In other words, many of the seemingly tragic examples of families forced “through no fault of their own” to be living in cars or sub standard shelter while suffering from the health issues associated with those environments, are to a large extent a political construct exacerbated by a party (or parties) desperate for power and a blatantly anti-government MSM.
My contention will most likely be followed by delusional rebuttals from those who have built an industry on the backs of the so called “forgotten masses” who claim to be victims of adverse climate and economic circumstances beyond their control.
Who’s right? I reckon we already know the answer.
Remember this!
The one thing that New Zealanders (ever since the first arrival of immigrant settlers from afar 800 years ago) have been and still are most proud of, compared to just about any other country on the planet, is our concern for those less fortunate wherever they may be living or the nature of their circumstances.
This character trait has become part of our DNA. We are renowned for our compassionate reaction to disaster events throughout the world - I’d go as far as to say we are as famous for it as the All-Blacks’ brand. It forms the basis upon which we allocate our Foreign Aid expenditure - mainly to the island nations of the South Pacific with whom we have most in common.
History shows that the Savage/Fraser government 1935-49 laid the groundwork for what was to become a Welfare State without peer.
Successive governments of different political persuasions, both here and overseas, have added to or detracted from the original concept but generally our model has remained intact and is looked upon with envy by those with much greater social problems.
However, given the early success of our home-grown model, it is somewhat disappointing, if not embarrassing, to witness how the system is being abused to the extent it is these days.
Instead of building on the post WW2 communal attitudes of individual responsibility for those less fortunate, society has allowed the growing numbers of seemingly disadvantaged families to become dependent on State run agencies for the total provision of care and sustinance that would normally be the responsibility of the working parents.
The end result is one of families who grow up, educated to believe this sort of dependency is a “right”, not a privilege.
Unfortunately, instead of saving us from ourselves, it has become the basis on which political slogans and campaign policies are developed and governments are elected, while at the same time draining the country of the financial resources needed to grow the economy and fine tune the welfare system that is sufficient to sustain the bulk of the populace who live here. But we can’t have it both ways.
We either identify the real need that exists and stick to a plan that accommodates it as a separate item or we continue down this current path of encouraging unwarranted dependency and the consequences for the wider population such irresponsible actions ensure.
Things will not improve until we vote for political parties that are promising to break the dependency cycle.
We should reward them for their courage.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
17 comments:
A system that is now totally unsustainable long term.
We all know what the underlying attitudinal issues are. The challenge is how to change those. With households made up of 3 generations none of whom have ever worked, that's going to take some doing.
The Savage/Fraser government groundwork for what was to become a Welfare State is NOT without peer.
It is like every other failed socialist state, which set a dooms day clock ticking since its inception
After nearly a century of propaganda and mass media brain washing most kiwis still believe it was a good thing.
Absolutely agree we should try to break a dependency cycle but let's not delude ourselves the welfare system was ever going to be a success.
We can’t vote our way out of this hole Clove, only further down it. Political parties are not the solution; they are the problem.
>"[The welfare state] is like every other failed socialist state"
Welfarism is not a product of socialism but arises from the duty of care inherent in the social contract between state and citizenry. The best welfare states are generally acknowledged to be the European ones such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands which are most definitely not socialist states but have strong capitalist economies to finance all that welfare.
Unfortunately, NZ went down a socialist path and can in no way be compared to those countries with strong capitalist economies as we struggle to finance basic infrastructure let alone an economy based on free handouts.
>"Unfortunately, NZ went down a socialist oath"
"The socialist path" describes Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam...... gosh I can't think of any other extant ones.
"The socialist path" means abiding by the dictates of Marxist-Leninism (+ Maoism for China) which includes a managed economy, hence 5-year plans.
Anon 11.35am.
Note l said it started off well but has become an embarrassment given the way the original concept has been abused by successive governments.
Time to redraw the parameters within which it can successfully operate.
That’s why l am saying we need to vote for parties prepared to make the hard decisions - a tall ask perhaps but one that should be achievable so long as the country allows time to make the necessary changes.
Socialism must be one of the most casually and mis-used words of the English language. In its purist form it refers to communism/Marxism, which means the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. New Zealand is miles away from that. We clearly have a capitalist economy, and in spite of all the moaning, it’s working pretty well. Though it is mainly centrally planned, even China, which calls itself communist, is largely of free enterprise. That is why it is flourishing.
