The Richardson Approach (Press, 25 February 1986)

On 25 February 1986, several letters to the editor discussing Ruth Richardson's proposals regarding the Welfare State in New Zealand were published. The letters illustrated a deep division of opinion among readers regarding Richardson's philosophy of advocating personal responsibility and reducing reliance on state support. M. F. O'Brien expressed strong support for Richardson, commending her courage to challenge the entrenched welfare mentality in New Zealand. O’Brien contended that the massive bureaucracy promotes dependency and waste, leading to increased crime. He called for the National Party to adopt her ideas for a better future. Conversely, Alex Hoggan fiercely opposed Richardson's views, labelling them as detrimental to true liberal values. Hoggan pointed out that Richardson's attacks on vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and single mothers, were particularly distressing given her privileged background. He urged for the return of Sir Robert Muldoon’s leadership, arguing that he genuinely cared about everyday citizens. Gray Henderson took a more critical stance, suggesting that Richardson's proposals were muddled and ineffective, equating her leadership with past political failures. Henderson also highlighted a moral dissonance in Richardson’s approach, implying it was out of touch with the complexities of social issues. J. Turner defended Richardson, arguing her stance on self-reliance was not regressive but a necessary response to contemporary societal challenges. Turner reiterated the importance of encouraging independence and responsibility as fundamental to mental health, dismissing criticisms that her approach would relive the past horrors of the Victorian era. R. L. Pluck commended the media's role in exposing Richardson’s policies, suggesting that she could emerge as a significant political figure akin to Britain's Margaret Thatcher. However, Pluck expressed concern over the severity of her measures aimed at dismantling the welfare system, which could potentially alienate elderly voters. M. Creel argued that Richardson's economic philosophy was outdated and would only serve the wealthy. He critiqued her proposals for lacking genuine benefit for workers and suggested that they could worsen conditions for those already facing difficulties within the current system. Sally Couper, appreciating Richardson's approach, asserted that a welfare state encouraging dependency ultimately fails. She advocated for increased personal responsibility, suggesting that families and community organisations were better suited to care for those in need than a bureaucratic system. Lastly, Terry O'Cain voiced strong support for Richardson’s philosophy, advocating for the principle of individual sovereignty, while W. E. Woods expressed alarm at the implications of her potentially harmful policies, particularly towards minority groups. In summary, the letters reflect a heated debate on the future of welfare in New Zealand, with Richardson positioned as a polarising figure capable of redefining the country's social policies. The discourse encapsulates broader concerns about individual responsibility versus state support during a pivotal time in the nation’s political landscape.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand