Frank Macskasy
The recent witch-hunt against solo-mums would have done the old Salem village-elders proud. The fires, though, could have been stoked just a bit harder and higher. But as a first attempt at demonising a minority in our community, it wasn’t a bad effort for Minister of Social Services, Paula Bennett.
When Bennett ordered her staff to look up the details of Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller, to release to the media, she had at her fingertips the full power of the State as well as the personal details of Ms Johnston and Ms Fuller. It is the sort of power enjoyed by authoritarian regimes the world over, from Burma to Iran to Zimbabwe.
Of course, Bennett and her advisors knew precisely what they were doing. She was fully aware that her fellow New Zealanders generally have an almost schizophrenic attitude toward the underdog.
On the one hand, we sympathise and support the underdog. We try to understand their plight; not everyone was born in to a decent family; and not everyone has the good fortune never to lose their job or spouse through circumstances beyond their control.
But, on the other hand, we abhor the stereotypical welfare “bludger”. The caricatures made famous in movies like “Once Were Warriors”, highlighted in sensational media stories, or spread by word-of-mouth. We all know someone who has a friend who knows someone who’s cousin has a mate…
But New Zealand is no third World country and if push-came-to-shove, the majority of rational (note that word again: rational) New Zealanders would be unable to stomach the sight of women and children living rough in alleyways, cardboard cartons under bridges, or in parks.
The slums of Mumbai, Manila, Soweto, and many other places around the world should serve as stark reminder that our streets are (nearly) free of homeless only because we, as a society, have taken the collective decision that we do not want our poorest and most disadvantaged to live like animals.
Imagine that without social welfare, the unemployed, solo-parents, invalids, disabled, mentally-ill, and others would not be able to afford housing or to survive.
Most rational people would consider such an alternative to welfare to be totally unacceptable. We live in a society where the disadvantaged are supported – and this comes at a price. We pay for welfare through our taxes. The trade-off is that our streets are free of beggars and children are not sold into slavery or prostitution. And poor kids, like our current Prime Minister,have a decent chance to better themselves and their children.
Analysing the recent anti-DPB hysteria reveals some very interesting observations…
1. The hysteria and hate was directed solely at solo mothers – not solo-dads.
I have yet to see any of the comments directed at solo-fathers. Many of the commentators in those open forum and media obviously hold an internalised anger and resentment toward women. This revealed a startling degree of misogynism amongst many of the radio-talkback callers; internet chatterers; and letter writers to newspapers.
Such as the person who commented on one internet messageboard; “”As for those blood sucking leeching bitches who spread their legs for the first guy that buys them a drink and expect the rest of us to raise their bastard children can go get fucked… These dumb bitches went to battle using the media and got egg on their pathetic faces.””
One of the women, Ms Fuller has had to disconnect her phone because of the number of anonymous, abusive calls she was getting. Such is the power of politicians whipping up a frenzy. It is because of this sheer madness that Paula Bennett was forced to come out publicly and belatedly attempt to quell the fires of this bigoted howling. Even she must have cringed at what she was seeing/hearing from the lunatic fringes of our society.
At least, I certainly hope so.
2. One of the greatest ironies which seems to have escaped people who, if not in the Demented or Misogynistic Categories, are suspicious of our welfare system, is that solo-mums are actually the ones who are the responsible people in this issue.
The husbands/boyfriends of solo-mums have long since left the scene.
As the men desert their families, it is the women who are left to pick up the pieces and raise the children.
Yet, the hysteria in this entire “moral panic” has been directed at the women who choose to stay and look after the children rather than the men who abandon their responsibilities or are so unfit to care for their families, that they were actually a dangerous liability.
In effect, the critics of welfare – who often demand the highest standards of personal responsibility – have been directing their anger at the wrong people. They have been condemnatory of the very people who have exhibited the greatest measure of personal responsibility: those women who choose to carry on and care for their families long after their husbands/boyfriends have deserted them.
Why is the anger of these righteous folk not directed at the men who abandon their families?
Why is the anger directed at women – whose only ‘crime’ is the misfortune to be left, literally, holding the baby?
And why is such anger also not directed at solo-fathers when their wives/girlfriends walk out on them, leaving them to care for the child(ren)?
Again, I suspect there is a large measure of misogyny and simple, plain laziness involved in this issue. It is easier to blame solo-mothers because they are more visible, while their absconding husbands/boyfriends are nowhere to be seen or heard. There is also the suspicion that solo-mothers are “breeding for the benefit”. This is possibly the single most widely held view of those who criticise solo -mothers; that women are having more and more children simply to enjoy the addition DPB payments.
There is no evidence to support such a notion. While some of us “know someone who has a friend who knows someone who’s cousin has a mate…” – the fact is that such stories are mostly urban myths.
The reality is that most women are like Mrs Jones: they find themselves in an unforeseen situation which they thought would never happen to them.
