Prime Minister John Key's call for those fortunate enough to receive tax cuts after April 1st to consider donating them to charity is just another sign that the National Government is steering this country back to the 19th Century.

The PM's call has begun to reveal some of the 'secret agenda' that National kept hidden from the public at the last election, that of turning this nation back into a bastion of New Right politics where 19th Century style laissez-faire economics rules the day. This whole call from Key, a wealthy man as we all realise, is just the beginning of the Nats preparations to attack what is left of the Welfare State.

We saw this renewed war commence just a fortnight ago with National's attacks on the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Unsurprisingly, they are softening up public opinion for this to occur, probably as soon as Bill English's first Budget on May 28th. The next stage of the New Right attack, to be spearheaded by Key, English, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, ACC Minister Nick Smith with the support of Act Party Leader and Regulatory Reform Minister Rodney Hide and with the Business Roundtable, Treasury and various pro-business lobby groups adding weight in the background will see benefit entitlements further tightened (while not being cut in monetary terms), further moves back towards the bulk funding of schools, the sale of some older public housing stock and an emphasis on greater competition and choice within the health sector.

Cumulatively all of these possible developments foreshadow the resurrection of the minimalist state, the main goal that both Rogernomes and Ruthenasiacs (sic) aimed towards during the 1980s and 1990s economic and social policy reforms. A smaller role for government will mean that people will have to (in words so beloved by the New Right) 'pull themselves up by the bootstraps'. Yes, the ethos of self-reliance will be back in vogue in that Nanny State will no longer be around to support the poor so much. It will be up to the individual to support themselves financially, even if they get into financial dire straits. If a person is really hard up, before turning to the State as a very last resort, they will have to rely on support from their families or voluntary charity first. If one has to rely on the State, they can expect to meet Nanny State's eldest son 'Daddy State'* who will (as was the case in the 1990s and even sometimes under Labour) dictate the stricter conditions upon which the poor must live and behave in order to receive benefit support. This will be at the same time as the wealthiest New Zealanders, like John Key, will be able to live it up on their additional $90 a week or, if they feel so inclined, take the advice of good old John and donate it to the 'deserving poor' or any other charity.

Attitudinally, this is the mindset that National and their New Right friends want to foster and all this will do is to make the wealthiest New Zealanders more selective in who they give out their 'precious' dollars to. Charity has always been like that and service clubs like Lions and Rotary (with whom this author must confess to having personally been a member of Lions and Rotoract in the past) were founded on the notion that private capitalists could and should decide whom to donate to. In writing this, I am not knocking the ordinary voluntary agencies and groups that have to rely on donations for their income. Don't get me wrong in that I personally know that the most generous people are those who are the most financially strapped in the community e.g. superannuitants.

But what good will turning New Zealand into another 'Little America' (as the Alliance Party succinctly put it this week) achieve? I think very little. I concede that under capitalism, voluntary giving is a necessity in order for countless organisations to survive but in recent decades government has acted to supplement their funding so lessening reliance on the ever tightening individual purse or wallet. Now this progress in voluntary sector organisations securing more government funding through contracts, etc, could be reversed and I have to remember when saying this that the last Labour-led government (at the behest of United's Peter Dunne) increased the tax deductibility cap on private donations from both individuals and corporates, so making this process easier for the National-led Government to accomplish.

The oncoming policy changes in terms of public health and education could place further pressures on budgets in these areas too. Effectively you could  see what I would term the 'Starship Hospital' effect come more into play where greater numbers of publicly-owned social entities (like Starship) have to go cap in hand to the public for not just 'non-core' items like new television sets for hospital wards or school play equipment but for essential costs like staff salaries and building upgrades (indeed this happened even under the last government). This will mean that John Key's vision of a 'Little America' will become a reality.

Let's not forget then the ugly downside to charity. It is selective, inequitable, draining of the budgets of those who can least afford donations and downright demeaning even (as any disability activist like me will tell you). That's why the time has come for people to say 'no' to tax cuts, full stop. These tax cuts (on top of Labour's) will only benefit the wealthiest and they won't be spent on essentially donating to voluntary organisations either. The wealthiest should therefore contribute to the overall wellbeing of society in a fair and proportionate manner and that means a return to progressive taxation where the wealthiest pay the most and the poorest the least. Regressive taxation also is supposed to encourage ordinary workers to work harder in order to build individual and familial wealth but in reality (if you can see beyond the subtext) it's all about making workers work harder in order to produce more profits for bosses.

So, when the populace realise the hard realities of John Key's call, they might then think that it's time to move forward to the 21st Century and start promoting the ideals of social justice, equality and true freedom for all (including the poorest) instead and this will reduce the need for private charity to step in as public provision assumes a greater role instead - and that would be good for everyone, rich and poor alike.

*I am grateful to Martin 'Bomber' Bradbury for a recent blog I read of his on the Tumeke blogsite for inspiring me to use this term he deployed so well to describe some of National's recent policy moves.