8 July 06 The
failure of welfare Printer
friendly version (PDF) View >>>
The
murder of the two Kahui babies has rocked the nation. Everyone
is trying to come to grips, not only with how on earth the
family can get away with colluding to hide the killer, but why
this and other such dreadful tragedies continue to happen.
The
fingers of blame have been pointed not only at Maori culture,
which Alan Duff
in this week’s NZCPD guest opinion piece describes as a
“Stone Age societal model” (click here to v),
but fairly and squarely at the welfare system itself.
It
has now been revealed that members of the families of the
murdered babies were some of the many beneficiaries who are
able to get away with milking the welfare system: able-bodied
men and women who choose to sponge off the taxpayer instead of
working for a living.
They
are tragic symbol of a debilitating dependency culture that
has been accelerating since Labour became the government.
Peter
Saunders, the Social Research Director at the Centre for
Independent Studies, in his book Australia’s Welfare
Habit, describes the “learned helplessness” that
erodes the self-reliance of beneficiaries and their wider
families who are permitted to stay on welfare in the long
term:
“Unwise
and unsustainable lifestyle choices – dropping out of school
early, having a child without a committed partner to help,
spending money on immediate gratification rather than saving,
developing a drug habit that renders one almost unemployable
– become viable once the welfare state steps in to pick up
the pieces. The dire warnings of impending calamity that used
to be issued by earlier generations of parents or teachers
sound empty when there is plenty of evidence from the local
neighborhood that it is quite possible to get by without
having to work, save or even exercise much self control”.
Labour’s
introduction of open-ended welfare has transformed
taxpayer-funded income support into an entitlement gravy
train. This entitlement mentality pre-supposes that social
welfare is an unconditional right, with no time limits, only
voluntary obligations and extremely weak sanctions.
What
is worse is that Labour has now expanded this dependency
culture to ensnare working families through the Working for
Families package, giving all of their ‘customers’ a “certificate
of entitlement”.
Most
New Zealanders are more than willing to support those people
who genuinely can’t provide for themselves due to disability
or sickness. But when it comes to supporting people who are
capable of working, different expectations apply. They believe
that assistance to the able-bodied should be temporary and
designed in such a way that it leads to employment and
independence from the state.
The
problem that we must now face up to however, is that there are
many able-bodied people on welfare who have failed to find
employment, not because there are no jobs, but because they
have no intention of working. They have built comfortable
lifestyles by pooling benefits - as appears to be the case in
the Kahui and King families where weekly household incomes
have been estimated to be in the thousands of dollars – and
through illegal activities.
Maori
are now over-represented in this welfare underclass, which is
only able to exist because the government has failed to make
the receipt of benefits contingent on work, and has
failed to strictly enforce this requirement. The consequence,
with the tendency for welfare dependency to be transmitted
across generations, is that children growing up in these
dysfunctional and violent households will face a bleak future
of limited opportunity as their life chances are destroyed
through the failure of their government to prevent welfare
dysfunction.
Historian
and author Keith Windschuttle, in an article entitled
“Manhood Whitewashed” (click here to view
>>>), examines the effects of welfare on men. In
particular he looks at the appalling situation where
indigenous Australian men commit horrific acts of violence and
abuse against women and children:
“The
root cause is that white Australia has deprived Aboriginal men
in remote communities of their manhood. The instrument we used
was social welfare: giving handouts that did not require them
to work. The social policy of the last thirty years is the
principal culprit.
“The
human male is a creature biologically programmed, communally
socialised and psychologically motivated to be a provider for
women and children. In outback communities, however, that role
has been usurped by the state.
“The
social consequences of this should have been entirely
predictable. No matter what their race or where they live, men
who do not work have no social status, no sense of self-worth
and little meaning in their lives. Others think badly of them
and they think badly of themselves.
“Sociological
studies have long shown that in all cultures many men respond
to unemployment with alcoholism and domestic violence, one
problem feeding the other.
“The
loss of manhood has direct consequences for Aboriginal boys.
They have no incentive to go to school. When they reach
adolescence, their most attractive and adventurous options are
the subcultures of crime and substance abuse. Some consume
vast quantities of pornography.”
His
insight into the crippling and corrupting effects of welfare
strike a chord. Few long-term beneficiaries are immune from
the feelings of hopelessness and helplessness that accompany
life on welfare, and while most put on a brave face, the loss
of self worth is debilitating to the core.
While
many New Zealanders wring their hands over our dependency
quagmire and its disastrous outcomes, it is important to
recognize, that it is entirely within the hands of government
to turn it all around. Making the
receipt of benefits contingent on work and strictly
enforcing this requirement
is the answer - but that is the subject of a future column!
The
poll this week: It
has been suggested that unemployment benefits should be
limited to a period of six months, after which people
would be expected to participate full time in a “Work
for the Dole” scheme until they find a job. Do
you think this is a very good idea, a good idea
or disagree with the idea? To take part in our online poll
>>>
Your comments and contributions are welcome. Send your comments here
>>>.
Opinions expressed are those of the contributors, and do not
necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.
The NZCPR does not receive
any government funding or support from any political party and has no
party affiliations.