It’s strange. I would have thought that Fran O’Sullivan and David Garrett were at complete opposite ends of the extreme Right. O’Sullivan is a pro-business liberal or libertarian, Garrett is a knuckle brain conservative. But actually, they’re not so far apart. It seems both believe in freedom for the rich and control over the poor (the latter, perhaps the necessary corollary to the former).
Incredibly O’Sullivan goes into bat for Garrett over his sterilisation comments:
“The Government could simply make sterilisations free and provide additional targeted assistance to help them cope with their existing brood.
Looked at rationally, such grants could even be seen as economic in the long-run from the parents’ perspective – as well as the Government’s.
Plenty of middle-class parents stump up for the financial cost of sterilisation procedures once they have completed their own families.
Why shouldn’t assistance be available to those who can’t meet sterilisation costs?”
It’s one thing for a government to provide contraception , including sterilisation, for free. That’s good because it gives people options, freedom.
But bribing the poor to not have kids, that’s a kind of capitalist eugenics.
It is only the poor that would be bribed by Garrett’s $5,000 payment or O’Sullivan’s slightly more chilling sounding “additional targeted assistance”. That actually takes choice away from people, there are many who couldn’t afford to turn down O’Sullivan and Garrett’s bribes.
But that’s no trouble for the extreme right. The poor Atlases are being dragged down by carrying the ‘leeches’ (as Ayn Rand termed you and me). Better to bribe the poor to be sterilised.
In a weird passage, O’Sullivan tries to justify sterilising the poor by harking back the the eugenics practised in the early 20th century:
“Ironically, state-sponsored sterilisation programmes are part of New Zealand’s past. Just 40 years ago, our state-run mental hospitals still contained many ageing women who had been committed by their parents and left to rot.
The files revealed some of these women were committed on the basis of “moral degradation”: Having a baby out of wedlock.
Something which the Government happily picks up the bill for these days through making the domestic purposes benefit available to young, partnerless women.
But certainly didn’t in the 1920s and 1930s when many hapless women were sent away.
In those pre-pill days, some of these institutionalised women were subsequently sterilised to prevent them from having more children.
What is also notable is that most of those women were Pakeha – not Maori.”
Come on Fran. You’re seriously saying ‘well, the government did it before, it’s OK now’? It was barbaric eugenics then, and it would be the same now. And of course it was mainly Pakeha is State-run mental institutions for having babies out of wedlock. That’s a Victorian value system, not a Maori one.
To be fair to O’Sullivan, she gets it right on Whanau Ora:
The Maori Party claims that Whanau Ora will enable “Maori solutions to Maori problems”.
But the details are fuzzy.
There are no guarantees that Whanau Ora funds will not be subject to misuse. There are also no guarantees that Whanau Ora will in fact reduce the societal costs New Zealand already shoulders as a result of the levels of murders and child abuse committed by Maori.
That’s why the taxpayer funded programme’s success needs to be judged on hard metrics like the progress made on reducing child abuse.
A billion dollar programme that no-one can define, even in vague terms, that will involve turning over public money to goodness knows who in ‘high trust’ contracts, and give no guarantees of improved outcomes.