John Key thinks that people using food banks are engaged in a lifestyle choice. So where's the evidence?
Danyl Mclauchlan at the Dim-Post has an interesting take on John Key (excuse the profanity ... he's a very rude young man):
"Key’s performance in Parliament is very different from the Key we see on public display. In this environment the Prime Minister is, basically, a sneering jerk who doesn’t seem to know anything about what his Ministers are doing, or care very much about the impact of his government’s policies, a great example being his statement yesterday that beneficiaries are people who made a ‘lifestyle choice’, a choice that seems heavily influenced by the record surge in unemployment that’s happened under Key’s government – yet another dire economic indicator that Question Time Key couldn’t really give a shit about."
The quote Danyl is referencing is from this NZ Herald story, given in response to a Labour Party question about the Salvation Army's claim that food parcel demand is rapidly increasing under National's watch:
""But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one's bills.
"And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don't have money left."" This is a common trope amongst those on the centre-right (and further out along the spectrum, too). Welfare benefits provide more than enough to survive on, so a failure to cope is the fault of the individual concerned. (Not to mention that the fact the individual is on a benefit is, to a large extent, their own fault anyway.) It's a view that is by no means limited to those MPs sitting in the National or ACT caucuses. Witness John Tamihere's call back in 2003 to privatise welfare so as to stop beneficiaries "frittering away their money on lotto and cigarettes" (as I/S blogged about here at the time). And every story like this one or this one helps underscore that message - benefits are routinely abused by greedy chancers who misuse the money to fund their lazy preferences. David Farrar uses it to explain the growth of food bank use and welfare fund claims at Victoria University (and, by implication, the community generally): "students like free money and free food." But let's put anecdote and speculation to one side and have a look at what actual evidence exists for the particular claim that foodbank use primarily is caused by a failure to budget properly and poor "lifestyle choices". Well, there's this 2006 M.A. thesis from Canterbury, which finds: "Food bank clients are generally living at or below subsistence level, and it appears that often it is a financial crisis that pushes the household over the edge financially. Food becomes a key problem once such a crisis has occurred. It has consistently been found that inadequate benefit levels, the cost of housing, and household bills are key factors contributing to food bank use (Olds et al., 1991; MacKay, 1995; NZCCSS, 2005a). Despite popular misconceptions, it is rarely due to poor household budgeting or poor decision making (NZNAFP, 1999)." And there's this 2005 M.A. thesis from VUW, which also finds:
"there is a general perception that food insecurity is the fault of the individual; they must be inept budgeters, ignorant of cheap and healthy food choices, or incompetent parents. Research with low-income families has found that these beliefs are unsubstantiated. Several research projects in New Zealand have shown that because food is the only discretionary item in a low-income family’s budget, it is the only item that can be reduced during times of financial stress (Barker & Currie, 1994; Sadler, Rea, & Nicholls, 1995; Waldegrave & Stuart, 1996). Barker and Currie (1994) in their research on food insecurity in Christchurch state: '... people were unable to access food because the money that they had was insufficient to meet their needs... there wasn’t enough money to manage no matter how well it was budgeted.'"
That's a conclusion backed by this 2008 report by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS):
"The majority of the foodbanks' clients only received one food parcel in the 3 month period covered. They were not using the foodbank as a regular strategy to cover a shortfall, rather they were driven to seek help by desperate circumstances", said Mr McGlinchey. "In October to December 2007, even after year-on-year increases in economic activity, many beneficiaries and low-paid workers were still not earning enough to always be able to purchase basic food supplies".
Now, I don't want to overstate things here. It undoubtedly is true that some individuals abuse the generosity of their fellow citizens as represented by food banks (as well as tax-funded benefits).
(However, I wonder what John Key's answer really implies for that generosity - if the only people using foodbanks are feckless wastrels, does that mean I should stop donating to them? Am I not simply rewarding poor choices by doing so? Wouldn't it be better to be cruel to be kind?)
Equally, none of the above says anything about the desirability of living on a benefit. I believe (as I'm sure almost all beneficiaries do) that working in a financially and psychologically rewarding job is far, far more preferable to a life on a benefit. I'm also not necessarily averse to measures that give individuals the bump they may need to move off a benefit into employment - while also recognising that such policies often have a different agenda.
However, it seems to me, having reviewed such evidence as I can find on this subject, that John Key just plain got it wrong with his answer about food bank demand. Which is a bit disappointing, given how important a topic it really is.