Food, glorious food...
When I was growing up there was no such thing as a food bank. They may have been an experience of my parents' generation in the 1930s depression but along with the soup kitchens of Dickensian England they seemed part of a dim, grim, unlamented past. New Zealand was a country where there was always food on the table in even the poorest families.
After a generation of Labour and National neo-liberal policies all that has changed and what we naively thought was a relic of the past has now been revisited on the children of the poor.
In his early days as National Party leader, John Key spoke earnestly about the issue but that's where it ended. It was enough for him to build his persona as someone who cared for kids as much as Labour would like us to think they do. Now he has moved on and the problem has worsened.
The song "Food, glorious food" from the musical Oliver is sung by hungry kids in 19th century England fantasising about the food they'd love to eat. It could just as well be set in 21st century New Zealand.
Two nights ago I attended a public meeting here in Auckland organised by the Child Poverty Action Group where Martin Anscombe gave a presentation on his soon-to-be-published research into why kids go hungry and the range of community attitudes and responses to the issue.
The attitudes will be familiar to those of us who read the letters to the editor or listen to talk-back radio. Most resort to the familiar theme of blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators of economic policies which leave families denigrated and marginalised.
A similar attitude to poverty was on display earlier this week. An acquaintance from Wellington intervened when he saw staff from the Woolworths supermarket in Tawa disposing of trolleys of fruit which was in good condition. He said he'd like to take it to a food bank but after the manager was called she refused, saying it was a non-negotiable company policy to dispose of the fruit. When he persisted she facetiously offered him a rotten tomato for the food bank and asked a staff member to call the police.
We can understand a supermarket disposing of food which is past its use-by date but applying this to fruit in reasonable condition makes no sense when so many hungry families are in need. It reflects an underlying denial of poverty which remains a strong thread running through New Zealand. Local publicity is likely and it is to be hoped the supermarket will change its policy.
Meanwhile the government is "reviewing" the Fruit in Schools programme whereby 100,000 children in 500 low-decile schools are provided with a piece of fruit each day. The policy is funded till the end of the year and the government is flying a kite to test community reaction to the idea of canning the programme. If the community conscience is stirred the policy will stay in place but if there's only a muted reaction it will be terminated.
Green MP Sue Kedgely says cutting free fruit to some of New Zealand's neediest kids would be an attack on commonsense and child health. The programme was initiated after the 2002 Child Nutrition Survey showed that only two out of five children get the recommended amount of fruit each day.
She says teachers have reported positively on the programme and say children are more alert and better able to concentrate in class after eating fruit. Schools involved in the scheme also report improved dental health since the programme's inception.
John Key's concern for child poverty is facing another test.
Hungry kids are on the minds of some however.
In the last few days TV3 has announced that it is organising a "night-in" - an old-style telethon by any other name - to raise funds for Kids Can which supports programmes to feed hungry kids and provide the likes of shoes and raincoats to try and ensure kids can engage in education when they get to school.
In the 1950s and 60s the government provided half a pint of milk to every child at school. This policy was eventually abandoned as child health improved and deficiency diseases such as rickets disappeared. It's a depressing commentary on New Zealand that so many of our children now require a government provided piece of fruit each day.
The Fruit in Schools policy should stay until it is no longer needed.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
#1
I wonder how much you know about benefits and what it actually costs to rent and all the other 'everyday expenses'. My daughter's life as a solo parent would have been really pressed if it weren't for my supporting her financially.
The fact is benefit levels are too low just as the minimum wage is too low. Kids miss out and economic policies and a lack of community support leaves these kids in this mess.
I know of family in Christchurch who has no heating in their house because they simply cannot afford it. The father is working (albeit on the minimum wage) there are 5 kids in this family. I know of a family in South Auckland without enough blankets on their beds because they don't have the money to buy these things and op shops don't have enough.
So basically sounds like we should only allow the rich or middle class to have children.
The NZ welfare safety net you talk about doesn't cater for everyone, people go to the state and are told to go to welfare organisations to get things. This hardly is the welfare safety net in action.
In a recent Herald article there was a woman who didn't know where her next meal for her and her two disabled adult children, was going to come from.
There are families who spend there last $5 before benefit day to buy chips and a loaf of bread, the evening before benefit day, at least the kids stomaches will be full. There are parents who have cups of tea for dinner and feed their kids.
Oh, dear. It does appear that the belief that that our welfare state provides ample succour for all continues to prevail among the smug. Yet a quick look at the WINZ website shows that benefit for a sole parent with two children is the grand sum of $272.70 (a single pensioner gets $310.95). The single parent gets a family tax credit of $146, plus any accommodation supplement. A none-too-flash 2 bedroom unit in South Auckland costs about $280 to rent. You do the math.
Daisy #2
I know of kids in Africa who starve because the family cannot feen them as they have no food or income but have a baby each year or so.
Now is that the kids fault?...the Govt's fault?...or the parents fault for having more kids when they can't feed/look after the ones that already have?
Would you just rather that that father who was working for minimum wage and 5 kids was just given...ummm I dunno, say $40 an hour as he has 5 kids! (How much is he getting from WFF?)
Not always daisy, but alot of the time the wrong people keep breeding, but it's OK...out tax dollars will keep them with a roof over their heads/food/electricity.
