Eradicating child poverty
in New Zealand
30 June 2010
Table of contents
NB. Place the cursor in the chapter or section heading and press ‘Control’ and left
click your mouse to go directly to that section in the text
Introduction
Executive Summary
The case for ending child poverty
Improving outcomes for children
Inequalities in Health
Inequalities in Education
Political will needed
The current situation and recent trends
Policies having a negative impact
Ethnic breakdown of poverty rates
The households most likely to be in poverty
Working For Families
Increasing unemployment
Early Childhood Education
Housing
Sustained investment and coordination
What solutions should Every Child Counts advocate for?
What do Superannuitants get?
Priority advocacy platforms
Potential additional platforms
Conclusion
3
5
7
7
8
9
10
13
13
14
15
16
16
18
18
20
21
21
21
22
24
Tables
Table 1: The cost of not ending child poverty: A simplified map
Table 2: Child poverty rates by ethnicity, 2003/04
Table 3: Proportion of households with housing costs more than 30% of their
after-tax income, by income quintile
Table 4: Which children are in poverty?
12
14
18
26
Appendices
Appendix One: How is poverty defined and which children are in poverty?
Appendix Two: Recommendations from A Fair Go For All Children: Actions to
address child poverty in New Zealand, August 2008
Appendix three: Recommendations from The Public Health Advisory Committee,
June 2010
Appendix four: Recommendations from CRESA/ Public Policy Research to the
Centre for Housing Research, April 2010
Appendix Five: Working for Families Tax Credits, 2001 to 2008
References
2
25
27
29
31
33
34
Introduction
Children and young people who participated in the 2008 Photo: Voice project
with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Barnardos made the
following statements about child poverty:
“Poverty is the lack of something to make your life better.” – Young
people at Streets Ahead 237, Porirua
“Poverty to me means the children missing out.” – Majenta, Teen
parent, Whanganui
“Poverty is…Hard working parents but still unable to support their
family. Parents working too much and unable to spend time with their
children, missing special occasions like birthdays.” – Dunedin young
people
“We need to protect our future generation … their lives are physically,
emotionally and mentally damaged by poverty.” – Bessie, Paeroa
“People these days are finding it hard feeding their kids and paying
their finances. They have no money to spend on their kids or even
getting them into school and getting their uniform.” - Rangi, young
mother, Palmerston North
Many of the young people who participated in the Photo: Voice project, whose
voices are recorded in the statements above, are among those born in the
early 1990s, when child poverty started to rise significantly in Aotearoa New
Zealand.
Professor Innes Asher from the Child Poverty Action Group highlights the fact
that twice as many children are in poverty now compared with the 1980s, with
the tipping point being the early 1990s when benefit cuts and state house
sales took place. While some progress has been made recently to address
child poverty there is still a long way to go.
There is a strong case for action on child poverty. The following savings and
improved outcomes will be achieved when poverty is reduced:

Immediate reduction in hospital admissions

Less time off work

Lives saved

Less child abuse

Fewer young people on invalids benefits

Better adult health outcomes

Breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty

Better education, more productive work force
3

Better long-term economic prosperity1

Safer communities, and

Fewer prisons.
James Heckman, Nobel Economics Prize winner (2000), has said, “Early
disadvantage, if left untouched, leads to academic and social difficulties later
in life. Early advantages accumulate, just as early disadvantages do”. He
evaluated the public “return on investment,” and concluded that, viewed
purely as an economic development strategy, the return on investment to the
public of early childhood development programs “far exceeds the return on
most projects that are currently funded as economic development, such as
building sports stadiums or relocating businesses.”2
Since its inception in 2004, Every Child Counts has had as one of its core
policy platforms, “End child poverty.” We have advocated for children to be at
the centre of policy and planning on the grounds of sustainability and
economic good sense, as much as social justice. Child poverty is perhaps the
best example of the link between children’s wellbeing and the economy.
The Every Child Counts Steering Group has agreed that this issue is a priority
in Every Child Counts’ work in 2010/11. The purpose of this paper is to inform
the Steering Group and Project Team of the recent data on child poverty as
we shape a campaign to end child poverty. It provides a short Executive
Summary (pages 3-4) information about the reasons for prioritising child
poverty (pages 5-10); the current situation and recent trends (pages 11-19);
and the potential advocacy platforms for Every Child Counts to pursue (2022). This is an internal working paper not meant for publication.
Appendix One provides an explanation of the various fixed line (constant
value) and moving line (relative) poverty measures used by the Ministry of
Social Development. It also provides a breakdown of the household types in
which poverty is most prevalent.
Appendix Two provides a comprehensive list of potential solutions to child
poverty, compiled from recent reports.
Appendix Three provides detailed information about the support available
through Working For Families.
1
Prof Innes Asher, Child health and government policy, Speech to the Women’s International League
for Peace and Freedom, 19 June 2010, at www.cpag.org.nz
2
James Heckman, as quoted by Leslie J Calman and Linda Tarr, Early Childhood Education for All,
A Wise Investment; Recommendations arising from The Economic Impacts of Child Care and Early
Education: Financing Solutions for the Future.” At http://www.familyinitiative.org
4
Executive Summary
The factors that contribute to good health and development outcomes are all
impacted by local and central government policies, as well as the services
provided by community organisations such as NGOs, Churches and Iwi.
However, the UNICEF Innocenti Centre has reported that government policy
has the single biggest impact on child poverty. Economic growth is not the
only answer. Indeed, recent government policies demonstrate the impact
(both positive and negative) that policies can have. Policies such as incomerelated rents, the Accommodation Supplement, increasing participation in
Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), and Working For Families are
all having a positive impact.
However, relative child poverty still sits at 22 percent, meaning about 237,000
children are living in hardship. This has real negative impacts on their health,
education, and wellbeing.
It is timely for Every Child Counts to campaign for progress to end child
poverty by increasing public awareness of the issue and securing cross-party
political agreement on the policies that are needed.
2008 figures show there was an increase in child poverty in 2007-2008 due to
rising housing costs. For those on low incomes, the recessionary period has
been difficult and the prospect of increasing GST, power prices and other
living costs means children in poverty may be further disadvantaged.
Further, unemployment is increasing and the government is currently
implementing changes to social welfare laws that may have unintended
negative consequences for children in beneficiary homes. The Human Rights
Tribunal has found that the inability of beneficiaries to access the Working For
Families In-Work Tax Credit constitutes real and substantive discrimination
against children.
Child poverty is giving large groups of children an uneven start, with lasting
consequences for all of society. Despite this, public spending on people in
the last two years of life is five times greater than the investment in the early
years.3
Current data4 show:
Using the 60% ‘moving line’ (relative) measure (BHC) – as is used in the
EU:

