A few years ago a newspaper asked Oamaru clergy to comment on poverty.
One vicar said that he came from South Africa where hundreds of people shared a single cold water tap which made it difficult for him to comment on a town where people drove to the food bank.
The dictionary defines poverty as the state of being extremely poor.
The measuring class—people with tertiary education who spend all their time telling us how much misery there is in our community have manufactured a new definition – 60% of the median income.
By that measure poverty could only be solved by taking everyone’s money and redistributing it equally and ensuring it stayed redistributed equally for ever.
While gross inequality can be a problem, making the rich poorer will not address the causes of, nor provide a longterm solution to, the problems of the very poor.
“The term ‘poverty’ has been captured by a particular idea of how you measure poverty and a particular solution to it. That is, you measure it relative to incomes, and the solution is mass redistribution.”
Those who use the term “poverty” and “child poverty” in this way have been “admirably open” about their objectives, Mr English told the meeting but it is not a view the government shares.
“We are not addressing that phenomenon. What we are addressing is absolute levels of hardship. That is someone not having enough to live, and we don’t think that is worse just because someone else has a bit more.”
Incomes are only one part of what keeps people at the bottom of the social heap, he says, and other factors matter more.
“What we are addressing is what I think is the kind of communal or moral dimension and the worst examples of it are not purely about poverty. They are about ways of behaving, and I don’t think poverty is an excuse for serial criminality or beating up your kids. But those are parts of the ways of behaving of parts of our community, in my view sometimes made worse by the way the government deals with some of these problems.” . . .
It is not often a politician talks about the moral dimension and that should not be taken to mean that moral problems are the preserve of the poor.
But when Northland GP Lance O’Sullivan says children will be better off away from their homes and the social dysfunction in them, the problem of hardship is not just a financial one.
When National came to government it took an actuarial look at welfare and uncovered the longterm costs of it.
Those costs were both financial and social which is why reducing dependency and addressing real hardship are so important.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, the problem is whether or not people have enough which in turn begs the question how much is enough?
Regardless of the answer, the solution lies in addressing real hardship, as this government is doing, not by manufacturing poverty by redefining it in a misguided attempt to solve it through redistribution.