Wonder if that family would have had 5 kids if there was no welfare in NZ daisy?...I suspect not!
@ #2: While I have never been on a benefit, my experiences as a teenage student only 4 years ago living on a borrowed $150pw plus min wage part time work (where I could get it) have made me acutely aware of basic living costs.
Your stories of families in need are sad and emotive, but without an example of a weekly budget to prove the shortfall is geniune and not simply a result of poor financial management, they are evidence of nothing.
Please note that I never suggested that the social welfare net provided a luxurious or even comfortable standard of living, but that it provided enough so that no citizen should ever STARVE - and that if they did, it was a the result of misallocated funds.
"So basically sounds like we should only allow the rich or middle class to have children."
Not at all - there are rich and middle class people who are also unfit parents. Having a child either willingly or through neglect of reasonable preventative steps, where one is unfit (financially or otherwise) to adequately support the child is simply a form of child abuse.
PS I agree with John entirely on the issue of fresh fruit in schools.
Here we go - time for folk like eddie to blame parents again. Having worked with a community budgeting agency in the past, I can assure you many people just do not have enough to cover basic needs. We have a society where parenting is economically undervalued in a huge number of ways. Income splitting is not allowed when one parent is working and one chooses to stay at home. If parenting was truly valued, income splitting would be a priority for politicians.
I do believe that as a moral society we need to have safety net for those least fortunate in our communities. This should not be a life style choice. It amazes me that people with low/no income have MORE kids. That is both irresponsible and ignorant to expect others to pay for your lifestyle choices. I would suggest Foodstamps. These could only be exchanged for certain foods. If the public is paying the public should have some say in what it gets spent on. EG no smokes, booze, soft drinks, chippies, disposable nappies, confectionary or similar.
Bread, eggs, milk, mince, chicken(fresh), potatoes, cheese, cabbage, dry pasta, rice, tinned fruit, these items can be purchased cheaply (well maybe not the cheese). I would be more then happy to provide many recipes that can feed a family of 4 for under $12.00. They wont be flash, but they will keep you full, and contain carbs, protein and fruit/veg.
I have been there. It is possible to feed a family of 4 for less the $100.00 per week. There is an excellent cook book from the 60's called the paupers cook book, it was written by Jocasts Innes and includes shopping and budget tips. Hand outs are not the answer; education and knowledge are.
Corey #7
Good post
I too can make a meal for 4 for under $3 a meal and it fulfills all the vitamins/healthy needs, but it's pointless...because the kids basically tell the parents what they will eat, not vice versa.
I have a sister that regularly cooks 4 meals a day at dinner time, 1 for her and hubby, and one each for her 3 kids...mum and dad warned her about 'meal splitting', but now she cannot get away from it as her kids have TOLD HER what they like and don't like, when we were growing up, mum and dad TOLD US what we liked!
Basically cooking to a budget is a lost art....I have a cook book 9I don't use it, I live alone), but it's '101 recipes for mince' and I'll bet you most 'poor' people would throw it out!
Seems telling people what to eat on a budget probably infringes on their human rights!..yaaawn...9yrs of labour have made NZ a country (not all) of wingers and finger pointers
Corey #7
The reasons some people have children without the wherewithal to raise them adequately aren't that amazing in my experience, I have known single women who have decided to have children so that they (the parent) can experience some unconditional love, which due to their own brokenness they have been unable to secure otherwise. Not a healthy mindset but one that a person of empathy can perhaps understand. My wife and I as foster parents of seven children from two families know the intergenerational linkages of New Zealand's underclass. More welfare won't change the deepseated attitudes that have to change if the next generation isn't to follow the same path. We really have to get away from an entitlement mentality to have any real future as a society. The fruit in schools scheme dishes out to poor and not poor children alike, not particularly efficient use of taxpayers money in my opinion. Reform it if it is to stay.
Still John, I suspect most people would rather live here than the last place you had a hand in fixing (or would like to believe) - South Africa.
Radio station's divorce promo 'cowardly'
All Blacks stars of the show at Halberg Awards
Wrong boot costs adventurer his life
ACC beneficiary admits he cheated
Child killed at Motueka school
NZ woman's death in Paris explained
Small 3.9 earthquake wobbles Wellington
Waka capsizes in Wellington Harbour
Rick Santorum wins Missouri primary
Santorum claims momentum with upset wins
Resignations at MediaWorks holding company boards
Small 3.9 earthquake wobbles Wellington
All Blacks stars of the show at Halberg Awards
Child killed at Motueka school
Waka capsizes in Wellington Harbour
All Blacks stars of the show at Halberg Awards
Beer fest to donate to charity
Wino's is all a matter of good taste
Waitangi London pub crawl a beat-up
Supermarket, meat, salmon & children
Hamilton to bid for hosting Fifa U-20 World Cup
Tillman KO'd by Sonny Bill Williams
"Most resort to the familiar theme of blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators of economic policies which leave families denigrated and marginalised."
John, we have in NZ a welfare safety net which is sufficient for no child in NZ to ever be without food. Where they do go hungry, it is neither the fault of the victim (the child) or any 'economic policy' you refer to, but a result of irresponsible financial decision-making by those who 'care' for the child.
The fact is that not everyone is fit to be a parent - no economic policy (or additional funding) will change that.