:

Social Assistance policies are designed to assist citizens who are not able to support themselves or their families due to unemployment, underemployment, hardship, unskilled labour capacity, disability, or other similar reasons (Baum, 2008). Bennett (2010) seems to follow the invisible hand doctrine, and states that these inequities occur ‘just’ because what one puts into the market one gets out; however, she ignores the other structural determinants, such as discrimination, lack of child support, and education; that put the individual or community in this spiral of inequities (Coburn, 2000). It is therefore necessary in the policy process, to understand and cater for these marginalised communities according to their needs, thus empowering them, and reducing the gap between them and the rest of society (Moodie & Hulme, 2004).

Baum (2008) states that policies which alleviate poverty encourage people to enter the labour force; especially sole mothers, and the long-term unemployed, in a way that ensures they are rewarded for their effort; such as the suggested increase in the abatement rates in this bill. Howden-Chapman (2005), further states that although sole mothers have gained employment, and get rewarded for it, they are little better off than on welfare, and instead have to deal with work-related stress, and child care. Moreover, Graham (2002) explains wide research on the association between low birth weight and the environment of early life, and the increased risk in adult life from chronic disease. This implies that the Government should take into consideration sole mothers, in their policy making, in order to not lead them into further poverty, as this will affect them and their vulnerable children, and in turn affect the future of a society (Graham, 2002).

Approximately 1 in 5 New Zealander’s have a disability, this could be physical, but also includes mental disabilities (King, 2000). In essence these people are not disabled, but it is the barriers created by society that disable them; therefore they have the potential to work and be active in their communities (King, 2000). The Government should therefore focus their attention on policies that de-stigmatise disabled communities, and enable them to work in the community (King, 2000).

Unemployment rates for Maori remain three times higher than Pakeha, and there is also evidence that Maori face discrimination in the labour market; in getting a job, in the type of job obtained, and the wages paid for a particular type of work (Reid & Robson, 2007). For Maori to experience racial discrimination is not only a breach of human rights, but also a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (Reid & Robson, 2007). Reid & Robson (2007) further state that non-Maori tend to have a power over relationship with Maori, in their governance and authority, and as Maori feel that their voice is not being heard or they have no control over their life, their wellbeing diminishes, and one of the many dire results is unemployment.

Recommendations:  

• The committee should re-consider work-testing sole parents with children six years and over, and forcing them to look for part time work, and meanwhile changing the child care assistance thresholds (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). This will only lead sole parent households to live in poverty, and will put further pressure on sole parents, which may lead to dire health outcomes, and their inability to work in the future (Baum, 2008). Moreover, children living in this type of environment in their early life have proven to have associated chronic diseases later on in life, thus creating another pool of potential unemployed people, and greater burden on the government (Graham, 2002).
• The committee should re-consider having stricter application of eligibility criteria for the Invalids benefit, as this will further marginalise the disabled community, and increase the gap between them and the rest of society in getting access to resources (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). Instead the Government should consider policies that will enable this community in participating in society, and to de-stigmatise them in the employment process (King, 2000).
• The committee should consider how the implications of this bill may affect Maori, as they are tangata whenua, and the Government has responsibility to protect their rights, and make sure they have equal rates of participation in the community (Reid & Robson, 2007). King (2000) further states in New Zealand’s primary health care strategy’s main objectives; to address the health disparities between Maori and other New Zealanders, and to make sure that Government policy doesn’t exacerbate these disparities.  
  • Stigmatising Beneficiaries:

Bennett (2010) states, that welfare should be seen as a last resort, which is reserved to the most vulnerable, and should not be seen as a right for all citizens. However, it is these types of political statements, and the frequent media cover stories of “welfare cheats”, that create the stigma around beneficiaries; and assume that the benefits they receive encourages them to be lazy and not look for work (Baum, 2008). Baum (2008) points out that whilst some may abuse the system, the majority of beneficiaries do not claim their full entitlements, and that tax evasion is a more significant problem, yet doesn’t attract as much stigma. Graham (2004), states that this type of cultural stigma around beneficiaries, contribute more to dire health status than the direct effects of poverty, as it causes stress, low self-esteem, and social exclusion. 

Recommendation:

• The Select Committee should re-consider having work-test obligations, and making beneficiaries re-apply on annual basis (New Zealand Parliament, 2010). This type of approach in the allocation of benefits, further increases the stigma surrounding beneficiaries, and makes those who are entitled but are just under the threshold, feel ‘unworthy’, and thus exacerbating dire health outcomes (Graham, 2004). Instead the Government should have a more holistic approach in determining who gets benefits, and should also understand that giving citizens adequate living standards is a right, under Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2008).

2.3 Final comment- A Holistic Approach to Social Assistance Policies:

Social Assistance policies should address other social determinants that act as barriers to the employment of beneficiaries, such as gaining education for skilled labour, having adequate housing, and being included in the community (Baum, 2008).  Graham (2004), states that one of the main reasons that beneficiaries have inequitable chances in gaining employment, is that they lack the education for skill-based jobs, and therefore Governments should turn their focus, on how they can help beneficiaries attain these skills. Howden-Chapman (2005) also states that damp houses and overcrowding are major determinants of people’s mental health, and the amount of days they take off work annually; thus Governments should turn their focus on making sure beneficiaries have adequate housing to increase their chances of employment. Moodie & Haulm (2004) state that maintaining the income of the poor is a fundamental component of an equitable social policy, and that the maintenance of income should be supported with social cohesion. Baum (2008) further suggests a holistic approach to social welfare should include these main objectives; efficiency, supporting living standards, reducing inequality, social integration, and an efficient system that is not open to abuse.   

References

Baum, F. (2008). The New Public Health 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic.; Oxford.

Bennett, P. (2010). Future Focus First Reading Speech: On 30^th March 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/paula+bennett+future+focus+first+reading+speech+30+march+2010.

Coburn, D. (2000). Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism. Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 51, Pp.135-146. Retrieved from: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed.

Davis, P., & Howden-Chapman, P. (1996). Translating research findings into health policy. Department of Community Health, School of Medicine, University of Auckland. Retrieved from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8870150.

Graham, H. (2002). Building an inter-disciplinary science of health inequalities: the example of lifecourse research. Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 55, Pp. 2005-2016. Retrieved from: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed.  

Graham, H. (2004). Social Determinants and Their Unequal Distribution: Clarifying Policy Understandings. The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 1, Pp. 101-124. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149077.

Howden-Chapman, P. (2005). Unequal Socio-economic Determinants, Unequal Health. Chapter 4 of Health and Society in Aotearoa New Zealand, 51-68. ed Dew, K. Davis, P. Second Edition, Oxford University Press.

Human Rights Commission. (2008). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ISBN 0-478-32921-6.

King, A. (2001). The Primary Health Care Strategy. Ministry of Health: Wellington, New Zealand. ISBN 0-478-24307-3.

Moodie, R., & Hulme, A. (2004). Hands on Health Promotion. IP communications, Melbourne.

New Zealand Parliament. (2010). Parliamentary Business: Select Committees. Retrieved from: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/.

Reid, P. Robson, B. (2007). Understanding Health Inequities. Chapter 1 of Hauora: Maori Standards of Health IV A Study of the Years 2000-2005. Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare, Wellington.