Maybe It's Just Poverty

We are told that those on welfare are bludgers, are "living the dream", and need a "kick in the pants".

We were reminded by National MP Todd McClay during parliamentary debate yesterday that the people who killed Nia Glassie were on benefits.

I pay great tribute to young Nia Glassie, and I have little or no regard for the people who murdered her. But I say to members that if we look at that family and those around them, there was long-term welfare dependency. The people who murdered her were on benefits and did not have jobs. Largely, the long-term welfare dependency that was promoted by the previous Government in New Zealand did nothing to help that family. This Government will stand up and fight for those people. Thank you.

The fact that, statistically speaking, beneficiaries are more likely to abuse children than non-beneficiaries, tells us nothing useful about welfare. The message McClay and others are trying to send is that welfare dependency is a major cause of child abuse. Why else would he raise the matter during a debate on welfare reform?

It should be pretty obvious that welfare dependency is a side-effect of poverty. Very few people would choose the lifestyle of a beneficiary. Why would they? They are usually forced into it because of the shit that life throws at them.

So why do we focus our attacks on beneficiaries, when the real enemy is most likely poverty itself?

Because if we had to acknowledge that poverty is a major factor in crime and abuse, the Government would have to allocate more resources to lifting people out of poverty, rather than spending millions on pointless "tough on crime" policies that target the already-marginalised, and on tax cuts for high earners.

It's easier to give the people at the bottom a "kick in the pants", isn't it?