Prior to this compulsory cultural renaissance people managed their own conflicts. Tension would have existed always but so did the freedom to choose. What kind of society wants to remove that freedom? One in which the collective trumps the individual.
Since Labour came to power in 2017 the number of people relying on welfare has grown significantly, as has the time people spend dependent. This development is due to both political ideology and political incompetence.
Poor outcomes are given as concrete and conclusive evidence. This is simply not the case for most Māori. Their living standards have improved enormously, as has equality of opportunity.
The links between welfare dependence from birth and poor, if not disastrous outcomes for children, have now been well-explored by institutions like AUT and Treasury.
It isn't at all clear to me what this brave new world of bigger benefits with no strings attached is going to do for children. Money can't buy love. In fact unconditional money finances lifestyles that are not conducive to happy and safe childhoods.
No abuse or re-abuse of children is acceptable. But the facts show that family members and parents posed the greatest danger to these victims. This suggests that where the state primarily fails is in poor decision-making and monitoring of risk. Which calls into question whether the very best interests of the child are being put first and foremost.
The Welfare Expert Advisory Group has delivered what the Green-driven government wanted - a recommendation to wildly increase wealth redistribution - an ideological affirmation. Instead of this charade the Green's 2017 welfare policy could've easily been printed and circulated saving over $2 million in the process.
According to the Dominion Post, April 25, " ...the Government is setting up a welfare overhaul 'expert advisory group' supported by a secretariat of officials from different departments." Labour has promised the Greens an overhaul. The ghost of Metiria Turei hovers.
When a benefit-dependent sole parent refuses to name the father of her children a penalty is incurred. That’s because the state is then unable to recoup any of her benefit from the liable parent.
On the back of last month's budget, opposition politicians, academics and other advocates once again expressed outrage at the incidence of child poverty. The culprits routinely blamed are unemployment, high housing costs and insufficient benefit payments. But another factor is constantly overlooked - the rapid change in family structure.