When Safety Nets become Hammocks

Lindsay Mitchell is an artist and libertarian campaigner against the DPB. She is the happily married mother of two youngsters.

Forget for a moment the traditional polarised positions that always occur when the topic of the DPB arises -- the right tending to focus on declining moral values, the economic aspects and lack of sustainability; the left on the inherent social capital, the value of parenting and support for sole mothers.

Leaving this aside, the majority of New Zealanders still believe in a 'safety net'. As a humanitarian libertarian, I share this belief. As someone in a position to help others in need I want to do so but -- and this is essential -- I want to be free to choose who I help. Internationally, I can and do choose the charitable aid agencies I want to support. Domestically, because the major welfare agency is the state, I have no choice.

Some months back I read an admission from Rachealle Namana who was convicted of the manslaughter of 23 month old Lillybing. She confessed that she had defrauded WINZ by claiming not only one DPB benefit but also that of her absent sister. Here is an example of somebody I fervently wished I had not been forced to support.

The handwringers amongst readers might comment that we were also supporting her children. I counter this with a question that is at the heart of this "underclass" issue, which is this: without the expectation of a life sustained on benefits - benefits which increase with the birth of each child - would those children exist?

Libertarians are often misrepresented as being extreme right because we oppose state welfare. In truth, we do not oppose the notion of charity per se or giving to those in need - it is the method of state welfare that we have an argument with.

Governments should not be providing welfare because, when they do, they are bound by the law to treat everyone equally. This is fraught with problems. A mother escaping a violent relationship has different needs to a teenager expecting a child. A father whose wife is killed in a car accident has different needs to an unemployed youth who has assumed sole responsibility for a child he has fathered.

I submit that governments should not be providing welfare because funding is taken for granted by the bureaucrats who work in the system. Funding does not rely on performance. Social workers have themselves become captured by the idea that the state should provide cash hand-outs indiscriminately and that their clients have 'entitlements' with no corresponding obligations.

I suggest that governments should not be providing welfare because there are too many conflicts of interest inherent in one huge organisation. The aim of one branch of the organisation is necessarily diametrically opposed to the aim of the other. One arm is endeavouring to persuade people into jobs whilst the other is busy ensuring people are fully informed of all their entitlements as beneficiaries. These conflicts of interest cause inefficiency at best and corruption at worst. We have seen evidence of both.

Private agencies can move to give the most effective and suitable aid. Their objectives are clear-cut, and the success of their fundraising relies directly on the achievement of these objectives. The public, no longer shackled with the tax taken to operate state- run welfare, could choose to support all, some, or none of these agencies.

The predictable argument is that -- given a choice -- human nature is such that they will choose none. I strongly refute this. As somebody currently collecting signatures on a petition asking for a parliamentary review of the DPB, I freely admit that the greatest obstacle to obtaining signatures is that people harbour a mistaken perception that by signing they might appear harsh or uncaring. Indeed, they do not like to think of themselves as harsh or uncaring. This is an entrenched part of the New Zealand psyche and with it exists the prospect that private welfare provision could work more effectively than what we have now. New Zealand could lead the world again.

Governments haven't always concerned themselves with the provision of welfare. It began a century ago with good intentions but has degenerated since. The state's provision of a readily available safety net has increased the very need for a safety net by shaping human behaviour. Benefits that were intended as emergency provisions are now viewed as entitlements. Backstops have become incentives. Safety nets have become hammocks. The modern day idea of "self- help" is ensuring you are fully conversant with every benefit, entitlement and allowance you might qualify for.

Libertarians believe we can only help others by choice, not by force, and the only way to achieve this freedom is through privatised welfare. This structural and attitudinal shift cannot be achieved overnight, so in the interim we support any moves that reduce "no-questions-asked", entitlement-based state welfare.

In my view, and the view of thousands of others, a review of the Domestic Purposes Benefit is vital and the perfect place to start.