Wells Group
Published by Wells Tao
Thirty
years of regressive government policy that has pushed more people into
poverty, coupled with opportunistic politicians’ lazy beneficiary
bashing, means that we tend to let those living at the margins take the
blame for government’s failure to invest in public services and incomes
again and again.
-Laura O'Connell Rapira
-Laura O'Connell Rapira
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M10.473 4C8.275 4 8 5.824 8 5.824S7.726 4 5.528 4c-2.114 0-2.73 2.222-2.472 3.41C3.736 10.55 8 12.75 8 12.75s4.265-2.2 4.945-5.34c.257-1.188-.36-3.41-2.472-3.41'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
LoveComments
Wells Group As
New Zealanders, we believe in justice and compassion. We want everyone
to have the opportunity to thrive. By providing good income support that
gives real options in life the government can make it possible for
everyone to do well. Strengthening benefits,
as called for by the government’s own Welfare Expert Advisory Group,
would help more people escape the restraints of poverty. It would
release the pressure on families and children and help more people to
unlock life’s rich opportunities.
After 30 years of fully funding failure, it is the least they could do.
After 30 years of fully funding failure, it is the least they could do.
Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images
How Ruth Richardson’s Mother of all Budgets is still f*cking us today
Laura O’Connell Rapira looks at what benefit cuts
and successive generations of an unregulated housing market has done to
welfare and housing for those in the margins.
For the first seven or so years of my life, I was raised mostly by my mum on the domestic purposes benefit (my dad is a big part of my life, but my parents’ romantic relationship wasn’t meant to be beyond creating me).
I was three years old when the then-National government passed the ‘Mother of all Budgets’. The finance minister at the time, Ruth Richardson, believed jobs would miraculously appear for people if she cut their income support, so she ruthlessly slashed the unemployment benefit by $14 a week, the families benefit by $25 and the sickness benefit by $27 (about $60 in today’s currency). Benefits basically stayed at those rates until 2016, when they were marginally increased by then finance minister Bill English.
It’s a strange ideology that believes cutting support to sick people, solo parents and working-class families helps them live happy and healthy lives, but it’s an ideology that’s pervaded government policy ever since.
Overnight, and with the stroke of a pen, Ruth Richardson trapped tens of thousands of people in a poverty whose harms continue today. My mum and I lived with my grandad and aunty in Māngere when that budget was passed in 1991. There were a lot of families in our neighbourhood who relied on income support at that time. In South Auckland in the 1980s, adult unemployment was 40-50%.
The community was still feeling the impacts of Robert Muldoon’s racist dawn raids and the previous Labour government’s terrible economic reforms had started to wear folks down. A stock market crash in 1987 meant that one in three manufacturing jobs were lost and freezing works and factories were shut down. The only reason my mum and I got by was because we had whānau support, but not everyone is that lucky.
The 1980s marked the beginning of a long period of low wages, eroded benefits, rising food prices and high housing costs. For my entire life, people in government have under-invested in key services that help the lowest-income families, like public housing and income support. Instead, successive governments have prioritised policies that help people who are already well-off, property speculators the obvious example.
A recent Herald investigation found that the hands-off approach to housing of successive governments has resulted in property speculators making an average of $70,000 a sale, sometimes without doing any upgrades.
Meanwhile, most families in poverty have housing costs that take up over half of their income. Seventy-four per cent of families in poverty put off a trip to the dentist, while 77% can’t afford an unexpected $500 expense.
I remember the difficulties my mum faced trying to buy us a dehumidifier for our mouldy and damp West Auckland home. I remember when her card declined and the shop worker announced it loudly to embarrass her, probably because she was Māori, a woman and poor.
This is the reality for families trying to scrape by on low incomes in an era of high housing and food costs. Too many parents are under-resourced and overstressed. So while I think this government’s announcement of kids’ school lunches is a good start, it is simply not enough.
As long as we are willing to keep parents trapped in poverty, there will continue to be kids in poverty too.
For
the past two elections, New Zealanders have consistently ranked “child
poverty” as one of their number one concerns, but our tendency has been
toward supporting solutions that only solve one part of the problem. We
buy Eat My Lunch but we distrust the idea of just giving people enough
money to live on, despite all the evidence that says it would be the
most effective way to fix poverty.
Thirty years of regressive government policy that has pushed more people into poverty, coupled with opportunistic politicians’ lazy beneficiary bashing, means that we tend to let those living at the margins take the blame for government’s failure to invest in public services and incomes again and again. It’s outrageous to me that people in government would rather spend millions of taxpayer dollars chasing down the $30 million we lose to so-called “welfare fraud” (I’d call it survival) than the (at least) $1.2 billion lost to wealthy tax dodgers each year.
