Why are our politicians so out of touch with NZ’s poor?

PAT PILCHER has a close look at the increasingly bizarre school lunch saga that’s played out over the past weeks and suggests a solution.

The slow-burning train wreck of the school lunch fiasco continues to generate a sizeable amount of media coverage as the coalition fails to do anything concrete to fix a growing number of issues with school lunches. The problems are manifold, including supply so erratic that some schools reportedly spend money they don’t have to spare buying lunches from Pita Pit or Subway – so much for saving taxpayer dollars! Often, the lunches are so dire that they’re going uneaten. In some cases, Muslim kids were fed ham in blatant disregard of their beliefs, while burnt lunches resulted in kids eating melted plastic.

“Many of these families simply don’t have the luxury of bread, Marmite and apples in the pantry. That’s why school lunches were launched in the first place”

This week, our PM, Chris Luxon, told journalists that concerned parents should make their kids a Marmite sandwich and pack an apple for lunch. While the media reported Luxon’s statement, few stopped to consider that it shows how blatantly out of touch the coalition has become with the needs of struggling Kiwis.

While Luxon’s comments seemed to be aimed at his base of supporters, many of them have expressed disgust at his poor judgement and complete lack of empathy.

“Child poverty levels have grown in New Zealand since the last election, increasing in several key measures”

While sorting out a school lunch for kids may not be a problem for many New Zealanders, it had clearly not even registered in Luxon’s thought processes that for some families in Decile 1 school zones, making ends meet involves a choice between paying bills or giving school lunches to their kids. Many of these families simply don’t have the luxury of bread, Marmite and apples in the pantry. That’s why school lunches were launched in the first place.

Watching Luxon make these comments with a completely straight face, it struck me that bizarrely, he cannot grasp the day-to-day realities of living in poverty in NZ. Either that or he just doesn’t give a shit. Either way, it isn’t a good look for New Zealand’s PM.

So, what to do? While the obvious and easy answer is to spend more money on giving school kids lunches that are actually edible, which might seem straightforward, Luxon’s glib Marmite sandwich statement alludes to a much deeper issue that needs to be addressed.

“Expecting politicians to address poverty when they have no clue about its daily impacts on the people they are supposed to be working for just isn’t realistic”

Most of NZ’s politicians were already financially comfortable before entering Parliament. Because of this, only a few have spent time around people who’ve fallen through the cracks and are below the poverty line. The rest of our politicians seem happily oblivious to the growing levels of poverty surrounding them as the New Zealand Express jumps the tracks, de-rails and crashes into the railway station.

This is a real concern, given how child poverty levels have grown in New Zealand since the last election. According to the latest statistics, child poverty rates have increased in several key measures. For example, the percentage of children living in households with less than 50% of the median household equivalised disposable income after housing costs rose from 14.4% to 17.5%. Additionally, the percentage of children living in material hardship increased from 10.5% to 12.5%.

“A better idea could be that all politicians entering Parliament must spend three weeks living in a state house in a poor suburb, with access to their money and assets frozen and only a state benefit available to survive on”

In short, the progress made under the last government has slid backwards, with more children experiencing financial and material hardship. Having bread and Marmite at home would be a rare treat for these kids, yet this seems to elude Luxon and his coalition partners’ thought processes and policy decisions.

Putting it simply, expecting politicians to address poverty when they have no clue about its daily impacts on the people they are supposed to be working for just isn’t realistic.

Surely, a better idea could be that all politicians entering Parliament must spend three weeks living in a state house in a poor suburb, with access to their money and assets frozen and only a state benefit available to survive on.

With this initiative in place, I’d wager that New Zealand’s shockingly low levels of empathy and awareness for the poor and needy would improve significantly. Addressing poverty might become more than a throwaway slogan fired at camera crews and designed for political gain.

Either way, Luxon should, at the very least, be acting like a real leader, asking hard questions of David Seymour and holding the businesses contracted to supply schools to account instead of poverty-shaming our kids.