New Zealand’s first government to introduce a social measure was the Liberal Government at the end of the 19th Century with the old-age pension. The First Labour Government took it to a higher level in an attempt to ease the suffering of the Great Depression. This is a democracy, and we’ve had ten governments since, and none have garroted social security. Seems like, with all its faults, that’s what the people want. It’s just important that we don’t allow it to get out of hand. Unfortunately, some take advantage of it, but how many families are there that have three generations of bludgers? Please give us an indication.
Do we want what is going to happen in the U S due to the passing of Trump’s absurdly-name ‘Big, beautiful bill’, which will make the rich richer, but make, it is estimated, 10 million people unable to afford vital health care.
I am not claiming that 3-generation households in which nobody has ever worked are common, just that they exist and people are aware that they do, and that this influences their thinking about the issue.
For me for good"socialism' to work , we must have an education system that promotes a work ethic and social responsibility and conscience, and in summary traditional methods , content and discipline . Unfortunately Fraser and Beeby cancelled out traditional values in education and consequently we have the disastrous result in education and society now . This includes the longest tail of underachievement in the developed world and the worst literacy scores of all English speaking countries.
We have an underclass who grew because of inter generational welfare and a rotten education system . I maintain you can't separate
educational underperformance from welfare dependence.
The whole point of my article is that we have allowed it to get out of hand
So what do you have in mind that will restore our budget allocation to meeting the needs of only those who qualify.
Thought not.
Your inability to recognise the truth is becoming common knowledge.
Well, why don't you tell us what needs to be done, Clive. You wrote the article. You say, "Things will not improve until we vote for political parties that are promising to break the dependency cycle. We should reward them for their courage." But you don't tell us what political parties. But then, you would be getting into the business of telling us how to vote. Maybe that's something you'd be best to avoid.
You've eerily described the previous administration.
Who actively excused and apologized for just about everything communist China did and were themselves trying all out to manage the economy in a dictatorial fashion.
Painted themselves as the sole source of truth, bribed the media, encouraged neighborhood spying and narcs. All centered around a cult of personality Aunty and her comrades.
How much more of an example of Marxism do you need to see?
It shouldn’t be that difficult if the government of the day were brave enough to apply a *means test” equally to all citizens seeking state supplementary payments to their existing income.
Having been in really difficult financial situations a number of times through no fault of my own, during my career, l know what it is like to be told that you are earning too much so go away.
I also know what it is like being in a dole queue waiting for a monthly cheque of $700 that was supposed to feed a family of 5 after being wiped out by Bola in the 80’s.
I could write a book about the relatively large amounts of money being unjustifiably dished out to those who refuse to work.
You have to have had the experience of relying totally on the State for survival before making stupid statements about the way our “once great” welfare state has been abused.
I’m not telling people who to vote for.
I’m just asking them to accept reality and, if they are genuine about helping to solve the problem, use their vote in a way that brings about the changes we so badly need .
There you go.
Is that good enough for you?
My guess is that it won’t be because the questioner has an alterior motive for questioning the validity of my comments.He does it all the time.
Too bad.
Sorry, forgot to add.
Just read one of today’s articles.
It refers to the last Labour Government’s rejection of Treasury’s advice that a continuation of the irresponsible prolific spending during the Covid pandemic would bankrupt the country.
It makes Sir Robert Muldoon’s flutter with our money in the 80’s look like a handbook in economics strait out of the Karl Marx stable .
Yet there are some among us who are blind to these political indiscretions which we end up paying for and see them as part of our responsibility to our fellow man.
Yes, we are our brother’s keeper but this sort of policy will certainly kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Simple really.
President Trump is leading the USA by his determination to ensure the USA is getting the best deal for his nation. The National Party, and I make a clear difference from the Coalition government has not understood the Voters . Luxon castrated the Treaty Principles Bill, NZ still does not know why , the MACA Seabed and Foreshore was to be returned to the Crown?
Now with the Treasury confirming the debacle of Labour and Covid spending . National is bailing out ANZ and ASB from refunding to customers is just such bad optics with John Key fiddling National for his Aussie bank chairmanship . NZ businesses are struggling from Air NZ to Alliance freezing works and everything in between. Clive , Government just has to stop spending on the gravy train of handouts and be honest . Luxon and Willis are as guilty as Labour.
Post a Comment