All posts tagged poverty

There’s poverty and there’s NZ ‘poverty’

Euan Ross-Taylor  questions the use of the term ‘poverty’ in a New Zealand context, and suggests how the problem of hungry kids could be dealt with. He commented at Whale Oil:

Poverty is what needs to be addressed – not child poverty. Parents need to be taught that purchase of ‘luxury’ items when children go without basics is child neglect.

And also:

I want to add here that I spent 10 years working with true poverty overseas among the homeless (squattors).

The language being used by people over our ‘hungry’ children in NZ is silly. They are not as far as I have been made aware , ‘starving’. They go to school without eating breakfast. They are being fed the wrong diet.

My children did not eat breakfast before going to school. They are at university now and still choose not to eat what I would consider a proper breakfast, but then I was brought up on a farm where there were chores to be done before breakfast everyday. We enjoyed our breakfast.

As much as I do not want to put more work on teachers, I do think that identifying children who are hindered in their learning because of being hungry is/should be part of successful teaching practise.

Having a social worker attached to each school to follow up with the identified families would be much more helpful than blanket feeding programs.

If the families of these kids still continue their neglect, the social workers could have a budget to provide lunchbags to the said kids on arriving at school, until such time as the parents of said kids could be convinced one way or another to provide better for their children.

I can’t see why this is so difficult.

Sounds like a considered, sensible approach to me.

Leave a Comment
by Pete George on May 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 11, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/11/theres-poverty-and-theres-nz-poverty/

I hate children and want them to starve…

…is the sort of accusation being used by supporters of Mana’s “Feed the Kids” bill. Abuse like that has been directed at me.

The “you’re with us or against us” approach to promoting policy usually doesn’t work well.

Especially when “you’re against us” is extended to “if you don’t support a bill that does a little at the bottom of the cliff then you hate children and want them to starve”  style attacks are used to try and guilt people into changing their minds. It’s more likely to have the opposite effect.

Here are more examples of the emotive rhetoric being used to try and promote the “Feed the Kids” bill:

Frank Macskasy at The Daily Blog:

As a nation, it is almost as if we have embarked on a deliberate course of increasing poverty and ensuring the advent of the next generation of impoverished New Zealanders.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that anyone in New Zealand wants to embark on “a deliberate course of increasing poverty”.

Why is there money to subsidise irrigation in the South Island or grants to businesses – but not put a bloody bowl of fucking weetbix and milk in front of a starving kid???

Frank, the Government (actually the taxpayers) already give a considerable amount of money to families and directly and indirectly to children.

Ah, and did you realise that irrigation allows cows to produce milk for the Weetbix? And did you realise that milk was already being given to schools?

Macskasay again in a new blog post, Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”:

So what’s up with Peter Dunne and his awful, cold-hearted response to the crisis of child poverty afflicting this country?

One could imagine ACT and National MPs voting against the “Feed The Kids” Bill – those people either have freezer coolant in their veins, or are ideologically wedded to rugged Individualism and Personal Responsibility (except when National is held to account for it’s stuff-ups and policy failures) that includes perpetuating poverty on a nationwide scale.

That sort of language is what you would expect from a activist wanting to try and score political points, not someone who genuinely wants to try and get support for a bill. Abuse and overstatement rarely gets anyone to change their minds.

And in comments on a previous post here, Macskasy:

So what you’re really saying is that we have to let children starve, in order to teach parents a lesson?

I said nothing like that, nor do I think that. Theodore disagreed:

…that’s PRECISELY what you’re inferring Pete. Own your comments. That’s exactly the consequences of your words.

Actually Frank was referring to someone else’s comment. I didn’t infer anything of the sort. But disagreeing on the best way to deal with the problem results in bizarre accusations without any foundation.

And Martin Bradbury has joined the accusers:

But it’s true Pete. If you allow your self sanctimonious and astounding self-rightousness that blames the parents for hungry children as your justification of not supporting feeding the kids – you do hate children.

Pathetic nonsense.

