Over a month ago I wrote about Tuhoe's desire to be paid out benefit money up front to invest in job creation. Today the NZ Herald has finally written about it.
This post is simply to draw attention to a stunning statement from Tamati Kruger. He echoes what I and many others have come to believe. It's long been behind my opposition to welfare. I've hated being labelled a' beneficiary basher' for attacking welfare, though you can get used to anything. A white middle-class, middle-aged woman presents an obvious target for derision and denigration, but how does the leftist, pro-welfare lobby deal with the same expression of frustration when it comes from the heart of a subjugated community?
Tuhoe chief executive Kirsti Luke said a majority of Tuhoe people in that area were on benefits, and tribal leader Tamati Kruger said the iwi aimed to change that.
"We are declaring war on dependency," Mr Kruger said. "Our motivation is that if we want to be a vibrant people, to be a productive people who live up to their beliefs and to their faith as to what life is all about, and the honour that has to be part of humanity, then this is clearly what we have to overcome - because being a beneficiary is a type of servitude."
10 comments:
Hip hip, hooray.
#Hope
Just a pity that Maori (and others) didn't listen to Apirana Ngata when he said exactly the same thing back in 1935.
I don't think for one moment that Tuhoe want and end to welfare dependency - they just want it channelled through the tribal authority so that they have increased power.
The sentiment is excellent. But it doesn't sound quite right as jigsaw implies. Can I go on the dole, capitalise my future payments and use them to invest in a business? Would a better idea be to use settlement money for this purpose?
That is the exact question niggling me David. If a teenage birth confers a forward liability that can be capitalised, why not encourage it?
Afraid that you belittle Tuhoe. If you were aware of their history more you would have a much better opinion of them. I have employed a number and have spent a bit of time in their territory. Had DOC not been formed then the Urewera's would never have been the problem they were. DOC acted like rambo's on Land that was not theirs.
As for Apriana Ngata, he was instrumental in attacking Tuhoe and their lands. He didn't like what they wanted and saw an opportunity ti take the land for his own tribe. Not a well known fact.
Plenty of well educated Tuhoe around the country and if you go to theirpages you will learn lots. The only Tribe to have properly documented their history, by an historian. Good reading if you can get a copy.
Unbridled Lands and Rua kanana, both by Judith Binney.
How can one have a better opinion of Tuhoe when they are part of the current giant
swindle in that they want more and more government hand-outs and yet they didn't even sign the treat? They want all the benefits of a separate state without the expense. As for the historians you mention - and seem to place some reliance on - most of them have been used by the tribunal to say whatever was required of them and have been vocal in disparaging the historians who lived at the time and spoke Maori and who wrote down what they heard. You may have implicit trust in the 'modern' historians, I certainly do not. They have been incredibly selective at best. The intertribal conflicts that you allude to have been hidden from the public but colour all of the history. What we are currently do will not 'settle' or 'solve' anything but will create for our grandchildren enormous problems over water, beaches and in countless other aspects of life in this country.
Jigsaw and anon notwithstanding, the original proposal has something of the 'guaranteed minimum income' concept together with the concept of capitalisation of benefits. If one had some faith in Tuhoe being able to deliver, it would be an interesting experiment.
An experiment funded by the taxpayer.
being a beneficiary is a type of servitude
Great. End the servitude by ending the benefits
problem solved.
Post a Comment