185,000 children living in poverty


Research by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) reveals that 185,000 children live in poverty in New Zealand.

There’s more. In the past 20 years New Zealand has had the fastest growing gap between rich and poor of any country in the developed world.

The link is obvious. The widening gap between rich and poor, like a slowly receding tide, has left those 185,000 children washed up.

This means there is a group of people half the population of Christchurch who are under-nourished, poorly housed, ill-fed and without the hope of participating fully in society. And for every child in this group there is at least one adult.

The problem I have, and where I think we should all feel uncomfortable, is that this situation is not an accident. It is the inevitable and foreseeable outcome of our actions as a society over two decades.

This number – 185,000 – should bury forever the myth of New Zealand as a land of equal opportunity. It also buries the last shreds of the social contract that prevailed during my childhood and youth. The terms of that contract were simple: those who were well off agreed to share some of their wealth with the less fortunate. It was, we told ourselves, the measure of a civilised society.

Poverty, especially the deep inter-generational poverty we are witnessing in New Zealand, is very difficult to overcome, but one crucial factor is money. 185,000 is the number of children living in families that receive less than 60% of the average household income which, in New Zealand, is already considerably lower than most of the countries we like to compare ourselves with.

The welfare state transferred money from rich to poor through taxes and benefits. It reflected a consensus that poverty was neither the fault of the poor, nor did they desire to remain forever dependent upon the state.

Perhaps the single biggest change in the past 20 years is the acceptance that the poor are to blame for their situation. To be a ‘beneficiary’ in New Zealand is to be cursed like an Old Testament leper.

The greatest blame is reserved for the unemployed. When the government introduced Working For Families in 2004 it elevated work as the crucial factor in determining social equity. To qualify for tax credits, Family Support and a range of other services you must have a job. “If you are working,” the government said, “we will top up your family income to a level where you can have a decent chance at life.”

Working For Families has been successful in reducing the number of people on the margins of poverty, but it has enabled other injustices to remain. It has shielded employers from the responsibility of providing a decent wage, and consigned many people to dull, repetitious, low-skilled employment that contributes little to our economy and nothing to their quality of life.

For the jobless Working For Families is a disaster because it streams government funding away from benefits.

Working For Families stems from the belief that the poor are idle and undeserving. But it is a mean-spirited society that does not recognise some legitimate reasons for not being in the work force. People should not be reduced to poverty because of long term illness or staying home to look after the kids.

Linking income support to jobs looks good in a buoyant market where jobs, even “McJobs”, are being created. I think we are about to see what happens when jobs start to disappear. The 450 meat workers who were laid off in Dannevirke this week have lost not only their jobs but also their access to Working For Families. Are they idle and undeserving?

I hold no hope that either Labour or National intends to reduce child poverty. Their policies reflect voter expectations and as a society we shrug off the problems of the poor. We forget that poverty is everybody’s problem. Poverty breeds crime, child abuse, ill health and ignorance. Morally, these are compelling reasons for change. As a purely fiscal argument it is much cheaper to lift people out of poverty than to pay for more prisons and hospitals.

Our politicians must hear the message that rather than cutting taxes they need to invest in some genuinely equitable social policy.

Ultimately this is about self respect. I am not proud to live in a country that turns its back on 185,000 children. Are you?