LINDSAY MITCHELL: HOW THE SALLIES HAVE EVOLVED TO BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM

The 2026 Salvation Army State of the Nation Report revealed their official conversion to wokeism by repeatedly finding excuses for Maori over-representation in poor social stats because of victimisation through colonisation. This caused a number of readers to ponder future contributions to the organisation.

But it isn't just this development that should concern donors.

The founder of the Salvation Army was William Booth. He formed the famous Cab Horse Charter saying, “When the cab horse is down he is helped up; while he lives he has food, shelter and work.” This was better treatment than many of London's human inhabitants at that time. By all accounts Booth recognised the importance of work to the human psyche.

In present-day New Zealand the mantra seems to have shifted to " ... food, shelter and support."

The manifestation of this seemingly innocuous amendment is that the Sallies now throw their weight behind the socialist view of welfare - that benefits should be generous, easy to access and there should be minimal restrictions placed on them.

As a result, they oppose nearly everything National is trying to do with welfare.

As background, the Salvation Army supports, "... over 135,000 families annually, most of whom are beneficiaries ...".

Early last year they submitted on the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024 opening with, "The Salvation Army strongly opposes the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024."

For instance, the government wanted stricter sanctions for beneficiaries who do not meet obligations like turning up for appointments or court appearances. These were opposed, "strongly" when it came to young parents and youth beneficiaries.

They opposed the move to prevent people from doing temporary work and claiming a benefit simultaneously.

They opposed non-financial sanctions whereby someone who hadn't met obligations would have their benefit spending managed as opposed to having free reign.

In the matter of increasing penalties for failing to meet drug-testing obligations they said, "While we understand the intent to encourage compliance, this approach risks exacerbating the challenges faced by beneficiaries struggling with addiction."

In the matter of re-application for an existing jobseeker benefit, they opposed moving to every 26 weeks instead of 52.

There's more but you will get the picture. Their submission would mirror the likes of one from the Auckland Action Against Poverty, or the Child Poverty Action Group, or the Greens. In that respect they are really part of the problem. While it's true that they provide much-needed emergency services, they also fight against reforms that try to place at least some responsibility back on the shoulders of people receiving benefits. That reversal lies at the heart of reducing chronic inter-generational dependence.

And last but not least, a somewhat cloth-eared self-interest is demonstrated in their summary: "These changes will ... further strain our sector that has already faced significant funding cuts from government."

Perhaps an alternative might be for the Sallies to stop spending their remaining government funding on a 'Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit' that bites the very hand that feeds them.