Child poverty affects around 285,000 children in New Zealand, as reported by the Child Poverty Action Group (Aotearoa New Zealand) (CPAG).
Contents
- Background
- Overview of childrens rights in New Zealand
- Rights in New Zealand law
- Rights in international law
- Child poverty issues in New Zealand
- Education
- Inequality
- Discrimination against beneficiary families
- Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney General
- Domestic violence
- Health
- Housing
- References
Poverty in the richer nations is about relative disadvantage—it is about households and individuals who have a day-to-day standard of living or access to resources that fall below a minimum acceptable community standard.
For New Zealand, children in poverty lack material things enjoyed by other children, which results in their social exclusion and alienation. As a country which wishes each citizen’s maximum potential productivity, more is expected than merely providing the essentials. The needs child poverty advocates are most concerned with are children’s safety and security, providing them with nutritious food, somewhere warm and dry to live, and giving them love and social contact so that they are provided with a sense of value. Consequences of child poverty in New Zealand include: poor health, such as lower rates of immunisation, higher rates of avoidable child mortality, infant mortality, low birth weight, and child injury; reduced participation in early childhood education, and young people leaving school with no or low qualifications; as well as higher rates of youth suicide, teenage imprisonment, and the victimisation of children. Ideas challenging child poverty in New Zealand, including child-centred legislation, child specific representation in the decision making process, and creating a Minister for Children in New Zealand, have been purported as viable solutions to child poverty issues. Professor Marie Johansson, from Karolinska Children’s Hospital in Sweden, after spending time working in Wellington, said that New Zealand needs to address child poverty as
not a political question, it's an ethical question, it's a moral question.
Background
The evolution of child poverty in New Zealand is associated with the Rogernomics of 1984, the benefit cuts of 1991 and Ruth Richardson’s "mother of all budgets", the child tax credit, the rise of housing costs, low-wage employment, and social hazards, both legal and illegal (i.e. alcoholism, drug addictions, and gambling addictions).
In 2004 26% of children were reported as living in serious or significant hardship, while at the same time only 4% of over-65 year olds were. The Working for Families (WFF) gave financial support to lower-middle income "working families with children", and saw child poverty fall from 28% in 2006 to 22% in 2007, and then again to 19% in 2008. However the poorest families were not being reached, and, Child Poverty Action Group argued, were being discriminated from obtaining a benefit which was "rightfully theirs."
In June 2011, while $9 billion was spent on the New Zealand superannuation fund, $1.7 billion was spent on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, which supports most of 235,000 children in poverty, as well as their parents and caregivers.
The 2013 Budget offered small amounts of extra social policy spending, relevant to children’s wellbeing, such as:
The 2014 budget will be announced on 15 May 2014.
Overview of children’s rights in New Zealand
A problem often encountered is that the rights of children are entangled with the rights of their parents and caregivers (limitations on which affect children).
Rights in New Zealand law
The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 provides help services for children, their parents and family to help with child care responsibilities with the aim of preventing children suffering harm, ill-treatment, abuse, neglect, and deprivation.
The Domestic Violence Act 1995, which offers counselling for victims of domestic violence and section 5(2) requires victim protection, access to the court system in a speedy, inexpensive, and understandable way while also appropriate support programs.
The Care of Children Act 2004 concerns the best arrangements of guardianship/ care of children, recognising their rights (section 3), and with the best interests of children as paramount (section five).
Currently New Zealand is adapting the Vulnerable Children’s Bill which is an omnibus bill intended to strengthen child protection, and make sure viewer children are abused and neglected.
The resources in the Family Court, and the Department of Child, Youth and Family, are minimal, causing long delays in hearings, investigation, and final cases.
Rights in international law
New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) in 1993 with three reservations which still stand: Article 22.1 regarding the rights children with parents who are not legally allowed in New Zealand; Article 32.2 regarding the minimum age of employment; and Article 37 (c) regarding separate detainment facilities for children. Article 24 of UNCROC, which stems from the right to health, requires states to provide measures aiming to reduce infant and child mortality, develop primary health care systems for children, combat disease and malnutrition, ensure pre and post natal care for mothers, spread awareness about child health and nutrition, including the advantages of breast feeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation, prevention of accidents.
Ten recommendations from the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review addressed child poverty issues in New Zealand.
Child poverty issues in New Zealand
In richer countries, such as New Zealand, poverty is not concerned with complete deprivation of essential resources. Rather it concerns limitations on resources, which prevents citizens from fully participating in society, and provokes their social exclusion.
Education
Child poverty undermines attempts to a secure education.
The New Zealand Education Act 1989 provides that state primary and secondary schooling is meant to be free. This is in accordance with article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 28 and 29 of UNCROC, and Article 4 of UNESCO. The Human Rights Commission (New Zealand) reported in 2005 that some state schools were enforcing "compulsory donations", and there have been other reports of some state schools hiring debt collection agencies to pressure parents to pay these "donation fees."
The money spent by parents on non-core curriculum activities, stationary and other material costs, and uniforms, are not taking into account. In Michelle Egan-Bitran’s project, "This is how I see it: Children, young people and young adults’ views and experiences of poverty", children and young people were found to be aware of these hidden costs of going to school, and the ability to not take part in school trips, for example, was important for those whose families could not afford holidays, as they felt they were missing out on opportunities to be a part of community activities.