The very people who sing the ‘blame the parents’ right wing song and dance routine are the exact same fucking people who have NO IDEA that the mother of all budgets set the benefits just below the nutritional minimums so that those on welfare are hungry enough to not want to stay on welfare.

Blaming the parents is a disgusting cop out and should be denounced with the contempt it deserves.

Some parents are to blame.

Most parents see feeding their kids as a priority and do their best, some in difficult financial circumstances.

I grew up in a very poor household, often food was very basic but I always had food. Most of my clothes were hand me downs, I used to help my mother unpick old jerseys so they could be recycled, my socks sometimes had more darns than original wool, and the only family holiday we had I don’t remember because I was a baby at the time. My father had to get extra work, my mother worked night shifts. I know what it’s like being a poor kid. But I was never a starving kid, because food was always made available by my parents.

Some parents have addictions to things like drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and they don’t always put their children’s needs first.

And some parents are simply poor parents.

Excusing all parents of any blame and just giving them more money will not solve poor parenting.

And giving all kids more (kids already get substantial state assistance from before they are born) means there is less available for those who really need extra help.

But this debate is unlikely to address or solve any of the issues due to the nature of the debate – too much emotive and abusive rhetoric. It’s much easier to dismiss that than a reasoned and reasonable argument.

—

By the way, for the last ten years I have donated each month to a charity that helps families and communities to feed their kids better. I also provide support within my family, to my children and my grandchildren.

Of those of you who are making accusations that I and others hate kids and want kids to starve, how much do you personally contribute to feeding children?

3 Comments
by Pete George on May 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 11, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/11/i-hate-children-and-want-them-to-starve/

Poverty, wants and needs

Bryan Bruce made a documentary on poverty in New Zealand that was controversally broadcast Inside Child Poverty just before the election last year. He is currently making a follow-up doco, although it could be mistraken for a crusade:

As some of you know I am working on my follow up documentary to INSIDE CHILD POVERTY . It’s about the growing gap between the rich and the poor – why inequality damages ALL of us and what we might do about that.

He has posted about it on Facebook, along with a graphic that possibly provokes more thought than he intended:

Want and Need

Bruce explains this…

We all NEED good food, clothes, medical care, education and a warm dry place to live. It’s the responsibility of our community to make sure that everyone has those things.

Everything else is a WANT which the community has no obligation to provide – and certainly not though a taxation system that permits 5 % of our population to want far more than they will ever need.

And also makes it clear what his political preferences are (and aren’t):

30 years of neo-liberal economics has made us a ” Me” society rather than the ” We” society we once had.

We can have that “We” society back . Yes, by telling our politicians we’re sick of “free” market crony capitalism, but also by looking to ourselves and instigating our own quiet revolution – by taking action to make sure that everyone gets what they NEED before we entertain the things we WANT .

He doesn’t quite get to calling it a socialist revolution but seems to be getting close to that.

But the depiction of WANT versus need may also be seen from many middle class eyes as excessive wanting of an easy way out of their problems, by wanting more given to them by others, rather than doing more to get better lives for themselves.

Communism failed because it encouraged and enforced more people having a more equal less.

Capitalism and consumerism have serious flaws, especially when unchecked and unregulated.

The state can and should provide some things, especially adequate levels of health care and education. But self help must be an individual’s main focus for achievement.

If we really WANT to lift the standard of living for many struggling individuals and families we NEED to get the rest of New Zealand on the same positive side rather than alienating and dividing.

by Pete George on December 27, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on December 27, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/27/poverty-wants-and-needs/

Prime obligation for kids in poverty lies with parents

A very very good editorial from Dom Post on ‘poverty’ and who is responsible.

Poverty is harmful to children. No-one will dispute the central tenet of the child poverty report released this week by Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills.

Kids who go to school hungry struggle to learn. Kids who live in damp, cold, crowded homes get sick. Kids who grow up poor are more likely to struggle as adults.

Where readers may be inclined to part company with the commissioner’s expert advisory group is over how to tackle the problem.

However, when it comes to the pointy end of the exercise they have a lot to say to the Government and nothing to say to parents. The report contains 78 recommendations. Seventy-eight of those are directed at the Government; none are directed at parents.

