Editorial: Benefits of Tamihere's creative thinking

John Tamihere's frustration at the social welfare system is palpable. He talks of being born and bred in communities that are now in their third and fourth generations of state dependence. He harks back to his time at the Waipareira Trust where he saw the problem at even closer quarters. Now, as a junior minister, he is convinced that Government policy is merely perpetuating the dependency trap. Thus his outburst against the system and, more particularly, the "statism and bullshitting" of Steve Maharey, the Minister of Social Services. And thus, equally inevitably, his apology to the minister and the Prime Minister for both the substance of his remarks and the breach of collective cabinet responsibility.

But at least Mr Tamihere is thinking creatively about better ways to eradicate welfare dependency. That should not be discouraged, even if his thinking is somewhat flawed. Mr Tamihere, in a speech prepared for the Knowledge Wave conference, suggested that all state benefits should be paid through non-government case managers. Effectively, he was asking for the welfare system to be privatised.

Case managers would pay a beneficiary's household rent or mortgage and the power bill and buy basic food items. The balance of the benefit would be transferred into the beneficiary's bank account to be used for discretionary spending. The pluses, according to Mr Tamihere, would include private managers negotiating bulk discounts and, more importantly, beneficiaries learning about budgeting, and having to think medium- to long-term.

How this would encourage beneficiaries to become more responsible for their lives is another matter. Rather than promote self-reliance, the policy would more likely offer greater shelter. Case managers would control a large portion of beneficiaries' income and virtually annex responsibility for budgeting. The potential for grievance may be greater than any possible lift in self-esteem. Certainly, it is unclear how the system would wean people off welfare dependence.

But if Mr Tamihere's solution is confused, there is no doubt he is asking the correct questions. He is right to point out the shortcomings of a system that "literally kills us [Maori] with kindness". He is also right to point out the failure of that system to demand mutual responsibility. Beneficiaries are not required to make a determined effort to improve their circumstances. Benefits can become a comfortable option, as individual responsibility is ceded to the state.

Mr Tamihere says that beneficiaries must accept obligations in return for state support. State-house tenants, for example, would be told their house was a short-term "respite facility", not a home for life. This would do more than just promote individual responsibility. Taxpayers have the right to expect the maximum value from their dollars and the right to become disenchanted if the system encourages a benefit mentality.

The Government says it is in tune with Mr Tamihere and committed to funding more community organisations to work with welfare recipients. It wants to devolve the management of state aid to groups closer to beneficiaries than a bureaucracy. But, as the Prime Minister suggests, this must be done carefully. The organisations must be carefully chosen, and their brief must be to promote individual responsibility, not exert greater control over beneficiaries' affairs. They must stress that benefits are, indeed, a respite, not a long-term alternative. And that returning to the workforce is the best cure for a case of dependency.