Editorial: Reform ideas for welfare rather vague

Opinion

Don Brash tried to walk a narrow line in his speech on welfare reform at Orewa last night. On the one hand he needed to make a strong pitch to hard-working low- and middle-income families who, according to National Party polling, are fed up with seeing their tax dollars become open-ended handouts to beneficiaries. On the other he did not want to alienate potential supporters by being too punitive. In the main, he succeeded in treading that line. That is not to say, however, that the speech was without significant flaws. Quite simply, there were too many holes in its content to make it anything other than a potted guide.

The biggest question surrounds one of National's major planks - that those receiving the unemployment benefit will be required to do community service work, attend job schemes or retrain, as will those on the domestic purposes benefit once their youngest child goes to school. Essentially, Dr Brash is resurrecting the work-for the-dole scheme of the late 1990s, even though it is considered widely to have failed. The main problem, at least according to the Department of Work and Income, was that it stopped participants looking for real jobs. What Dr Brash does not explain is how and why National's revamped scheme would work this time.

That failure is unfortunate because it detracts from much of what is good in the speech. There is a welcome degree of thoughtfulness, including a recognition of the difficulties and complexities that would stand in the way of Dr Brash meeting his target of reducing the number of beneficiaries from more than 300,000 to 200,000 in a decade. There is also an acknowledgment that breaking generations of welfare dependency will involve a significant initial cost; it cannot be viewed as a cost-cutting exercise.

Elements of National's proposed policy are also sensible - the move, for example, to ensure consistency in the way those applying for sickness and invalid benefits are evaluated by doctors. There is more than enough evidence that it is too simple for the able-bodied to transfer from the unemployment benefit. Likewise, it is reasonable that beneficiaries should have to present their children for vaccinations and health and dental checks. The difficulties associated with the programme to fight last year's meningococcal outbreak confirmed as much.

Elsewhere, however, much of National's policy is couched in vague terms. Thus, for women receiving the DPB who have a further child, there "should surely be no automatic entitlement to additional state assistance ... Beneficiaries should be required to show some exceptional circumstances in their particular case before this additional support is provided by the nation's taxpayers". The problem here is that international experience suggests welfare authorities working without the strictest of guidelines would be apt to accept virtually anything as an "exceptional" circumstance.

Perhaps this vagueness suggests that Dr Brash is uncertain of the national mood. In effect, he is flying a series of kites. It is noteworthy that there is no mention of some of the more radical answers to welfare dependency canvassed over the past few years by National MPs - a time limit on benefits, for example, or benefit cuts for the parents of truant children. Or, indeed, a call-up for his own suggestion, voiced two years ago, that the dole could be replaced by payments for anyone who reported for work at the local post office at 8am. Dr Brash has taken pains to align himself with the centre of his party, not its right wing.

The essentially moderate approach suggests this speech will not have the resonance of last year's Orewa address. But it should add ammunition to the case for welfare reform. The issue demands attention, and any attempt to reduce the burden on taxpayers, while retaining a safety net, deserves support. Achieving reform has, however, bedevilled successive governments. To be any different, Dr Brash's recipe needs a few more ingredients.