Against Electronic Income Management
Policies that undercut dignity and self-respect often do more harm than good
ACT proposes to use Electronic Income Management for beneficiaries who have additional children. Payments would be received through an electronic card, the intent being to restrict expenditures on alcohol, tobacco and gambling. The party acknowledges that this would represent a significant restriction on individual freedoms, but views it as justified in the cause of the responsible use of taxpayer money.
The Crown has the moral right to impose conditions on the receipt of public funds, provided that these are not designed or implemented in a discriminatory way. Money is hard to earn and easy to spend, especially when it is not yours. The state owes it to the ultimate funders of community resources to ensure that those resources are used properly.
It does not follow that every restriction on the use of public funds is particularly wise. Everything has its downsides. And, in the case of family finances, too much control comes at a very steep price.
It is the family, not the individual, that is the basic building block of society. The family, in turn, is built around the obligations and prerogatives of parents. It is the job of parents to make informed and autonomous decisions that foster a nurturing and stable environment for the wellbeing of all family members.
Quite aside from any encroachment on individual freedom, ACT’s proposal undermines this expectation. It infantilises them, assuming from the outset an inability to manage personal finances. It tells recipients of welfare that they cannot be trusted to manage their financial affairs prudently.
Electronic income management recasts the Crown as a disapproving parent and adult New Zealanders as irresponsible children from whom little can be expected. It is hard to think of a policy proposal more guaranteed to foster a dependency mindset than having people becoming more accustomed to having decisions made for them.
And the fact is, there’s no reason to assume that single mothers are, as a class of people, in particular need of such paternalism.
There is no shortage of literature that confirms what most of us know instinctively: that mothers can almost always be counted on to put the needs of their children before all else. Take, for example, this paper, which sets out all the ways that low-income mothers routinely sacrifice their own needs for the sake of their children. The sacrifices are often significant.
Is it true that there are some mothers who do not prioritise their children's welfare. In a country of five million people, there will inevitably be a range of parenting abilities and attitudes. However, If state support is both adequate and misused, then this needs to be addressed on an individual basis. First by wider families and then, if need be, the Crown.
It does not strengthen families to pre-emptively humiliate them to satisfy an ideological itch.
Liam as usual with you a thoughtful piece. However saying the family is the basis of society obscures the changes in family life and structure that have taken place and are ongoing. What you have to say about Act's policy nonetheless is spot on. It also encourages black market behaviour.