Life must be tougher for many of them than the more familiar cohorts of low-income New Zealanders, who aren't as shy about asking for more. Few would not agree that grandparents in that situation deserve more help than they seem to be getting, not only because they need and deserve it, but also because they are saving the taxpayer a fortune, and by no means a small one.
White's comparison of the organisation Grandparents Raising Grandchildren (GRG) and Oranga Tamariki (OT) was a real eye-opener. According to his "very broad" comparison, more than 16,000 children were in the care of their grandparents and/or whānau, while OT had 5400 children in foster care. Children living with their grandparents generally stayed there, whatever their age, while those in state care often experienced multiple placements.
GRG had a nationwide support network and programmes for its carers to provide "learning opportunities," as well as social events for carers and children alike, similar to OT. GRG responded to more than 10,000 support requests every year, and actioned them immediately, while OT answered some 80,000 'calls of concern,' 5700 of them critical and actioned within 24 hours.
GRG had a paid staff of 7. OT had a paid staff of 4178. GRG had an annual budget of $750,000, the government providing 12 per cent of that, the rest being fundraised. OT had an annual budget of $1.1 billion. That equated to a cost of just under $47 a year for every child in the care of a grandparent, and just over $203 for every one in state care.
Where, White wanted to know, did OT's "extra" $1,000,250,000 go?
It's hardly realistic to expect a government department to operate as frugally as what is essentially a charity, but the gap suggests two things. Firstly, and this is by no means a new phenomenon, the government is not averse to allowing people who are not on its payroll to provide an extremely valuable service without anything approaching fair recompense. And secondly, like every other government department no doubt, a lot of OT's money doesn't actually get anywhere near to doing what needs doing.
White says the difference is what communities provide at no cost to the government, which seems fairly obvious. It should also be said that GRG represents how families once functioned, before social welfare began exerting its toxic influence.
In the 'old' days, grandparents who could no longer care for themselves didn't go to a rest home. They went to their children, who cared and provided for them until they died. Families cared for their own, whether they were elderly parents, unemployed children or grandchildren whose parents were unable to keep them, for whatever reason, before drug abuse had been heard of.
There are other factors no doubt, including that it is not uncommon now for the cost of living and demands of employment to make raising children very difficult for some parents. There are those, of course, who say if you can't afford to raise children you shouldn't have them, but that's another story.
The question White properly asks, however, is why the cost of state care is five times what it is for children who are being raised by their grandparents. Part of the answer is obvious - no one would expect OT staff to supplement their salaries with sausage sizzles and cake stalls - but the fact is that nothing governments do comes cheap. Certainly not when for every paid GRG employee OT has almost 600. White will unlikely be alone in believing that that is a little out of whack.
The difference, he says, is that GRG is community-led and not government-led. He's not wrong there either.
We saw a wonderful example of what communities can do during last year's Covid-19 lockdown. As in other parts of the country, the iwi in Te Hiku stepped up big time, ensuring that people in small communities especially had the support they needed. These iwi, not without government assistance, were highly organised, and did the job that needed to be done at a fraction of the cost that any government department alone could have managed. The writer doesn't have any figures, but one would suspect that the cost of administration, which covers a great many evils these days, would have been minimal. The money that was spent to support those in need of help was spent on the things they needed, not bureaucracy.
Incidentally, the Covid vaccination rollout seems to be going better in small communities where locals have a leading role than in larger centres, where bureaucrats are in charge.
Three things governments should do. Firstly, recognise that many people who are not on the state payroll often do a better job of delivering social services than civil servants will ever do. Secondly, be much more willing to support those people. No grandparent should be raising a grandchild, or grandchildren, who would otherwise be in state care, on less than $30,000 a year. Not in this day and age. Thirdly, be much more willing te devolve responsibility for all sorts of services to people who know their communities and can do the job effectively, efficiently, and at a fraction of the cost of employing a civil servant.
It is long past time that this government began doing what its predecessors should have done, namely start examining exactly where it is spending taxpayers' money and ensuring that not a dollar is wasted. Were the government to scrutinise its spending to the degree that most households do we would all be better off, and perhaps paying a little less tax.