3
the child poverty rate fell from 26 percent in 2004 to 20 percent in
2007 (as a result of Working For Families (WFF)), reversing the
upward trend that began in the late 1990s and continued through to
2004
Public Health Advisory Committee, 2010, p6
4
Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, 1982
to 2008, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington, June 2009, pp8-9
5

in 2008 the rate had risen slightly to 22 percent - this rise reflects
the impact of the strong rise in the median income from 2007 to
2008, which was greater than the impact of extra income for below
median households from the final phase of the implementation of
the WFF package (i.e. median income rose but for those on low
incomes, WFF wasn’t sufficient to enable them to keep up).
Using the 60% ‘fixed line’ (constant value) measure (AHC) – as in the
Social Report:

the child poverty rate peaked at 35 percent in 1994, fell to 23
percent in 2004 and 16 percent in 2007, then rose to 20 percent in
2008, consistent with the rise in housing costs relative to income

the poverty rate for children in families with at least one adult in fulltime paid employment was 10 percent in 2008, down from 14
percent in 2004 and 20 percent in 1994

for children in families with no adult in paid employment the rate
was 67 percent in 2008, down from 77 percent in 1994, but up from
around 60 percent in 2004 and 2007

in 2004, of all children identified as poor, around half were from
households where at least one adult was in full-time paid
employment - in 2008, this proportion had dropped to a third

poverty rates for children in sole parent households are always
much higher than for those in two parent households (52 percent
and 13 percent respectively in 2008), although both rates are lower
than in 2001 (74 percent and 21 percent), and lower than the peak
in 1994 (76 percent and 29 percent)

around one in three sole parent families live in wider households
with other adults - for children living in these households there is a
lower risk of being in poverty than for those in sole parent families
living on their own, because of the wider household resources
available to them (25 percent and 49 percent respectively in 2008)

children in households with three or more children are at higher risk
of being in poverty compared with those in households with one or
two children, although the gap had narrowed in 2008 compared with
2001 and earlier.
6
The case for ending child poverty
Improving outcomes for children
Good health and development outcomes for children depend on how well
families’ basic needs are met, the strength of families’ social and cultural
connections, families’ access to quality services and facilities, and families’
economic security.5 Families in poverty subsist without their basic needs
being met, and without the connections and security that would make life
easier.
The factors that contribute to good health and development outcomes are all
impacted by local and central government policies, as well as the services
provided by community organisations such as NGOs, Churches and Iwi.
However, the UNICEF Innocenti Centre has reported that government policy
has the single biggest impact on child poverty. Economic growth is not the
only answer. Indeed, recent government policies demonstrate the impact
(both positive and negative) that policies can have.
Policies such as income-related rents, the Accommodation Supplement, and
Working for Families (WFF) have all impacted positively. At the same time,
however, benefits has not been indexed to wages or prices, New Zealand’s
after tax distribution is one of the most unequal in the OECD and the design of
the income tax system, including tax credits for children6 currently leave
beneficiary children without the additional support they need.
Essentially, failure to address child poverty is a political decision. However,
governments will always argue that they are constrained by economic realities
and by the political mood of the electorate. It is important, that New Zealand
has a strong economy and employment growth, but it is essential that New
Zealanders understand
i)
that these factors alone do not eliminate child poverty, and
ii)
the compelling case for investing in specific policies to end child
poverty, and support the government in doing so.
Children who grow up poor have worse employment and earnings outcomes
than others, partly because of the impact on educational attainment. This
creates wide-ranging costs for society – higher welfare, remedial adult
education and other costs:


A child growing up in a low-income household has on average a 1.4
times higher risk of dying during childhood than a child from a highincome household.
Developmental delay and illnesses such as gastroenteritis, ear
infections and rheumatic fever are more prevalent among poor
children.
5
Public Health Advisory Committee, The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health
and wellbeing, A report to the Minister of Health, Wellington, June 2010, p vii
Dr Susan St John, “Lessons from the Tax Working Group” in “Children” Autumn 2010, No, 72,
Wellington, April 2010, p9
6
7






Poverty during childhood has lasting effects on adult health (higher
rates of heart disease, alcohol and drug dependence, oral health).
Poverty means poor nutrition (well-being, physical and mental
development, obesity), cold or overcrowded housing, and barriers
to accessing health services.
Poverty is correlated with higher risks of physical abuse and neglect
of children. US estimates suggest children in poverty are 44 times
more likely to suffer neglect and 14 times more likely to be harmed
by some form of abuse. Violence and chronic neglect tend to
escalate in the presence of other social problems, and are
sometimes linked with poverty, overcrowded housing, alcohol and
drug abuse.
Poverty often means fewer resources and sources of stimulation,
which are vital for early cognitive development. 7
The highest rates of partner abuse tend to be found among young
co-habiting adults in low socio-economic status, particularly when
they have children.8
Adult unemployment, welfare dependence, violence and ill health
are largely the results of negative factors in the early years. These
experiences often negatively affect the next generation of children.9
Poverty has a very real negative impact on the lives of those who live it
everyday. The impact is especially damaging on young children who are in
vulnerable stages of physical and psychological development in the early
years.
The Children’s Social Health Monitor reports that 53.9 percent of children had
lived with a caregiver who was reliant on a benefit some time in their first 7
years of life, with 24.5 percent having their first contact with a benefit at birth,
and 38.7 percent by one year of age.10 This means that a significant
proportion of tomorrow’s workforce is being raised in homes reliant on
(inadequate) benefits for at least some of their early childhood.
Inequalities in Health
In a 2009 report from the OECD, Doing Better for Children, New Zealand
ranked 29th out of 30 countries for child health and safety. The report
illustrates the fact that New Zealand’s child disease patterns are closer to
those of developing nations.11
7
Michael Fletcher and Maire Dwyer, A Fair Go For All Children: Actions to Address Child Poverty, for
the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Barnardos NZ, Wellington, August 2008
Office of the Children’s Commissioner, The economic position of children in “Children” Autumn 2010,
No, 72, Wellington, April 2010, p4
8
9
Public Health Advisory Committee, The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health
and wellbeing, A report to the Minister of Health, Wellington, June 2010, p3
Liz Craig, The New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor, NZ Child and Youth Epidemiology
Service, Auckland, 2009, p11
10
11
Public Health Advisory Committee, 2010, p3
8
The New Zealand infant mortality rate for those in the least deprived
neighbourhoods (Deciles 1-4 of the NZ Index of Deprivation) is the same as
the rates for Norway and Japan, two of the best-performing countries.
However, for those in the most deprived neighbourhoods (Deciles 9 and 10 of
the New Zealand Index of Deprivation), the infant mortality rate is worse than
that of all but two OECD countries (Mexico and Turkey).12
Similar health disparities are evident when we look at rates of rheumatic fever,
serious skin infections, bronchiectasis, Sudden Unexplained Infant Death in
Infancy (SUDI/ cot death), and pneumonia. These health outcomes are
hardly surprising when 2004 figures estimate that around 375,000 New
Zealand children were living in dwellings that were likely to be cold, damp and
expensive to heat.13
Important influences on child health, such as income levels, good-quality
housing and access to services, are inequitably distributed across New
Zealand families, giving different groups of children in New Zealand an
uneven start.14
New Zealand’s health outcomes are low in part because gaps have widened
between the health statuses of different groups in our communities over the
past three decades. Maaori and Pacific children have two to three times
poorer health than non-Maaori, non-Pacific children. Children in very lowincome families, children of beneficiaries and children of prisoners also have
worse health than other children.15
Inequalities in Education
The disparities evident in health outcomes are also evident in education
outcomes. During 2006, 17.2 percent of children attending the most deprived
(Decile 1) schools had not attended early childhood education. In the most
affluent (Decile 10) schools, only 0.9 percent had not attended early childhood
education.16
The Ministry of Education has said that family income during early childhood
(0-5 years) also affects educational achievement during primary school, even
if income subsequently improves during this time.17 Liz Craig argues that the
marked ethnic disparities in children’s educational attainment, with European
and Asian children consistently achieving at higher levels than Maaori and
Pacific children, are likely to also be due to socioeconomic factors.18
12
ibid. p4
13
Bev James and Kaye Saville-Smith, Children’s Housing Futures, Public Policy & Research / CRESA,
for the Centre for Housing Research, Aotearoa New Zealand, Wellington, April 2010, pii
14
Public Health Advisory Committee, 2010, p5
15
ibid. pvii
16
Liz Craig, C Jackson, DY Han, NZCYES Steering Committee, Monitoring the Health of New Zealand
Children and Young People: Indicator Handbook, Auckland, 2007, p94
17
ibid. p97
9
The Competent Children study in New Zealand confirms research from other
countries that children who attend good quality Early Childhood Care and
Education (ECCE), perform on average better in later educational attainment.
Children living in deprived circumstances are likely to benefit greatly from
participation in good quality early childhood education, because it provides
access to resources and learning that may be absent from the home.
Michael Fletcher and Maire Dwyer emphasise the fact that access to
affordable, reliable, good quality ECCE services has a second benefit: it is
critical in allowing parents, especially sole parents and second earners, to
take up paid employment.19 However, in 2008 they reported that there were
still only enough full-time equivalent places in ECCE for about half of all
children under five. More importantly there were very large regional
disparities in provision, with low-income communities having fewer services.
Manukau City, for example, which has high rates of child poverty and soleparent families, has full-time equivalent places for only about one-third of
children under five.20
In 1996, 39 percent of Maaori students left school with little or no
qualifications. For Pacific students, the rate peaked at 27.4 percent in 1998.
Both of these rates have reduced with the introduction of NCEA. The number
of Maaori and Pacific students leaving without a qualification registered on the
National Qualifications Framework has decreased by 9 percent and 4 percent
respectively since 2004.21
Political will needed
Pervasive disparities and poor outcomes represent significant costs to those
involved, and to tax-payers, yet they are almost entirely preventable. And
despite the availability of evidence of the serious harms caused by poverty
and poor health in the early years, public spending on people in the last two
years of their lives is five times greater than the investment in early
childhood.22
This is not only inequitable, but on all of the available evidence it would seem
also to be unwise and unsustainable.
Increasing understanding about the impact of child poverty should motivate
government, political parties, the business sector, and all New Zealanders to
support actions that address child poverty. However, it is only very recently
that governments have acknowledged child poverty and for this reason it may
take time to achieve genuine engagement.
Bryan Perry says, “As recently as 1996, the government of the time in New
Zealand was openly disapproving of any poverty discourse.23 However, in
18
19
ibid. p97
Michael Fletcher and Maire Dwyer, 2008, p34
20
ibid. p35
21
Ministry of Education website www.minedu.govt.nz accessed 29 June 2010
22
Public Health Advisory Committee, 2010, p6
23
New Zealand Herald, 13 April 1996.
10
2002, in the context of the Agenda for Children, the government made a
commitment to eliminate child poverty, and in the Speech from the Throne in
November 2005, the Governor-General described the Working for Families
package as “the biggest offensive on child poverty New Zealand has seen for
decades”. The current National-led government, like the previous Labour-led
government, espouses the principle that ‘paid work is the best way to reduce
child poverty’.24 New Zealand does not however have an official poverty
measure.”25
Only recently has the Ministry of Health commissioned the NZ Child and
Youth Epidemiology Service (NZCYES) and the Paediatric Society to develop
a set of indicators to comprehensively measure and monitor child and youth
health. The first indicator handbook, Monitoring the Health of New Zealand
Children and Young People was published in 2007. Liz Craig of the NZCYES
also provides monitoring reports to District Health Boards to inform their
health service delivery. An updated national report is expected in early 2011.
In 2009, the NZCYES was part of a working group of health professionals
which came together to develop a suite of indicators to monitor the impact of
the recession on child wellbeing, called the Child Health Social Monitor. This
work is being repeated annually until the economic position of New Zealand
children improves appreciably.26
Continuing investment in this research is essential to our ability to assess the
impact of policies on children and determine the solutions that will end child
poverty.
Professor David Piachaud of the London School of Economics has said,
“Properly understood, use of the term ‘poverty’ carries with it an implication
and moral imperative that something should be done about it.” (1987:161).
Every Child Counts has made a commitment to a policy platform that calls for
an end to child poverty. We know there is a strong case for political action on
this issue, as the table on the next page confirms, but not having an official
measure and not fully acknowledging child poverty has allowed successive
governments to turn a blind eye.
Costs to the child
Impact of
poverty in
childhood



