Tough talk with less thought

Pictures tell thousands of words in politics. In the National Party’s new social services discussion document, there is of course a photo of leader Simon Bridges. Nothing unusual about that. But rather than being pictured delivering a speech or occupied at his desk, Bridges is shown at home with two small boys – presumably his own – who are setting off for a suburban bike ride.

Bridges is in relaxed-dad mode, in shorts and an untucked blue shirt. The boys are wearing helmets, as they should. Bridges is not just friendly and relaxed, he is safety-conscious, the model of a good parent.

Compare and contrast with one of the big headline-grabbing ideas in the document.

The party asks whether it should be a requirement for sole parents on benefits that their child is fully immunised.

The question is one of five possible changes to sole parenting policy. Rather than a health measure that seeks to increase vaccination rates regardless of whether children have one parent or two, and whether or not those parents are on benefits, National has floated a more punitive idea that threatens to sanction sole parents who refuse to comply. The rest of the population can still do what it likes.

This is not to suggest vaccinations are a bad idea. But it is politically cynical of National to imply that the current measles epidemic is the responsibility of beneficiaries rather than a health system that ignored warnings. And as with other measures that target sole parents, such as National’s proposed reintroduction of the sanction for sole mothers who do not name the liable father, it has the perverse side-effect of punishing the children National hopes to protect.

Before the current Government changed the policy, it was revealed that nearly 18,000 benefitdependent families were docked up to $28 per week if a parent was unnamed. Increased hardship and dependence on food banks were reported. But National remains convinced the policy change ‘‘lets deadbeat dads off the hook’’.

For now, National is in the position of saying it is only asking questions. While the sole-parent sanction is policy, it is seeking public input on the immunisation idea and others like it. This gives the party the luxury of getting headlines out of attention-grabbing ideas without having to commit to them.

It is not just sole mothers at the sharp end of National’s tough talk. The young are also a target. National proposes to extend a ‘‘money management’’ system to control spending by beneficiaries under the age of 20, and ‘‘to those up to the age of 25 who don’t fulfil their obligations’’. The party also asks if there should be a time limit for the dole for those under 25.

The context for these and other ideas is a fudged picture of ballooning welfare costs. National states $70 billion is spent per year on social programmes in New Zealand. In reality, as Stuff has pointed out, New Zealand spends $28b, more than half of which is untouchable superannuation. The programmes National is talking about are worth less than $5b.

Overall, the document suggests a confusion within National between the relatively compassionate and thoughtful position of former prime minister Bill English, who promoted a technocratic programme about social investment, and the more emotive view of gangs and ‘‘bludgers’’ that periodically resurfaces in our politics, usually closer to an election campaign.

For now, National is in the position of saying it is only asking questions.