When:  National Children’s Day, Sunday, 4 March, 7pm for 7.30pm start
Where:  Academy Cinema, 44 Lorne St Auckland (under the Central Library).
Cost:  $20 per ticket

There is a raffle on the night, too.  The prize is an annual family pass to  Auckland Zoo – imagine unlimited daytime entry to Auckland Zoo for  2 adults and up to 3 children for a whole year!  Raffle tickets are $2 each or three for $5. 

To purchase tickets:

- Direct Deposit: Kiwibank 38-9003-0066858-00 please use your name and number of tickets as a reference.  If you just want to make a donation, please use your name and ‘Appeal’.

- Cheque: Please address cheques to Child Poverty Action Group Inc, PO Box 5611, Wellesley Street, Auckland.

Please email admin@cpag.org.nz or telephone (09) 303 9260 and tell us your name and the number of tickets you require.  Electronic tickets can be emailed to you or you can pick up hardcopies them up on the night.

From all the team at CPAG - we look forward to see you at the Appeal Launch

CPAG spokesperson Dr Nikki Turner says that New Zealand is an outlier among developed countries.    

“Hospital admissions for infectious diseases have risen from approximately one fifth of all admissions in the early 1990s to now being more than one quarter of all admissions in the 2004-2008 period.  In contrast most developed countries are seeing trends of infectious diseases rates dropping. Young children consistently have the highest rates of infectious diseases, especially lower respiratory tract infections, skin infections and diarrhoeal infections.  Young children have admission rates 5 times higher than adolescents and adults.”

CPAG is concerned that as the government seeks to economise by cutting social services, the health of vulnerable young children will continue to deteriorate.

“Poverty has a strong effect on health, and is most marked for those in the greatest poverty. Maori and Pacific children have double the risk of being admitted for infectious diseases, and this has been increasing over time.

“As the government is consulting on vulnerable children, this research very clearly shows that poverty, poor housing and lack of access to healthcare are the biggest risk factors for children. The clear increase in inequalities as measured both by socioeconomic markers and ethnicity is of significant concern, and needs to be addressed urgently,” says Dr Turner.

Child Poverty Action Group calls for an urgent rethink of fiscal policy.

CPAG agrees with the CTU that the tax switch policy has been an abject failure. The tax cuts have hugely increased income inequality, with higher GST impacting harshly on low income families.

The changes have been far from fiscally and distributionally neutral as was claimed by National.

“Worse still, since 1996 successive governments have withheld a significant part of the child-based family assistance from very low income families that could help with the costs of their children” says CPAG spokesperson Susan St John

First the Child Tax Credit (from 1996) and then its replacement, the In Work Tax Credit (from 2006) have been denied to those on benefits. Since 1996 this discrimination has saved the government around 5 billion dollars.

Denying these child-based payments to those who needed them most helped to create the surpluses of the 2000s which in turn funded the tax cuts to the rich.  Christchurch has since raised new needs and the recession has deepened. Now the coffers are bare and there are deficits with calls for cuts to welfare and public services.  This is just not fair to our poorest children.

In the current environment many more families find they don’t qualify for the In Work Tax Credit worth at least $60 a week, while others find it far too difficult to access. 

“CPAG says the only fair fiscal policy is one that raises taxes on the top income earners and wealth holders and redistributes this money back to the families in poverty.”  This would be beneficial not only for children but also economic activity and help to support struggling low income neighborhoods.

Budget Policy Statement 2012: view here

SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Left further behind: how policies fail the poorest children in New Zealand

A Child Poverty Action Group Monograph, available online click here

Edited by M. Claire Dale, Mike O’Brien and Susan St John, September 2011

Executive Summary

In 2008, Child Poverty Action Group produced Left Behind, which reflected the position of children in New Zealand. Three years later, the lack of substantial progress on so many issues facing children in this country leads us to rewrite and update that publication.  In this report we reflect what is required to ensure all children have the resources and opportunities to grow and to develop their potential. Recent years and recent policy approaches have focused heavily on supporting, and sometimes forcing, parents (especially lone parents) into paid work. The needs and interests of children require a much broader approach. And in the interests of both children and parents, the work of caring for children needs to be given adequate recognition and support. Children’s wellbeing must be central, whether parents are in paid work or not.

