But it isn't just this development that should concern donors.
The founder of the Salvation Army was William Booth. He formed the famous Cab Horse Charter saying, “When the cab horse is down he is helped up; while he lives he has food, shelter and work.” This was better treatment than many of London's human inhabitants at that time. By all accounts Booth recognised the importance of work to the human psyche.
In present-day New Zealand the mantra seems to have shifted to " ... food, shelter and support."
The manifestation of this seemingly innocuous amendment is that the Sallies now throw their weight behind the socialist view of welfare - that benefits should be generous, easy to access and there should be minimal restrictions placed on them.
As a result, they oppose nearly everything National is trying to do with welfare.
As background, the Salvation Army supports, "... over 135,000 families annually, most of whom are beneficiaries ...".
Early last year they submitted on the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024 opening with, "The Salvation Army strongly opposes the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024."
For instance, the government wanted stricter sanctions for beneficiaries who do not meet obligations like turning up for appointments or court appearances. These were opposed, "strongly" when it came to young parents and youth beneficiaries.
They opposed the move to prevent people from doing temporary work and claiming a benefit simultaneously.
They opposed non-financial sanctions whereby someone who hadn't met obligations would have their benefit spending managed as opposed to having free reign.
In the matter of increasing penalties for failing to meet drug-testing obligations they said, "While we understand the intent to encourage compliance, this approach risks exacerbating the challenges faced by beneficiaries struggling with addiction."
In the matter of re-application for an existing jobseeker benefit, they opposed moving to every 26 weeks instead of 52.
There's more but you will get the picture. Their submission would mirror the likes of one from the Auckland Action Against Poverty, or the Child Poverty Action Group, or the Greens. In that respect they are really part of the problem. While it's true that they provide much-needed emergency services, they also fight against reforms that try to place at least some responsibility back on the shoulders of people receiving benefits. That reversal lies at the heart of reducing chronic inter-generational dependence.
And last but not least, a somewhat cloth-eared self-interest is demonstrated in their summary: "These changes will ... further strain our sector that has already faced significant funding cuts from government."
Perhaps an alternative might be for the Sallies to stop spending their remaining government funding on a 'Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit' that bites the very hand that feeds them.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced
In present-day New Zealand the mantra seems to have shifted to " ... food, shelter and support."
The manifestation of this seemingly innocuous amendment is that the Sallies now throw their weight behind the socialist view of welfare - that benefits should be generous, easy to access and there should be minimal restrictions placed on them.
As a result, they oppose nearly everything National is trying to do with welfare.
As background, the Salvation Army supports, "... over 135,000 families annually, most of whom are beneficiaries ...".
Early last year they submitted on the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024 opening with, "The Salvation Army strongly opposes the Social Security Amendment Bill 2024."
For instance, the government wanted stricter sanctions for beneficiaries who do not meet obligations like turning up for appointments or court appearances. These were opposed, "strongly" when it came to young parents and youth beneficiaries.
They opposed the move to prevent people from doing temporary work and claiming a benefit simultaneously.
They opposed non-financial sanctions whereby someone who hadn't met obligations would have their benefit spending managed as opposed to having free reign.
In the matter of increasing penalties for failing to meet drug-testing obligations they said, "While we understand the intent to encourage compliance, this approach risks exacerbating the challenges faced by beneficiaries struggling with addiction."
In the matter of re-application for an existing jobseeker benefit, they opposed moving to every 26 weeks instead of 52.
There's more but you will get the picture. Their submission would mirror the likes of one from the Auckland Action Against Poverty, or the Child Poverty Action Group, or the Greens. In that respect they are really part of the problem. While it's true that they provide much-needed emergency services, they also fight against reforms that try to place at least some responsibility back on the shoulders of people receiving benefits. That reversal lies at the heart of reducing chronic inter-generational dependence.
And last but not least, a somewhat cloth-eared self-interest is demonstrated in their summary: "These changes will ... further strain our sector that has already faced significant funding cuts from government."
Perhaps an alternative might be for the Sallies to stop spending their remaining government funding on a 'Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit' that bites the very hand that feeds them.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced
8 comments:
In the Bible, Jesus never said, "You poor thing. Have some welfare", or "Just sit on your backside and feel sorry for yourself", or "Blame Roman colonialism". Instead he said "Rise, pick up your bed/ mat and walk".
It's true that Jesus said that because he healed the sick. But isn't that what the Sallies, and the other mainstream churches should do? You don't need psychic powers to give people encouragement and the gumption to deal with their addictions and have a worthwhile and productive life.
Need to break down the data by iwi and hapu and further by % Maori, 50-50, 25-75 etc
It's fitting that they have got into bed with Maori, for like the Rangatira class of the latter, they need the continued supply of the indigent and the indolent to justify and fund their own comfortable existence. They no longer appear supporters and purveyors of the 'hand-up' mentality, but more endorsers of the 'hand-out'. They seek the societal safety net to be swapped for a hammock!
I have been openly advocating for people not to leave legacies to the Sallies, as they have removed themselves ti a political agency burning money on wokism with a top heavy management.
Previous example: Auckland University - which went pro-Maori and woke and lost a lot of alumni donations. Trying to claw back.....
We have in NZ shamefully, one of the longest tails of underachievement in the developed world causing horrible inequities. This is a fact from results in international testing like PERLS.
The underprivileged in society , including a disproportionate number of Maori have been the most affected by disastrous ideologies in education. Standford is attempting to correct these by revolutionizing teaching methods and content. It is low economic status students who will benefit most from these changes.
Sociology has reinforced our inequity by insisting academic achievement is mostly dependent on the socio-economic status of the students not teaching methods including a lack of WORK ETHIC and content in schools.
For me you can't therefore discuss the inequities Maori genuinely experience without discussing our iniquitous education system .
Marxism has also moved in and imposed its own destructive interpretation on the inequities by wrongly putting the blame on colonisation.
I seem to stand alone in trying to establish this idea without denying there are also other factors in a permissive and destructive social welfare system.
I would appreciate the moderator acknowledging this stance and appreciate this is a battle I fight even on this conservative site
Gaynor
Maori people are often referred to as poor and needing assistance, moreso than other ethnic groups within NZ society. While this may or not be so, nobody needs to effectively feel patronised, which is what occurs in welfare handouts over generations. Most Maori.
people I know are proud of their position in society, and know too well how damning patronisation is to their people.
So, having donated to the Sallies for many years, that will cease now. Everyone must take responsibiity for themselves at some level, and the current approach by the Salvoes does nothing to truly support anyone.
I was nice and let it through AGAIN, Gaynor, but there can't be a regular reader now who doesn't know this spiel off by heart.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.