Poverty Watch 27

Written By: - Date published: 8:27 am, April 13th, 2013 - 12 comments
Categories: national, poverty - Tags:

In the current series of posts we’re looking at the Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCCC) 2012 report “Child Poverty in New Zealand evidence for action“. Continuing from last week…

Chapter 2 What You Told Us

This is a brief chapter, and I will summarise it quickly, because there is plenty of current news this week. The report called for public submissions on a variety of questions, starting with “Which proposals will be effective in reducing child poverty?”. Here’s some extracts from what they found:

Overall the feedback we received was very positive and generally supportive of the proposed solutions presented in the Issues and Options Paper. Submitters, survey respondents and meeting participants all added constructive ideas on how to refine the solutions, expressed their priority recommendations for action, and provided numerous examples of local activities that demonstrated how communities are currently implementing aspects of the proposed community-based solutions.

Mäori and Pasifika respondents emphasised that it is important to clarify that, although child poverty is a serious problem for some Mäori and Pasifika families, it is not experienced by the majority. These groups wanted the final report to ensure that the recommendations did not reinforce stereotypes of Mäori and Pasifika peoples.

There was a high level of agreement across the feedback on the priority actions:
• improve accountability mechanisms for addressing child poverty, through the enactment of legislation (e.g. a Children’s Act) to formalise the process of setting targets to reduce child poverty, monitor progress, and report results
• strengthen the income and the tax-benefit system by introducing a child payment and undertaking an independent review of all child-related benefit rates
• pass-on child support payments to custodial parents who receive a sole-parent benefit
• establish a Warrant of Fitness for all rental properties
• provide food-in-schools to help hungry children.

Children raised housing as a primary concern. They spoke about damp and cold houses affecting their health, and wanted rental properties to be safer and healthier. They noted that more insulation of homes would make heating homes more affordable, as they reported that families are struggling to pay household bills, which leads to no heating, no water, and the inability to cook. Children spoke about overcrowded housing and the impacts, including lack of privacy, arguments and tensions which affect family relationships, and difficulty in doing their homework. The impact of insecure and unstable housing was raised, including the stress and upheaval associated with children leaving their friends and their schools.

Schools were seen by the children as places which have the potential to improve the well-being of children experiencing poverty and disadvantage – they see education as key to getting a good job and escaping poverty. They also recognised the importance of having affordable quality childcare and after-school programmes available so that their parents can work. The children talked about the importance of having parents, teachers and other adults encouraging their educational aspirations, and recognising the varied talents that all children have.

Improved accountability mechanisms for addressing child poverty: There was very strong support for the enactment of legislation (e.g. a Children’s Act) to formalise the process of setting targets to reduce child poverty, monitor progress, and report results. Feedback indicated that legislation would embed accountability mechanisms to ensure the continued focus on addressing child poverty in New Zealand, beyond electoral cycles. Numerous submitters referred to this as ‘de-politicising’ the child poverty issue.

I’m going to take up this issue of setting targets and monitoring progress under current news below. As a final extract:

Poor parenting decisions and practice: A small number of respondents indicated that child poverty was because of poor parenting decisions and practices, and poor parents should not have so many children. The EAG has taken a child-centred view, that regardless of the cause, children in poverty need our collective support to help them achieve their potential in the future. Many other respondents agreed that the wider community has responsibility to help reduce child poverty.

As expected not all submissions where from a leftie perspective. It’s good to see the report acknowledge this, and put the case for compassion so succinctly.

Plenty to reflect on in current news this week, primarily another major report by UNICEF – “Report Card 11: Child well-being in rich countries”. The NZ press release is here, and the full report is here (pdf). From the press release:

A new UNICEF report launched today, which looks at the state of children in the world’s most advanced economies, shows that a great deal more could be done to improve child wellbeing in New Zealand.

Report Card 11, the latest in the series from UNICEF’s Innocenti Office of Research, also highlights that government policy is significant across the industrialised world in determining many aspects of child wellbeing, with some countries doing much better than others at protecting their most vulnerable children.

The comparative data for New Zealand shows we are:

  • Ranked 32 out of 34 countries for young people who are not in any form of education, training or employment (NEETS)
  • Ranked 21 out of 35 countries for levels of child poverty, above Italy and Canada but below the UK and Australia.
  • Ranked 25 out of 34 countries for young people (aged 15-19 years) who are participating in higher education, ahead of Australia and the UK but below Spain and Greece.
  • Ranked 24 out of 35 countries for general homicide (deaths per 100,000) which has an impact on children’s safety and development. Australia, the UK and most European countries have fewer homicides per 100,000 than New Zealand.
  • Ranked 25 out of 35 countries for child health and safety (includes infant mortality and low birth weight, national immunization levels and death rate of children and young people).

Barbara Lambourn, National Advocacy Manager at UNICEF New Zealand, commented  … “It’s clear from the comparisons where New Zealand is measured, that there is much progress yet to be made on the wellbeing of our youngest citizens. The report makes it clear that the costs of not safeguarding child wellbeing are a burden to the whole of society – not just for children growing up in poverty or deprivation.

