Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Child Poverty: Whose Fault Is It?


Child Poverty: Whose Fault Is It?

By Lindsay Mitchell

There have recently been repeated calls for more government spending to eradicate child poverty. This disregards the reality the "war on poverty" is flawed. Throwing ever-increasing wads of money at the problem is simply not working. The biggest creator of poverty, rather than reliever of poverty, is the welfare state.

However, I would first go back a step and question the very use of the word "poverty." There is only "relative" poverty in a country where governments pay people a living income. Real poverty exists in countries that cannot produce the necessities of life. So, when I refer to New Zealand poverty, I intend that of a relative kind.

Creating poverty isn't hard to do. The experience of being a parent shows just how easy it can be. Wouldn't life be easier in the short- term if we treated our children like the government treats beneficiaries? If we doled out money to them without having to nag them to earn it? If we didn't have to spend our scarce available time teaching them how to be independent? Let's face it, if we want their beds made, sometimes, it's less hassle to just get on and do it ourselves.

But we know we do our children a disservice by making life undemanding. We have a prime responsibility to teach them to fend for themselves, to teach them that nobody owes them a living.

Children learn by example. They sometimes demonstrate this unnervingly by adopting our mannerisms and actions to a tee. Therefore, second and third generation dependence on government handouts is only natural. Just as growing up in a single parent household lessens a child's expectation that they will themselves form an abiding relationship, growing up in a non-working single parent home (83% are reliant on benefits) reduces the expectation of one day getting up and going out to work in the morning.

If our annual welfare bill has gone from $256 million in 1970 to the $14 billion today, yet poverty has only increased, why should anyone believe throwing even more money at the problem will suddenly make a difference? In fact, accepting this strategy as an answer is dangerously foolish. Increasing benefit rates and widening availability will only draw more people in that direction.

Once on a benefit the only way for a single parent to get an increase in income is to get a job that pays more or have another child. It would seem the second option is commonly chosen. Nearly 19,000 or one in five people on the DPB, added another child to their benefit more then 42 weeks after it was initially granted. Advocates for the poor rigidly claim that they do not choose their circumstances. This particular group appeared to.

Going down the path that the Left and the Greens want to take us, namely increasing taxation to increase benefit expenditure, should be strenuously avoided. In the long term, everybody, including children, will actually be worse off. Many developed countries now recognise this. A good example is Ontario, Canada. In 1995 they embarked upon their "Common Sense" revolution (not one of the United Future variety.) They cut benefit rates by 21 percent because the levels were too generous. Even after the cuts, their rates were still higher than the average over the nine other Canadian provinces.

What these cuts did was allow simultaneous tax cuts, which in turn boosted jobs. Since 1995 their economy has added 824,000 new jobs. In March 1997, Ontario had 201,900 sole parents on benefits - by December 2002, the number had dropped to 73,850. Incidentally, Ontario's population is 12 million. Ours is 4 million with 116,000 welfare reliant sole parents.

Some simplistically argue that similar results across the states of America were only achieved through time-limiting (if somebody can only stay on a benefit for 5 years all-up, after 5 years, of course you are going to see numbers drop). The Ontario example rebuts this argument because benefit numbers were reduced by two thirds without imposing time-limits.

The real "revolution" that took place in Ontario was the government began listening to the taxpayers who were questioning why being on welfare should be more attractive than working, why those on low wage incomes were getting less help than those on welfare and why the misuse and abuse of welfare had become so widespread.

These are the questions moving through the minds of more and more working New Zealanders. Unfortunately this group have become so brutalised by the politically correct, they are afraid to voice them publicly. It is the politically correct who shallowly bandy about the term "child poverty" as the necessitator for greater wealth redistribution amongst adults . They use children to serve their own ends, not unlike evil regimes use children as physical human shields.

There are solutions to New Zealand's poverty problem but we will only begin to make progress when the taxpayer finally understands that government spending is not one of them. Only when parents assume full responsibility for their own children will child poverty ease.

Lindsay Mitchell is campaigning for a Parliamentary review of the DPB.
Further information and petition forms are available from http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz email mailto:dandl.mitchell@clear.net.nz ph/fx 04 562 7944

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Werewolf: What Does Winston Peters Want His Legacy To Be?

A lot of people in New Zealand seem to resent Winston Peters and the power that he appears to have. “Appears” being the operative word. In reality, Peters will have power only up to the point that he uses it.

By next week, he’ll have become just another junior player in an MMP governing arrangement, battling to hold onto the gains he was promised. More>>

 

Rising Toll: Road Safety Needs To Be A Higher Priority

Official advice released to the Green Party under the Official Information Act shows that the previous National Government dismissed an option to make road safety its most important transport priority after being told the road toll was rising. More>>

ALSO:

Wellington.Scoop: Arrests At Blockade Of "Weapons Expo"

“We encourage people in Wellington to get down to the Westpac Stadium now for a day of awesome peace action. There will be plenty of food, music and activities to keep us sustained through the day.” More>>

ALSO:

Rorschach Restructuring: PSA Taking Inland Revenue To Court Over Psychometrics

The Public Service Association will be seeing Inland Revenue in Employment Court over its intention to psychometrically test employees reapplying for their roles at the department as part of its controversial Business Transformation restructuring plan. More>>

ALSO:

Nuclear Disarmament: Nobel Peace Prize 2017 Awarded To ICAN

Congratulations from iCAN Aotearoa New Zealand to international iCAN, the other iCAN national campaigns and partner organisations, and the countless organisations and individuals who have worked so hard for a nuclear weapons-free world since 1945. More>>

ALSO:

Expenses: Waikato DHB CEO Resigns

An independent inquiry has identified that Dr Murray had spent more than the agreed $25K allocated for relocation costs, and other unauthorized expenses involving potential financial breaches of the chief executive’s obligations. More>>

ALSO:

Wellington.Scoop: Sad About The Trolley Buses?

The Regional Council’s MetLink is today spending money to tell us that it really loves Wellington’s trolley buses, even though they’re all being taken off our roads by the end of this month. More>>

ALSO:

Post-Election: Preliminary Coalition Talks Begin

New Zealand First will hold post-election preliminary discussions in Wellington with the National Party tomorrow morning and the Labour Party tomorrow afternoon. More>>

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election