Maori and Welfare
The Business Roundtable has published a paper by Lindsay Mitchell on “Maori and Welfare. It isn’t necessarily BRT policy, but published to encourage debate – which is excellent. We need more, not less, policy debates.
Mitchell has found that Maori were not always over-represented in negative statistics:
One of the few areas for which long-term Maori statistics were kept is crime. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Maori (defined as people having half or more Maori ancestry) made up 5 percent of the population. In 1898, 22,752 charges
were heard before magistrates and only 2.3 percent were against people of the “aboriginal native race”.
And this situation continued for many decades. Then:
By 1957, the Maori share of offences tried in the Supreme Court was 18 percent, but in just five years it climbed to 23 percent.5 In 1959, Maori made up 25 percent of the boys admitted to the correctional Owairaka Boys’ Home in Auckland. By 1969, the proportion had risen to 70 percent, and by 1978 it was 80 percent.6 By 1961, the Maori arrest rate for 15 year-olds and older was almost 5 times the non- Maori rate.7 Young Maori migrating from rural to urban settings were no longer
under the control of their elders. Young urban Maori increasingly joined emerging groups such as the Mongrel Mob and Black Power.
She quotes James Belich:
People avoid crime, not primarily because it is illegal, but because of the disapproval of those that matter to them – in the traditional, rural Maori case, the kin group.
Lindsay goes on to make a link to welfare policies being responsible for some of the problems, especially the DPB. A not inconsiderable number of Maori have said the same at various times. Now many will disagree with Lindsay, but I suggest you at least read her report – it is only 40 pages.
Mitchell states her view on welfare:
There exists an extreme view that the state has no role at all in welfare provision. It is not one I share. Nevertheless, the state should limit its involvement to that of providing a safety net of last resort. Self and family responsibility must come first. Middle class welfare – the provision of cash or services to those who can afford to meet their own needs – must be avoided. Welfare reforms that deter people from behaving in detrimental ways because there is no perceived risk should be made with those basics in mind.
I broadly agree with that proposition. Welfare should be trgeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.
Lindsay then makes six recommendations:
- replace the DPB with temporary assistance only (max one year);
- replace state-funded unemployment benefits with private unemployment insurance;
- tighten eligibility for sickness and invalid benefits;
- consider assistance-in-kind and income management as stop-gap measures only;
- consider privatising income support delivery to improve efficiency and incentives and allow for Maori ownership;
- consider empowering employment entrepreneurs, and increased use of loans and opting-out as features of a future safety net system.
I do support reforms along the lines of what Clinton did, with a maximum time you can spend on a benefit. They have been a huge success. I think restricting the DPB to one year only though is impractical. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 are worth exploring. The status quo is not exactly producing great results, and we should be open to looking at can we get better outcomes by doing it differently.
This is where I am a bit disappointed by the Government’s response:
Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.
Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said none of the ideas were on the agenda for the Government.
It would be nice if the response was that while the proposals were not current policy, we will at least read and consider the report, and respond to it after due consideration. As I said, the status quo is nothing to be proud of.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
This is where I am a bit disappointed by the Government’s response:
Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.
“I believe in the Welfare State.” John Key. Not once, but three times, at The Press’ Readers’ Panel prior to the election. I was there. I heard him.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.”
Yeah well, Pita has already said he has got the PM’s ear hasn’t he.
Welfare- that device exploited by the left in their never ending quest for political power, has almost destroyed New Zealand, not only Maori, and I do not see why there is a need to make that race distinction.
Maori this Maori that.
Welfare is the root cause so much of NZ’s social and economic decay, and it does not matter whether its Maori or Pakeha, Chinese or Korean, Somalian or Kenyan.
Closing the Gaps was patronising racist garbage. So is any other social measure targeting Maori and nobody else.
Its time we were NZers, and not Maori and all the rest.
Welfare needs to be severely cut for all. Not just for Maori.
Even the UK is waking up to this necessity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/13/public-spending-poll-cuts
Quote-
Voters are keener on the Tory message that spending must fall than the Labour one that increases will help to fight the recession.