material and social hardship
higher incidence of mental and
physical illnesses
higher incidence of accidental
injury, physical abuse and
neglect
Consequences for society and for
social spending


extra spending on preventable
child problems – eg. health,
remedial education
extra services, problems in
school, spending on protective
care, anti-social behaviour,
See speech by John Key in August 2008, and “National’s Benefits Policy Backgrounder” available at
www.national.org.nz
24
25
Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of inequality and hardship,
1982 to 2008, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington, June 2009, p63
26
Liz Craig, 2009, p13
11


Future
consequences

childbearing when young and
unsupported.
knock-on effect on
development during childhood
social exclusion – reduced
aspirations, loss of confidence.
greater chance of material
hardship in adulthood, linked to
continuing disadvantage
poorer health in adulthood,
psychological wellbeing, ability
to achieve life goals
consequences for own
children.

extra spending on long-term
consequences such as poor
health, crime


reduced economic capacity
resulting from failure of individuals
to reach potential


further spending on poverty
caused by intergenerational cycle
of disadvantage.
Adapted from Hirsch (2006), From A Fair Go For All Children: Actions to address child poverty, Fletcher
and Dwyer (2008)
Table 1: The cost of not ending child poverty: A simplified map
12
The current situation and recent trends
The Office of the Children’s Commissioner says, “In terms of income poverty
on various measures, children have been the group most likely to be in
poverty in the last 20 years. Children bore the brunt of the economic impact
of changes in the early 1990s. Their poverty rate increased to 35 percent
(using poverty line of 60% of median household income after housing costs).
This position is reflected in the living standards data where children are the
group most likely to be in serious hardship – to be in homes where doctor’s
visits are postponed and where there is not enough income for essentials like
food at the end of the pay period. Younger children are relatively ‘deeper’ in
poverty than any other group (that is further below the poverty line).”27
The 2008 child poverty rate, using the measure of 60 percent of median
income after housing costs (AHC) is 22 percent, or approximately 237,000
children. The rate is much higher in sole-parent households, or households
where nobody is working.
When considered in dollar terms, 60 percent of the median income AHC
(allowing for inflation) is likely to be in the order of:
$360 per week for a single parent and one child
$450 per week for a single parent with two children
$557 per week for two parents with two children.
With increases to GST, power prices, gas, and housing it is clear that families
on these incomes would not have room to move in the event of unexpected
demands on their incomes, such as doctor’s fees.
Policies having a negative impact
In her analysis of the policies that have adversely affected the incomes of low
income households with children, Innes Asher identifies28:

Low wages and relatively high taxes for low income families

Family income support inadequate for low income families

No indexing of family income support for 20 years (1989-2008)

The universal family benefit was abolished in 1991
In addition, beneficiary families are treated very harshly:

Benefits were cut by 21 percent in 1991 and not restored relatively
Office of the Children’s Commissioner, The economic position of children in “Children” Autumn 2010,
No, 72, Wellington, April 2010
27
28
Innes Asher, 2010
13

