The Alliance Party says that New Zealand doesn’t need the “American culture of giving” promoted by the Prime Minister.
Alliance Party spokesperson Victor Billot says New Zealand already has its own culture of giving – where the people collectively provide for their social wellbeing through public goods such as health, education and welfare.
He says this model has been far more successful in creating a “fair go” society rather than Mr Key’s “George W. Bush” vision which was outlined at a Philanthropy New Zealand conference this week.
Mr Billot says a good example of the end result of the “American culture of giving” was the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.
“What you saw then is the reality of a Government that has abandoned its responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of its own people. The individual generosity of the American people could in no way make up for this terrible political failure.”
He says there is an important role for community organizations which has always been very strong in New Zealand, but that has not and can not replace the responsibility of Government as the representative of the people in ensuring the social wellbeing of society.
“Instead of charity, how about decent wages and public services.”
Mr Billot says when Mr Key was in the United States, it was obvious he hadn’t been spending much time outside “gated communities”.
He says that while New Zealanders may not give as much to charity as Americans, through taxation New Zealand ensured that people were able to get medical treatment when they needed it.
“This shows exactly where John Key is coming from – he obviously wants a society like the United States where health care has been denied to tens of millions of working Americans, where education costs are enormous and where income equality is an entrenched and negative social problem.”
Mr Billot says Mr Key is too late in his quest, because even the United States was now moving away from tax cuts for the ultra rich and towards better social services under President Obama.
“Mr Key wants to turn the clock back to the nineteenth century where the Lords and Ladies doled out some crumbs when they felt like it – while the whole structure of society was about exploiting the workers who created the wealth.”
He says New Zealand has its own culture of giving – one developed over a century starting with old age pensions under Richard Seddon and extended through the First Labour Government with figures such as Michael Joseph Savage and John A. Lee.
“These political leaders had a goal for a society where working people did not have to rely on charity, but where by working together New Zealand built up a society that was based on the collective provision of infrastructure, health, education and social welfare.”
“This vision has unfortunately been derailed by successive National and Labour Government’s who have pursued policies that have benefited the minority rather than the majority.”
He says that Labour leader Phil Goff might as well save his breath complaining because the Labour Party had pushed tax cuts for the wealthy as well before the previous election.
Mr Billot says the idea that someone on a low to middle income is going to experience some kind of life change due to National’s tax cuts is a nonsense.
“The people who need it most get a pittance, and those who are already wealthy get a massive boost. It’s grotesquely unfair since those on low wages are often doing vital work that society needs done.”
Mr Billot says the way for workers to improve their wages and conditions through joining unions and fighting for their rights, and supporting pro-worker political movements such as the Alliance that represented the majority.
He says under the Alliance tax plan, those on incomes like Mr Key of $393,000 would be able to contribute their “fair share to society” and pay a higher marginal rate of tax.
The Alliance supports a progressive tax system that redistributed wealth and removed the inherent unfairness of a society where the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
“John Key wants workers to be reliant on handouts and charity. The Alliance wants decent pay, public services and a fair society.”
Youtube
Flickr
Facebook
Twitter
It seems Mr. Billot’s understanding of charity is rather narrow. His point for the government assuming greater responsibilities for the well being of its people is naturally well taken, but no government in this world is resourceful and compassionate enough for every cause present in a society. He could serve his people better if he tried to understand physical standard of living is essential but only one part of the wide spectrum of charity and kept the politics out of human spirit at its best: sharing without expecting anything in return to make a change. As a matter of fact, in America we believe when one makes a gift, he/she is not solely separated from his money, but is given a valuable token in return: helping to enrich life in every level.
Incidentally, most of $295 billion donated in 2007 in America came from middle class people. Add to that more than 10 billion hours of volunteer work and one gets the picture: the power of philanthropy. Is anybody reminded of the 19th century throgh this picture?
Hi Hikmet, thanks for your reply. Actually I think in some ways we may agree, in some areas.
Let me expand on my original point.
As a democratic socialist, I am very much in favour of your idea of sharing without expecting anything in return to make a change.
However, my view is that these values should be present throughout all of society. Rather than having a basically greed driven, ruthless economic system and selfish society with a little tag on charity sector to make people feel good about themselves, we should aspire to having a fair and just society where the citizens collectively provide for public goods, in many cases the best way of doing this is through progressive taxation funding health, education etc.
My concern is that charity can be used to justify an inhumane system, and in some ways can also be very patronizing. For example, unemployed workers don’t need handouts from well meaning middle class people, they need a system change where jobs and wealth are shared more equally.
One thing I disagree on is your idea that you can keep politics out of the human spirit. The idea of the human spirit is a pretty phoney one to me; it can mean anything depending on whatever society you live in, and usually just means going along with the dominant ideas of the ruling class in your society which are pounded into everyones head through the media. Politics are a part of everything; pretending they don’t exist is naive.
I certainly would not say that there is not an important role for volunteer work and community organizations – there is and there should be. But when the Government, to protect the interests of the very rich, abandons its role of administering the basic requirements of any civilized nation, then charity will never fill that gap.
As you can see I have much in common with your views about putting something back into society. But I guess my point is that if people are so in favour of charity in the USA, why can’t they sort out providing universal health care paid for through taxation. Then the poor would have some dignity rather than being at the mercy of whether there are enough philanthropists out there to help them.
I posted another message, was it refused?
Sorry Hikmet, I checked the spam filter to see if your post had been accidentally held back but I couldn’t find anything. Not sure why your comment didn’t come through. Please write it again if you have time. Regards, Victor.
Hi,
It really took some time yesterday for me to respond to your message; I am sorry it disappeared in the the cyber space. I will just go with highlights this time.
First, I find it interesting that here we are, you from New Zealand, and I, originally a native of Turkey and now a naturalized citizen of the US, communicating across the globe on issues important to ourselves as well as to the humanity. I grew up in the era when I surprised the heck out of my classmates by a portable tape recorder I took to school. By today’s standards, a tape recorder is of stone age (maybe bronze).
You’re right, I think we deep inside agree more than disagree. It’s only that you represent the government and I, the the world of philanthropy. Thus, our convictions with the worlds we represent cause for us to perhaps underestimate a little the importance of the other.
My point is the answer lies in the sincere partnerships between government, business, interested individuals and nonprofit sector. No one can tackle today’s complex problems alone; there is a lot more at stake in our so called modern times than one’s stomach getting filled or his/her health restored.
Let me take a simple step then. Hello, Victor. I respect what you’re doing/want to be doing, can we check to see how we can collaborate to serve the same common good? That’s the spirit I would like to see in every corner of this planet.
On a separate note, New Zealand is one of the few places I haven’t seen yet in this world, and I would love to visit someday. I understand it is divinely beautiful.
Meanwhile, if I can be of assistance in any way, I am as far away as your computer is from you.
Cordially,
Hikmet
Thank you for your message Hikmet, and taking the time to write it again.
I appreciate your thoughts and agree it is a remarkable thing that people from very different places and backgrounds can communicate using the internet to discuss these matters.
Your goal of working together for the common good is one that all people of goodwill can share, and in our own ways contribute according to our ability and culture.
I hope one day your wish to visit New Zealand is fulfilled. We would certainly like to hear from you if you are ever in our part of the world.
All the best for your endeavours, and kind regards
Victor