Unquote
July 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.
Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said none of the ideas were on the agenda for the Government.
I like many other NZrs am a Capitalist with a social conscience. I believe that we should be responsible for ourselves however I do agree with a state welfare provision as a safety net for those in genuine need. I believe this is what the report is advocating.
Government welfare has got way out of controll and needs addressing It no longer is a safety net but a way of life for many .
I am continuing to become seriously disillusioned with the attitude of this government.
In being so dismissive of the report without reading it Mr Key does those that voted for him a grave disservice.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Looks like JKs taken fright . Toughen up JK 90% of the citizens will agree with Lindsay
Want to find out
Put her suggestions to a refernendum
Oh I forgot
You dont believe in referendums or if you dont like the subject you dont take part.
Shame on you JK.
You need to stop pandering to the soft cocks Remember they are the ones that got us into the current mess with their wishy washy anything goes dumbarse ideas.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
> It would be nice if the response was that while the proposals were not current policy, we will at least read and consider the report…
Well, yes, it would be nice. It would have been nice if Simon Power had had the courtesy to read CJ Elias’s speech before he mouthed off. It seems this government is not too interested in what others have to say. It took at least a few years for the previous government to become arrogant; this government is trying to outdo Labour in that respect.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The common denominator for our moral & economic slide is not Maori, Welfare, Labour, Nats or capitalists. Its Government.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Lindsay Mitchell, the NZBR and Kiwiblog combine to talk about Maori and crime… this should be a real hoot…
[DPF: Lindsay has spent months researching and writing on the issue. And what is your contribution Paul? By the way did you know the NZBR Chairman was Maori?]
July 21st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
This is why I enjoy reading this blog, cause while I classify myself as very slightly to the left / very liberal but I will be the first to admit that the status quo in regards to welfare is failing and accordingly like reading others opinions on what could be done. As Lucy eloquently put it I “like many other NZrs am a Capitalist with a social conscience. I believe that we should be responsible for ourselves however I do agree with a state welfare provision as a safety net for those in genuine need.” Accordingly I am always open towards ideas of how we can improve the status quo, which is a fiscal drag, but also wish to ensure that those who genuinely need help do not fall through the gaps, i.e. I dont believe in relying upon charity for those who really need help.
I dont agree with Lindsay’s recommendations, they are in my opinion to “dracion” as JK put it. I also have beef with linking benefits with Maori’s decline to what they are now, I think injured mana through taking away the means of being self sufficient was more to blame than any subsequent welfare dependency. Also the break down of the traditional tribal structure, which enforced shame on those who did wrong was severly to blame which is linked with those earlier wrongs. But I digress and essentially I do agree with change. Things I would be in favour for are:
- Limiting the period one is on the doll. Its purpose is a safety net, not a life style. 1 year is redicolous, but if you changed it to something like 2 in 10 years you would at least target those who never leave it and force change.
- The DPB needs a radical overhaul. Personally I am completely in favour of it, as raising the next generation is bloody important, we dont want a bunch of no hopers. But at the same time what is the point of paying it if the main target of it, i.e. the kids, are not getting the benefit of it. Accordingly I would be in favour of moving to a voucher system for food, electricity, school uniforms, clothing, and shelter and a small allowance for those random things like glasses etc. Further in order to keep receiving it things have to happen like kids have to go to school etc. Further once youngest kid reach age of 5 significant pressure should be exerted to get the parent into work as role models are bloody important. Finally there needs to be something to reduce the benefit of just popping out more to get more, I think moving to a voucher system however will help there.
- The Sickness Benefit needs a significant overhaul. Its there for those who actually cant work, not those who cant work in their prior industry.
- I am all for work for the dole schemes, dont care if they are inefficient, the scrapping of it at the end of the last National government annoyed me.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Jeff, how can someone who describes himself as left/liberal be in favour of work for the dole?
