TERRY SARTEN: Punishing the poor is unfair and bad economics

LETDOWN: Harper Lee published the celebrated To Kill A Mockingbird in 1960; her follow-up novel this year was less enthusiastically received.

THE Government, through the offices of Work and Income, is intent on wringing dollars out of already poor people.

A person on a benefit is taking a case to the New Zealand High Court to question a move by the Ministry of Social Development to reclaim $117,000 of debt created by overpayment of benefit.

This case centres around alleged fraud, based on misrepresentation of circumstances, and the possible breach of human rights in reducing a person with dependent children who is already living below the poverty line and has been to jail for six months to having even less.

Pursuing already poor people - who have served a sentence - for repayment of money makes little economic sense.

As Child Poverty Action Group spokeswoman Associate Professor Susan St John has said: "A repayment of $10 per week will take 226 years to repay; a repayment of $20 a week will take 113 years to repay. The balance will come from whatever estate the person leaves."

Economist Brian Easton, giving evidence before the Social Security Appeal Authority, noted this person's income was $70 below what would be an adequate amount relative to the New Zealand standard of living.

The punitive response displayed in this situation is repeated for hundreds of beneficiaries with children, burying the kids' future under debt. This is in contrast to the vast sums lost to the Government in tax debt (estimated as around $6 billion) which can be renegotiated or in some situations written off.

The relentless pursuit of beneficiaries for repayments versus the comparatively relaxed approach to retrieving tax debt demonstrates a serious flaw in economic and social policy.

Famous for writing To Kill a Mockingbird, a tale about racism and justice in a racially-divided America, author Harper Lee has a new book, Go Set A Watchman, hyped as another triumph.

Now Brilliant Books has announced that it will refund anyone who did not like the book. They have said that it is not a new book - "It is a first draft that was originally, and rightfully, rejected. It is disappointing and frankly shameful to see our noble industry parade and celebrate this as 'Harper Lee's new novel'."

I can see where they are coming from in that they are recognising that the hype surpassed the actual, creating a thudding letdown for those expecting revelatory reading.

Nevertheless, the notion that you can take a book back and get a refund if you don't like it is a startling one. That's what libraries are for.

When you purchase a novel, it is a ticket in a literary lottery. You may get lucky and find a story worth reading over and over again for years and that never diminishes in its ability to enthral, or you may get one where you are completely underwhelmed after the first chapter.

Then there is the problem when the story ending refuses to meet our, often hopeful, expectations. My daughter has made the sensible observation that bookshops and libraries should have a Happy Ending section that guarantees much-loved characters do not die on the final pages, creating an inconsolable funk in the unfortunate reader.

I must admit I look at the blurb on the back of a book and if it says something like "A story of a family across five generations, four continents in one thousand pages of riveting prose", I put it back and move along the shelf.

My favourite reads are those that make you think: "That was amazing - I have no idea what it was all about but it was riveting stuff and I will read it again to see if I get it next time around."

Terry Sarten is a writer, musician, satirista and social worker - feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz