Reporter turns columnist

This is my response to Simon Collins' column in today's NZ Herald;

The new funding of non-governmental social services is, according to Simon Collins, society's acceptance of a further need to socialise what were once family responsibilities. He refers to this move as the "logical end point."

In fact it is neither logical nor an endpoint. As Frank Field, former British Welfare Reform Minister would say, the welfare state - the monopolisation of welfare provision by government - should not be regarded as some sort of utopian end game. Historically private organisations have played an important role in providing social services and insuring against social risk. But it is almost as though Mr Collins believes we will all live happily ever after now that government has pledged to fully fund service providers like the Women's Refuge and increase funding to Barnardos. (Am I the only one to notice that these beneficiaries strongly supported the government in passing the anti-smacking legislation?)

What will happen is their demand for public money will continue to increase irrespective of performance and the taxpayer, who could previously choose whether or not to support these 'charities', no longer has any say in the matter. Some agencies now plan to take on new social workers or increase remuneration to paid staff. What we will see is a further expansion of the welfare industry.

What we won't see is any let-up in demand for what are mostly bottom-of-the-cliff services. That is because the benefit system - which once primarily responded to need but now creates it - remains unchanged. It will continue to provide incentives and backstops for people to behave in ways that are damaging to themselves and their children.

Collins presents the reasons why the welfare state grew as inevitable. Extended and nuclear families broke down as a result of urbanisation, the loss of full employment, the pill and women's liberation. The state had to replace the support no longer available from parents, grandparents, siblings etc.

But he makes no mention of how people's attitudes and values changed in response to the increasing ideology and level of collective responsibility. Taking personal responsibility for one's actions became less expected, admired or necessary as the state promised to pick up the pieces. Having children alone became socially acceptable. Self-destructive habits became illnesses and afflictions rather than self-indulgent shortcomings. As more and more people resorted to welfare benefits any stigma diminished. The culture of rights replaced the culture of morals.

Crime worsened from the 50s - not the 70s - as those changing values crept in. Increased crime was not primarily a result of sky-rocketing unemployment or the economic reforms. It was a result of a loss of those values that prevail when people rely on themselves and each other; when they need to live co-operatively and constructively together. Benefits which accrue to people no matter why they find themselves unable to work, damage society. Alcohol and drug abuse, casual child bearing, idleness, violence and dysfunction are possible and perpetuated through income from benefits.

The agencies the taxpayer is now going to fund, to the tune of nearly half a billion dollars, typically work with the families who exhibit all these types of behaviour.

Simon Collins writes that this new funding is a "historic change". Indeed. It is another win for state collectivism and another nail in the coffin of personal responsibility. Things just took a turn for the worse.