The child tax credit introduced in 1996 excluded children of
beneficiaries

The 2007 Working for Families In Work Tax Credit isn’t available to
beneficiaries.
These policies have created what Prime Minister John Key himself called an
“underclass.” Certainly, they have entrenched disparities in the life prospects
of large groups of children and resulted in some groups have an uneven start.
Ethnic breakdown of poverty rates
Unfortunately the most recent child poverty rates by ethnicity dates as far
back as 2003/04. Nevertheless, the data provides an indication of the
proportion of Maaori and Pacific children compared with other children:
Ethnicity of child
Child poverty rate*
Pakeha/European
16%
Maori
27%
Other (including Pacifica children)
40%
All children
23%
*Using 60 percent of constant value median income after housing costs
Table 2: Child poverty rates by ethnicity, 2003/0429
Population projections show that the ethnic profile of our children will change.
Between 2006 and 2026, the children described as ‘European’ or ‘Other’ in
the census are likely to decrease from 645,000 to 577,000.
The numbers of Maaori and Pacific children will increase steadily, but the
number of Asian children is likely to double between 2006 and 2026.
The number of children in 2026 in each of those ethnic categories is projected
to be30:
Maaori children – 260,000 making up 32 percent of the Maori
population;
Asian children – 165,000 making up about 22 percent of the Asian p
opulation;
Pacific children – 164,000.making up about 34 percent of the Pacific
population.
29
Michael Fletcher and Maire Dwey, 2008, p25
Bev James and Kaye Saville-Smith, Children’s Housing Futures, Public Policy & Research / CRESA,
for the Centre for Housing Research, Aotearoa New Zealand, Wellington, April 2010 pp133-134
30
14
A significant proportion of both the Maaori and Pacific populations will be
children. With such young populations, it is essential that Maaori and Pacific
families live in houses, communities, and socio-economic circumstances that
support children’s optimal development, including connections with their
cultures through fanau/ whaanau, hapuu, and iwi.
The households most likely to be in poverty
Bryan Perry’s analysis31 highlights the particular plight of children in particular
household types (e.g. sole-parent households), and also illustrates clearly
how government policies directly impact on poverty.
Using the 60% ‘moving line’ (relative) measure (BHC) – as is used in the
EU:

the child poverty rate fell from 26 percent in 2004 to 20 percent in
2007, reversing the upward trend that began in the late 1990s and
continued through to 2004

in 2008 the rate had risen slightly to 22 percent - this rise reflects the
impact of the strong rise in the median income from 2007 to 2008,
which was greater than the extra income provided to below median
households from the final phase of the WFF package (i.e. median
income rose but for those on low incomes, WFF wasn’t sufficient to
enable them to keep up).
Using the 60% ‘fixed line’ (constant value) measure (AHC) – as in the
Social Report:
31

the child poverty rate peaked at 35 percent in 1994, fell to 23 percent in
2004 and 16 percent in 2007, then rose to 20 percent in 2008, as a
result of a rise in housing costs relative to income

the poverty rate for children in families with at least one adult in fulltime paid employment was 10 percent in 2008, down from 14 percent
in 2004 and 20 percent in 1994

for children in families with no adult in paid employment the rate was
67 percent in 2008, down from 77 percent in 1994, but up from around
60 percent in 2004 and 2007

in 2004, of all children identified as poor, around half were from
households where at least one adult was in full-time paid employment
- in 2008, this proportion had dropped to a third

poverty rates for children in sole parent households are always much
higher than for those in two parent households (52 percent and 13
percent respectively in 2008), although both rates are lower than in
2001 (74 percent and 21 percent), and lower than the peak in 1994 (76
percent and 29 percent)

around one in three sole parent families live in wider households with
other adults - for children living in these households there is a lower
Bryan Perry, 2009, pp8-9
15
risk of being in poverty than for those in sole parent families living on
their own, because of the wider household resources available to them
(25 percent and 49 percent respectively in 2008)

children in households with three or more children are at higher risk of
being in poverty compared with those in households with one or two
children, although the gap had narrowed in 2008 compared with 2001
and earlier.
Working For Families
Working For Families (WFF) reduced after housing costs inequality in the
2004-2008 period and this is this is the only period in the last 25 years when
low to middle household incomes have risen more quickly than incomes
above the middle.32
412,500 families received WFF in the 2009 tax year, which included 71,700
who received an end of year lump sum payment. The number receiving an
end of year lump sum payment will increase as 2009 end of year
assessments continue to be received and processed.33
Beneficiaries are entitled to a Family Tax Credit, but they are not entitled to a
Working For Families In Work Tax Credit.
The inability of beneficiaries to access the In Work Tax Credit sparked a
complaint from the Child Poverty Action Group. The Human Rights Tribunal
in 2008 found this policy constitutes real and substantive discrimination
against children.34
Increasing unemployment
According to MSD data, at the end of December last year there were 230,642
children living in benefit dependent households. This is an increase of 13
percent since June 2007 or just over 27,000 more children living in hardship in
just over two years.35 So, significant numbers of children are being
discriminated against with the In Work Tax Credit policy at a time when
growing numbers of children need additional support.
Economists such as David Grimmond of Infometrics have described
unemployment as a “lag” indicator, meaning that while our economy is starting
to grow (0.6 percent increase in GDP in the last quarter), there may still be an
increase in unemployment (and therefore beneficiaries), in the year ahead.
All of the data points to the hardship children experience in homes dependent
on benefits.
32
33
Bryan Perry, 2009, p6
Advice from Catherine De Lore at Inland Revenue by email to Deborah Morris-Travers, 30 June 2010
Prof Innes Asher, Child health and government policy, Speech to the Women’s International League
for Peace and Freedom, 19 June 2010
34
Anne Kelly, Tracking the social impact of the recession, in “Children” Autumn 2010, No, 72,
Wellington, April 2010, p18
35
16
The most recent statistics from the government show a 0.6 percent increase
in unemployment in the month of May 2010, with 329,349 people on benefits
including 60,106 on the unemployment benefit.36
These increases in numbers of beneficiaries come at time when the
government is introducing new obligations for beneficiaries, which may see
benefits cut either temporarily or permanently if people do not meet the
requirements of the new legislation. While the Social Assistance (Future
Focus) Bill will legislate for the annual indexing of benefits to wages and
prices, there may be some negative impacts on children as a result of other
changes contained in the law. It is likely that these changes will enter into
force in September 2010. At the same time, a Welfare Working Group is
considering potential policies to get people back into work and is due to report
to the government in December 2010.
At a recent forum hosted by the Welfare Working Group, the head of social
policy for the OECD, Dr Monika Queisser, said the government’s Welfare
Working Group was “out of step with other countries.”
She said “high child poverty” was a big issue and that New Zealand could be
proud of having one of the OECD’s lowest poverty rates for the elderly, with
only 2 percent of over-65s living on less than the median after-tax income,
compared with an OECD average of 14 percent. She said, “the gap between
material deprivation of children and older people is biggest in New Zealand
out of 27 countries.”37
The reality of the current employment market is such that beneficiaries forced
to find work under the new Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill are likely to
find it very difficult to secure work, particularly work that is flexible enough to
accommodate the needs of dependent children.
We know that the number receiving the DPB is much less responsive to
labour market changes indicating childcare challenges, the need for parents
on the DPB to be present in the lives of their children, and the difficulty in
finding suitably flexible, and well-paying, jobs. Even in 2007, when seasonally
adjusted unemployment rates were at their lowest range (3.5 percent), 15.1
percent of NZ children less than 18 years old remained reliant on a DPB
recipient.38
An Alternative Welfare Working Group is currently being established by
community organisations. The Group will develop proposals for welfare and
present them in December at the same time as the government’s Welfare
Working Group makes its recommendations.
36
Hon Paula Bennett, press release Benefit numbers remain below forecast, 14 June, 2010, at
www.facebook.com/notes/paula-bennett/pr-benefit-numbers-remain-belowforecast/10150209891370398
37
Simon Collins, Child poverty rate too high, Govt told, New Zealand Herald, 10 June 2010, at
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10650823
38
Liz Craig, 2009, p11
17
Early Childhood Education
In Budget 2010, the government cut funding for fully qualified teachers in
ECCE. Ministers argued that resources were being redirected to increase the
participation of Maaori and Pacific children. From February 2011, affected
services are facing cuts of up to 13 percent. This will impact on 93,000
children, just over half of those enrolled in ECCE.39
It is imperative that the government does implement policies that increase the
participation of Maaori, Pacific and low income children in ECCE. However,
the case could be made that government should be funding both fullyqualified teachers in ECCE services AND increasing participation, particularly
in light of the benefits to future educational achievement, employability and
productivity.
Housing
While WFF reduced poverty in the 2004-2007 period, there was a rise in
inequality during 2007-2008 due to the rising proportion of low income
households with high housing costs.40 In 1988, 16 percent of households in
the bottom income quintile spent more than 30 percent of their income on
housing. In 2008, this figure was 39 percent.41
60%
Q1 (low)
Proportion with OTI > 30%
50%
Q2
Low-income
HHs (Q1)
ALL
40%
Q3
Q4
30%
20%
10%
0%
1986
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
2010
HES year
Table 3: Proportion of households with housing costs more than 30% of their
after-tax income, by income quintile42
Housing is a significant issue for those on low incomes as it is usually the
single biggest expense to come from a weekly budget. However, as the Bev
James and Kaye Saville-Smith point out, children’s housing needs and the
housing conditions that are optimal for children can be different from the
39
NZEI, The Biggest Cuts to the Smallest People: Fact sheet on cuts to Early Childhood Education,
Wellington, 2010.
40
Liz Craig, 2009, p20
41
ibid. p23
42
Bryan Perry, 2009, p4
18
immediate housing or other needs of adults.43
Relevant issues for children include dwelling performance; dwelling
accessibility and size; affordability, and the amenities, connectivity and
character of the neighbourhood in which a child’s dwelling is located. These
are issues within the purview of both local and central government.
It is clear that housing is a policy area that requires significant, sustained,
public and private investment if we are to avoid worsening housing shortages,
particularly in Auckland. The nation is already facing a crisis of
homelessness, and growing numbers of children are living in temporary
accommodation.
In January 2010, there were nearly 10,000 families on the waiting list for a
state house, including 18,000-20,000 children. Maaori children are
disproportionately represented, making up nearly a third of those on the list.
In the 12 months ending December 2009, there was an alarming 56 percent
increase in families on the waiting list classified as having a ‘severe housing
need.’44
A report entitled Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trends and Issues by
Charles Waldegrave, Peter King, Tangihaere Walker, and Eljon Fitzgerald
tells us that Maaori face greater challenges in getting rental accommodation,
including supply, quality, pricing, and variation in landlord practices.45
In a recent report called, “Children’s Housing Futures”, the following points
were made46 (see Appendix Two for a full list of recommendations for housing
policies):