If there is work to be done, then it should be done and the workers paid a fair rate. WFD is all about rich pricks grabbing free labour, it is not aboutr helping people in to work.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’ve just scanned the report. It’s a lengthy data collation, a brief precis of selected policy responses and lots and lots of personal reflection. It’s an interesting discussion piece but I suspect its limitations will be readily identified (I don’t imagine Mitchell aspired to produce the kind of research and analysis governments require as the basis for new policy, this is more symbolic and than substantive).
My contributions are reasonably limited to the areas I’m experienced in and knowledgeable. I know my limits and don’t make claims outside them. I don’t claim expertise in welfare policy, I do have some expertise in education where I have undertaken, commissioned and published quantitative, qualitative research.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Congratulations to Lindsay Mitchell for her corageous effort. Very few people could match her knowledge of the subject and even fewer would have the guts to publish such analysis. Well done.
The response from the likes of Key and Bennett (“I’ll defend the welfare state with all I have”), it’s no surprise. If only these spineless politicians had the wisdom to read and consider the report’s recommendations before judging it. If only.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
A huge success according to who? Probably not according to the millions of homeless people in the USA.
[DPF: To the millions who moved from welfare to work. Are you alleging homelessness increased under Clinton?]
July 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
As I said, the status quo is nothing to be proud of.
Likewise the National party are nothing to be proud of. They failed to deliver on their biggest promise when elected, and since then have just been doing exactly what Labour would be doing in government had they won another term.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I can understand how a PM might make an immediate dismissal of “welfare reforms” of the style outlined in Mitchell’s report. I can only imagine she is restricted by terms of reference dictated by her employers. But to get to the point, it’s stuff like this that doesn’t illustrate the kind of thinking you’d expect from a woman who proclaims her experience in welfare matters publicly:
These are not reforms, they are financial choices. Turning off the money tap is not a reform. It’s an end. From her very brief section on individual responsibility she fails to factor in, for reasons unknown, that changes in attitude and personal philosophy don’t happen overnight, or even over ten years. Her figures on the increase of maori crime prove that – changes are gradual. In the case of welfare, they reach into every other aspect of life.
Not everyone is created equal in the brains department and some may require non financial assistance to leave a welfare dependancy path. The kind of skills required to construct those paths are largely unknown and the symptoms of that lack is seen in common human failings. They’re common because the solutions aren’t yet known! Mitchell doesn’t know them either. She doesn’t know how to acelerate someone’s personal development as fast as a benefit can be cut. Can she reform a sub-culture overnight with 100% take up? Doubt it.
If John Key knows this, he has dismissed a report of this nature quickly and correctly, rather than in an off-hand manner. Turn of the tap and you suddenly have a series of problems that cost more than what you were spending in welfare to appease. That wouldn’t be very responsible of a government.
The author and publisher of this report should have the courage to call the ideas within what they really are and not wail about personal responsiblity being misrepresented by someone outside of themselves. Since it is them doing it. When you blend government with social concerns and state you support personal responsibility, you cannot then shy away from what that role entails by uttering that people should make more effort, cut off the money, turn your back and expect all the problems to go away. Though that’s what generally happens. If real responsibility was applied the whole culture of NZ would have to change and those who have the most to lose are, you guessed it, the politicians espousing personal responsiblity. Far easier to say someting like ” it sounds a bit draconian…” Don’t hold your breath for real reform.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
This is where I am a bit disappointed by the Government’s response:
Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.
He said (on TV) that someone had read it for him and informed him – to paraphrase – ‘that it wasn’t something this government would be interested in’.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“He said (on TV) that someone had read it for him and informed him – to paraphrase – ‘that it wasn’t something this government would be interested in’.”
Hooten-??? Sure sounds like that sap.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Good comments Jeff. I have similar views generally. I think it is something that continually needs to bve looked at to find better ways and to adapt to changes.
I have been very dubious about work for dole because of the short term inefficiencies, but I’m starting to think more of the longer term benefits – teaching a work ethic.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
cerium, what’s a work ethic, and why is it important?