The state can help, but definitely the  prime obligation lies with parents.

One of the prime obligations of our government should be to ensure parents understand and exercise their obligation to care for their children as best they can, and not to just rely on the Government.

What has become labeled ‘poverty’ is a very complex issue with no easy or quick solutions, even if they were affordable.

The ‘poverty’ label itself has negative conotations, it is yet another stigma to attach to the poor and the beneficiaries.

The state cannot be a surrogate parent. It cannot provide love, it cannot offer encouragement and  it cannot set boundaries.

What it does do is offer help in times of difficulty and provide free education,  subsidised healthcare and a range of other social services.

Whether that assistance is sufficient  is debatable. The expert group thinks not. It wants the Government to spend an extra $2 billion or so a year on benefits, rental accommodation, state housing and 24-hour-a-day free health care for children up to the age of 5.

However, its recommendations ignore the reality that it is parents who have the most impact on children’s lives. Money is important but it is not the most important thing.

Apart from better parenting there’s also factors like better housing, better healthcare, better education, but counter issues also need to be addressed too, like to much violence, too much alcohol and drugs and tobacco.

Taking smoking as an example, there was a post on Kiwiblog yesterday about the latest statistics.

  • 600,000 smokers
  • 5,000 (average) cigarettes per year
  • $3,000 cost per year each, at $15 per pack
  • $1.8 billion total approximately per year

I don’t know how many of the supposed 270,000 children in poverty have one or two smoking parents. If one smoking parent quit they would have an extra $60 per week to spend on providing for their kids (and they would all live in healthier homes). That’s about the same amount the Green party want to give to beneficiary families in an extension of ‘Working for Families’.

Many poor people don’t smoke or drink, but many do. For example…

Also ironically, those who can least afford to smoke, are more likely to smoke. Those in the bottom quintile for deprivation were 2.7 times more likely to smoke than the top quintile.

If you also factor in alcohol and cannabis there is a massive amount of poor people’s money being spent on products that have very negative imptacts on the health and wellbeing of both parents and children.

I doubt amongst the 78 recommendations there was none that suggested Government should ban alcohol, tobacco and recreational (wreckreational) drugs for anyone whose children aren’t sufficiently cared for.

by Pete George on December 13, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 13, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/13/prime-obligation-for-kids-in-poverty-are-their-parents/

Turei questions Dunne on in-work tax credits

In Question Time in Parliament yesterday Metiria Turei questioned Peter Dunne on in-work tax credits. This was just prior to the conclusion of the first reading on her Income Tax (Universalisation of In-Work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill which failed it’s first vote yesterday.

This has been a a loaded debate, with the Green Party promoting the ‘poor children in poverty’ meme.

Metiria Turei: Why will not the Minister support this potential solution at least being considered at select committee, when all the evidence suggests that it could make the crucial difference to a quarter of a million Kiwi kids, and that he today could be the difference between an empty and a full plate for many of these children?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I reject that assertion entirely.

Metiria Turei: You reject those children entirely.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am not rejecting those children. That is a ridiculous statement.

Video: 7.11.12 – Question 5: Metiria Turei to the Minister of Revenue

Full draft transcript:

5. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Revenue: How many parents have lost access to the in-work tax credit in the past year because they have lost their jobs or no longer work enough hours to qualify?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): The member should not be surprised that my answer is exactly the same as I gave to her written question No. 8951 barely 3 weeks ago—namely, the Inland Revenue Department does not specifically record why a recipient does not receive a particular component of Working for Families tax credits. Entitlement to each component can start and stop throughout the year, depending on the family circumstances, all of which cannot be accurately separated or identified to answer this question.

Metiria Turei: Why is the Minister content to allow this financial support to be taken away from children whose parents lose their jobs through no fault of their own?

Hon PETER DUNNE: What the member overlooks is that there are a range of other support mechanisms in place to help parents in that situation, and as a consequence of those other support mechanisms, the current practice, introduced by the previous Government, with regard to the operation of the in-work tax credit is appropriate.

