I ALWAYS shake my head in disbelief when I hear or read of a successful person blaming the poor for being poor, or denying that inequality exists in our country. Recently, we have had Eva Bradley and John Harrison express such views in this paper.
I celebrate both John s and
Eva s achievement in building their businesses in a way that allows a lifestyle enjoyed by few in our city, but a lack of empathy and understanding of the variables that determine success for some and not for others is denying that such factors actually exist. This is wrong.
One such example is education. Research shows that 5-year-olds starting school in decile 1 schools (poorest areas) have average early reading scores that are almost half those of their peers starting school in decile 7-10 schools.
Children in poverty often live in conditions that hinder their ability to learn. With low incomes, their parents may find it impossible to provide adequate food, warm clothing, books, computers, sports equipment or educational toys. Parents who are stressed from the daily challenge of making ends meet will be less able to give their children the interaction that helps them develop. None of this is the child s fault, however, the impact on the child is significant.
The longitudinal Competent Learners study found that 73 per cent of 14-year-olds who lived in low-income homes when they were 5 had reading comprehension scores below the median level, even though many of their families had increased their income over the period. In comparison, only 26 per cent of 14-year-olds whose homes were high-income when they started school had scores below the median level.
In terms of jobs post-secondary school, 40 years ago if a person wasn t academically inclined, there was the Forest Service, Ministry of Works, Post Office, Railways etc that employed hardworking young men and women and gave them a life. Now, a person needs NCEA Level 2 (UE for us oldies) to even become a grunt in the army.
Our forests are now owned by foreigners, our trains manufactured in China, our roads are built (at great expense) by private companies, our clothes are made in Vietnam and our cars in Japan. Is this really progress?
I m not advocating for a wholesale return to the days when the state controlled every industry and sector, but nor do I believe that whole market knows best philosophy has served us well.
In New Zealand we don t have to choose between fiscal accountability and social responsibility: we can have our cake and eat it, but it requires a different form of thinking. It requires us to believe equality of opportunity is an important goal and every child should grow up with the expectation they will have the opportunity to follow their dreams and be the best they can be.
It s one of the reasons I am in politics, because I believe that society has a responsibility to communities to look after those who struggle to look after themselves. And I don t believe that the present Government is doing this. Closing Serenity House, Jacaranda House, Rainbow Umbrella, Napier s maternity services, night classes, etc, sends the wrong message about caring for our communities. None of us is immune to the effects of health and education cuts, but for some reason a number have accepted these as inevitable. They are not.
I know John Harrison worked hard to build a very successful business in Napier, and I celebrate Eva s success as an exceptional photographer, but my request to both of these two is at least recognise that there are a significant number living in Napier who will never have the opportunity to realise their potential, like you have, simply because they are born into the type of disadvantage that steals dreams and snatches hope. Until we acknowledge this fact, we will never be able to start the conversation about finding the appropriate solutions.
# Stuart Nash is Labour's candidate for Napier in this year's general election.
