The
government’s welfare plans are out and some aspects are deeply disturbing:
Women on benefits - including teenagers and the daughters of beneficiaries - will be offered free long-term contraception as part of a $287.5 million Budget package for the Government's welfare reforms.
In other words, quoting Deborah Russell, “you and your slapper daughters better not breed any more of your type.”
On grounds
of principle, having the government involved in such an intensely personal matter
is inappropriate. There is a persuasive argument that the government should
only regulate or interfere in matters that present a risk to the individual or society.
A purist would read this as meaning the government should keep its nose out of
our personal affairs, unless those affairs are criminal, negligent or so on.
Reproduction is a human right and, on the above principle, not an area where
the government has any business – even if the person in question is reliant on
government support. This, it’s fair to say, gives the government no right to
influence our personal choices.
The contraception
plan is not compulsory of course. The plan as it is represents the most a government
can do to control reproduction without attracting credible claims of eugenics. Arguing
that the voluntary aspect negates the argument that the plan infringes on
personal choice is, at best, naïve. PeterCresswell puts it well:
Rest assured that those employed by the state will be offering “incentives” to beneficiaries to cooperate with the plan—and when bureaucrats begin “strongly suggesting” to beneficiaries they should take up an “offer,” they expect their “suggestions” to be obeyed. (As former minister Marian Hobbs once explained the state’s view of “encouraging” behaviour the stale likes, “we start with encouraging, but there’s always the big stick.)
Sue Bradford
makes a similar point when she points out that there is a power imbalance
between beneficiaries and case managers.
Paula
Bennett is doing a good job selling the plan. However, you can couch the plan
in sellable terms, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government is
selecting a certain group to influence (or control which is the more
appropriate term in my opinion). If the government was offering free
contraception to all New Zealanders, including men, then claims that the
government was choosing who they wanted to breed and who they didn’t could be
negated. However, this isn’t the case and to borrow a phrase from biology: the
government is selecting against beneficiaries. That, it can be argued, amounts to
eugenics.
Quoting
Deborah Russell again, the government’s plan has significant consequences for
Maori:
I’m also catching a whiff of racism about this move, I think. Via Tallulah, in response to a comment I made at TLG, we know that 43% of DPB recipients are Maori, and 10% are Pacific Islanders. So over half of DPB recipients have brown skins. I think it’s not just about making the slappers keep the legs together. It’s also about stopping those brown people from breeding.
So, in
effect, the government’s plan will substantially interfere with the
reproductive freedom of Maori. I’m waiting, hopefully not in vain, for the
Maori Party and the Mana Party to take an official position. When Maori will be
so heavily affected, the two kaupapa Maori parties are obligated to take a
position. I note that Metiria Turei has been leading opposition and, I think,
quite competently. It’s contrary to Maori values to have the government
interfere in matters of the whanau. The whanau, as the Maori Party often says, is
an autonomous unit and, on my understanding of the values of our people, should
be free from undue interference and influence from outsiders – read the
government. Also, and more importantly, issues of over-fertility are not viewed as a problem in Te Ao Maori - its welcomed. Lastly, it
I hope more Maori come out against, or in support if they’re that
way inclined, because I can’t help but feel that I’m not the most appropriate Maori
to comment on this. If there are any wahine out who want to comment, please
feel free to leave a comment.
UPDATE: Tariana Turia, continuing her strong form on the issues, has come out strongly:
UPDATE: Tariana Turia, continuing her strong form on the issues, has come out strongly:
The initiative drew fire from National's ally - Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who is also the associate social development minister. She said it was insulting to tell somebody how many children they should have.
"I've always supported the growing of our population, the growing of our hapu and iwi and so I'm certainly not one who's ever believed that we should be controlling people's fertility."