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister claim that the current support for those families who lose their jobs is adequate for children, when the family tax credits and benefits combined still leave 70 percent of the children in those families in poverty, the jobs do not exist for their parents, and we know that the in-work tax credit amount alone can significantly relieve that poverty?

Hon PETER DUNNE: There are two reasons for my comment. The first is that the OECD has made it very clear in its judgment—and New Zealand is part of the OECD and generally respects its judgments in these respects—that child poverty is best helped through workforce participation and encouraging workforce participation. The second part of my answer is that the member is selective in terms of the benefits that she makes reference to. In addition to those that she commented upon, families in that situation would also be entitled to the unemployment benefit and they may be entitled to sole parent support, an accommodation supplement, an emergency benefit, various training allowances, a child disability allowance or disability allowance, and, possibly, after-school allowances. So if she wants to make the comparison, she should put the whole suite of measures on the table, and not just a selected number of them.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that every 3 months 75,000 hard-working people, including thousands of parents, become unemployed under the Key-Dunne Government, and how is it fair to take away the in-work tax credit from them and their children when they lose their jobs in those difficult times?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I have got no idea where the member draws her figure from. I think it is a figment of her imagination. The point—

Metiria Turei: From your own ministry.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member says it is from my own ministry. In my original answer I made it very clear that because of the nature of the way in which these interactions occur it is impossible to identify the numbers involved. The member seems to deny that. But the point that I was making in my original supplementary answer—and I will make it again—is that the member is being very selective. She is drawing on a range of issues only. There are a number of mechanisms available to help families in that situation, and the member should put all of those on the table when considering this question.

Metiria Turei: How is it fair that the children of 40,000 hard-working people who lost manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years of the Key-Dunne Government should also be financially punished by having their in-work tax credit taken away as well?

Hon PETER DUNNE: My answer is the same as it has been to previous iterations of this type of example. But I would make one other point: what the member’s legislation proposes is creating a disincentive for low-income working families to remain in employment. One of the whole reasons why the Working for Families in-work tax credit was introduced in the first place was to actually make it more palatable and more attractive for those low-income families to be in employment. The member wants to actually turn that on its head, and make more people reliant on the system as beneficiaries, rather than do what every other country does and seek to encourage them into paid employment.

Metiria Turei: If the Minister is so worried about incentivising people who work, why does he then deny the tax credit to up to 40 percent of sole parent beneficiaries who are in part-time work, whose children are very likely to suffer the worst effects of long-term poverty?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I should point out to the member that there are a number of other tax credit mechanisms available to help families in the type of situation she refers to—for instance, the family tax credit, the minimum family tax credit, and the parental tax credit. When you add all of those things together—and they are regularly adjusted for inflation—they provide a substantial uplift for families in that situation. They also ensure that low-income working families are recognised for their efforts and, as a consequence, encouraged and incentivised to remain in employment.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about other kinds of tax credits. It was an explicit question about working people who are denied the in-work tax credit, and I do not believe that the Minister answered that question properly.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect correctly, the member started her question with “Given the Minister’s such-and-such, how can it be fair …”, or “How does he believe it is fair for something …”, and the Minister answered that he believed it was fair because these people have other things available to them.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Minister dismiss my compromise to him to extend the in-work tax credit for 6 months to those who lose their jobs—a compromise that would relieve some of the worst financial stress for children and for families at a very difficult and insecure time when their parents lose their work?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Two reasons: firstly, the point I made earlier about employment and encouraging people into workforce participation, and, secondly—again consistent with OECD strategy—employing policies that make work pay. What the member’s bill does is create a disincentive for people at that low-income margin to be in full-time employment. I think that is wrong.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with economics professor Susan St John that extending the in-work tax credit to all children below the current income threshold, even if their parents are

looking for work, are caring for grandchildren and receive superannuation, or are studying, would be an effective way to reduce poverty and income inequality?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I seldom agree with Associate Professor St John.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the statement from United Future leader Peter Dunne when he pledged to Closer Together Whakatata Mai to “actively support policy measures that reduce income inequality”; if so, why will he not support my bill at least to select committee, which is just such a measure he pledged to support?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I do agree with that statement. The fact that as Minister of Revenue over the last 7 years, under both Governments, I have been part of seeing the biggest shifts in personal tax rate reductions for the bottom two income steps is proof of the point that I make.