Reality check folks: the vast majority of women who find themselves in the position of solo-mothers have only one thing on their minds: to make ends meet; to raise their children; and to hold their families together. She now has to fulfill the role which was once shared between herself and her husband/boyfriend – but who has now scarpered.
3. Another irony of this entire so-called “debate” (though hysterical witch-hunt might seem more descriptive) is that the two women at the centre of this ‘moral hysteria’ were opposed to the removal of the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA). This allowance was designed to give beneficiaries the means with which to pay for training courses; become skilled; find jobs; get off welfare; and become tax-payers.
Ms Fuller and Ms Johnson were seeking training to become a teacher and a nurse – both of which New Zealand needs. But instead of championing and supporting Ms Fuller and Ms Johnston, Minister Bennett chose to attack them and destroy them publicly by releasing details of their WINZ benefits.
It may have been lost in the debate that the benefits they were receiving was lawful and as per WINZ policies. They did nothing wrong. If their benefits are somehow outrageous or illegal, then Bennett has done nothing to remedy the situation.
Both Ms Fuller and Ms Johnston are still receiving their DPB payments, as they are both lawfully entitled. Both women have three children, with additional health and childcare costs.
It may also have been lost in the debate that with the stopping of the TIA, these women are now back at Square One. No training allowance; no upskilling; lost job opportunities; and we miss out on a teacher and nurse being added to the workforce.
Through our collective hysteria and sheer nastiness, we have ensured that these two women stay on the DPB. Job well done, fellow New Zealanders!
4. A new standard in New Zealand politics has been set. It appears that we have given our political masters (they used to be our servants) the right to use our own personal information against us, should they see fit. If, as most of us believe, that these new rules will apply only to welfare beneficiaries – think again.
Politicians have access to our criminal records; income; tax payments; details of our homes, cars, and assets, and yes – even our medical records.
In 1994, National’s then-Health Minister Jenny Shipley, deliberately released an elderly man’s medical details. He required renal dialysis to stay alive but was refused the treatment by the Auckland CHE on the grounds that he was too old, and that others would benefit more from the money. The man went to the media with his cause and received nationwide coverage of his plight. Health Minister Jenny Shipley then made other medical facts about the man known, on the grounds that the public needed to know the full facts.
(This is precisely the same argument used by Bennett in disclosing the personal details of Ms Fuller and Ms Johnston.)
Shipley appeared on the Holmes Show arguing why the man ought to be left to die from his condition. She publicly revealed the man’s medical and clinical history to back up her argument. South Auckland Health’s then CEO, Dr Lester Levy, returned from holiday to stand between the Minister and his hospital’s patient. Levy ordered that the man receive dialysis. After considering a formally lodged complaint, the privacy commissioner found that Ms Shipley had breached the Privacy Act in revealing the patient’s personal medical details. Ms Shipley duly apologised – but only after the elderly gentleman was dragged through the public media and his situation analysed, scrutinised, and every facet intimately judged by every Tom, Dick, and Harriet up and down the country.
It would be interesting to learn how Shipley got her hands on an individual’s private medical files.
We have entered into a new era where politicians can access such personal information and use it for their own purposes.
This time it was a National Minister up against welfare beneficiaries. In 1994, it was a National Minister against an elderly man with medical problems.
Next time… ?
Who would a Labour Minister attack with the vast private information at their fingertips?
At about this time, as the hysteria and emotion dies away, people should start to get worried.
5. Paula Bennett: one time solo-mum and recipient of the DPB and god-knows-what-other-benefits and now a highly-paid Minister of the Crown. Up until recently, most of us thought; “good on her!”. She used the DPB to better herself and to attain one of the highest jobs in the land. No one can begrudge her that.
(Though we seem to have begrudged two other solo-mums who wanted to undertake training to be a nurse and teacher.)
But Bennett’s actions over Ms Fuller and Ms Johnston have revealed a dark, vindictive streak to her nature. She is obviously not afraid to use her position; her ministerial powers; and her access to our personal information if it suits her. Especially as she believes that taxpayers have a right to know how much Ms Fuller and Ms Johnston earn as DPB recipients.
Bennett may have won this battle against two ‘lowly’, disempowered beneficiaries. She had the power of the State at her fingertips and the naked prejudice of perhaps half of New Zealand on her side.
But winning this “battle” may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for her. She has revealed her true nature and I doubt if others will willingly trust her or give her “quarter” from now on.
Bennett is no longer “The Little Kiwi Battler Who Did Good”. She is now simply another politician who will use any means at her disposal to score a point or defeat an opponent or critic. And people will treat her as such.
When the dust and emotions have settled, Bennett will be remembered in the manner she disposed of two insignificant, powerless critics who dared question her.
It was a true David and Goliath scenario. And we all know who lost that fight eventually.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress