So far, New Zealand has survived the pandemic and associated economic disaster far better than most commentators, myself included, expected.
This Budget, the fourth from Dunedin’s Minister of Finance Grant Robertson, is framed as a balanced Budget: neither profligate nor austere.
With the strongest mandate ever, in full control of the Treasury benches, the centrepiece of Mr Robertson’s Budget was the reversal of the benefit cuts of 30 years ago by his predecessor Ruth Richardson.
Mr Robertson talked about Ms Richardson a lot. Increasing benefits by between $32 and $55 a week now was ‘‘to right the wrongs of 30 years ago’’. Many of the party leaders in their subsequent speeches also talked about Ms Richardson.
To me, 1991’s Mother of All Budgets was starting to feel like the Ghost of Budgets Past. Such a metaphorical reference to A Christmas Carol, which Charles Dickens published in 1843 in response to Victorian social attitudes towards poverty, is apt given Budget 2021’s focus on the reduction of poverty, especially child poverty, in New Zealand.
After acknowledging the economic stimulatory effects on the rest of us by increasing the poorest New Zealanders’ incomes, Mr Robertson declares: ‘‘But, Mr Speaker, for me this is primarily a moral issue.’’
The interesting thing about invoking moral arguments is that everyone has different interpretations of what is moral and what’s not.
By the way, when you think about it, most of us are beneficiaries to some extent. I know I am.
What was missing from this Budget for me was a steer as to the way out of New Zealand’s serious problems. What to do about poverty (and the associated housing crisis), other than to increase benefits?
That’s the age-old question, right back to Dickens’ time and before.
- Paul Hansen is a professor of economics at the University of Otago
Related Stories
Comments
Sorry mate...all of us are not beneficiaries to some extent. One of the dullest statements ever made!
I don't know. A beneficiary is in receipt of money from the state. Superannuitants are beneficiaries, landlords, er, benefit, from the Accommodation Supplement.
Team NZ were big recipients of public money. We cant always conflate beneficiary status with an underclass.
I'm not on nor do I want to be on "Team NZ". The concept is a great buzz word but total BS. Yes, the sherpeople in the nanny state are big recipients of public money. Not a good idea for anybody to be dependent upon the state for their existance. That ideology is designed to keep people down not give them a helping hand to get them up. Nobody conflates beneficiary status with an underclass except those who haven't been forced to use the system to survive. It kills individual self worth. The government needs to push self reliance and stop rewarding failure in NZ. If you are able bodied and recieve subsistence from "Team NZ" you need to do some type of work for the "Team". Pick up trash, cut grass, whatever. Being part of the "team" means you participate. What we have now is a bunch of "freeloaders" on the "team". No, not all but a disproportionate number going through the motions. There needs to be some equity to the rest of the "team" and right now there isn't. I'm tired of my income going down to subzidize people who talk about "Team NZ" but are in it for themselves. I'm tired of the government taking from me. I am not a beneficiary and work hard so I don't become one.
The bottom line is we have to pay for it all at some time. To do that the country needs to earn. So far the govt hasn't worked out how that works. No gas/oil exploration; lets stuff farming; restrict tourism; keep migrants out even when we need their skills. When will they learn?