Metiria Turei: It’s not relieved poverty for the worst.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member says that does not relieve poverty. What that interjection proves is that this is a highly subjective rather than objective argument. My focus has been on ensuring that our tax system works fairly for those at the bottom of the income scale. The last thing I want to see is a disincentive created for low-income working people to remain in full-time employment, as the member’s bill would do.

Metiria Turei: Why will not the Minister support this potential solution at least being considered at select committee, when all the evidence suggests that it could make the crucial difference to a quarter of a million Kiwi kids, and that he today could be the difference between an empty and a full plate for many of these children?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I reject that assertion entirely.

Metiria Turei: You reject those children entirely.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am not rejecting those children. That is a ridiculous statement. What this is about is a good policy environment that the previous Government put in place called Working for Families. This Government is committed to it. It ensures that low-income working people are rewarded for the fact that they are in employment, consistent with international standards. The best way to boost the incomes of those households is through full-time employment, not through loading them up on the beneficiary train, which the member wants to do.

Turei’s final speech on her bill: Income Tax (Universalisation of In-Work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill – First Reading – Part 11 ›

by Pete George on November 8, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 8, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/11/08/turei-questions-dunne-on-in-work-tax-credits/

What is poverty in New Zealand?

Comments at Keeping Stock on what poverty is seen as in New Zealand.

Ross said…

KS – The Greens should be more than skewered for the gross dishonesty in this latest piece of rubbish that they are spouting.

In trying to align themselves with the NZ ‘Poverty Industry’ they are doing themselves, this country and the billions of people around the world in genuine poverty a huge disservice, and making a complete mockery of the word poverty. To then try and make money for their own political purposes is hypocrisy of the highest order.

The problem in NZ is the definition of ‘poverty’ – currently this seems to be if you live in a household with less than 50% or 60% of median disposable income. This is how all these ‘magical’ figures of 270,000 children ‘living in poverty’ in NZ suddenly appear.

Even those with a elementary understanding of Statistics and Mathematics must realize that by this definition we will always have 270,000 children ‘living in poverty’. We could be the richest nation in the world, with the highest living standards (oh thats right we nearly are) – and by these definitions we would still have the same number of children ‘living in poverty’.

If you are interested in these definitions have a look at http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php

Lets have a look at a little of the detail of what ‘living in poverty’ is from this well meaning web site:

http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/userfiles/2011_child_poverty_table1b.gif

Deprivation in this table is:
went without music or dance
involvement in sport had to be limited
unable to pay for school trip
lack of friends at a birthday party
lack of one weeks holiday away from home last year
lack of computer
lack of internet access

You see – this is deprivation and poverty in New Zealand, for which the Greens want to fleece the gullible and stupid for money to run endless political campaigns on. A problem that by definition can never go away.

This is a gross insult to the real poor in the world – children that living in developing world slums, that are coerced into forced labour at age 5 or less, sold into prostitution before puberty, are lucky to eat twice a week….the list goes on.

In NZ – I am a child in deprivation if I don’t have a computer or internet access. It surely seems to be a huge problem.

bsprout said…

Ross, I think there must be some sort of conspiracy because the Children’s Commissioner, Health professionals, University academics, mainstream television, the New Zealand Institute (supported by the Business Round table), most political parties and schools are all saying that we have a huge problem with child poverty. Yet despite this you are suggesting that they are all “pretending”. Can you please share the institutions, organisations or research that are providing the information you are using to expose this conspiracy. I would be grateful if you could provide links like I have done below to prove that what your claim isn’t just something that you have just invented by yourself.
http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty
http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/child_poverty.php
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7655339/Child-poverty-our-biggest-enemy
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Shows/InsideNZ/InsideChildPovertyASpecialReport.aspx
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-issues/news/article.cfm?c_id=87&objectid=10839028
http://www.nzinstitute.org/index.php/nzahead/measures/income_inequality/

