Clive Bibby: We reap what we sow



It is no surprise to me that Government, in its campaign to cut waste from the budget, is looking at items introduced by previous administrations who believed the state should be involved in all aspects of welfare including areas that have until recently been the responsibility of the number one family “bread winner”.

In the process our taxpayer dollars are being allocated to families irrespective of need and the waste without a “means test” becomes unsustainable.

Most Kiwis with a social conscience would be proud of the initial steps taken by the Savage Labour Government in the 1930’s to introduce the Welfare State. It was the first step of many that would follow leading to a system that is second to none in the world. But not all of the items introduced over time are any longer “fit for purpose”.

While the contents of the first package were well chosen (state housing, a minimum wage and unemployment benefits that went a long way to addressing the needs of the low decile communities at the time) subsequent attempts to expand the Welfare State have often been used as a vote catcher at the General Election with little thought being given to the damage it would do to one of the cornerstones of society - the family unit.

One of the character traits that has set this nation apart from equivalent first world countries has always been its focus on achieving true egalitarian status.

I was fortunate to spend my teenage years in the late 1950’s / early 60’s. Although l didn’t appreciate it at the time, on reflection, it was probably the closest we would ever get to achieving that utopian dream.

Unfortunately, subsequent governments, in their quest to occupy the treasury benches - with only one or two exceptions - wasted the opportunities to positively build on the earlier welfare legislation. Instead, they set about actually weakening the family unit by taking on responsibilities that should have remained the preserve of proud parents.

As a consequence, many parents of the current generation are unwilling or unable to recognise the responsibilities that go with good parenting.

And their families become dysfunctional because a mistaken sense of entitlement encourages State sponsored dependency that, without means testing, ultimately leads to excessive waste we simply can’t afford.

So, any government faced with unsustainable expenditure is left with no option but to run a fine tooth comb through the legions of items that have become unaffordable or, if deemed essential, could be reduced in cost to the taxpayer.

Recent attempts to trim the annual budget have identified waste in nation wide programmes that are not means tested such as school lunches.

It was interesting to see the wailing and derogatory comments (“dog food”) that has following the successful reallocation of contracts for providing this daily sustenance for all.

It will not have escaped most observers that the lunches are now being provided with at least a 50% saving per unit, amount to an overall saving of $130 million to the taxpayer.

Imagine what could be saved if the same scrutiny was applied to other departments where debatable expenditure (money spent on academic grants to study items that have a cultural or idealogical interest only) has been in vogue for too long.

At a time when the nation faces an economic crisis that must be addressed, the government has a responsibility to set priorities based on need.

The only way we will survive is for all of us to recognise the luxury of spending on “nice to have” items no longer exists - if it ever did.

We will be better off as a community if we accept that those with the greatest real need become the sole recipients of the scarce discretionary dollar. We are on a war footing.

The rest of us will just have to do the best with what we have.

History suggests we will do just fine.

Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.