Editorial: Poverty poll falls short of science

Opinion

An international survey has found New Zealanders more willing than people of 31 other countries to blame the poverty on laziness and a lack of willpower.

If that seems heartless, it needs to be remembered that the survey allowed its respondents only two answers to the question, "Why are there people in this country who live in need?" Either they were "lazy and lacked willpower" or they were poor "because society treats them unfairly". Take your pick.

This is possibly the most ludicrous exercise ever undertaken in the name of serious social science. At least, we presume it was serious. The New Zealand survey was led by a Massey University sociologist, Paul Perry, and he sounds serious.

The survey was held in 2004 and he thinks the results help explain the doubling of the National Party's vote at last year's election. He will know better than most of us that there are many reasons why some people in any country live in need. There are more reasons, in fact, than even sociology likes to study. One of the main reasons is divorce. Nothing reduces many a young family to hardship faster than a marital break-up. But sociology does not show much interest in finding ways to help people make better decisions about relationships and raising families. It is interested in family dislocations only in so far as these can be blamed on society rather than individuals' decisions.

Divorce of course is not poverty's sole explanation. Some make foolish decisions about education and employment. Some suffer poor health or mental illness. A few have tattooed their faces or otherwise refuse to compromise their appearance for the sake of employment.

People in these situations are likely to be given at least two or three hundred dollars a week by the New Zealand social welfare or accident compensation systems, plus accommodation grants if they need them. It becomes very hard to say they are poor because society treats them unfairly.

They will be poor if they squander the assistance on drugs, alcohol or other addictions. But it is hard to blame society for those afflictions. If forced to choose between personal and social blame, it is no wonder 73 per cent of New Zealanders opt for the personal. "Lazy and lack willpower" seem specific faults but they probably cover more cases than "society treats them unfairly".

The survey is interesting for the comparison it offers over time. In 1998 just 50 per cent of New Zealand's opted for the "lazy and lacks willpower" explanation. Mr Perry thinks that this shows "neo-liberal" sentiment increased from 1998 to 2004 but it may show quite the opposite. In 1998 a neo-liberal National Government was still in office and the plight of the poor was being proclaimed almost daily by social, political and religious groups. At the end of 1999 the present Government came to power and poverty immediately disappeared from the news. Possibly Labour's introduction of income-related rent for state houses made all the difference. Nothing much else changed before 2004.

Labour Governments always make great play of their intention to look after the less well-off. The public assumes, rightly or wrongly, that when Labour is in power poverty is not a problem. That probably explains why far more New Zealanders today think that if people are needy it is likely to be their own fault.

The resurgent neo-liberalism Mr Perry finds in the figures is his own spook, nothing more. Charities say poverty is still here, but with compassion in power people are less likely to care.