In a recent media interview, Minister of Social Development Louise Upston indicated the Government will introduce new sanctions for unemployment beneficiaries, with the goal of decreasing the number of people on the benefit. The minister referred to the “consequences” for beneficiaries who refuse “to do their bit”.
Sanctions are presented as common sense, repackaging the old narrative about welfare that the benefit is the cause, not the result, of unemployment. Indeed, what we learn from the Government is that previous administrations have been too generous in handing out benefits.
The new sanctions, which could include reducing payments by 50 percent for families with children and scrapping benefits for single recipients, are “consequences” for failing to find work. It’s just tough love.
According to Upston, individuals who lose their benefits would have to make do, living with friends or having their family take care of them. Never mind that communities grappling with poverty are already struggling to make ends meet. Effectively, there is no society, only individuals and their families.
So, do sanctions work? If the goal is for people to improve their lives, then the answer is no.
Poverty has negative effects on physical and mental wellbeing, which are made worse without government support. A report by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group found families receiving social welfare, along with working-poor and low-income families, live with intense social insecurity. Thus, sanctions create rippling harm in the community.
Yet, sanctions continue to be used. This is largely because the Government presents social expenditure in terms of the costs on the taxpayer, with elected officials trimming the waste. Unemployment benefits are easy targets for the axe. Since welfare recipients are already stigmatised, such measures face little resistance.
The political narrative cleverly pits the ‘taxpayer’ against the ‘benefit recipient’ in a way that creates a moral difference. One camp is worthy and deserving, and the other is not. It’s a narrative that evokes emotional reactions, even rage, and sparks moral condemnation.
Why do we condemn the poor?
People are not inherently cruel. Blaming others is a psycho-social reaction that often arises in moments of existential insecurity. In times of upheaval – think mass redundancies, rising inflation and housing costs, or natural disasters – human experiences of insecurity and massive loss necessitate a robust government response and assurance that things will be okay.
When the state is unable to take care of its citizens, this existential insecurity is often transformed into blaming vulnerable groups for causing social problems. Here, it is easy to turn to a group of people that has been systematically maligned: the government is broke because it gives too much to people on the dole.
Current economic conditions, with rising unemployment and living costs, provide fertile ground for politicians who want to play the blame game. As people scramble, politicians blame beneficiaries for the costs they impose on society: those receiving assistance are making it worse for everyone else and for that they must pay a price. They must be humiliated (by the threat of sanctions) for as long as they receive the benefit.
This story will continue to be trotted out unless we’re prepared to address the inequalities in our society.
In the aftermath of the March 15 Christchurch terrorist attack, I participated in government-led initiatives to develop social cohesion frameworks to empower society against social and political threats. I made the case that deep inequalities prevent genuine social cohesion and resiliency. Communities cannot experience belonging, defined in terms such as efficacy and recognition, when grappling with material insecurity.
More importantly, it is difficult to generate social connections that cross ethnic or class lines when there are groups that are systematically negatively represented in media and political discourses. As long as it is acceptable to dehumanise people and their communities, social cohesion will remain fragile.
In times of prosperity, we may not notice or may not even care about social cohesion. As families, we can carry ourselves and each other. But no one is immune to precarity – the persistent insecurity of employment and income – and the loss that is caused by social and natural upheavals. Therefore, we need a caring government to step in when required.
Shaming others for being in need effectively releases the Government from its duty of care. The false promise of saving the taxpayer some money by cutting benefits advances an agenda that will only increase inequality and decrease social cohesion, all while undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
We must resist the desire to punish those in need and instead demand better from the Government and call to task our elected officials.
Instead Minister Upston (apparently) does not read or accept expert advice on the efficacy of sanctions and, instead, knows what to do based on her reckons and ideology.
Asking people to contribute to the society in which they live, as they are able, is ‘cruel’? Given me and all the other tax payers of this country a break.
The unemployment rate has had a 3 in front of it for the past two years. It recently ticked up to 4% . We are told and it seems reasonable that at 5% we still have more jobs than workers. That continues to suggest that today we have far more jobs available than we have people to fill them. We know there is now 189,000 people on the job seeker benefit and it has risen by tens of thousands at the same time the unemployment rate is the lowest in almost two generations! Over 60,000 have been unemployed for 12 months or more. Maybe they are unemployable through no reason they can control but how about the other 120,000?
Please explain that to me.
The last government oversaw the issue around 24,000 work visaslast year to low skilled people (and 10,000 of them to work as labourers and hammer hands on construction sites) for the simple reason the people you write about who are apparently being treated cruelly were not interested in applying for the roles. If they had applied and were employable, no work visas could be granted.
Roles I would add must pay almost $30 per hour to secure a work visa.
I say Government should do whatever is necessary to get those job seekers into work and contribute like the rest of us. If they don’t want to work then don’t. But don’t expect the rest of us to work our butts off to support those choices.
Why does the political narrative pit the ‘taxpayer’ against the ‘benefit recipients’ ?
The people with much higher incomes , landlords, and business owners all pay less taxes. While benefit recipients pay more taxes. Benefits are taxed and student allowances are taxed. Any earnings from part-time work is taxed AND money comes off the benefit as well. People on benefits also pay more gst. They spend all their income on food, clothing, rent and petrol to get to work or school or Drs etc. Medicine has gst on it. All the essentials are taxed. People in business have ways of either not paying gst and taxes or they get it back. Beneficiaries and lower income earners pay way more tax. They have cars that need fixing more often. They by cheaper work boots that fall apart quicker and need to be replaced more often. They don’t eat as well as they need to which leads to long term health problems. Diabetes is an example of this. Not going to the dentist for regular check-ups can and often does mean more expensive care needed later.
Beneficiaries find themselves in substandard housing which is a contributing factor in childhood illnesses. E.g. Asthma, and skin disorders.
Children who need extra help with learning to read and write because of learning difficulties are unable to access help if it has to be paid for by the parents. No-one is going to pay for a SPELD tutor when they don’t have enough money for food. And, with the best will in the world, SPELD tutors are not able to work for free because they have landlords, food bills and a wof to pay for too.
Children who don’t get glasses or hearing aids when they need them miss out on so much learning during the first years of school. And it is so difficult trying to catch them up later on. Parents on benefits and low incomes often can’t get glasses or hearing aids for their children. Just getting to appointments is difficult and then paying for what their children need is impossible.
If the government wants to find some funds how about not giving pensions to people earning over $100000 per year? They could hold off getting the OAP for a few more years and while they’re earning so much they don’t really need it.
A lot of educated hard working people have lost their jobs in the last few years, through no fault of their own. If we are to talk about consequences then shouldn’t that be – the consequences for the government of putting all these people out of work is that they will be on unemployment benefits?
You can’t scuttle jobs, small businesses and universities without a flow on effect.
For my personal part, if they raise the age of the pension I shall be camping on the parliment lawn to protest. And I will be bringing my own toilet, because I am a decent person.