“As the report shows, a country’s GDP is not strongly related to children’s wellbeing. A government’s choice to have policies which enhance and support child wellbeing is much more significant.

That point is worth repeating in a LOUD VOICE. It is the choices of the government that have the most impact on child poverty.

The report also shows what is achievable when governments commit to a plan of action to make children’s rights and wellbeing a priority. The country at the top of the overall table for child wellbeing is the Netherlands, with Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland placed next. The UK has also risen from the bottom of the table in 2007 (21 out of 21 countries) to mid-table (16 out of 29 countries). It introduced a Child Poverty Act in 2010, which has national targets and a national strategy for reducing poverty. Romania is at the bottom of the table. New Zealand does not feature in this overall rankings table for child wellbeing due to data requirements.

Ms Lambourn said, “It’s no surprise that the Netherlands comes out as the clear leader and is the only country ranked among the top five in all dimensions of child wellbeing. The Netherlands has a long standing political and social consensus about the importance of families and children, with universal support for the role of parenting.”

It is in this context that the choices of this National government are so particularly disgusting. For example, they know all about the importance of monitoring and goals when it comes to beneficiary bashing:

Mr English said the valuation [of benefit costs] was an important “performance tool” and would change the behaviour of the Government by forcing it to confront the long-term issue rather than accepting it was an unavoidable cost. … “When you take a long-term model, there’s no place to hide.”

But when it comes to measuring poverty:

Yesterday Prime Minister John Key also ruled out new legislation which would set out an official measure of child poverty and require the Government to set a target to reduce it. That legislation was considered a critical “first step” by the Children’s Commissioner Expert Advisory Panel.

When questioned about having an official measure of child poverty Paula Bennet, Minister for Social Development, can only giggle like an idiot. “Gosh!”.

As the UNICEF report makes abundantly clear, a government’s choices have a huge effect on poverty. As the Nats’ choices make abundantly clear, they don’t even want to measure the problem – they literally don’t want to know.

Here’s the standard footnote. Poverty (and inequality) were falling (albeit too slowly) under the last Labour government.   Now they are on the rise again, in fact a Waikato University professor says that poverty is our biggest growth industry.

Before the last election Labour called for a cross party working group on poverty. Key turned the offer down.  Report after report after report has condemned the rate of poverty in this country, and called on the government to act. Meanwhile 40,000 kids are fed by charities and up to 80,000 are going to school hungry. National has responded with complete denial of the issues, saying that the government is already doing enough to help families feed their kids. Organisations working with the poor say that Key is in poverty ‘la la land’.

The Nats refuse to even measure the problem (though they certainly believe in measurement and goals when it suits them to bash beneficiaries). In a 2012 summary of the government’s targets and goals John Armstrong wrote: “Glaringly absent is a target for reducing child poverty”…

The costs of child poverty are in the range of $6-8 Billion per year, but the Nats refuse to spend the $2 Billion that would be needed to really make a difference. Even in purely economic terms National’s attitude makes no sense.

12 comments on “Poverty Watch 27 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. fender 1
    14 April 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Sad state of affairs when the government won’t take that critical first step but will run to assist movie makers and the like.

  2. red blooded 2
    14 April 2013 at 2:06 pm

    The report makes interesting reading. One thing to note is that we simply do not keep statistics on a number of the variable measured (e.g., children eating fruit at least once a day, being involved in a fight, percentage of pre-schoolers enrolled in preschool education…) and so are not included in a number of the comparative tables and discussions. Having said that, we do very well in some things (4th for standard of educational achievement by the age of 15 – not exactly a failing education system!), but quite low numbers of teenagers 15-19 enrolled in further study or employed and very high pregnancy rates for the same age group (31st, I seem to remember, i.e.. only 4 worse than us).

    I do find the reporting of findings given in the UNICEF overview somewhat confusing – does being 30th out of 35 for a particular social ill mean that you are in fact 5th in terms of combating that ill? This isn’t clear until one looks at the stats/tables.

    One thing that stands out in section after section of the report is that it is the very poorest countries measured and the richest (the US) who do the worst in housing, caring for, educating and providing a future for their children. Given that this is the case, why oh why do we want to emulate their system? (Anyone who argues that putting unqualified teachers in front of educationally disadvantaged kids is the way to lift them up needs to take another look at this report and ask themselves how well it’s working in the States…)

  3. Jenny 3
    15 April 2013 at 5:04 am

    A HUGE Feed The Kids Breakfast is being organised for Wednesday 17th April, Ngati Otara Park, Otara from 9am:

    A huge Feed the Kids Breakfast is being organised to promote Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira’s private members bill which is due to be raised in parliament sometime in May. This bill if passed would provide for all kids to have breakfast and lunch at school – starting with decile one and two schools.

    If Japan can do it, Why can’t we?

    Several local schools will be sending thousands of kids; food is being provided by large food companies; the council and other groups are providing buses, sound system, stage and hugely popular entertainers such a JGeek (hugely popular with kids) will be performing for the children – all for free. All the school children attending will be fed a healthy breakfast and when they leave each will take away their lunch in a paper bag!