July 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Can someone make the bearing of arms for private citizens legal before turing off the welfare tap? Thanks very much. Surely the government wouldn’t stand in the way of my personal responsility to defend my property and person. Would they?
July 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Considering the 1990′s National Government got its fingers burnt when following BRT advice on fire services reform, and National finding last year that distancing themselves from Roger Douglas was a canny pre-election move, it is no too surprising that John Key wishes to keep his distance from BRT.
I seriously question whether the shareholders of companies whose CEOs are BRT members get any real benefit from BRT and should be questioning why their funds are supporting BRT.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“I seriously question whether the shareholders of companies whose CEOs are BRT members get any real benefit from BRT and should be questioning why their funds are supporting BRT.”
Of course you would, but guess what? The owners of those businesses don’t give a fuck for your questions, and will go on making decisons without feeling the slightest need to ask you if you approve.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“DPF: Lindsay has spent months researching and writing on the issue. And what is your contribution Paul? By the way did you know the NZBR Chairman was Maori?”
Rob is Maori in much the same way I am a Guernsay Islander.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
And you’ve asked them, have you red?
Methinks you’re just another cash sucking leech like the average CEO, out to line his own pockets, sucking the shareholder’s dry.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Genuine question – if someone is on the dole for x years, and it then gets stopped, what happens to that person? We let them starve? Evict them from state housing etc?
Because noboody can claim that every single person would suddenly find work under that regime.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“Jeff, how can someone who describes himself as left/liberal be in favour of work for the dole? ”
Firstly Liberal has nothing to do with ones economic beliefs unless you take it to be liberal market focused, but I think the clarification by calling my self very slightly to the left, and this really is a very slightly.
Why can I, because the reason I am to the left is I believe in society providing some guidance in some areas, and where one relies on the state for assistance the state has the right to deem the term of that assistance. Further I do not believe generally not working as being healthy for people in general, it creates dependence and destroys ones self worth. Accordingly I believe that working for the dole would have a positive benefit to society and accordingly I agree with it. In the end that is the core underlying belief of the left in that things should be for the benefit for society as a whole. The whole entitlement thing is fucked in itself.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“what happens to that person?”
They get charity.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Hmm, interesting that she points out that old horis did not get the pension nor as she fails to note did they get a war pension if they came home with a leg or two missing in 1918.
My grand Uncle was one of the lucky ones who survived Chunak Bair by being cunning enough to lose his leg below the knee early in the tiff.
The help he got was, sod off hori no help for the tanned.
I have no problem with dropping the welfare state, but make it pure, no places where people can dump their old relatives at tax payers expense.
It is a bloody disgrace that so many old soldiers are in those homes, why are they not with their families ?
July 21st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
[DPF: To the millions who moved from welfare to work. Are you alleging homelessness increased under Clinton?]
Doing a bit of research suggests that homelessness certainly didn’t decrease under Clinton, and quite possibly did increase. The reduction of people on welfare in the late 1990s in the USA is probably more likely to be the result of high economic growth during that period.
Isn’t the issue quite simple though – what if people just can’t get a job after their time expires? Do we just kick them out onto the street? I would have thought we had more heart.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Thanks to Redbaiter for his response.
Is this the general idea behind the policy? Those few individuals that do slip through the cracks require private charity?
July 21st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Nice bit of waffle, Jeff. Here, have some maple syrup with it.
Why should a person be forced to work at less than the fair rate for that work? If there is work to do, it should be done, and worker should be paid for it. Where does WFD work come from? By putting people to work doing the very jobs the unskilled could be doing, thus WFD steals work from one group of workers to give it to another, lower paid, group of workers. That is not Left, that is right wing thievery.
Think of the dole as a tax society pays for failing to create enough work for all.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Think of the dole as the tax we pay to avoid the extreme poverty that is seen in 3rd world countries (and the USA).
July 21st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“Is this the general idea behind the policy? Those few individuals that do slip through the cracks require private charity?”