The core message of this publication is simple: ALL children, irrespective of the status and position of their parent/carer, are entitled to the best possible support from their parent/s and all New Zealand society. Together, we share the responsibility of ensuring that children are given that support. While charity can make a useful contribution to assist and support children and families experiencing particular stresses, it cannot solve the problem of poverty, and poverty is the major problem facing around 200,000 New Zealand children. That solution requires collective action from families and communities; and it requires a commitment from the Government to make investing in our children the highest priority.

This publication traverses a wide range of issues affecting our children, including: incomes, health, housing, education, parental support, social hazards, and the lack of job opportunities for young people; and is built around the idea of putting children at the centre of policy decisions. None of the issues can be tackled in isolation. A concerted and coordinated approach to reducing child poverty and improving the wellbeing and opportunities for all children is required. Without such an approach, children will suffer unnecessarily and New Zealand will be poorer economically, culturally and socially.

While each chapter addresses specific issues and recommendations for change (collected as a Summary at the end of this publication), seven key recommendations emerge:

• Monitor all major indicators of child poverty and report these on a regular basis with specific target reductions to be met on the way to ending child poverty by 2020; and fund child-impact assessments of existing and future national and local policies;
• Create a senior Cabinet position with responsibility for children, such as a Minister for Children, to support the move toward a child-centred approach to policy and legislation;
• Remove work-based rules for child financial assistance and pay the equivalent of the In-Work Tax Credit to all low income families. Simplify the administration of tax credits;
• Acknowledge the vital social and economic contribution made by good parenting: ensure that affordable, appropriate childcare and early childhood education, including kohanga reo and playcentres, is available for all children;  and ensure that training allowances support sole parents’ education where appropriate;
• Provide free access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to healthcare for all children under 6;
• The Government develops and funds a national housing plan to address the emerging housing shortages identified by the Department of Building. In the meantime, ensure that housing is affordable and appropriate (e.g. address overcrowding, dampness, cold);
• Provide adequate funding for low decile schools to ensure that all children have access to high quality education.

--

On the International Rugby Board World Rankings New Zealand is currently ranked 1^st out of 25 nations.  This is a great thing and something we can all be proud of.  In the ranking for Children’s Health and Safety (which looks at infant deaths, immunization rates, death from injuries) New Zealand is ranked 24^th out of 25 OECD nations.  This is an outrage and something for which we should all be ashamed. 

New Zealand has to start putting children at the centre of all our policy decisions. 

How many reports do we need to tell us that we aren’t doing enough for our children?  We know that much of the dire health and social statistics we see can be remedied by policy.  We allow inequalities to exist because the wrong policies are in place.  There is plenty of evidence about what is required.  Investment in our children in their early years has to be a top priority.  We know that if we get it right when children are young the benefits are life long.

Free primary health care for all children, good quality accessible and affordable early childhood education, increased provision for paid parental leave, an increase in minimum family incomes, breakfast in schools, ensuring all homes are healthy and fit for living, all of these initiatives would have immediate tangible benefits. 

At a local level people could support the fledging Child Friendly Cities initiative, or get involved with their local school food programme or sign the petitions started by Jazmine Heka and the Children Against Poverty movement. 

What our country needs is strong leadership with the same determination that was shown for the Rugby World Cup.  Then we will really make a difference.

The report gives New Zealand a C- for its efforts to deal with child poverty: 1 in 6 Pākehā, 1 in 4 Pacific, and 1 in 3 Māori children are now likely to live in relative poverty.

It gives a D for children and risk, and a C+ for children and violence: the report documents a massive increase in reported violence and neglect of children in the last year.

The connection between high rates of abuse and neglect and high rates of material hardship must be acknowledged.