As New Zealanders, we believe in justice and compassion. We want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive. By providing good income support that gives real options in life the government can make it possible for everyone to do well. Strengthening benefits, as called for by the government’s own Welfare Expert Advisory Group, would help more people escape the restraints of poverty. It would release the pressure on families and children and help more people to unlock life’s rich opportunities.
After 30 years of fully funding failure, it is the least they could do.
Love The Spinoff? The best way to support us is to join The Spinoff Members. For just $2 a week you can help us hire more journalists – and receive a FREE copy of our first book.
For the first seven or so years of my life, I was raised mostly by my mum on the domestic purposes benefit (my dad is a big part of my life, but my parents’ romantic relationship wasn’t meant to be beyond creating me).
I was three years old when the then-National government passed the ‘Mother of all Budgets’. The finance minister at the time, Ruth Richardson, believed jobs would miraculously appear for people if she cut their income support, so she ruthlessly slashed the unemployment benefit by $14 a week, the families benefit by $25 and the sickness benefit by $27 (about $60 in today’s currency). Benefits basically stayed at those rates until 2016, when they were marginally increased by then finance minister Bill English.
It’s a strange ideology that believes cutting support to sick people, solo parents and working-class families helps them live happy and healthy lives, but it’s an ideology that’s pervaded government policy ever since.
Overnight, and with the stroke of a pen, Ruth Richardson trapped tens of thousands of people in a poverty whose harms continue today. My mum and I lived with my grandad and aunty in Māngere when that budget was passed in 1991. There were a lot of families in our neighbourhood who relied on income support at that time. In South Auckland in the 1980s, adult unemployment was 40-50%.
The community was still feeling the impacts of Robert Muldoon’s racist dawn raids and the previous Labour government’s terrible economic reforms had started to wear folks down. A stock market crash in 1987 meant that one in three manufacturing jobs were lost and freezing works and factories were shut down. The only reason my mum and I got by was because we had whānau support, but not everyone is that lucky.
The 1980s marked the beginning of a long period of low wages, eroded benefits, rising food prices and high housing costs. For my entire life, people in government have under-invested in key services that help the lowest-income families, like public housing and income support. Instead, successive governments have prioritised policies that help people who are already well-off, property speculators the obvious example.
A recent Herald investigation found that the hands-off approach to housing of successive governments has resulted in property speculators making an average of $70,000 a sale, sometimes without doing any upgrades.
Meanwhile, most families in poverty have housing costs that take up over half of their income. Seventy-four per cent of families in poverty put off a trip to the dentist, while 77% can’t afford an unexpected $500 expense.
I remember the difficulties my mum faced trying to buy us a dehumidifier for our mouldy and damp West Auckland home. I remember when her card declined and the shop worker announced it loudly to embarrass her, probably because she was Māori, a woman and poor.
This is the reality for families trying to scrape by on low incomes in an era of high housing and food costs. Too many parents are under-resourced and overstressed. So while I think this government’s announcement of kids’ school lunches is a good start, it is simply not enough.
As long as we are willing to keep parents trapped in poverty, there will continue to be kids in poverty too.
Join us and get a free copy
of the Spinoff’s first book!Find Out More
of the Spinoff’s first book!Find Out More
Thirty years of regressive government policy that has pushed more people into poverty, coupled with opportunistic politicians’ lazy beneficiary bashing, means that we tend to let those living at the margins take the blame for government’s failure to invest in public services and incomes again and again. It’s outrageous to me that people in government would rather spend millions of taxpayer dollars chasing down the $30 million we lose to so-called “welfare fraud” (I’d call it survival) than the (at least) $1.2 billion lost to wealthy tax dodgers each year.
As New Zealanders, we believe in justice and compassion. We want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive. By providing good income support that gives real options in life the government can make it possible for everyone to do well. Strengthening benefits, as called for by the government’s own Welfare Expert Advisory Group, would help more people escape the restraints of poverty. It would release the pressure on families and children and help more people to unlock life’s rich opportunities.
After 30 years of fully funding failure, it is the least they could do.
Love The Spinoff? The best way to support us is to join The Spinoff Members. For just $2 a week you can help us hire more journalists – and receive a FREE copy of our first book.
The Spinoff Daily gets you all the days' best reading in one handy package, fresh to your inbox Monday-Friday at 5pm.
No comments:
Post a Comment