And…

By the way, Ross, you were very selective with what you chose as some of the indicators for poverty and should have also included:
-Sharing a bed
-Continuing to wear worn out clothing and shoes
-Serious health problems
-Not being able to afford meat or fresh vegetables regularly
-having to live in a house that is difficult to keep warm and has major issues with dampness.

by Pete George on October 26, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 26, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/26/what-is-poverty-in-new-zealand/

Green response on poverty politics

Stuff have reported on yesterdays post on Green Party politics of poverty.

Greens say funding ploy is ‘Obama-style’

The Greens have been accused of using child poverty to mislead people into donating to them.

But a spokesman for New Zealand’s third-largest party said they were simply adopting fundraising techniques used by the likes of United States President Barack Obama.

A spokesman for the Greens said there was nothing suspect in the request for donations.

All donations received would go towards the party’s campaign to end child poverty.

“Ending child poverty requires political action. Our campaign is about getting rid of the political causes of poverty,” he said.

“Our fundraising appeals are consistent with recent developments in email fundraising. Many people now prefer to fund specific campaigns rather than parties.”

Mr Obama’s campaign team has employed similar tactics in the US presidential campaign, including asking for donations to fund a website dedicated to rebutting political attacks on the him.

The donations do not necessarily go directly to that cause but rather into the wider campaign fund.

Obviously the Green Party can adopt United States political techniques if they wish. It could be seen as smart and slick politics.

But I’m still uneasy about creating a major political campaign around depicting New Zealand as having a major poverty problem, as the Green email repeated:

Child poverty in New Zealand has 270,000 young faces.

That’s the official figure of those growing up in poverty. It’s a quarter of our nation’s children.

Where does that ‘official figure’ come from? Is it anything more than a statistical measure?

Everyone knows that what has been labeled as ‘poverty’ in New Zealand is far different to poverty in places like India and Africa. And it’s far different to historical poverty in New Zealand, for example during the 1930s great depression, and prior to that before social welfare existed.

“There’s no doubt that many people and families in New Zealand really struggle on meagre incomes or benefits. But depicting it as widespread poverty – “a quarter of our nation’s children” – makes it easy to dismiss as political posturing and overselling of a problem.

The email

The email sent out by Metiria Turei makes it clear and donations will go towards their political campaign, so theirs nothing deceitful about it if you read what the Greens are saying.

But most fundraising for poverty (or at least a proportion of it) goes directly to helping people in poverty – usually overseas in countries where there is a much morer serious degree of poverty.

The Green response

All donations received would go towards the party’s campaign to end child poverty.

Using the Green measure of poverty – a statistical measure – it will be impossible to ‘to end child poverty’. And statistics aside it is impossible to end all hardship and financial hardship.

Ending poverty or promoting socialism?

I wonder how much the real Green aim is equalising incomes. Socialism in practice elsewhere in the world has proven to be a failure at eliminating poverty – it has been more successful at equalising hardship. Except for the ruling elite.

Acknowledged problem

We do have a significant problem with too many people living in real hardship. This has many negative effects in health, education and crime.

The causes of the problems are many and varied. Giving everyone more government handouts won’t solve these problems.

Targeted solutions

The best way to deal with issues like income disparity and financial hardship is to indentify and target the real issues.

And these issues (and the best solutions) vary greatly in different parts of the country. We need to look more for local solutions to local problems – rural Northland is very different to urban South Auckland, and both are different to South Dunedin.

Party politic campaigns to increase handouts won’t address these effectively and affordably.

by Pete George on October 26, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 26, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/26/green-response-on-poverty-politics/

Green Party politics of poverty

The Green Party have launched a ‘poverty’ fundraising campaign via email, calling it a(nother) crisis.

Here is your opportunity to help the Green Party create practical and effective solutions to New Zealand’s Child Poverty crisis.

Child poverty in New Zealand has 270,000 young faces.