Whats wrong with it?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I’m not making any kind of judgement either way on it Redbaiter – I’m trying to get a handle on what is being proposed by all those advocating the “dole for x years only”.
You’re the only one to respond so far, so apparently that is the consensus
July 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“You’re the only one to respond so far, so apparently that is the consensus”
On Kiwiblog, I prefer never to be part of any “consensus”. Include me out.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
garethw – There was a hard and fast six month ‘stand-down’ for anyone who left a job including totally unjustified dismissal. If the person has no cash the only option pending another job is to ‘go feral’. If a male is in that position and has a partner and kids, he would need to temporarily leave the relationship so she can collect the DPB. A person in that position will get fed up scavanging rubbish bins and may be twempted to turn to petty crime.
A practicing lawyer I have heard of ‘went feral’ while studying law and lined on the Wellington Town Belt. He was a teenage delinquent and it took ten years before he could realistically ask a judge for admission (the ‘hard’ route).
Redbaiter – I have to agree. The shareholders are supposed to be the owners of the company, but then the Board and CEO are the real ‘owners’ when it comes to matters of this sort.’
July 21st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Its a simple as this, if as a Student my parents income is assessed till I turn 25, and I have to borrow to study. Why should those on the DPB under 25 not have to have there parents income assessed & have to borrow to live too?
Same should go for the dole. Parental income & assets of the applicant should be assessed to see if they qualify for the benefit.
Half of what they get on the dole should be a loan, repayable at 10c in the dollar after the recipient gets a job earning more than $20,000 a year (adjustable yearly for inflation), for the DPB it should be 10% is repayable once in paid full-time employment, repaid at 10c in the dollar.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“A person in that position will get fed up scavanging rubbish bins and may be twempted to turn to petty crime.”
Fuck that kind of thinking annoys me. We have had numerous great depressions in the past yet got out of them without the general population, as poverty stricken as they were, resorting to mass stealing. When you start talking that way, you are merely providing people with the impetus they need to move away from morality. You create the very situation you fear by promoting it through your language.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I think the influence of the NZBR will not be enhanced by this work. I don’t have a high regard for Lindsay’s work, I think it lacks rigour frankly and the conclusions/recommendations in this report don’t adequately relate to the description of the problems (which is really little more than a cross tab of historical data). Lobby groups always do some polemical work, its essential to developing and maintaining a media profile, but I suspect this report will run a few media cycles and then disappear. The New Zealand Institute eclipsed the NZBR a while back.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Are you saying that Lindsay Mitchells research is flawed Paul? If so please enlighten us with the more rigorous information you are basing your comments on.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.
Just another reason to fire up the BBQ at Crusher Collins place, Key is nothing more than a gutless pinko wanker, the sooner we get rid of him the better.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“The authors laid some of the blame on:
… the breakdown of traditional values and sanctions, due to urbanisation and subsequent dislocation.”
That, my friends is the guts of the matter. How many Maori families do you know that hold “traditional” values?
July 21st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I think it clearly supports the FACT that John Key does not adequately represent and uphold the views of his constituents – central and right Conservative’s who expected a more in depth response at this particular study.
I think it shows that John Key is nothing but a puppet prime minister who is often dictated to by senior advisers and economic experts within the field.
Clearly this study is pushing for an end to state dependency and unfortunately this was brushed off with nothing more than a one-sentenced statement.
What a big shame.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
“Welfare should be trgeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.”
Again David shows us what a wonderful empathic understanding he has of poverty in New Zealand
Unemployment growing every day and your focus is ending welfare, I’d say you lot had lost the plot, however sadly I think you never grasped in in the first place.
Enjoy the one term.
xxx
S
July 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
sonic (2641) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
“Welfare should be trgeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.”
So why is that WINZ vouchers specifically say that they cannot be redeemed for alcohol or tobacco?
July 21st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I should read the report before commenting, but my first impression is that Lindsay has made a sequencing mistake in presentation if not in thought.
Her recommendations 5 & 6 should come first. Then when they succeed move towards dropping the present system away as per her earlier points. Also hopefully as the global recession recedes.