Can't afford school uniform… lack of books… left out… get picked on at school… stress… shame… low esteem… unhappy… lonely… sad… depressed… angry… feelings of worthlessness.
Lack of access to right of education may result in other human rights abuses and perpetuate the Cycle of poverty.
Inequality
Differences in child well-being are more extreme in societies with greater income inequality. Conversely, countries with lower levels of inequality demonstrate higher levels of child well-being, and lower levels of child poverty. Inequality is known to affect a child’s future life chances, health, education, and employment opportunities. Non-material inequality, such as a lack of voice, disrespect, shame, stigma, denial of rights and diminished citizenship, are all condensed for children.
Discrimination against beneficiary families
Of all New Zealand children, 22% live in families where the major caregiver receives income from a social security benefit. That is around 230,000, or one fifth, of New Zealand children New Zealand has a long history of discrimination against, beneficiaries, especially the non-working poor.
The Working for Families (WFF) scheme, by lifting a family’s income and making housing and childcare more affordable, was able to reduce child poverty. However, children whose parents cannot or will not work, are trapped in poverty and they miss out by association. Debt collection against beneficiaries intensifies the poverty experienced by their children. When a beneficiary’s over-payment charge is taken, be it for genuine fraud or, as in many cases, because of a departmental mistake, money is taken from a family's already low income, and traps children, as well as their parents/caregivers, in a poverty cycle. The deduction taken reduces a child’s food, clothing, and access to school and the community. In New Zealand, Susan St John explained it is as though,
“We have the deserving and undeserving poor in New Zealand.”
Punishment for beneficiary fraud, often life repayments and in larger cases imprisonment, is a larger penalty suffered than others fraud offences in New Zealand.
In the case Osborne v Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development [2010] 1 NZLR 559, the New Zealand High Court ruled that the 332 years that Linda Osborne would take to repay her debt was not of concern. It was also ruled the time spent she already in jail as punishment did not preclude any civil recovery of money. This system puts children’s needs behind the ideologically driven desire to move sole parents (as well as other beneficiaries in the family) into paid work.
Claire Breen explains,
“The failure to address the issue of child poverty resulting from and perpetrating discrimination undermines attempts to secure education. For many children, the ensuing negative repercussions will affect many other rights in childhood and over the course if their lifetime. This failure can, in turn, serve to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and discrimination.”
Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney General
In 2008 the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) took a case against the Attorney-General (New Zealand) claiming provisions in the Income Tax Act 2007 were inconsistent with freedom from discrimination section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA): this was the eligibility for tax credits under the WFF scheme. CPAG claimed it discriminated against children in families who would be eligible if it were not for the receiving of income benefit, or weekly compensation under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, by one of the family members.
The Human Rights Tribunal found that,
“in our assessment the WFF package… involves less favourable treatment of families on an income-tested benefit, and… there is substantive disadvantage as a result.”
The Court of Appeal (CA) recognised as an,
“undisputed fact that the issue of child poverty … is a serious one … Nor is there any dispute about the consequences of poverty for children in particular and for society more generally.”
It was concluded that as under section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act beneficiaries subject to the off-benefit rule were subject to 'prima face' discrimination. However, the CA also found that it was "justified discrimination" on the ground of employment status, as dictated by a democratic system.
Domestic violence
27% of New Zealand children (over a quarter) have witnessed family violence against an adult in the home. Children suffer from stress and disruption when they have to leave home because of domestic violence, and it also disrupts their education. Aviva family violence services explains that,
“When a child’s developing brain is exposed to a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour, or they are living in an environment of fear about the next angry outburst, the effects on the child can be carried through the rest of their life.”
Shine’s Safe@Home project offers security upgrades for homes, allowing children to stay at home, and not have their lives disrupted. Diane Shannon, a founding member of Christchurch Women’s Refuge, advocates the Safe@Home project fronted by Shine:
“None of the 124 children living in these houses have witnessed or been present at an assault since their home was secured and they are enjoying benefits including better sleep (75% report improvement) and showing less aggression (79%)”
Health
In 2010, 150 children died because of preventable diseases. In the documentary "Inside Child Poverty: a special report", Dr Bryan Beatty, a General Practitioner in East Porirua, reported seeing chest infections, skin infections, and upper respiratory infections. The documentary also pictured serious cases of scabies, and school sores. One out of a hundred children in New Zealand have a heart disease which is caused by rheumatic fever, which is caused by an untreated sore throat, and can lead to heart complications. New Zealand immunisation rates were placed 23rd out of 25 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries by UNICEF, there are also higher rates of vaccine preventable diseases than in many similar countries Not only is this preventable harm and pain, but children’s health affects their education and their future employment outcomes as adults.
Housing
In 2010 25,000 children, mostly from lower-income families, where admitted to hospital for preventable respiratory infections aggravated by poor houses. In New Zealand many of the health problems are related to the quality of New Zealand houses and housing standards in New Zealand, and overcrowding. Dr Michael Baker, Associate Professor of Public Health at Otago University, recognises household crowding as the main risk factors for meningocele disease, rheumatic fever, and tuberculosis. Housing costs influence directly the poverty experienced in low-income households with children.