top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

LINDSAY MITCHELL: The deafening silence about welfarism and children

It took becoming a mother to awaken an interest in politics in me. Having then become increasingly aware of the detrimental role welfare was playing in weakening family structure and what it meant for children, I developed an unfavourable view of big govt and extensive redistribution. In that context libertarianism made sense to me. I listened and read in that sphere, gravitating first to Lindsay Perigo's minor party (slogan - "Its enough to make you vote Libertarianz") and then ACT. During the 2000s the one person constantly drawing welfare dependence to the attention of the public was Muriel Newman. Time after time Muriel would appear in the Dominion or Evening Post exposing some new data or penning an opinion piece. I think she single-handedly kept a concern about welfarism to the fore, championing time limits and work expectations for single parents. She also worked hard on representing the rights of fathers and shared-parenting. When I campaigned for ACT in 2005, Muriel's name was the one that would come up. Her recognition factor was very strong.


Who in parliament today is making the kind of noise Muriel used to make? Obviously ACT are part of the government but as the election draws nearer there is nothing stopping them from pointing out that the welfare problem is only worsening, across all the important metrics. More people - including children - are on welfare and are staying there longer. But I don't even know who their welfare spokesperson is. Richard Prebble criticised ACT in yesterday's NZ Herald for producing an immigration policy and narrative without mentioning the welfare aspect - that NZers won't do the jobs immigrants will. This morning he told Ryan Bridge, "We have a benefit system where you can basically retire when you leave school."


National talks about their 'welfare reset' as if it is a major reform. But it hasn't made a dent in the worsening numbers. Between 2023/24 and 2024/25 the future expected years on welfare climbed yet again from 13.4 to 14.3 - not including time already spent on benefit.


Labour has a half-hearted go at blaming the government for high unemployment and too many NEETS (young people not in education, employment or training) but they know their own record isn't flash and they don't seem to know if they want more people on benefits ('the system needs to be more generous') or fewer ('we want good jobs for people').


The Greens are distinctly pro-welfare, championing the rights of beneficiaries over the rights of taxpayers. Who knows what the Maori Party wants in this space but it certainly wont be anything that hurts their voter base, and given Maori are more reliant on welfare than any other ethnicity, rattling dependency cages is highly unlikely.


And Opportunity? They want welfare for everyone in the form of a universal basic income (branded as Citizen's Income.)


So it is hardly surprising that the welfare issue does not rate amongst voter concerns when surveyed. It can nevertheless be linked to other areas people are worried about. I've already explained the immigration link. With health, recently ranked most important concern, welfare is a two way street. Without health, people can become dependent, and being dependent and unemployed leads people to becoming less healthy. The incapacity of mental ill-health is the biggest driver of the growth in people on JobSeeker/HCD (Health Condition or Disability) and Supported Living Payment. All of this is straining an already over-burdened health system.


If someone surveyed my biggest concern I would have no hesitation in responding, it's welfarism, and specifically, that almost a quarter of a million children are growing up in non-working, often dysfunctional, homes. That their life chances are diminished; that their risk of turning into their unemployed parents is high and as a country, we seem incapable of breaking the cycle. Violence towards children is increasing, births of children impaired in the womb through their mothers substance ingestion are increasing and our child protection services seem to be in a state of permanent flux.


It is beyond my comprehension why so little is ever said by our politicians about this shocking state of affairs. Have they been silenced by the colonial guilt variety of liberalism? Has this disproportionately Maori problem been handed, with funding and a degree of relief, to Whanau Ora? Are they hoping like hell the new Social Investment Agency - now under the control of a former MSD CEO - can perform miracles?


Who knows. What I am certain of is that problems don't go away because you don't talk about them. Talking about them is an essential prerequisite to progress. The wisdom of the crowd might also provide a steer in election year.




 
 
 

40 Comments


Tall Man
May 15

I agree with your comment Lindsay and I propose that the root cause is not just the availability and removal of stigma around welfare but a concerning lack of ambition and ability among our young people. I believe that can be traced back to a poor edication system designed to "level the playing field" but removing ambition and success, a lack of parental involvement in education and child rearing and a state system designed to eliminate risk and consequences.


Striving to be the best has been stigmatised unless it relates to sport or maori achievement. To enhance maori achievement the table has been tilted away from smart kids because they "show up" the lesser abled. Encouraging amibition used to …


Like
Replying to

Well said !!!

Like

So many Thomas Sowell (commonsense) quotes spring to mind after reading this article, the most relevant being: "Although the big word on the left is 'compassion,' the big agenda on the left is dependency." plus these honest truths about the downside of long-term social welfare benefits:

  • Give Once: You elicit appreciation.

  • Give Twice: You create anticipation.

  • Give Three Times: You create expectation.

  • Give Four Times: It becomes entitlement.

  • Give Five Times: You establish dependency.

  • Stop Giving: You create resentment and hatred.

Like
Replying to

Well said Ian, I was just thinking the same as I read this article. I bet 90% of our politicians have ever read Sowell. Most people under 60 think welfare is just the way the world is.

Like

ncf
May 15

Lindsay has drawn attention to ACT’s apparent lack – so far - of a policy on welfarism. Karen Chhour (ACT) is currently our Minister for Children, & must be in a prime position to witness the appalling intergenerational failure of welfare dependency. Given the knock-on effects of welfarism in general on the recently announced ACT policy on immigration, Karen would appear to be well placed to spearhead a linked policy platform on welfare to take to the electorate - in lieu of one from any other party.

Like

Muriel Newman should be in Parliament. She is one of the best thinkers in politics. Awesome lady.

Like

mhhr
May 14

When the Savage government created our welfare system in 1935 the idea was to provide short term help to those who had fallen through the cracks. Today it is a lifestyle choice and a large slice of our community move from part time school attendance to death without the need to work or contribute to society. The level of support is also not far short of unskilled labour rates, leaving plenty of time for a bit of illegal activities and casual cash work. Wearing designer clothing, shoes and the latest phone indicates to me, many live much better than a pensioner.

Overall the scheme is designed to keep those at the top of the MSD fully employed. In short, they…

Like
nrgmagic
May 15
Replying to

Michael Joseph Savage's welfare was also only supposed to be available "to people of good character". If we put that clause back into the legislation, I reckon the welfare bill would be reduced by 75%.

Like

©2021 by Bassett, Brash & Hide. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page