Otherwise politically she is whistling in the wind unfortunately.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Hey chronic:
The entire point of welfare is to engineer its own demise through providing a safety net and a leg up. It is not to keep people like phool on a teat in a cycle of imposed failure and guilt.
Enjoy the ten years of opposition.
xxx
HD
July 21st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Lucy, I said it lacked rigour. By this I mean, there’s no evidence of independent review, no criticial examination of what’s casual and what’s simply a correlation, it mixes personal reflections and opinion with refereed research, the “problem” isn’t clearly defined, the solutions are not developed (no discussion of second round effects), there’s no costing, nothing about the sequence or pacing of implementation, no consideration of alternatives.
At best, it is a selective literature reivew (not a thematic review), a data collation and a handful of proposals.
As I said at the begining, it’s an interesting discussion document that I’m sure will get some media, but not policy, attention. If that’s what the NZBR aspired to achieve, they’ll likely get it but it’s clear the PM’s underwhelmed.
Perhaps you’ll tell me why you consider it significant?
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
Big Bruv the reason National won and continues to maintain support is because that person you dislike, JK, is in charge and takes a practical middle of the road approach. If someone with your outlooks ceased power National would be out of office at the next election faster than Burt Munro travelling down Bonneville.
MNIJ
There was this thing back in the French revolution called the “right to work”, meaning society had an obligation to find work etc. Failed miserably. Where society is assisting someone who cant find work and requires something back, i.e. work, there is nothing wrong with that.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
What’s the point of a National government that’s further to the left on welfare than the Democrats?
No sonic, they won’t just get one term, they’ll get about four – by out-Labouring Labour at the expense of the good of the country.
Key’s failure to even consider doing what Clinton had the guts to do – and which Lindsay Mitchell had the guts to recommend – shows that our prime minister is a politician first, and a leader not at all.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 am
DPF, i’d like to see a limit on the number of kids that are supported by the DPB – that only those children you have BEFORE going onto the DPB are supported. It seems ludicrous that a woman can continue to have children after going onto the benefit and this entitles them to a greater benefit. We need to carefully look at what sort of incentive this provides.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Guts hey John, that’s important, but so too is insight and judgment. I’m all for reform, experimentation and innovation. There’s no reason why we should be slaves to precedent. Still, if you’re going to try something new, you might want to first really understand the underlying issues first. I don’t think Mitchell’s work does this at all. I’m curious why you do? Guts, is one thing, ill-informed hope another.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Paul Williams: “There’s no reason why we should be slaves to precedent.”
No? Nothing to learn from others’ experiences? I’d have thought one reason might be that Clinton’s welfare reform worked.
Or are you saying it didn’t?
“Still, if you’re going to try something new, you might want to first really understand the underlying issues first. I don’t think Mitchell’s work does this at all. I’m curious why you do?”
And I’m curious why you don’t Paul.
I was at Lindsay’s presentation. I thought she understood the underlying causes of Maori welfare dependency and the problems it causes very well. So did a number of Maori in the room who made supportive remarks afterwards.
The root cause, as I understood it from her comments, is the availability of a long-term welfare benefit to young mothers, and the incentive that offers those children to have children and rear them without the benefit of a father.
Lindsay’s figures showed that Maori girls were disproportionately likely to choose the welfare lifestyle, which all too often triggers the all-too-familiar cycle of abuse as itinerant boyfriends enter the home and wreak their havoc on the children.
It was courageous, I thought, for Lindsay, as a white woman, to present her findings to an audience that included a number of Maori (including the Roundtable chair), knowing full well that she will inevitably be portrayed as some sort of uncaring harridan to the right of Genghis Khan.
But those who were there, including the afore-mentioned Maori, were, as far as I could tell, hugely impressed by her sincerity in trying to find a solution to one of Maoridom’s – and New Zealand’s – greatest problems.
And I found it ironic that her solution was the same as that successfully pursued by a left-wing government in the US, yet one which our so-called centrist government finds too hot to even read.