That’s the official figure of those growing up in poverty. It’s a quarter of our nation’s children.

These are the kids with no school lunch, too hungry to learn. The kids struggling with asthma from living in cold, damp homes. The kids turning up at A&E suffering from Rheumatic Fever and other entirely preventable diseases.

It’s a national scandal, and it needn’t be so.

The Green Party has driven the so called ‘poverty’ debate, and have tried to redefine the word poverty in a modern New Zealand setting. Lifting 100,000 kids out of poverty was one of their three main election policies last year.

Since the election they have promoted the number of 270,000 being in poverty in New Zealand.

Every child deserves a good life and a fair future. That’s why the Green Party has launched the Take the Step Campaign with the aim of radically reducing child poverty in New Zealand, and we need your donation to help make it a success.

Click here to make a donation now.

Raising money for people in poverty may seem like a worthy cause. But further reading suggests none of the money raised will go to poor people.

We know that this is a Campaign where success will take a long period of concerted and committed effort.

It demands that the Government takes action now to effectively tackle child poverty. The first step is to win support for our Member’s Bill to create a child payment for all low income families, whether in work or not. In doing we will have begun the process of ensuring that New Zealand can become a great place to grow up for every child.

This is just the start. We need your support to run a strong campaign that will radically reduce child poverty in New Zealand.

Click here to make a donation now.

Money raised will fund Green party political campaigning. There is no indication that any money will go to poor people.

And this campaigning is likely to be unnecessary.

If the Green Party wants to win support for their Member’s Bill they don’t need to raise money and they don’t need to run a party promotion campaign. All they need to do is convince one of two MPs to vote for their bill. The vote of either Peter Dunne or John Banks is all the support they need. All it would cost would be some time and a convincing argument.

It’s expected to be futile anyway, as reported in the ODT last week:

Parliament last night began debating a Green Party bill that would allow beneficiary families receive the $60 a week in-work tax credit.

But the bill, sponsored by Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei, is expected to be defeated when it is voted on at its first reading, most likely on November 5.

So the first stage of the fundraising campaign is too late for that and won’t make any difference.

Help us get more people advocating for children in poverty among the decision-makers, and to print and post the facts, figures and solutions – so our childrens’ plight is understood more widely than ever before.

I hope I can count on your donation of $25, $50 or whatever you can afford.

We can’t turn away from New Zealand’s children in poverty, and we can’t simply write off those children as somebody else’s problem. And we won’t.

Let’s get stuck in and help them, together.

Please donate now.

Kia kaha

Metiria Turei

Green Party Co-leader

This sounds like the Green party is seeking party donations to promote their political agenda – that they are trying to raise party funds to recruit support.

I don’t have any doubt that Metiria Turei wants to make a difference for poor people. But the emphasis on this campaign seems to be party focussed. With little chance of immediate success.

Unless the Greens can convince Bill English and the National caucus to make major changes to to Working For Families by extending it to people on benefits this campaign has no chance of success this term. Turei must know this. So it’s hard to see this as anything but using ‘poverty’ to raise funds to promote the Green Party leading up to the next election.

The Greens have already raised eyebrows by using parliamentary funds to promote the anti-asset sales petition – another campaign with no chance of succeeding in stopping the SOE share floats, which has led some to suggest it’s a cynical diversion of funds that are supposed to enable parties to operate effectively in parliament. Instead the funds are effectively being used as longterm campaign funding.

Overusing ‘poverty’

The term poverty has been re-engineered as a political term. In modern New Zealand we have many people having insufficient income to live comfortably. This causes real problems with health, edication and crime.

But we don’t have children dying of starvation. We don’t have shanty towns. We don’t have children scouring rubbish tips in order to survive.

‘Poverty’ in New Zealand seems to have become synonomous with Green Party Politics (with the Labour Party tagging along).

Poverty or Political Campaigning?

What is the real aim of this fund raising campaign? None of the funds raised look like they will go to poor people. The purported aim is futile – money isn’t required to get the support needed for their bill.