We are in breach of our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  For example: the right to the protection and care necessary for the child’s well-being (Article 3); the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, (Article 26); the right to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development, and the duty of the government to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right (Article 27).

Past policy has concentrated the nation’s wealth and influence in the hands of a privileged few, reducing the wealth and well-being of the majority. 

Yet poverty increases the risk of children suffering abuse, neglect, ill-health, and being unable to access educational opportunities.

Green and White Papers are an attempt to raise public awareness. But we already know the problems, and we know the cure: address child poverty on all fronts: housing, health, education, and family income.

This Media Release is issued by Child Poverty Action Group Inc Aotearoa

See the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation Report, The Growing Divide: http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/research-media/social-policy-and-parliamentary-unit/state-of-nation-reports/the-growing-divide/

Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), along with dozens of other community organisations, contributed submissions, however the main thrust of many submissions was ignored as the WWG set out to prove New Zealand has an ‘unsustainable’ dependency problem, and that moving welfare recipients, and sole parents in particular, into paid work will make them and their children always and unambiguously better off.

A recurring theme throughout the WWG’s publications (Welfare Working Group, 2010a, 2010b, 2011) is that eliminating ‘dependency’ is necessary for the wellbeing of children, as are increased expectations and responsibilities for their parents. The only evidence for ‘dependency’ is provided in some misleading graphs (see for example Else, 2010). Yet the WWG provides figures showing New Zealand’s labour force participation rate (including the labour force participation of disabled persons) is high by OECD standards. This indicates that ‘dependency’ as measured by the proportion of the population not in paid work is not the problem that the WWG (2010a, p. 37; 55) claims it to be.

In common with welfare reform in other liberal welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990), including recent proposals in the UK, the WWG argues that sole parent beneficiaries ‘must take greater responsibility’, where ‘responsibility’ is compliance with putative societal norms. There is seldom any corresponding responsibility argued for the role that the state must take to alleviate poverty or ensure income security. Rather, proponents argue state spending ought to focus on supporting parents into paid work. Thus the WWG recommends, for example, increased funding for job seeker support, including early childhood care and education (ECCE, although the WWG refers to it as ECE), and after school programmes.

Research and evidence from budgeting agencies in low-income communities suggests that milk is increasingly a luxury item for many households. Yet it is an important source of nutrients for children, including protein, calcium, and some iron. While nutritionists recommend milk for children, for many families it is simply off the menu. Being able to get milk at school will improve many children’s nutrition and free up some household money for other essential items.

 CPAG researcher Donna Wynd notes that many children already get some milk through school breakfast programmes, but that it is good to see this getting a boost. But she also says that it falls far short of the need in low-decile schools for reliably and adequately funded breakfast programmes for the neediest children.

“While it is good that Fonterra is committed to this and to its school breakfast programme, the fact is that it is too little to fill the gap left by low household income and overworked parents. When is the government going to step up to the plate and help schools fund breakfasts in our poorest schools? This would be a much more cost-effective way of improving educational and health outcomes for children in low-income communities than charter schools. The benefit goes directly to those most in need, and the social aspects of school breakfast programmes also assist disadvantaged students with their schoolwork. Such a shame we have to rely on private sponsorship to help with what is a basic service in other countries. Our children are lucky Fonterra has chosen to help fill the gap,” she said.

KARL DU FRESNE dismisses the Bryan Bruce TV3 Inside New Zealand documentary on child poverty as emotive yet in fact all it revealed was the sad truth about New Zealand’s increasing betrayal of its reputation as a good place to raise children. 

Twenty years ago Ruth Richardson made the same criticism that ‘the welfare state is now part of the problem’.  Her radical cuts of welfare benefits produced very high rates of child poverty, unheard-of reliance on foodbanks, household overcrowding, and third world diseases.  Welfare reform did not work then and Du Fresne’s 2011 exhortations to grind down the poor won’t work either.

