Terry Sarten: Child poverty response is too little, too late

HELPLESS: There is not much we can do for the thousands of children suffering in the war-torn Syrian city of Aleppo, but we can help those in need in New Zealand.

THE potential for cross-party approach to tackling the effects of deprivation on children is there but without some genuine commitment it seems a mirage.

Prime Minister John Key has "swiped right" on this issue claiming it is too complex. This is nonsense - the Government has set targets before around other issues and could easily establish goals that aim to lift children trapped in deprivation into a better future.

So "why not?" is the question. Perhaps it is the long-term failure of vision that stifles policy? If it's not going to provide change within the electoral cycle, then why bother?

That sounds very cynical but in defining reasons for inaction on child deprivation it is important to exclude all the usual excuses.

Is it the free market mantra that leaves change to be driven by money in which those who can keep up prosper while those who cannot fall by the wayside? If that is the case, then there are numerous studies that show investing in the welfare of children is fiscally prudent, bringing monetary returns over a lifetime.

A Unicef report notes: "The science of child development tells us that even temporary deprivations experienced by young children can have irreversible effects on their future capabilities and, in turn, a nation's future prospects" (Victora et al, 2008; Unicef social and economic working paper, 2012).

The Government's Children's Action Plan is laudable in that it is focused on children's vulnerability to neglect, violence and abuse but it does not mention deprivation, even though there is considerable evidence that this is a crucial factor.

Education, health and justice are deeply immersed in the fallout of deprivation and yet it is nowhere in the vulnerability criteria. This is not just odd but perverse as without tackling deprivation and inequities, the system is simply acting as a lifeguard, rescuing those in traumatic situations.

A child growing up in a household that is struggling to find affordable housing is already a few steps behind peers who do have secure housing and may fall behind with schooling, lack basic warm clothing, have poor health and be living with their parents' stress.

Funding programmes that focus on reducing neglect, abuse and violence as a political response, to be seen to be doing something, is like bringing a shovel to clean up behind the elephant in the room.

I use the term deprivation rather than poverty for a reason. Many New Zealanders do not believe we have poverty here and tend to reference countries in Africa. The difference between relative and absolute poverty is not necessarily well understood.

In New Zealand we have relative child poverty - a measurable deprivation gap that hinders children's potential. When families are struggling to make ends meet then it is often the children who miss out.

As taxpayers and citizens, we have a vested interest in pressuring politicians to address the trajectory of deprivation because it leads to major costs for government agencies. Investing in reducing inequalities is an essential component of creating a society in which children are valued.

We see the images of the war-ravaged city of Aleppo and weep for the children dying among the rubble, and feel helpless to save them. Here in New Zealand we can lift children out of deprivation but it requires constant and consistent pressure on government to tackle the root causes of inequality - rising housing costs, unemployment, a low-wage economy for many and excessive earnings for those at the top.

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