So it appears that Greens want to promote themselves to enable them to get into Government so they can redistribute more taxpayers money.

Is the real aim Metiria Turei’s email to do something for poor people? Or to promote her party?

How much should it cost to succeed in this campaign?

Donate

Every child deserves a good life and a fair future. That’s why the Green Party has launched the Take a Step Campaign with the aim of radically reducing child poverty in New Zealand, and we need your donation to help make it a success.

Contribution Amount*
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
$ 100.00
$ 500.00
$ 1,000.00
Other Amount

What is the price of one vote in parliament?

Is this Green Party campaign real poverty? Or politics?

Or has ‘poverty’ simply become a political term?

by Pete George on October 25, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 25, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/25/green-party-politics-of-poverty/

Transfer of poverty?

Now we have proposals for a transfer of poverty, from oldies to kids:

Cut super to save at-risk kids plea

Two of New Zealand’s top children’s doctors are proposing an increase in the state pension age to pay for more services to stop child abuse.

Paediatric Society president Dr Rosemary Marks and Starship hospital child protection clinical director Dr Patrick Kelly say raising the pension age could fund measures to tackle child poverty and improve health and education services for our youngest children, who are most at risk of abuse.

Also:

Universal allowance needed for children

Prof Boston says New Zealand is unusual as it is one of the only OECD countries to not provide some sort of universal family benefit.

“There’s a good case for having universal assistance and particularly for young children because we know that from a huge amount of evidence having a good start in life really matters,” he says.

The Government white paper on vulnerable children will be released tomorrow.
by Pete George on October 10, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on October 10, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/10/transfer-of-poverty/

Peter Dunne on ‘poverty’ and poverty

There is real poverty out there and we need to deal with it compassionately, humanely and as a decent society.

But it does no one any favours by exaggerating it for effect or political agendas.

Peter Dunne in a recent address to Petone Rotary:

Feeding the children

I would also like to talk about breakfasts, lunches and our children.

There has been some very useful media coverage recently of the issue of children in lower decile schools turning up without breakfasts and often without lunch as well.

It goes without saying that no child can thrive, let alone learn, in such appalling circumstances, and it is a blight upon us all as New Zealanders that any child in this country should suffer like this.

Unfortunately, I think we also have a lack of clarity around this issue, when we truly need all the insight and understanding we can muster if we are to resolve it.

Of course, we owe it to every child in the country to make sure they are fed and looked after.

But who, in the first instance, is the “we”?

Let us not beat too lightly around the bush here: first and foremost, the “we” are the parents of any child.

If you have a child, your very first duty is to provide for their welfare.

And it does not get more basic than feeding them.

We must ram home parental responsibility and we must do so without apologising.

And when there are situations where people simply cannot provide properly for their children, then we must look at how society can step in, be it with school food programmes, from charities or corporate sponsors, whatever it takes.

Our children must be fed.

I, however, do not feel that the cause of these children is helped by the fiction that seems to have been accepted as fact, that there are 270,000 children in poverty in this country.

That is a politically-loaded number which actually has little to do with any real measure of poverty – it certainly does not mean there are 270,000 starving children heading off to school each morning.

As Rodney Hide – who is saying much more useful things since he left politics – said in his Sunday newspaper column recently, the 270,000 figure is a very relative term.

That figure is based on a household’s net income being less than 60 per cent of an equivalent sized household’s median income.

The cut-off income for a couple with four children is just over $1000 a week, net.

Enough for cereal for breakfast, and a couple of sandwiches and a piece of fruit for lunch for all of those four children.

Certainly it would be tight.

And, no, I would not want to be living on it, but let’s not call it poverty.

Being poor is having much less than that.

Unfortunately, it is ideologically driven and self-serving exaggeration such as this by the proponents of some causes that – even if well intentioned – starts to dent the credibility of their cause.

There is real poverty out there and we need to deal with it compassionately, humanely and as a decent society.

But it does no one any favours by exaggerating it for effect or political agendas.

by Pete George on October 7, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues, Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on October 7, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/10/07/peter-dunne-on-poverty-and-poverty/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers