Foreword

On publication of this the fifth issue of the Social Policy Journal, the auguries are good. Increasingly the journal seems to be fulfilling an important role as a vehicle for debate on social policy matters. Growing numbers of papers are being offered by academic writers and policy analysts from both the public and private sectors. Each issue of the journal has seen an expanding range of issues being debated in its pages. At the same time, some of the key themes of previous issues continue to be developed: in particular, income distribution, the family, crime prevention and family violence. These are all signs that the journal is in good health. I have no doubt it will continue to assume increasing importance as a place for debate on important social policy issues of the day.

In the current issue, two papers provide contrasting perspectives on the matter of active labour market initiatives. In one, Mike Rochford describes the evaluation of the pilot COMPASS programme which has been discussed in earlier Social Policy Journal papers. While quite favourable results have emerged, Graeme Scott in his overview of active labour market programmes cautions against being too optimistic given overseas experience.

David Thorns looks at a topic familiar to this journal, the changing New Zealand family, but from the new perspective of inheritance law. Paul Callister suggests that there may be scope for further change in one respect of family life, that of the child care role of fathers. The issue of family violence is also revisited in Ken McMasters' review of the Hitting Home report.

The focus on income distribution in this issue includes a number of important theoretical concerns. Stephens, Waldegrave and Frater explain how the New Zealand Poverty Measurement Group developed a benchmark standard of living through the use of focus groups. Bryan Perry's paper explaining the use of equivalence scales and debating the pros and cons of some of the most widely used ones is a thoughtful contribution which may be of considerable interest to those who draw on the use of equivalence scales in their work.

Practical matters relating to low-income New Zealanders are also addressed in this issue. A paper from the University of Otago Consulting Group describes the way in which budgeting assistance can help families facing financial difficulties turn their situation around, while Ross Mackay examines the initial impact on foodbank usage of changes to the special needs grant programme. Justin Strang's commentary draws from the budget advise research some important policy-related issues.

Policy advice needs always to be mindful of the unintended consequences of policy. Judith Galtry questions whether the current promotion of breastfeeding is effective given other possibly conflicting public policies and whether an alternative approach is required. Ursula Cheer discusses the history of ACC reforms and argues that recent changes may be creating problems and inequities elsewhere.

New policy issues continue to emerge. Michael Webb addresses the emerging issue of employee drug testing and provides a well-reasoned assessment of its political and ethical implications. Ken Stevens describes how the technological age has given rise to new learning frontiers for children and exciting new possibilities for schools in rural areas. The challenge he identifies is for policy makers (and communities) to keep up with the rapid changes that are consequent upon technological innovation.

All in all, I am confident that this issue has something to appeal to everyone with an interest in social policy and will be likely to generate further debate on many of the matters raised.

David A. Preston
General Manager
Social Policy Agency