National fires on beneficiaries

National Party leader Simon Bridges used a very big number when introducing his welfare plan yesterday: $70 billion. That is how much Bridges said is spent on ‘‘social services’’ every year. Plonking down a big number is useful when introducing a policy document like Bridges was, which proposes a return to a more punitive and paternalistic approach to the welfare system – with more obligations on beneficiaries to prove themselves fit and proper.

But we don’t spend $70b on the welfare system – we spend $28b and over half of that is superannuation. The benefits the party is generally aiming at are worth about $4.7b a year.

You only get to $70b a year if you add the entire welfare system to the entire health and education system, and a bevy of other services like legal aid, family violence prevention work, and Whanau Ora.

For context the Government’s entire outgoings for the year will be about $87b.

The wider point Bridges is trying to make is that the Government helps out the public in a huge variety of ways, and we should do so in a careful way. That was the idea behind Bill English’s social investment approach, which National recommits to in its plan. But the big number is also useful if you want to rark up the public against beneficiaries, and that is what much of the new policy seems squarely aimed at.

Much of this is simply a return to the welfare settings National had when last in Government.

Targets to reduce the numbers of children in beneficiary households would return.

Housing NZ would again get tougher with tenants engaged in ‘‘anti-social behaviour’’.

One or two policies reconfirm settings that haven’t changed, like the removal of benefits for most people who travel overseas, or the commitment to continue to fund superannuation at 66 per cent of the average wage.

Some is new however. Money management for teenage beneficiaries (and those under 25 who don’t meet obligations) would see the state pay their rent and bills directly.

A time-limit on the dole for under-25s is floated, as is a sanction on those who don’t immunise their children. And the docking of payments for gang members and their ‘‘associates’’ who can’t prove their income is legal.

National is a large-tent party and not all the policies have such a tough stance. Simplifying the benefits system so fewer overpayments are made, and thus less debt imposed on beneficiaries, is in theory something almost everyone could support.

More support for young people to get driving licences and people leaving prison is a no-brainer.

The idea to split up Housing NZ into a development body and a tenancy management body is more administrative than politics.

There is also the first-1000 day policies for mothers that the party will hope will soften the tougher approach. These include extending out to three days the amount of time a new mother can stay in care, increasing the number of home visits for the first six months of a child’s life, and allowing paid parental leave to be taken by both parents simultaneously.

But the party knows what makes headlines, and that will be the beneficiary crackdown. That is why the policy document features phrases like ‘‘National hates gangs’’. Such politicking has worked well for National in the past.

There is a deep vein of scepticism towards beneficiaries and it is not isolated to the political Right. And for now the National Party will want to talk up its tough approach as much as it can.