Action on poverty needed, not rhetoric

The media, politicians and a variety of professional groups have been talking about poverty a lot over the past week.

This discussion has been recharged by the release of a United Nations report that shows New Zealand is lagging behind other countries in responding to the needs of disadvantaged children. The use of the term poverty in this context is proving a help and hindrance.

While it is important to be reminded of the country's duty to the most disadvantaged, the word poverty is now so heavily loaded with emotional and economic baggage that we seem unable to carry it forward and initiate change.

For many Kiwis, poverty is firmly linked with places like India and some African states. They see images of starving children, orphans of war and disease - and see nothing resembling that here and dismiss the notion of poverty as irrelevant to our situation.

This view of poverty suits the purposes of market forces and its political champions. It makes it easier to say there is no real poverty in New Zealand and to blame individuals and inadequate parenting, ignoring the big picture and socio-economic forces at work that heavily influence the outcomes for children.

For those on the right of the political spectrum, this view fits with the notion that the state has no role to play in alleviating deprivation. For those on the left, using the term poverty is a hindrance as, without clarification, it provides too much room for ideology to hold sway over sound policy development.

As a result, those advocating for the rights of children and using the term poverty as a way to bring focus to the needs of deprived children are finding their efforts undermined.

There are two internationally recognised descriptors of poverty. One is "absolute" poverty with extreme low incomes in which starvation and early death from disease and deprivation are the reality for too many children. The other is "relative" poverty that considers how well the needs of children are being met within the comparative context of their environment. It is usually determined by family income relative to basic core needs such as safety, sufficient food and access to healthcare, education and justice.

It is clear that New Zealand is a nation of two halves - not a land divided by the Cook Strait but by an ever-widening economic inequality gap.

We are a country of haves - those children who have access to the best of educational opportunities, housing and healthcare; and have-nots - children living in poor quality, often overcrowded housing in areas where drugs, alcohol and violence are a daily feature, in families struggling to manage basic living costs because of low wages, falling behind at school and existing on the margins of their potential.

Instead of being distracted by arguments about poverty, we should ditch the word and get on with tackling inequality and addressing the structural inequities that are leaving so many children to suffer the consequences.

It may be that it is the wrong task for Parliament. MPs are some of the nation's most privileged people, and they are quick to react if any of their entitlements are questioned but seem slow to understand the needs of children who, because of circumstance, are at risk of ongoing health problems, low educational achievement and becoming the victims of structural neglect and violence.

There have been several valuable reports on the dire effects of deprivation on Kiwi children and the ongoing social and economic cost of neglecting these children. These have been read and then used to fuel the fires of ideological differences - creating some feelgood warmth for those standing closest but getting nothing done.

It is time to eliminate poverty from the rhetorical lexicon and get some cross-party action that can prevent another generation of children growing up as social refugees.

Terry Sarten is a Wanganui-based writer, musician and social worker - feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz