NZ Herald editorial: Child poverty is not fixed by numbers

Editorial

Bill English has always been dismissive of calls to adopt a child poverty reduction target - for good reason. The target suggested to him during his years as Finance Minister was based on a purely statistical measure of poverty defined as households with less than 60 per cent of New Zealand's median household income. It is a simple measure inviting a simple response: give those households more income in the form of child benefits until they can be measured above the poverty line.

In Monday night's TV3' debate, English said the Government's family incomes package announced in this year's Budget will lift 50,000 children out of "poverty" when it takes effect in April. Was that a target, the moderator asked? English thought for a moment and said yes.

It would be the easiest "target" he has ever adopted because the figures are already in the Budget. So for good measure he doubled the number, aiming to lift 100,000 children above the poverty line if he is given charge of the economy for another term.

Jacinda Ardern, whose party has long espoused these sort of targets, quickly matched his 100,000 figure yesterday.

If only the solutions to child poverty were so simple.

The total measure of children in households below 60 per cent of the median income is 295,000, which is about a quarter of all the children in New Zealand. If it is hard to believe as many as one in four children are living in such deprivation, there is a more credible survey of children's actual conditions. It estimates 155,000 children are lacking many of the personal possessions, healthcare and housing standards every New Zealand child ought to have.

If a blunt numerical target is to guide social policy under whichever party becomes the Government next month, the figure of 155,000 would be a better one. It would invite more precisely directed programmes than a simple payment per child to all household below the adopted poverty line. The circumstances of children will vary greatly depending on whether they have wider families and on the budgeting skills, lifestyles and resources of their parents.

Labour might not believe these variables matter but if the best use is to be made of the taxpayers' money it would to go where it is most needed and can make a difference. The "social investment" programmes the Prime Minister is advocating so earnestly in the election debates, do sound like an attempt to focus finance and social work on individuals and households with multiple problems, not just low incomes.

Labour's leader did not decry that effort, which she calls "early intervention" and says it is nothing new, but she seems to place more store on welfare increases across the board.

If the economy remains as buoyant as it has been, and generates the revenue required to boost income subsidies for all children below the poverty line, it would be a relief to all New Zealanders. Nobody wants "child poverty" in this country. But the political temptations to adopt blunt measurements and equally blunt solutions could easily leave too little money for programmes that help people to improve their lives.