The New Zealand government is considering a proposal to devolve the funding of the provision of various government funded services to local boards in certain demarcated regions.
Inter-generational welfare dependence and its’ associated host of chronic social problems have long been recognised as a problem across the political spectrum. The centre right have always made noises about welfare reform/reduction. The problem is that politicians are so scared of taking really bold steps that the problems are allowed to entrench themselves more and more, making them all the harder to solve. We need some really radical solutions, but I don’t see any of them in this plan.
The 3 regions identified for the initial project are the Far North, Rotorua and Gisborne.
Subsidiarity, devolution, de-centralisation are all steps in the right direction in the sense that they’re marginally better than having everything decided centrally. The key word there, though, is marginal. It’s tinkering at the edges. The proposal from the McGuiness Institute has precious little about actually reducing government expenditure. It’s all about moving around existing resources and bleating for more. For example: “Decentralise control by empowering local officials and/or establishing a decisionmaking governance board” .“Place free sanitary product dispensers in all schools’ female bathrooms. Possibly buy these in bulk under Pharmac.” “Create a local card that enables free filling of prescriptions from any chemist.” and so on. All more stuff to be paid for out of the public purse.
No mention of how and when government welfare spending will actually reduce. No, of course not. That’s not the idea. The idea is that a bunch of poverty industry consultants and other gravy-trainers will do very well out of all this. Then, in five or ten years time when the ‘problems’ are still not solved, what will they need ? More funding. How about some real solutions. Here’s 3 to start:
1. Stop supporting and encouraging single motherhood through the benefit and tax system.There is ample evidence to show that fatherlessness is one of the biggest, if not the biggest contributor to social problems associated with poverty. Early pregnancy, for example. For an excellent analysis of the New Zealand welfare/poverty situation and how fatherlessness is one of the biggest contributors to negative outcomes, read this article by Lindsay Mitchell of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.
2. Reduce income tax on low earners. Mitchell’s article shows that increasing benefits to non working families can actually lead to even worse outcomes. The best outcomes for poorer families come when there is employment and a father present. So, what better incentive than little or no income tax for low earners ? No, the government is more interested in keeping control of everybody’s lives and taxing everything that moves.
3. Reduce the regulatory burden on micro businesses. In a similar vein, how about making it easier for the smallest businesses to function ? Apart from the ongoing headache of tax compliance, we’ve seen in recent years the introduction of draconian Health and Safety legislation and the Food Act, among other things. It all goes to make it much more difficult for anyone trying to start off in business. The smaller player just can’t afford the compliance costs. Whatever costs there may be in negative food safety or health and safety outcomes would be offset many times over by the positive outcomes of poor people helping themselves up.
In other words, don’t ask ‘what should the government do about poverty?’ and instead ask ‘what should the government stop doing about poverty?’. They’ve been doing plenty in New Zealand since at least the 1930s. Clearly it hasn’t worked.
Perhaps even more concerning, buried deep in the document we get this: “Allow the demarcation zone governance board access to all IDI data for decision making and longitudinal research.” Excuse me ? So, what exactly is IDI data ? Well, it’s “Integrated data infrastructure” which in simple terms means “a large research database containing microdata about people and households.” So, in other words, not only is the plan to address poverty not going to do anything of the kind, but hidden in the fine print behind the beard of loving concern is a Trojan Horse to get another piece of the surveillance state jigsaw in place. I wouldn’t want to be a poor person once the system gets total control over every aspect of our lives……..