Child poverty report a devastating reflection of our values – Editorial

Māori and Pasifika children are disproportionately impacted, with 31.0% of Pacific children and 25.1% of tamariki Māori experiencing material hardship.

How on earth did a nation that prides itself on being egalitarian get here?

Political history and policies provide insight and reveal just how important they are, beyond rhetoric. In 2017, the Labour Government led by Dame Jacinda Ardern introduced the Child Poverty Reduction portfolio. The changes were incremental, addressing poverty alongside increasing core benefits by about $30-$50 a week. This came on top of other benefit increases, such as the Families Package and the winter energy payment. The minimum wage, increased by every government since 2014, also went up.

But after three years of the Ardern Government, the annual child poverty monitor found 148,000 children lived in homes experiencing material hardship, the same number as when Labour took power. Children’s Commissioner at the time, Andrew Becroft, said the efforts had failed and the numbers had remained unchanged since the first report into child poverty in 2012.

Bolder action was required, Becroft said.

There was some hope in 2021 when it was reported that 43,300 children had been lifted out of poverty when using the after-housing-costs measure and compared to 2017. That is roughly the population of Whanganui.

But since then, child poverty has got worse.

This week the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, Louise Upston, managed to apply impoverished logic to a miserable reality, saying there was no radical increase in child poverty, ergo nothing to see here. Except there is.

In the coalition Government’s first year, child poverty numbers rose to 170,000 from 160,000 post-pandemic.

At best it suggests a blind spot; at worst, casual disregard for the welfare of our most vulnerable and for the big picture, which all New Zealanders should be acutely concerned about.

New Zealand’s rates of child poverty are three times worse than those that affect children in other developed countries. In Denmark, a wealthy European country for example, one-third fewer children live in material poverty compared with New Zealand.

There are multiple elements to poverty and there is no single measurement. It’s highly complex, but if we look at the bigger picture, how does child poverty impact in a broader societal and economic way?

Much like the interest on a debt with a loan shark, because you can’t afford to pay a surprise $500 bill, the wretchedness compounds. Poorer nutrition; lower education outcomes; compounding harm through health issues; worse mental health in a country that already ranks third in the world for child and adolescent suicide rates; homelessness; and ultimately, less economic growth.

Gone, too, the dreams and ambitions; the skills and tools to develop and grow. If the poorest children aren’t supported, they won’t have the tools to not only get through life but to thrive.

In 1980s New Zealand, Rogernomics championed the “neo-liberal” shift in politics – championed hyper individualism; the market will decide. In 1982, child poverty sat at around 14% – by 2013 it was 24%.

Homelessness nationally is at record rates and according to the Affordable Housing Database, New Zealand now has one of the highest rates among developed countries.

New Zealand is ranking high in all the wrong places. These statistics are eye-watering, and they make the Prime Minister’s political rhetoric about “Kiwis doing it tough” sound bafflingly out of touch. For material poverty we need material solutions – housing affordability, fairer tax and pay equity.

On Friday Christopher Luxon told the Rotorua business community that if businesses were not “retooling and radically disrupting” their business, “you ain’t doing your job”. This Government could say the same about itself on child poverty, and the lack of a radical or even gradual shift for the better in relation to child poverty.

The 1% should not reflect the wealthiest – that statistic should pertain to a low number of the poorest New Zealanders. That is radical thinking; that is disruption. When we can cite that statistic, then and only then can we say we are a fair society, and only then can we hold our heads high.