Poverty in New Zealand: a challenge by Shane Frith MP

The challenge (message <4l17iu$50e@status.gen.nz>) to nz.politics

My reply (message <4l3ugo$bdl@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz>) to nz.politics

Media Release by Shane Frith, National Party candidate for Auckland Central: No Need for Poverty

From: shane@iconz.co.nz (Shane Frith)

Date: 16 Apr 1996 22:39:26 GMT

Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand

Newsgroups: nz.politics

NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL PARTY

AUCKLAND CENTRAL ELECTORATE

MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

17 April 1996

No need for Poverty

The National Party Candidate for Auckland Central, Mr Shane Frith, has today backed the Prime Minister's claim that there is no need for poverty in New Zealand, because of our generous welfare system. He has also issued a challenge to anyone to show him an example of poverty in New Zealand, that can't be solved under the current welfare system.

"If someone can show me an example of poverty or a child going to school hungry, that cannot be solved with better budgeting, or basic cooking lessons, or through existing social welfare, I'll support calls for increased benefit payments," said Mr Frith

"However, I made this same challenge during the 1993 election campaign and no one produced any evidence."

"Community and church groups are well meaning in their work, however instead of handing out free food, they would be better spending their time educating people, and helping them with budgeting choices."

"I stand ready to look at any case that a group may wish to produce", concluded Mr Frith.

ENDS

For comment please contact: Shane Frith, 0-9-360 2210 or 0-21-906 002

Re: Media Release by Shane Frith, National Party candidate for Auckland Central: No Need for Poverty

From: "K.Stuart Birks" <K.S.Birks@massey.ac.nz>

Date: 17 Apr 1996 23:23:04 GMT

Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Newsgroups: nz.politics

References: 1

shane@iconz.co.nz (Shane Frith) wrote:

<snip>

> "If someone can show me an example of poverty or a child going to school hungry, that cannot be solved with better budgeting, or basic cooking lessons, or through existing social welfare, I'll support calls for increased benefit payments," said Mr Frith

<snip>

Well, as you asked..........

Here are two cases, one a custodial parent and one a non-custodial parent (just to show that this is not all one-sided).

Case 1, the custodial parent.

She has 5 children. Her ex lives overseas. CSA claims that he is not a New Zealand citizen and he earns no income here, so she is not entitled to any child support. The matrimonial property issues have yet to be settled. There are some flats here which are technically in joint names. There is a large mortgage on the flats, which he is currently servicing. She is living in one of the flats and collecting rent from the others. When the property is settled, she will be liable for her share of the mortgage payments, and he will be entitled to a share of the rent. She may end up with no assets. Nevertheless, the SWD view all the rent she receives as her income. In addition, she has to pay for repairs and maintenance, plus advertising for tenants, etc.. If she is ill and cannot manage the flats, there will be further costs or loss of income. ACC would not cover that as she is "self-employed". While some of her outlays are allowed, many, including advertising costs, are not. There is a high turnover of tenants.

So, i) she probably does not really have ANY income, ii) the income measure which is used OVERSTATES how much she has, and iii) they on 4 separate occasions they turned her down for the DPB. She has had a possible offer of $49 per week, but that would involve paying an accountant to provide the necessary information, and may result in the loss of about $150 in family support.

In addition, there are arrears of rent (from benficiaries whose benefits did not come through). This has resulted in unpaid bills from previous years, which are not considered in assessing how much income she has available.

Case 2, the non-custodial parent

He was living and working in a large New Zealand city. Despite is efforts and legal bills now totalling over $60,000, he was unable to prevent his ex taking the children nearly 100k away. Nevertheless, he has been awarded access totalling nearly 40% of nights. This means that he still has to pay the maximum child support as if he never sees the children, but to exercise the access he has had to set up a second home near the children and their schools. He is unable to work full time and take the children to and from school on the school days when he has access, so he has had to change to part-time work (he has a specialist job and cannot get similar employment nearer the children. There has been some adjustment to his child support to allow for his extra accomodation costs, but he is still in the position that, after paying for accommodation, child support and basic outlays, he has about $100 per week available. this is sufficient to cover his travel costs to work and to the children, or could be used for food, but clearly not both. he has no money to cover the costs incurred when the children are with him. As there are regular access problems, he has additional legal fees, but can only pay these by selling off his assets, of which very few remain. He has now resorted to representing himself without the use of lawyers.

While raised benefit levels may be very important also, clearly there are cases with which the current system simply cannot cope.

I would be happy to provide more information by email, including contact details for the cases mentioned.

Stuart

___________________________________

Stuart Birks, K.S.Birks@massey.ac.nz

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~KBirks/

Stuart Birks

18 April, 1996