In 2006, children 14 years or younger had proportionally more
people (39.1 percent) living in a rental dwelling than any other age
group. That is, 318,330 children.
Four local authorities have half or more of their children in rental
accommodation, with the following authorities expected to have
higher proportions of children than the national average - Manukau
City, Papakura District, Waitomo District, Gisborne District, Porirua
City, Waikato District, Opotiki District, Wairoa District, Rotorua
District, and Kawerau District.
Almost 78 percent of children in rentals are in the private rental
market.
By 2016 it is estimated that between 120,000 and 200,000 children
will be in working families who are unable to enter home ownership.
Despite families with children heavily relying on the private rental
market, less than half of landlords prefer families with children as
tenants.
43
Bev James and Kaye Saville-Smith, 2010, pii
44
Anne Kelly, 2010, p17
45
Hone Harawira, speech to Parliament on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill; third reading, 30
June 2010.
46
19






Both the owner-occupier housing stock and the rental stock perform
poorly. In 2004, it was estimated that around 375,000 New Zealand
children were living in dwellings that are likely to be cold, damp and
expensive to heat and that exposure to poor housing performance
is likely to continue.
Rental housing tends to be older than owner occupied housing and
landlords have been reluctant to take-up subsidies to retrofit their
rental stock.
Children are more likely than any other age group to live in crowded
housing. In 2006, 17.2 percent of children aged 0-9 years and 15.3
percent of children aged 10-14 years were in crowded households.
46.3 percent of Pacific children aged 0-14 years, 27.8 percent of
Maori children and 22.3 percent of Asian children were in crowded
conditions.
Undersupply of affordable rental housing and other issues meant
that in 2006 around 80,000 children aged 14 years or less were
living in temporary dwellings.
In addition to problems associated with dwelling performance,
inappropriately designed sites and neighbourhoods mean that
compared to Britain and Europe, New Zealand has a high incidence
of children being injured or killed on driveways with around two
children hospitalised monthly and one driveway death per month
nationally in the seven months to March 2009.
Driveway deaths and injuries are associated particularly with rental
dwellings, lack of fencing, and high private vehicle reliance in low
density areas.
Sustained investment and coordination
Obviously, addressing all of these housing issues for children will require
concerted and coordinated effort, backed up by adequate resources. As the
Public Health Advisory Committee identified recently, policies impacting on
children have been subject to a “haphazard, ‘boom or bust’, ‘stop-start’”47
approach, to the detriment of too many children. Housing is a policy area that
directly contributes to poor health outcomes for children and is integral to
ending child poverty. It should feature prominently in our advocacy for
children.
Statistics show there has been some improvement in our child poverty rates
as a result of economic growth, employment, and government policies such
as WFF. However, we can also see from the data that there are some
families still in urgent need of an improvement in living standards, health,
education, and housing. Addressing all of these issues will require sustained
investment and political will at the highest levels.
47
Public Health Advisory Committee, June 2010, pvii
20
What solutions should Every Child Counts advocate
for?
What do Superannuitants get?
When we compare the child poverty rate (20- 22 percent) with the poverty rate
for the elderly (2 percent), it is clear that there are lessons to be learned from
the policies that support the over-65s. New Zealand has been successful at
protecting the elderly from poverty by making income a priority with NZ
Superannuation. It:

