Welfare State not in jeopardy

Press, 3 December 1987, Page 3

Welfare State not in jeopardy

By

PETER LUKE,

, political reporter

Income maintenance has emerged as the key priority of the Government’s social policy agenda, but suggestions of a wholesale attack on the Welfare State have been scotched by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer.

An “ambitious” agenda was announced yesterday by Mr Palmer, who chairs the Cabinet’s social equity committee.

The committee has produced a social agenda of 17 issues — each of which will be dealt with by a committee or group of officials. But Mr Palmer made it clear yesterday that income maintenance was the most pressing social issue to be confronted during the Government’s second term. He attributed this to the number of anomalies in the areas of national superannuation, accident compensation and other welfare benefits. There were the questions of whether benefits and other aspects of income maintenance should be taxable, and if they should be universal or targeted.

Mr Palmer would not spell out the likely outcome of the review process, saying that the Government had no predetermined position. But he was quick to inject a note of caution and reassurance that this “moveable feast” over a three-year period would not amount to slashing the Welfare State. “The Welfare State in New Zealand has served New Zealand very well. You do not in a reform effort of this sort throw

the baby out with the bathwater.” Mr Palmer said he did not want the public to think that the social reform exercise was going to be a massive diminution of the Welfare State.

“This programme is designed to enhance the Welfare State — not to destroy it.” His comments appeared to be a response to recent publicity over “new Right” attitudes to the Welfare State, and some public disquiet over the future recommendations of the Gibbs task force on hospital administration.

Mr Palmer refused to acknowledge any contradiction between the big reform programme announced yesterday, and the job of the Royal Commission on Social Policy. The Royal Commission, chaired by Sir Ivor Richardson, is not due to report back to the Government until next September, leading some commentators to suggest that Government decisions made before September would render its findings meaningless. Mr Palmer implied that policy decisions would be made before September, but that none would be made without “input” from the Royal Commission.

He was confident that this would ensure that any

decisions did not trespass on the commission’s territory or “do anything incompatible with its thinking.”

Mr Palmer suggested that the Royal Commission was concerned with the objectives or philosophy of policy rather than the “nuts and bolts.” Out of the 17 items on the social agenda, equal pay and the co-ordination of assistance for the disabled, elderly and handicapped, and health safety and welfare administration were also identified as crucial areas.

The full social agenda consisted of: • A more rationalised system of income maintenance.

• Equal pay and the economic position of women.

• The disabled, elderly and handicapped. • Employment. • Homelessness. • Post-compulsory education and training. • Pre-compulsory education and early childhood care. • Reform of health administration and delivery mechanisms. • Reform of the administration of education. • Devolution and decentralisation of Government services. • Maori Affairs devolution.

• The role of the Housing Corporation.

• Health safety and welfare administration.

• Occupational licensing.

• Access to law. • Review of A.C.C. and health benefits.

• Matrimonial property, family protection, de facto marriages..

Mr Palmer said that five common themes ran through this agenda. These were implementing the Treaty of Waitangi, improving the social and economic status of women, providing a legislative environment that safeguarded basic human rights, minority cultures, and enhancing the family unit.

The gap between rich and poor had not been identified as a theme because this was “self-evi-dent.”

While evidently keen not to pre-judge issues, Mr Palmer did appear to pour cold water on the concept of a single, standard benefit.

He said there were good reasons against this, including the variety of adverse circumstances which benefits had to address.

Mr Palmer also suspected that the Government, at the end of the review process, would end up with a mixture of targeted and universal benefits.