Personal responsibility: remember that quaint idea? It is positively Dickensian these days, when individual problems are made the responsibility of the country at large by way of various blunt instruments. The bottom line is that large numbers of our citizens accept no responsibility for their choices in their lives – it is always someone else’s fault and that someone had damned well better step up and fix it – with more money. And lots more money. And with no accountability required.
Take Golly, who uses her mental health to make her alleged thefts completely OK, as she was forced into high-class clothing stores to assuage her mental health issues. Was, for example, The Warehouse able to compensate for her hurty feelings? No, top-end apparel retailers were all that ‘helped’. And she didn’t even know she had mental health issues – her therapist had to tell her so they could together cobble together the necessary ‘out’ for her to make her actions those of the pernicious system in which she was forced to operate. We await with interest the outcome of her court cases. The woke judiciary will swaddle her actions in comforting words and cuddles.
And Kiri Allan’s car-crash. Hurty feelings again. Mental health issues drove her actions and her vehicle because she was a ‘wahine of colour’ in parliament and so her alleged exploits will be assessed by a compassionate judiciary and the wrong-doer will once again be cast as the poor, downtrodden victim.
Did Judith Collins ever behave in other than an exemplary manner when she was under enormous pressure and had to tolerate abuse? No. But, it’s easy for her because she is a coloniser and a white supremacist so she gets no free pass. The excuses made for appalling behaviours are unacceptable. Tory Whanau, the ‘I was lost but now I’m found’ (in the gym, but not fixing pipes) Mayor of Wellington is another of the same.
And so, we have over 10 per cent of the working population on benefits of all descriptions. The creative writers employed by the state to name these ‘benefits’ deserve accolades for their ability and an outcome that doesn’t require recipients to actually get on with life: to better themselves and become contributing members of society. Shock, horror, gasp as the lefty luvvies clutch their chardonnay and take outraged swigs. ‘No, no, no,’ they cry. ‘This is all the fault of you, and you and you – and of colonialism, white supremacy and cis, white males.’
I am reminded of a friend of mine who way back was required to become a single mother. Her daughters were just four and just six. The DPB – the Domestic Purposes Benefit – was a lifeline and she was on that for three years. She studied to upskill and was extremely grateful for the help of the state and got on with qualifying, getting a job and reclaiming her life. Her first job paid her just one dollar a fortnight more than the DPB, which itself was not at all generous. Did she decide on the basis of that paltry amount to quit work, to stay at home and remain on the benefit? Hell no. My friend was made of much sterner stuff.
I will never forget what she told me she did: she bought a luxury treat – a Moro bar – with that one dollar. And she chopped it into thirds and she and her girls ate together the sweet taste of success and they talked about being true to yourself and overcoming obstacles and getting on with life. She said that Moro bar was a triumph and it represented everything she had set out to do. And she then negotiated a pay rise.
And what did others make of that? They told her, ‘It’s all right for you: it’s easy for you.’ How exactly was it easy for her? She had no vehicle for many years and the three of them walked everywhere and took an occasional bus. She didn’t smoke, drink, or take drugs and she did have the support of a loving extended family. Her sister used to bring her fruit and vegetables from country roadside stands if she was coming into town. Her brother acted as guarantor with the bank so she could pay her mortgage – at that time 23 per cent interest. He lent her his car for trips beyond walking and she mowed his lawns to thank him for that. She and her daughters then went on to university: she as a mature student and she paid every cent of her fees and the three of them sat together at a very cramped dining room table and studied every night. And they had not a single cent of a student loan between them. They worked their socks off to work, study and achieve. They each graduated, got good jobs and got on with their lives. They didn’t go out on ramraids or rob Michael Hill Jeweller or steal clothes from upmarket apparel outlets for their mental health.
Lindsay Mitchell’s excellent article makes many similar points.
Some might argue that only the rich can afford personal responsibility. But the current obscenely-loose definition of ‘need’, and consequent array of unchecked benefits only keeps the poor poor. I would argue that any parent can earn enough through work to house and raise their child. In recent decades thousands have done, and continue to do so, proving my point.
If the country does not soon recapture a widespread commitment to personal responsibility, the collective financial burden – along with the many unwanted social consequences – will continue.
In the absence of any reason why a sense of personal responsibility would re-emerge, it will fall to government to make it happen. The only way to achieve this is to begin removing the crutches. No more sole parent benefit; time limits on the unemployment benefit […]
And there it is: that issue of personal responsibility. And that is exactly why that chocolate bar was, and is, so important.
Was my friend rich? Absolutely not. Was it tough for my friend? Yes, really tough. She had no social life for years as she couldn’t afford to go out. No cell-phone. No camera to record her girls’ lives. No car. No new clothes – she went without or sewed at midnight after everything else was done. She dug a garden and grew vegetables. She made sure they all ate well. She did cleaning jobs. She worked with her DPB case-worker and together they weaned her off the benefit and into employment. It was a fair system she said. At that time, she recalls, the average time spent on a benefit was three years – long enough to re-train and start again. And she valued that support. She did not cheat and she kept her head held high.
The open-ended access to benefits under any gobbledygook name is destructive. This Government must change the benefit system so that people can achieve and flourish.
I am not aware that there is a limit on self-respect, self-determination, self-reliance and personal responsibility. If I am wrong – please show me the research with those findings.
