Nats pledge to crack down on gangs and beneficiaries
National plans to come down hard on gangs and beneficiaries if it is elected to Government next year.
The party is also exploring a plan which would make it a requirement for sole parents to fully immunise their children.
But it has scrapped a proposal to impose a fine of up to $3000 on parents of under-18-year-olds who are not in school or education.
The party’s social services discussion document, issued yesterday, confirmed the party was looking at requiring gang members to prove they don’t have illegal income or assets before receiving a benefit.
But detail beyond that awaits a fuller “Gang Plan” next year.
Leader Simon Bridges said the party was not going to stand by while gang members collected the dole, as well as their “ill-gotten gains”.
“That’s not a fair go to hardworking Kiwis, who paid their taxes.”
National appears to have backtracked in one key part of its planned policies. This month, the Herald revealed the party was looking into a policy of fining the parents of school dropouts under 18 if their child was not in education or a job. Although it is still looking at getting tough on the parents of dropouts, it appears to have scrapped the fine.
The discussion document makes no mention of any kind of fine for parents, only that they would be “held accountable” if their under-18-yearold is not in education, training or employment.
Bridges said the National Party was asking its members for feedback on the document and some of the issues it raised.
For example, the document asked: “For sole parents, should it be a requirement that their child is fully immunised?”
Bridges said there was “no good reason not to immunise your child in 2019.“If you don’t want to immunise your child, don’t take taxpayers’ money.”
The party was also looking into a policy which would limit the amount of time someone under the age of 25 could spend on the benefit, and how to reduce the total number of beneficiaries across the country.
Louise Upston, the spokeswoman on social development, said its approach to reinstating a sanctions regime system was “firm but fair”.
“The previous National Government set measurable targets to reduce the number of Kiwis on benefits, leading to the number of working-age clients on main benefits dropping by over 40,000 between 2012 and 2017.
“We’ll do the same again because this approach works.”
‘Gangs, crims and extremists” has become something of a catch-cry of National Party leader Simon Bridges as he deploys the rhetoric of being “tough”.
He first deployed it over the gun law reforms, saying — on repeat — they would do little to crack down on “gangs, crims and extremists”.
So he would not have liked Act leader David Seymour’s description of National’s proposed social welfare policies as “Labour-lite”. In that same release, Bridges had said he was unapologetic about taking a “hard line” on welfare.
Seymour was right in assessing there are similarities in the core social policies of Labour and National.
Both have the same goals, both use the same social welfare system. The key differences are in how they apply that system and in a few trimmings.
On policies such as the “baby bonus”, National prefers targeted funding, Labour is more universal.
The main difference is in the messaging. National claims to take a “hard-line approach” to welfare, saying Labour is soft on benefit cheats. Labour accuses National of beneficiary bashing.
So it was little surprise that the Nats’ latest document was as much about messaging as actual policies.
In parts, it was hard to spot the policy behind the thumping anti-gang and benefit cheating rhetoric.
The first mention of gangs in it is not subtle: “National hates gangs.” There was much talk of “cracking down on gangs” and “peddling meth and violence”.
On welfare there was the time-worn language of “a hand-up, not a hand-out”.
And there was much talk of “vulnerable Kiwis”.
Then there are the water cooler topics — the policies that may not actually be adopted, but get people talking.
The first one of these has already fallen by the wayside.
That was the plan to issue $3000 fines to the parents of teenage school drop-outs. That has been watered down to a rather more vague threat for the parents to be “held accountable”.
The reason Bridges gave for its dumping was that it was a stupid idea: “Someone floated a kite, and actually it wasn’t a great kite let’s be honest.”
The fact it existed at all indicated many aspects of National’s discussion document are designed to provoke debate rather than to be policy.
Other kites that may not fly are penalising parents who do not get their children immunised, and limiting how long a younger person can be on the benefit.
The “discussion” document has had the desired effect of getting people talking about National policy.
Most attention has gone on the plan to make gang members prove none of their income or assets are from crime. Behind these attentiongrabbing bits lies the real policy.
There were some new bits, such as plans to give more support to parents for the child’s first five years. Bridges spoke of his own son’s experience with clubbed feet in setting this out, saying it had made him aware of the support new parents need.
But in terms of housing and the welfare system, it was a return to 2017. There were many mentions of what the previous National Government had been doing, and why it was still a good idea. Bridges even resuscitated John Key’s old slogan of being “ambitious for New Zealanders”. It proposed reinstating targets, and harsher sanctions on beneficiaries. It also proposed forging ahead with the “social investment” approach National had started developing, using data to identify and support at-risk families from an early stage.
This suggests a lack of imagination. But it is also understandable given the 2017 election result did not amount to a rejection by the voters of National’s direction of travel.
In that respect, the 2017 result should also be high in the minds of Labour as it sets about deciding what to offer in 2020.
The dangerous impression appears to have seeded in Labour that it “won” the last election.
It did indeed end up winning the government benches, but many of its MPs have apparently forgotten the Greens and Labour combined got an election result lower than National’s.
The change in Labour’s fortunes in the polls back then was also largely a result of their new leader, Jacinda Ardern, rather than a ringing endorsement of Labour’s policies.
It struggled to get out of the 20s in the polls with those same policies under other leaders.
And it has since struggled to execute some of them.
In a joint interview with Prime Minister Ardern and Finance Minister Grant Robertson last week, they were asked what work was underway for new, or refreshed, policies for 2020.
Ardern’s assessment was that Labour would be judged on what it had already done, and whether people believed it had done enough to be given the chance to do more.
Labour has done much — but not as much Ardern seemed to promise in 2017. Ardern might have been unrealistic about what she could achieve at the time, but it is likely many voters realised it.
It might have explained why Labour’s progress up the polls stalled in the mid to high 30s before election day.
It has moved up since, but not by enough to give Ardern any security that she will be a shoo-in in 2020.