Sallies report confirms urgent need for benefit increase – AUCKLAND ACTION AGAINST POVERTY

4
177

The Salvation Army State of the Nation report calling for benefit level increases and public housing confirms what frontline advocates, unions, Government groups, and faith groups have been saying for years. Auckland Action Against Poverty is calling on the Government to stop ignoring community groups who work with low-income communities and substantially increase benefit levels this budget.

“We’ve had report after report over the past years highlighting that benefit levels are too low and that we are not building the right types of homes to house low-income communities. The Government is ignoring the mandate given by a broad base of community groups to ramp-up the build of state housing and increase benefit levels. Benefit levels need to at least be doubled if we are to see income inadequacy addressed”, says Ricardo Menendez March, Auckland Action Against Poverty Coordinator.

“Beneficiaries and low-waged workers in private rentals are spending up to 60% of their income on rent, while their incomes remain relatively stagnant. The Salvation Army report confirms that this Government has put too much on an emphasis on building homes for wealthy property investors, while continuing the underfunding of the public housing sector. The Government committed to building 6,400 state homes in four years when it came to Government, but we have over 14,000 households in urgent need of public housing now.

“If the Government can find resources to fund road infrastructure projects it can certainly invest in our low-income communities. It should not have to take several terms for us to see the necessary action on welfare reform, it takes political courage from politicians in power.

“The 2020 budget is an opportunity for the Government to show commitment to ending poverty in Aotearoa by investing in our welfare and public housing system. If we do not see drastic changes in this area this Government would have failed our most vulnerable. We do not need another report for the Prime Minister to know that benefit levels are too low and that her Government is not building enough state homes.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

 

4 COMMENTS

  1. Raising benefits to take people out of poverty is surely the wrong approach. Benefits are there to be a temporary support not a way of live. Try and make the thousands on unemployment fit to go back into the workforce and educate couples not to have children they cannot support. Cut the numbers on benefit and then a rise would be more affordable. The money spent on roads will increase work oppetunity make the roads safer and cut traffic jams which wastes time and energy.

    • gosh Trev. If you hadn’t come along it would have been no loss. The tripe that you are putting is routine for anyone who can’t give a damn and there are plenty of those around. You don’t have any original ideas or moments of clarity to share with us. I wonder if the Nz Parrot group that you belong to is on the heritage list for tourists to visit. Or perhaps you belong to the Ashley Clinton Sheep’s Choir, one of the sheeples.
      (youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5cGVl-Zto

  2. Wow Trev, how original of you in your comment!! What a guy! You’ve discovered how to completely shut down ANY compassionate responses. Be thankful your address isn’t mandatory to accompany your post comments mate! Extraction – Capitalism works both ways as is only fair & balanced – In’t it?? This one is ALL yours to own pal!

  3. Trev the uninformed. Maaaate! WINZ claimed indebtedness of beneficiaries is evidence that the levels of benefits are too loooow.

    Food Grants, “Loans”, Clothing Allowances, Accommodation Supplements all debt creating schemes would be unnecessary if benefits had been inflation adjusted every year since 1991 and benefit levels were wage indexed. If indexed at say 65% then all costs should be discounted by at least 35% ay? Thats a conundrum Trev.

    The job market is tight and the settings by industry, sector and age, sex, are exclusionary for most of the 314,000 people in receipt of a benefit. Yes! The real unemployment figure isnt 4.0%. Its more like 6.9%.

    So Trev, maaate, have another think about it and see what solution you can come up with. One thats relevant.

Comments are closed.