Is universal – everyone gets it

Is simple and adequate

Does not change with work status

Does not reduce in hard times

Is linked to prices and wages (indexed).48
Priority advocacy platforms
In our 2008 Policy Overview Every Child Counts called for:
1. Prioritising additional support to families with very young children to reduce
the detrimental impacts of poverty in the early years.
2. Adequate income and housing for all families with children by providing for:
 Increased abatement thresholds in the tax and income support system
that better support families on low incomes.
 A universal benefit to families with children, paid to caregivers, in
addition to the Family Tax Credit.
 Availability of quality child-care options and early childhood education.
 Additional affordable, accessible and suitable housing for families with
children.
 Increased opportunities for home ownership through initiatives such as
shared equity and the Welcome Home loan scheme.
4. Support through schools by provision of meals and other material provision
where these are needed.
5. An agreed official poverty line and a matrix of indicators to monitor progress
towards clear targets.
6. Monitoring anti-poverty measures through an independent body, such as
the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, with annual statistics collected by
the Government Statistician.
48
Prof Innes Asher, June 2010
21
7. Ensuring affordable access to services through:
 Elimination of policies that discriminate against children in beneficiary
families and on any other grounds.
 Identification and removal of cost barriers to access to services for all
families with young children.
These policy platforms are still relevant and appropriate. They constitute the
priority actions for ending child poverty and they are also consistent with much
of what the Child Poverty Action Group advocates for.
Potential additional platforms
In discussions with political parties in the next 18 months, it would be useful to
have identified a more comprehensive package of policies that would ensure
an end to child poverty. On the basis of what we currently know about child
poverty, and drawing on three significant recent reports, Every Child Counts
should add the following policy platforms to this list of those required to deliver
a major improvement in outcomes for children:
8. Government structures and processes to strengthen leadership for children,
including consideration of:
Overarching legislation that sets out a long-term commitment to
improve the health and wellbeing outcomes for children (that is, A
Children’s Act);
An identified senior Cabinet position with responsibility for children,
such as a Minister for Children;
A cross-agency Office for Children to implement strategic direction and
oversee sector contributions to early childhood development;
A cross-party agreement that provides strategic direction and outlines
shared principles and goals.
9. An assessment of early childhood spending and progress towards
sustained investment in the early years that is evidence-based and
comparable with countries that have a similar GDP to NZ.
10. Continue to support longitudinal studies of childhood development and
research and monitor the effectiveness of early childhood interventions.
11. Set measurable child poverty targets for specific population groups,
including Maaori and Pacific children, children in migrant and refugee families,
children with disabilities and children in foster care.
12. Require all significant government policies to be assessed for their
potential impact on children through Child Impact Reporting.
13. Invest in free healthcare for children under 6 years, 24 hours a day 7 days
a week.
14. Provide additional support and funding (on top of decile funding) to lowerdecile schools, linked to specific programmes and initiatives such as reading
22
recovery and professional development, with the objective of achieving
equitable education outcomes.
15. Substantially increase funding to support the rapid development of
affordable out-of-school services and extended school services, giving priority
to lower-income communities to enable parents to work.
16. Raise the maximum payment rate for paid parental leave from its current
level of under half of average adult full-time earnings to at least two-thirds of
average full-time earnings, and extend the period of paid parental leave to six
months (plus four weeks paternity leave) as a matter of priority, and
subsequently to 12 months plus four weeks paternity leave.
17. Increase the maximum accommodation supplement payments so they
reflect actual rental levels and establish a periodic review of maximum
payments.
18. Increase investment in public health initiatives that target the determinants
of child health.
19. Prioritise the concept of integrated service delivery in the design of
services for children.
20. Ensure low taxation rates for those on low incomes.
23
Conclusion
Child poverty is an issue that can be addressed through the right mix of
government policies. It is also an issue susceptible to economic conditions.
For this reason it is important that New Zealand businesses thrive and are
able to employ people at reasonable salary and wage rates.
However, to do this, those businesses also need a pool of employees that are
educated, productive, healthy and well. Allowing 20-22 percent of children to
spend their most important developmental years in deprivation will not deliver
the workforce our nation’s businesses will need in the future. Nor will it
nurture citizens with a sense of connection, trust, and investment in their
communities.
The downstream effects of the child poverty created in the 1990s are already
being felt in educational failure rates (particularly among Maaori and Pacific
boys), youth unemployment statistics and increasingly violent crimes.
Leaving our youngest and most vulnerable citizens in poverty is a crime …
against them and against our society.
We can secure a positive future for our children and our nation by working in
partnership with others to end child poverty. Every Child Counts is in the
process of developing a significant advocacy campaign and it is clear from the
evidence provided in this paper that poverty ought to be our priority focus in
the foreseeable future.
24
Appendix One: How is poverty defined and which
children are in poverty?
Prof Innes Asher describes a practical definition of poverty as insufficient
income for:

Health care (transport, doctors fees, prescription costs, hospital parking

Nutritious food

Adequate housing (not crowded, damp, cold or too costly)

Clothing, shows, bedding, washing and drying facilities

Education (transport, stationery, school donations, exam fees, and
school trips)
Bryan Perry describes the child poverty measures used by the Ministry of
Social Development as follows:
The absolute number of children or the percentage of all children in poverty is
defined as those who live in a household where the income falls below a
threshold of either 60% or 50% of the median household income.
(median = average by being in the middle)


The report uses two quite different ways of updatingthe low income
thresholds or ‘poverty lines’ over time and reports trends using both
approaches.

The ‘fixed line’ approach maintains the real value of a given
poverty line by adjusting it each survey with the CPI. On this
approach a household’s situation is considered to have
improved if its income rises in real terms, irrespective of whether
its rising income makes it any closer or further away from the
middle or average household. The base year for the fixed line
approach is currently 1998.

The ‘moving line’ or ‘relative’ approach sets the poverty line as a
proportion of the median income from each survey so that the
threshold changes in lockstep with the incomes of those in the
middle of the income distribution. On this approach the situation
of a low income household is considered to have improved if its
income gets closer to that of the median household, irrespective
of whether it is better or worse off in real terms.

‘Moving line’ measures are also important as they provide an
indication of trends showing the distance between low income
and middle-income households. This focus monitors a key
factor that impacts on social cohesion.
The large increase in inequality from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s,
the steady continuing rise to 2004 and the decline due to WFF through
to 2007 are robust findings. The rise in AHC income inequality from
2007 to 2008 is also unambiguous. Another year’s data is needed to
25
be clear about whether there is increasing inequality on the BHC
measure.

