As a rule, I write far too much about the “Christian” Right or equivalent Muslim social conservatives, so it’s a pleasure to deal with the positive aspects of mainline church social services again.

As I reported in one of my earlier blogs, the Council of Christian Social Services is doing its best to focus public attention on poverty and currently inadequate income support levels. The Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists and Salvation Army denominations have stated that their message is non-political, and favours no political party. (Cue: histrionics from New Right pressure groups about ‘welfare dependency’, as if their withdrawal of social services and early nineties benefit slashing weren’t the real causes).

Their first anti-poverty pamphlet urges local church parishioners to support low decile school activities, engage in voluntary work alongside local income families, or simply be there for them when times get tough. It deals specifically with child poverty, noting that twenty percent of New Zealand children live in poverty, while twenty-three percent exist in families dependent on means-tested benefits (who may not be getting their full entitlement). Scandalously, the Domestic Purposes Benefit has fallen in real terms to half the average New Zealand wage since 2001.

As for specific policy solutions, Methodist President Brian Turner notes that this is not a CCSS position, but he’d prefer an end to GST payment on food items. However, the Herald helpfully provided a list of party policies- the Greens favour lifting the minimum wage and benefit levels, and would construct more public housing, while the Maori Party favours a universal parenting benefit, and United Future even favours an urgent review of benefit levels. Now, if only the item wasn’t mischievously labelled “Churches Reject Campaign Advice.”

I strongly commend CCSS’s efforts, and would also note that as there may have been significant disruption to the educational prospects and employment histories of some same-sex-led families with children, child poverty may be relevant to low-income members of our own communities. I’ve said it before in the context of LGBT homelessness, and I’ll say it again:

  Our communities need to have a far greater focus on the social policy needs of our low-income members, single or in same-sex led families.

Recommended:
Simon Collins: “Churches Reject Campaign Advice.” New Zealand Herald: 21.05.08: http://www.nzherald.co.nz

New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services website:

http://www.nzccss.org.nz