Du Fresne says “the documentary ignored the risk that more spending on benefits and state housing would serve to make a welfare-based lifestyle look more attractive and end up trapping even more people.”

But he is not critical of the much more attractive welfare state for those aged 65+ where even millionaires can expect a tax-funded payment higher than the unemployment benefit. Instead Du Fresne lauds the low benefit numbers of nearly 40 years ago. He ignores the facts that 1972 was a golden age of almost full employment. Families had more time together, women were encouraged to stay home to raise their children, and the state played a vital role in making housing affordable. Today the reality is fractured families, high rents and mortgages, GST on everything, recessions and earthquakes, and the highest level of unemployment since the late 1990s.

Of course child poverty is complex. But the value of Bruce's thesis was that blaming parents (including for not opening the windows for goodness sake!) for the intolerable poverty and deprivation of their children does not reduce this suffering and waste.

The documentary aided an emerging understanding that the key ingredients to a better future for our children are adequate weekly family assistance, good housing, affordable healthcare, and making sure children are well-nourished so they can learn. Providing these things for children does not make sole parenthood more likely. Nor does it suddenly make parents chose to be unemployed or become invalided or sick.

Post-election, National must see the need for a cross party agreement for immediate action on child poverty. As Bruce said: ‘it is an ethical and moral issue, not a political one’.

The documentary showed that housing is the number one priority if we want to improve our sorry record on third world diseases.  But let’s not forget that family money is important. The fact that some beneficiary families are dysfunctional does not justify a policy of income inadequacy for all beneficiary families. The vast majority of low income families want more than anything else to do the best by their children. They are just as deserving as superannuitants of decent support.

Working for Families had as its major objective a substantial reduction in child poverty. But the policy design ensured that poverty would be reduced only for a subset of poor children who were ‘deserving’ of assistance because their parents were not on benefits.

It is this kind of ineffective welfare system that should concern Du Fresne. He might also consider how difficult we have made it for sole parents to help themselves.

Let’s take Polly with 3 young children who can work at the very most 15 hours a week at $15 an hour. She has a student loan and has to pay for child-care. The gross $225 is taxed at 19.5% including ACC, her benefit is abated, and there is a 10% student loan repayment.  Of the first $100 she earns, she keeps $80.50, the second $100 yields a net $40.50 and the last $25 leaves her with a few cents only so she may as well not have worked those final 2 hours. Of course working 15 hours means her children do not benefit from the In-Work Tax Credit of  $60 a week which requires sole parents to have a minimum of 20 hours in paid employment and be off-benefit.

National thinks that is OK because she should really be working fulltime. While this is unrealistic until the children are older, let’s say she actually gets a 20 hour a week job and comes off the benefit. Let’s imagine she finds an employer happy to provide this work and flexible enough to allow time off for sick children and school holidays.

She now has a net income of $260 a week and even with the In-Work Tax Credit only gets by with the aid of another top-up tax credit: the Minimum Family Tax Credit.  This is worth $167 a week but reduces dollar for dollar if she earns any extra, providing an even worse disincentive than being on a part-benefit.

If, as is likely, Polly is unable to sustain a consistent 20 hours of work a week, she loses the tax credits for her children and has to claw her way back on a benefit.

Curiously, the cost to the tax-payer when she worked part time on a benefit was less than the cost to the taxpayer of her being ‘in work’.

Rather than indulging in tired anti-beneficiary rhetoric, Du Fresne could support alternative mechanisms like lower tax, higher minimum wage and lower abatement rates for benefits as effective reforms to promote work experience that  may lead in the future to full time employment.  

New Zealand has betrayed its proud history as a good place to bring up children. We should hang our collective heads in shame at our poor record for child health.

Too many children are living in quite unacceptable conditions, hospitalised in high numbers for diseases which have largely disappeared from OECD.

This is not a party issue; as the documentary said it is a moral and ethical issue. It is a question of whether there is the will to invest in children and their future.

CPAG calls on all politicians after the election to make children a top prioirty