“Child poverty is an act of whānau violence perpetuated by the government,” she says.
“What would be normally do to abusers? We would remove them.”
Did she mean 'perpetrated' or 'perpetuated'? Or both? The release could have benefited from some proof reading, but I'd answer it with a question.
Why is it this government's fault that so many (Maori) children live in poverty?
It seems to me that for decades many Maori have been happy to use welfare as a staple for child rearing regardless of whether or not jobs are available. Happy to use welfare to support their desire to live in tribal homelands. Happy to accept an income from the government that is equal to any they could achieve without educational qualifications or work skills.
Over a third of Maori babies will be on welfare by the end of their birth year. Did the government force that state of affairs on them?
The only way I could remotely agree with this pathetic claim was if the current government was perpetuating the benefit system without reform.
3 comments:
I agree with her - let's remove these (Government) abusers.
The only way I could remotely agree with this pathetic claim was if the current government was perpetuating the benefit system without reform.
But the current government is perpetuating the benefit system without reform.
It's called the grievance industry and while it works they are unlikely to abandon the concept. The more that has been asked for-the more that has been given, why would Maori or anyone else give up what has been successful. Neither of the main parties have listened to public opinion on this matter.
Post a Comment