Table 4 below analyses household and family type of children below
this threshold
A. Proportions of children below the threshold
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2001
2004
2007
2008
Children in SP HHs
24
17
28
74
76
77
65
74
56
49
52
Children in 2P HHs
10
13
14
27
29
23
20
21
17
9
13
9
4
15
15
17
23
21
16
20
18
13
By household type
Children in other fam HHs
By family type (n1)
Children in SP families
-
14
24
60
65
65
55
64
44
42
40
- in SP families on own
-
18
31
80
78
78
70
77
57
49
55
- within wider HHs
-
4
7
20
26
32
23
25
20
27
11
-
12
14
25
28
23
20
20
18
9
14
1 or 2 children
9
10
12
29
30
31
27
26
18
14
17
3 or more children
14
15
22
38
41
34
29
32
30
20
24
Children in 2P families
By number of children in HH
By work status of adults (all HHs)
- Self-employed
8
16
8
17
21
20
12
21
21
6
10
- One or more FT
10
10
14
17
20
19
17
17
14
8
10
- None FT
23
18
26
73
75
74
66
72
58
49
61
- Workless
25
18
25
78
77
78
71
77
60
58
67
9
By work status of adults (two parent HHs)
- Both full-time
11
9
7
12
10
18
8
6
7
3
- One FT, one PT
8
7
7
10
11
11
9
19
8
6
6
- One FT, one workless
9
16
23
27
32
23
28
24
28
9
16
11
12
16
33
35
32
28
29
23
16
20
All children, all HHs
B. Composition of children below the threshold, by household and family type
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2001
2004
2007
2008
Children in SP HHs
21
18
27
36
34
42
40
40
35
48
46
Children in 2P HHs
68
79
65
59
61
50
51
53
52
38
46
Children in other fam HHs
11
4
8
6
4
7
9
6
13
14
8
Children by household type
Children by family type (n1)
Children in SP families
-
19
29
39
37
45
44
44
39
56
46
- in SP families on own
-
18
26
34
33
39
38
40
32
44
42
- within wider HHs
-
2
3
4
4
6
6
4
7
13
4
-
81
71
61
64
55
56
56
61
44
54
Children in 2P families
By work status of adults (all HHs)
- Self-employed
9
14
4
4
5
6
5
8
7
4
7
- One or more FT
62
61
57
34
36
39
40
42
45
32
33
- None FT
29
59
56
55
50
49
65
60
- PT only
- Workless
All children
Notes:
26
38
62
2
5
6
6
10
9
11
12
12
13
27
21
32
56
49
47
44
38
37
52
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
13
47
100
1 Family here is ‘economic family unit’ (see Section A for definition).
2 For each panel in Table H.4 (B) each column adds to 100%.
Children in low income households by household and family type: 60% AHC CV
Table 4: Which children are in poverty?
26
Appendix Two: Recommendations from A Fair Go For
All Children: Actions to address child poverty in New
Zealand, August 2008
Giving children a good start
Ensure that all children are enrolled in Wellchild and a general practice service at birth.
Ensure children can get after-hours and weekend medical attention and prescriptions at
all times, without cost.
Improve immunisation rates to match the best-performing OECD countries.
Progressively extend free medical visits to children of all ages in all areas.
Expand the stock of public, local authority and non-profit housing to ensure timely
allocation to all families with children who meet the “severe” and “significant” housingneed criteria.
Further develop long term, collaborative commitments between central government,
local government, communities and business, to programmes of infrastructure
development and community renewal in low income communities.
Substantially increase funding via the Discretionary Grants Scheme for establishment
grants and running costs, to equalise access to and participation in early childhood
care and education services across deciles.
Provide free early childhood care and education for at-risk, low income children aged
18 months to three years, taking account of the lessons from the forthcoming
evaluation of the Family Start early childhood hubs pilot.
In the medium term, extend the age range and number of hours of free early childhood
care and education.
Provide additional support and funding (on top of decile funding) to lower-decile
schools, linked to specific programmes and initiatives such as reading recovery and
professional development, with the objective of achieving equitable education
outcomes.
Set targets for raising teenage parents’ school participation, qualifications and
achievements to match average qualifications and achievements.
Supporting parents to work
Raise the maximum payment rate for paid parental leave from its current level of under
half of average adult full-time earnings to at least two-thirds of average full-time
earnings, and extend the period of paid parental leave to six months (plus four weeks
paternity leave) as a matter of priority, and subsequently to 12 months plus four weeks
paternity leave.
Review the design and operation of the childcare subsidy with a view to making it
easier and fairer to use, increasing take-up and ensuring adequacy.
8
Substantially increase funding to support the rapid development of affordable out-ofschool services and extended school services, giving priority to lower-income
communities.
Fund out-of-school services through direct support to providers on the basis of hours of
27
use, rather than through the Out of School Care and Recreation subsidy.
Restore the 30 percent part-time work abatement threshold for sole-parent
beneficiaries to the real value it had when it was set in 1996.
Change the Housing New Zealand Corporation income-related rent formula to improve
incentives for tenants to enter or increase their hours.
Increase the minimum wage incrementally, as economic conditions allow.
Ensuring an adequate income for all families with children
Review the adequacy of core benefit rates, to ensure benefit assistance is sufficient to
meet the needs of beneficiaries, especially those with dependent children.
As an immediate first step, increase benefit rates to match the effect of the Budget
2008 income tax reductions on earned income.
Review the mechanism for annual adjustments to benefit rates, and consider a
mechanism, such as that used for National Superannuation, to ensure benefit rates
maintain relativity with wages over time, as well as being adjusted for cost-of-living
increases.
Restructure the family tax credit so as to reduce the number of rates and to provide
relatively more assistance for young children.
Over time, phase out the in-work tax credit and raise the family tax credit, once the
availability and affordability of childcare and out-of-school services in low income areas
and for low income families has been expanded, making it easier for working parents to
meet these work-related costs.
Progressively raise the threshold for family tax credit abatement to increase assistance
to and reduce effective marginal tax rates for low- to middle-income working families.
Increase the maximum accommodation supplement payments so they reflect actual
rental levels and establish a periodic review of maximum payments.
Develop better whole-of-government approaches to ensuring the repayment of
government debt does not result in child poverty.
Pass on child support to custodial parents who are on benefits, and treat payments like
any other earned income for the purposes of benefit abatement.
Remove the penalty on domestic purposes benefit beneficiaries who do not name liable
parents.
Undertake a full review of the child support system, similar to the review in Australia, to
ensure that it is fair, contributes appropriately to reducing child poverty and is
responsive to the growth of shared parenting and blended families.
Setting goals and targets
Secure high-level commitment from all government agencies, giving ultimate oversight
for achieving the goals to a senior minister and department that does not have
responsibility for any one of the specific areas involved.
Make Statistics New Zealand responsible for an annual report on progress towards the
established targets.
28
Appendix three: Recommendations from The Public
Health Advisory Committee, June 2010
1. Overarching legislation that sets out a long-term commitment to improve
the health and wellbeing outcomes for children (that is, A Children’s Act)
2. Government structures and processes to strengthen leadership for children,
including consideration of:
an identified senior Cabinet position with responsibility for children,
such as a Minister for Children;
a cross-agency Office for Children to implement strategic direction and
oversee sector contributions to early childhood development;
a cross-party agreement that provides strategic direction and outlines
shared principles and goals.
3. Assessment of early childhood spending and progress towards sustained
investment in the early years that is evidence-based and comparable with
countries that have a similar GDP to NZ.
4. The Ministry of Health to make child health a priority and increase the
proportion of health sector spending on services for children aged up to 6
years of age.
5. DHBs develop child health implementation plans with measurable
outcomes and accountabilities
6. The Health and Disability sector continues to strengthen leadership on
tamariki ora and work with iwi leadership to improve service design and
delivery.
7. The Health and disability sector strengthens child health networks in each
region which are support by the MOH.
8. Develop a set of cross-agency policies that reflects cross-party agreement
and outlines the specific actions and accountabilities of each relevant
government agency.
9. Require all significant government policies to be assessed for their potential
impact on children.
10. Identify strategies for reducing the number of children living in serious
hardship, set measurable objectives, and monitor progress towards these
objectives.
11. Continue to support longitudinal studies of childhood development and
research and monitor the effectiveness of early childhood interventions.
12. The Health and disability sector should work towards implementing free,
24-hours-a-day seven-days-a-week primary health care for all children
agenda under 6 years
29
13. The sector should assess access and quality of health care and disability
support services for children and find ways to increase timely access to these
services by vulnerable groups of children
14. Increase investment in public health initiatives that target the determinants
of child health.
15. Prioritise the concept of integrated service delivery in the design of
(health) services for children.
16. Expend the development of funding and contracting models that support
whaanau ora and other integrated approaches to service delivery in early
childhood.
17. Support the early childhood workforce to build its capacity and capability
to deliver child-centred and integrated services.
18. Instruct the MOH to ensure a seamless transition from maternity services
to health care services for infants and young children.
19 Speed up the implementation of the Child Health Information Strategy.
20. Develop a set of universally agreed high-level indicators for child health
and wellbeing that includes a subset of health indicators.
Monitor and report against agreed health indicator subset of cross-agency
early childhood indicators.
30
Appendix four: Recommendations from CRESA/
Public Policy Research to the Centre for Housing
Research, April 2010
Priority 1: Housing policy that treats children’s housing needs as seriously as
adult housing need and does not assume that children’s housing needs are
automatically met by housing assistance and services directed to adults.
Priority 2: Policy and services that integrate housing aware child services with
child-centred housing delivery. In particular, cross-sectoral co-ordination and
delivery with:
 A standardised housing needs assessment tool to assess a child’s
housing status (including safety, health risks, and exposure to neglect
or abuse) developed and implemented both cross-sectorally and
across public, private and community based providers in housing as
well as providers of child-related services.
 A comprehensive range, and improved coverage, of housing options for
children and their caregivers to allow for tailored housing solutions
including: emergency housing; transitional housing; and housing
solutions for children requiring care including such options as house
swaps for households fostering children or caring for children with
special needs.
 A much stronger relationship between the public and community
sectors as well as an expanded community housing sector and
development of approved private sector landlords to be involved in
delivery to vulnerable children and their carers.
 Transparent and publicly promulgated policy, processes and services
around the management of children in public, local authority and
community rental housing where housing conditions; the behaviour of
household members; or the death or illness of a head tenant may
require the tenancy to be terminated. The responsibilities of different
agencies, the range of appropriate responses, and the mechanisms for
activating those responses, all need to be formalised with clear
protocols and procedures.
Priority 3: Improving the quality and security of the rental market and
improved value from the $1.3 billion forecast to be expended on the
Accommodation Supplement by 2014.
This requires an active focus on:
 Giving the families and carers of children more information and ratings
by which they can assess the comparative performance of dwellings
when selecting rental dwellings.
 Evaluating and, if necessary refining, regulatory protections for
children, their carers and families to optimise rental market stability and
dwelling performance.
 Ensuring that landlords have an incentive to provide dwellings that
provide
 Healthy conditions for children and stable, affordable living conditions in
locations in which children are safe and can be safely connected to
schools, services and recreation. This requires:
31



