Child poverty experts urge politicians to adopt recommendations before election
Eleven of them are demanding a range of actions "including lifting the minimum wage to the living wage, increasing benefits and indexing them to average wage growth or inflation, and replacing “Working for Families” with a tax credit that is not connected to parents’ work or benefits status."
For context, two salient facts:
There are already a quarter million children living in benefit-dependent homes.
Many of these homes are in low-income neighbourhoods where, the 'experts' tell us, it's a struggle to provide essentials like food and clothing.
Neighbourhoods where alcohol outlets cluster, along with vape shops and tattoo parlours. Where gangs deal meth. Let's pump some more cash their way, say the 'experts'.
More money is not the answer.
Yesterday I received a postcard from World Vision showing me where the money I send to them goes.
For context, two salient facts:
- At April 1, 2025, a sole parent with two or more children received on average $1,110 weekly; a couple with two or more children, $1,255 net.
- In the year to the June 2025 quarter, median weekly income from wages and salaries was $1,380 gross or $1,111 after tax.
There are already a quarter million children living in benefit-dependent homes.
Many of these homes are in low-income neighbourhoods where, the 'experts' tell us, it's a struggle to provide essentials like food and clothing.
Neighbourhoods where alcohol outlets cluster, along with vape shops and tattoo parlours. Where gangs deal meth. Let's pump some more cash their way, say the 'experts'.
More money is not the answer.
Yesterday I received a postcard from World Vision showing me where the money I send to them goes.
That is a malnourished child receiving therapeutic life-saving food. That is a child whose mother cannot feed it.
It isn't a child whose mother receives over a thousand dollars cash from the government every week and still manages to have the 'experts' telling us is living in material hardship.
My non-expert list for the next government contains one urgent and do-able action. Stop paying cash and start providing assistance-in-kind.
A government that wants better for children whose parents can't or won't care for them properly would ensure that the substantial resource going into these homes was practical and effective.
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/total-incomes-report-2025.pdf
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/labour-market-statistics-income-june-2025-quarter/
https://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2026/06/quarter-of-million-children-are-now.html
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator. This article was sourced HERE
3 comments:
There is a difference between poverty and poor. Poverty is a mindset where, no mater the income , the parents are unable or unwilling to allocate funds to benefit the family in it’s entirety over a period of time ( week, fortnight ..,). They are incapable of, for whatever reason, of forward planning. No amount of money will change this behaviour because it is an entrenched management issue. Bri g poor is often temporary, where financial constraints make providing for the family difficult. If help could be provided via food, a wonky box, or clothing rather than cash it would remove the incentive to increase one’s income by having more children. This strategy perpetuates the situation rather than alleviating it. Help, but with food and clothing, not cash.
Hear, hear.
As I have noted elsewhere in today's columns, we need to focus more on the choices 'poor' people are making. An interesting econometric exercise would be to trace where benefit increases end up - top runners would be the pub, the ciggy shop, and the TAB. I've got a pretty good idea what such a study would yield. So has Anon above, methinks!
And to prove the above points, earlier this week the local rag "The Post" ran a story of an FMA Court case against a car dealer involving a woman who bought a $48K car from them on finance. The woman, being a solo-mother with a one-year-old child and who was also 'caring' for two others (of a brother), was living in a 'Work & Income' funded tent in a relative's backyard. She, by her own declaration, was receiving $1,500 a week in benefits! Of course, the car purchase ended in disaster and the FMA is rightfully pursuing the dealer for failing to meet its responsible lending obligations. But that aside, this is precisely the kind of situation which is all too familiar in NZ, where responsible parenting, much less basic financial prudence and budgeting is totally lacking. Like I've seen commented elsewhere, it's not unlike seagulls at a beach - give one something, and in no time you're bombarded by other hungry mouths. Lindsay is so right about the 'giving of money.' We need to change what's offered, but don't look to politicians like Carmel Sepuloni to solve it - for she and all those others who just want to allocate 'more money', with no responsibility attached, are only 'feeding' the ever-growing and self-perpetuating problem.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.