The following is an excerpt from a piece by Jane Kelsey. It's about child poverty and the government's refusal to pay the In Work payment to beneficiary families;
First, as the Child Poverty Action group repeatedly points out, this condemns New Zealand’s already disadvantaged children to begin life of poverty from which they may never recover. Some 230,000 children pay that price simply because their parents are beneficiaries. New Zealand (and Labour) once believed in equality of opportunity. Indeed, Labour’s own 2002 Agenda for Children aims ‘to make life better for children’ and its social policy published in 2004 recognises that ‘poor child health is linked to poor adult health and also to broader poor outcomes including unemployment and crime’. No more.
The differential impact on Maori compounds the structural inequalities of colonisation. Maori and Pasifika families are often the poorest, largest and most benefit-dependent. Ministry for Social Development figures released in April 2006 showed 93,423 Maori children and 137,857 non-Maori children would be excluded from the benefits of the package. This represents 45.9 percent of all Maori children, 29.6 percent of Pasifika children and 12.3 percent of Pakeha children. Such discrimination negates the possibilities for these children to participate, belong and achieve within New Zealand society and constitutes another violation of the Crown’s obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi. In economic terms, abandoning so many today’s children will deprive the country of the healthy, educated and socially stable adult generation we will need tomorrow.
My comment; The left is fundamentally lazy. Social problems are intrinsically linked to a lack of money. The lack of money is the fault of government policy. If government policy is changed and South Auckland or Ruatoria or Aranui families receive more money the lives of their children will be vastly improved.
Does anybody really believe that (apart from diehard socialists)? We've spent nearly seventy years trying this approach to little avail it would seem.
Kelsey's attitude is patronising (the poor have no responsibility for their own circumstances) dishonest (it is society's fault that brown children are disproportionately poor) and, above all, lazy (forcing government to pay more is all we need to do.)
Are cats bullies, or dogs wimps?
21 minutes ago