    Volunteers are needed for this important political event!

    · Tuesday 16th April – 5pm to 7pm – making the lunches – Hillary Collegiate, Franklyne Road, Otara.

    · Wednesday 17th – 7am to 11am – organising the breakfast – Ngati Otara Park, Franklyne Road, Otara.

    We need lots more people to help feed the kids. Can you help? Can you afford not to be there? It will be a great day to remember!!!!!

    • Mary 3.1
      16 April 2013 at 1:08 am

      Is Mana’s position on Hone’s Bill that the food in schools programme is eventually extended across all deciles? Or is it just about restricting it to the lower deciles?

      • Jenny 3.1.1
        16 April 2013 at 1:49 am

        The eventual position is that it be extended across all deciles as is done in Japan and and other countries.

        That school provided meals become part of all children’s education as of right.

        I recently attended a public seminar on the subject of meals in schools held at Auckland University. Where those with experience of such programmes spoke of children who came to the school’s breakfast one week and but then were not seen there again. They were still coming to school hungry. They were just too ashamed of being identified as so.

        One of the reasons that the eventual policy target is to make it universal, is to remove the stigma.

        For tactical reasons the policy is to roll the program out at the poorer schools. Those behind the movement for school provided meals (and they are not all Mana supporters, as the sectarians in the Labour Party believe), felt it was would be more politically acceptable to the electorate to limit it to the poorer schools.

        • Mary 3.1.1.1
          16 April 2013 at 10:02 am

          That’s good to hear. I would’ve been skeptical if it were low deciles only, adding to the us and them/haves and have nots divide. Moving it across all deciles dispenses with that making it more a cultural aspect to our education system overall. Good.

  4. Jenny 4
    15 April 2013 at 5:29 am

    At the present the above major event is being starved of publicity by the mainstream media.

    2,500 children from a number of schools are confirmed to attend.

    Large support from major business donors are supplying the food.

    Hugely popular entertainers have volunteered their time.

    Dozens of volunteers have made a huge effort, many of them taking unpaid time off work.

    Yet nothing from the MSM or even the blogosphere.

    The purpose of this event is to give publicity to the Feed the Children bill due up in parliament in the first week in June.

    But a deliberate silence has descended. The MSM is doing their best to starve this campaign of the oxygen of publicity.

    I sickens me that so called leftist bloggers are also refusing to publicise the campaign feed children in schools. An affordable single act that could directly relieve the effects of growing childhood poverty.

    Hopefully Anthony despite your silence before hand, you will be publishing reports after the event.

    A number of major countries feed all their children who attend school as of right.

    If you were sincere in fighting poverty Anthony you would give this major event some publicity on your site.

    You would be urging all your readers of what ever political persuasion to attend as volunteer helpers and supporters.

    Come on Anthony give this huge event some publicity. Don’t sacrifice the needs of the children on the alter of narrow sectarian self interest.

  5. Jenny 5
    15 April 2013 at 5:48 am

    Look at the pitiful number of comments your regular columns on poverty receive. Anthony.

    It just shows the lack of interest you are generating, on this issue. You might as well do nothing.

    Come on do Anthony write about something with effect in the real world.

    No doubt people will moan about the cost.

    “It’s unaffordable”, they will say. (That is if you give them a chance to say anything, by raising this issue.)

    But for less than the daily cost of our deployment in Afghanistan, we could provide good meals for every single child that attends school in this country.

    Did Helen Clark worry about the cost before she committed our troops to Afghanistan?

    Did idea of the expense even cross John Key’s mind when he committed us to war on North Korea?

    No expense is spared for war.

    For pointless wars in foreign lands. For both Labour and National money is no object, the expense is not even a consideration. But for something worthwhile that enriches lives… All of sudden the politicians of both sides of the house are exposed as penny pinching misers, begrudging the cost and moaning about every single penny.

    NO WONDER ANTHONY THAT YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR SILENCE

  6. KJT 6
    15 April 2013 at 8:25 am

    Jenny.

    Have you considered the small number of comments are because we agree with the posts.

    And the usual RWNJ’s have nothing to counter them!

    On my part I don’t have much to add except +10.

    And re-posting poverty watch where I can.

    • Jenny 6.1
      16 April 2013 at 12:51 am

      You all agree with ivory tower hand wringing, head shaking and tsk tsking?

      God help you all, if you ever do something concrete about it.

      We have fallen lower than I thought.

      • Jenny 6.1.1
        16 April 2013 at 12:57 am

        Tomorrow you will all have your chance to feed the kids.

        That is, if the silent hand wringers ever let you hear about it.

  7. Jenny 7
    16 April 2013 at 1:08 am

    Come on Anthony you still have a chance to redeem yourself.

    You have had more than a week. How about promoting the feed the kids campaign by putting it up as a post?

    Why not break through the MSM media black out.

    5 schools, 2,500 children, council supplied free buses, dozens of volunteers giving up half a days pay, full community support and backing. Huge local business support.

    Feed the kids needs your support, not your turned back.