A systematic results-based evaluation of the current Accommodation
Supplement regime in relation to: tenure security, affordable pricing,
and generating dwelling performance suitable for children respectively.
Assessment of mechanisms to increase desirable supply side
responses to taxpayer subsidy of rents including: a rating and
accreditation system for rental dwellings; and tying Accommodation
Supplement payments directly to accredited dwellings.
Priority 4: Transforming the housing stock by actively pursuing child wellbeing
outcomes in:

programmes directed to retrofitting existing dwellings and in new
dwellings design; and

neighbourhood planning and management to ensure that built
environments are safe for children and connect them to the services,
education and recreation needed for positive child development.
Priority 5: Diversifying tenure shared ownership and non-speculative housing
and housing provision and recruiting a range of different providers into the
housing market.
32
Appendix Five: Working for Families Tax Credits, 2001
to 2008
Working for Families Tax Credits is a collective term for a number of tax credits
paid to families with children. The previous collective term for these credits was
"Family Assistance". The credits themselves have also been renamed, with former
names shown below. Any names from periods prior to 2001 have been ignored.
The first four credit entitlements are abated against joint family income, with only
residual entitlements after abatement transferred to the recipient family.
• FTC - Family Tax Credit, formerly Family Support. Paid to all families with children.
Amount paid per child depends on their age, and also on whether or not they
are the eldest child;
• CTC - Child Tax Credit. An amount of $15 per child per week paid to families with
children where the parents are not in receipt of a welfare benefit, New
Zealand Superannuation or earnings-related ACC. This credit was replaced
with the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) from April 2006, but families who received
the CTC before April 2006 and who do not qualify for the IWTC, can continue
to receive the CTC until they no longer qualify;
• IWTC - In Work Tax Credit, formerly In Work Payment. Replaces the CTC from
April 2006. The amount paid is $60 per week for families of up to three
children, and $15 per child per week for additional children. The recipient
families must satisfy an "in full time work" test based on their number of hours
per week in paid employment. Employment must exceed 20 hours per week
for one-parent families, and 30 hours per week for two-parent families;
• PTC - Parental Tax Credit. Payment of $150 per week for eight weeks on the birth
of a child. Recipient family must satisfy the criteria for receipt of the CTC, and
further must not be claiming Paid Parental Leave from the government;
• MFTC - Minimum Family Tax Credit, previously the Family Tax Credit. Paid to
families who satisfy the "full time work" test, and who are not self employed,
this credit tops up their after-tax family income to a guaranteed minimum
amount.
http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/working-for-families-tax-credits/
33
References
Prof Innes Asher, Child health and government policy, Speech to the
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 19 June 2010, at
www.cpag.org.nz
Liz Craig, The New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor, NZ Child and
Youth Epidemiology Service, Auckland, 2009.
Liz Craig, C Jackson, DY Han, NZCYES Steering Committee, Monitoring the
Health of New Zealand Children and Young People: Indicator Handbook,
Auckland, 2007.
Michael Fletcher and Maire Dwyer, A Fair Go For All Children: Actions to
Address Child Poverty, for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and
Barnardos NZ, Wellington, August 2008.
Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Children,” Autumn 2010, No, 72,
Wellington, April 2010.
Bev James and Kay Saville-Smith, Children’s Housing Futures, Public Policy
& Research / CRESA, for the Centre for Housing Research, Aotearoa New
Zealand, Wellington, April 2010.
Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of
inequality and hardship, 1982 to 2008, Ministry of Social Development,
Wellington, June 2009.
Public Health Advisory Committee, The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective
action on child health and wellbeing, A report to the Minister of Health,
Wellington, June 2010.
34
Index
A Fair Go For All Children, 2, 9, 13,
29, 36
Ethnic disparities, 11
Agenda for Children, 12
Every Child Counts, 2, 4, 6, 13, 23, 24,
26
Asher, Innes, 3, 4, 14, 17, 23, 27, 36
Family Tax Credit, 17, 23, 35
Barnardos, 3, 9, 36
Fletcher, Michael, 9, 11, 13, 15, 36
benefit cuts, 3
Grimmond, David, 18
Budget 2010, 19
Heckman, James, 4
Child Health Social Monitor, 12
Housing, 2, 10, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30,
33, 36
Child poverty - adverse policies, 14
Child poverty - affected households,
16, 28
Human Rights Tribunal, 6, 17
In Work Tax Credit, 15, 17, 18, 35
Child poverty - definitions.
Infant mortality rate, 10
Child poverty - educational impacts,
10
Infometrics Ltd, 18
Innocenti Centre, 6, 8
Child poverty - ethnic breakdown, 11,
14, 19
In-Work Tax Credit, 6
Child poverty - government policy, 6, 8
London School of Economics, 13
Child poverty - health impacts, 10
Manukau City, 11, 21
Child poverty - impacts, 8
Ministry of Social Development, 17
Child poverty - improved outcomes, 3
Monitoring the Health of New Zealand
Children and Young People, 11, 12,
36
Child poverty - political will, 11
Child poverty - priority policies, 23
Child poverty - rate, 6, 7, 14, 16, 23
Child Poverty Action Group, 3, 17, 24
Children’s Commissioner, 3, 9, 14, 23,
36
NZ Child and Youth Epidemiology
Service, 9, 12, 36
OECD, 8, 10, 18, 29
Paediatric Society, 12
Perry, Bryan, 6, 12, 16, 17, 20, 27, 36
Children’s Social Health Monitor, 9, 36
Photo: Voice project, 3
Competent Children study, 11
Piachaud, David, 13
Craig, Liz, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 36
Public Health Advisory Committee, 2,
6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 22, 31, 36
Doing Better for Children, 10
Domestic Purposes Benefit, 19
Dwyer, Maire, 9, 11, 13, 36
Early Childhood Education, 2, 4, 19
Public Policy Research to the Centre
for Housing, 33
Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill,
18
35
State house - sales, 3
Welfare Working Group, 18, 19
Superannuitants, 2, 23
Working For Families, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12,
15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 27, 35
Unemployment, 2, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 26
36