Child poverty in New Zealand
The Ministry of Social Development (New Zealand) recognises that: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.In New Zealand, children living in poverty lack material things enjoyed by other children, which results in their social exclusion and alienation.
Professor Marie Johansson, an early education expert from Karolinska Children's Hospital in Sweden, spent some time working in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand.
[9] However, the poorest families were not being reached, and, Child Poverty Action Group argued, were being discriminated against which prevented them from obtaining a benefit which was "rightfully theirs".
[6] Ten recommendations from the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review addressed child poverty issues in New Zealand.
[16] The pushing factors for the increasing poverty rate were slow wage growth, high unemployment, and a decrease in social expenditures.
[17] Studies have shown the Māori and Pasifika (other Pacific groups) consistently rank higher when considering impoverishment compared to other European ethnicities.
[21] The Treasury has also dedicated over $223 million to Māori housing and infrastructure stating, The ability for many Māori and Pacific peoples to have mana āheinga (the capability to decide on their aspirations and realise them) and build mana whanake (the power to grow sustainable, intergenerational prosperity) is impeded when health, education, housing and social welfare systems do not address multifaceted, intergenerational disadvantage.
[21]Maori and Pasifika children continue to be affected by intergenerational disadvantages that are traced back to the colonisation of their native land starting in the 1830s.
Statistics prove that there is a large disproportion of Māori and Pasifika people living in sub-optimal conditions with limited provided resources.
[24] These communities still carry deep-rooted trauma from the brutal injustices inflicted upon the native people in the 19th century and have influenced Māori culture.
Settlers relocated large groups of the native people to small plots of land that were not suitable for farming, leaving them with little to no ability to provide food for themselves.
[27] The implementation of the British concept of private property alienated Māori people from their traditional land, distancing their communities from their native language and culture.
"[28] Due to these intergenerational disadvantages, Māori youth are more likely to experience poverty, unemployment, and low educational attainment compared to their non-Māori counterparts.
[29] They are more likely to suffer from mental health disorders, substance abuse, and suicide which can cause unstable support systems as well as negative impacts on motivation and resilience.
[30] Māori youth are also much more likely to experience intergenerational trauma due to colonisation which continues to influence their relationship with their culture, language, sense of belonging, and identity.
[34] Non-material inequality, such as a lack of voice, disrespect, shame, stigma, denial of rights and diminished citizenship, are all condensed for children.
[41] When a beneficiary's over-payment charge is taken, be it for genuine fraud or 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.
[43] 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.
[44] Claire Breen explains, "The failure to address the issue of child poverty resulting from and perpetrating discrimination undermines attempts to secure education.
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.
[17] Contrary to death from intentional injuries where there was no statistically significant difference found on yearly numbers, hospitalisations due to neglect and maltreatment has seen an overall decrease 2001–2016.
[11] The project limits success to break in-attempts of potential perpetrators by changing locks and providing an alarm system that is linked to the police.
[55] 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.
[56] The Office of the Children's Commissioner (OCC) laid forth 78 separate recommendations in their 2012 report Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand evidence for action.
They also recommended to eliminate differential payments based on the number of child in each household, and initially provide a flat rate for all children under the age of 16.
[57] It was recommended that the government work with current industries to create a pathway for parents with low or no skills to attain training and education.
The last thing recommended in this category was a low-interest loan be offered by the government for those looking to re-enter the workforce and in dire need of financial support.
[57] The OCC stresses for a need of government monitoring for all rental units to ensure minimum health and safety standards are being met.
They wanted better supervision for those companies providing social housing to include government monitoring for quality, accessibility, and financial stability.
They also advised the government to support parenting programs so that even if individuals find themselves in a low-income situation they can still be positive role models for their children.
