October 2012 edition of Public Sphere | The Salvation Army

You are here

October 2012 edition of Public Sphere

Latest news and comment from the Social Policy & Parliamentary Unit.

> download the October 2012 edition of the Public Sphere newsletter (PDF, 190KB)

EDITORIAL

Recently an American political commentator remarked that there was a time when collaboration and compromise between politicians was common, even when different parties held the ascendancy in Congress, the Senate or the Presidency. More recently the dialogue has been characterised by confrontation, personalised criticism, overt expressions of hatred and total intransigence in negotiations —even when the failure to negotiate could create harm for many people. Some have seemingly hoped, even worked, for chaos, to hasten the downfall of the ‘enemy’. The commentator suggested that these changes towards more bitter confrontation meant the American political process was becoming more like a parliamentary system where the job of the opposition is always to ‘oppose’.

In New Zealand, the continuation of a government-funded social welfare system is accepted by most, in principle. As usual, the party currently in government is proposing new policies and practices aimed at ‘improving’ the existing system; and the opposition is indeed ‘opposing‘ the proposal. Each side is engaged in a dialogue informed by their distinctive world views, and often characterised by personalised criticism and challenges to the integrity of the other.

The current proposals for welfare reform are justified by concern for the cost of the current situation; and by an argument that ‘not working’ brings vulnerability, limited life choices, poverty and poor health whereas paid work brings self-respect, a better life and a better future for the working person and their family. The opposition argues that the proposal is a threat to the rights of unemployed people, that many of those seeking employment will not have the training and experience required to match the available jobs, that there are actually not enough jobs in the current financial environment, and that tightening eligibility for the Domestic Purposes Benefit is a threat to both women and children. Inevitably, the debate will continue beyond the passing of the current legislation, because there are different perspectives on this and other issues. However, it is important for each one of us to imbue our dialogue with a shared commitment to each other’s wellbeing, and a shared unwillingness to make life difficult for our neighbours. It is the only way—isn’t it?

Judith Christensen