the cost and challenge of child poverty in new zealand jonathan boston co-chair, expert advisory...
TRANSCRIPT
The Cost and Challenge of Child Poverty in New Zealand
Jonathan Boston
Co-Chair, Expert Advisory Group (2012)Professor of Public Policy, VUW
Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
19 June 2013
Nelson Mandela (1985):
There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.
Old Indian Proverb:
To plan for a year – sow a rice paddy fieldTo plan for a decade – plant treesTo plan for a future – nurture children
The importance of children
1. What is poverty?2. Measuring poverty3. Child poverty in New Zealand4. What are the causes?5. Common views about poverty6. Does child poverty matter?7. What should be done? The EAG’s recommendations8. The Government’s response9. Next steps10. Conclusions
Outline
How should poverty be defined?
How should it be measured?
The topic of child poverty is uncomfortable; it is often emotionally charged; we need careful, calm analysis, but
also an appropriate moral concern – care for our ‘neighbours’, especially those who are most powerless
and vulnerable
What is Poverty?
1. Poverty can be defined in various ways:– deprivation or lack of material resources:
• unable to satisfy basic human needs (food, shelter, health care) and/or
• unable to participate fully in economic, social and political life c.f. poverty of spirit, lack of aspiration, social/cultural deprivation
2. Different degrees/kinds of poverty:– best to think in terms of a continuum, from very severe … to moderate
• abject poverty (lack of basic necessities; regular hunger and starvation)• relative poverty (missing out on those things that most people regard as
necessary for a fulfilling life)– most measures of poverty are relative in some way or other– both the severity and persistence of poverty matter in terms of
outcomes
What is Poverty?
3. Developed countries use two main ways of measuring poverty:
– income below a certain agreed threshold– material deprivation – missing out on more than a certain number of
essentials– these measures generate different results and only partially overlap
4. Setting the relevant benchmarks is complex; many technical issues (e.g. equivalence scales, before or after housing costs, etc.); a range of approaches possible; no international consensus, but some common approaches
5. There is no single correct measure of poverty – need a range of measures to highlight different features of the problem
6. Only a few countries have official poverty measures (e.g. US, UK, etc.); NZ does not
What is Poverty?
As noted, there are various ways of measuring poverty:
Income measures:
1. Moving line versus fixed line (constant value)2. Thresholds – 50% or 60% of median equivalized household
disposable income, before and after housing costs– Why 50% or 60% of the median?– Why use median rather than average income?– Why adjust for household size and composition?– Why is housing important?
Common misunderstandingsNeed multiple measures – no one ‘right’ measure
Measuring Poverty
Poverty measurement in New Zealand:
Various approaches and studies (see work of Byan Perry, MSD)
Main features/trends:
1. Poverty rates depend on the precise measure used:– Income poverty rates for children in NZ are around the OECD average or
slightly above on most measures– Material deprivation rates for children in NZ are higher than comparable
rates in Western Europe
2. On a moving line basis, child poverty rates in NZ are much higher now than during the 1980s; on a constant value basis, there was a higher percentage of children in poor households in 2007 than during the 1980s (i.e. on various measures we are doing less well for our children …)
3. Poverty rates for children are much higher than for most other groups, especially those aged 65+; this has been the case for several decades
Child Poverty in NZ
4. Child poverty rates are particularly high in:– Families with young children and larger families (50% of
children in poverty are in families with 3 or more children)
– The families of beneficiaries: the rate is 6-7x higher than for families where at least one adult is in full-time employment
– But over a 1/3 of children in poverty are in families where one adult is in full-time employment (reflects low wages and inadequate child assistance)
– Maori and Pasifika families (2-3x the Pakeha rates)
Child Poverty in NZ
5. About 50% of poor children are in sole parent families; NZ has a high prevalence of sole-parent households; sole parent employment is low by OCED standards
6. In 2012, close to 180,000 children lived in households where no adult was in paid work, and a further 64,000 in households with only PT work
7. More than half of all children under 15 years of age spend some time in families supported by a main welfare benefit (DPB/UB, etc.):
– around 6% (50,000) spend 13-14 years in a benefit-supported family– around 21% (180,000) spend more than half of their first 14 years in
a benefit-supported family
If welfare benefits are inadequate, the implications are clear …
Child Poverty in NZ
Proportion of all individuals in low-income households by age, 60% REL threshold (AHC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1980 85 90 95 00 05 10 2015HES year
Pro
port
ions
bel
ow th
e th
resh
old
0-17
18-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Moving line (REL) threshold, 60% of BHC median, less 25%
Proportion of children below selected thresholds (AHC):fixed line (CV) and moving line (REL) approaches compared
(Perry 2012)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1980 85 90 95 00 05 10 2015
HES year
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f ch
ildre
n in
low
-in
com
e H
Hs
Constant value (CV) or 'fixed line' thresholds are based on the BHC median in a reference year. The
current reference year is 2007. Up to 2007, the reference year was 1998.
60% REL
50% REL
60% 98 CV60% 07 CV
BHC AHC
BHC ‘moving line’ 60%
AHC ‘moving line’ 50% AHC ‘moving line’ 60% AHC ‘fixed line’ 60%
(07 ref)
2001 250,000 215,000 310,000 380,000
2004 270,000 200,000 290,000 320,000
2007 210,000 170,000 240,000 240,000
2009 210,000 190,000 270,000 230,000
2010 215,000 170,000 270,000 230,000
2011 200,000 170,000 270,000 230,000
Numbers of poor children in New Zealand
Long-term Trends in Child Poverty in Australia
1982 1986 1990 1994 1995 1996 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 20090
5
10
15
20
25
50% median 60% median
Below real 1982 50% median Below real 1982 60% median
%
Child Poverty and Overall Poverty in OECD Countries
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
5
10
15
20
25
30
Denmark
Sweden
KoreaIreland
New ZealandUK
Australia
Canada
Latvia
USA
RomaniaMexico
Overall poverty rate (%)
Child poverty rate (%)
Child Poverty among Couple and Sole Parent Households in OECD Countries, 2008
Den
mar
k
Nor
way
Fin
land
Sw
eden
Ger
man
y
Fra
nce
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Hun
gary
Net
herla
nds
Slo
veni
a
New
Zea
land
Aus
tria
Irel
and
Sw
itzer
land
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Bel
gium
Kor
ea
Aus
tral
ia
UK
OE
CD
ave
rage
Luxe
mbo
urg
Japa
n
Chi
le
Gre
ece
Pol
and
Can
ada
Ital
y
US
A
Spa
in
Est
onia
Tur
key
Mex
ico
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Couple poverty rate Sole parent poverty rate
%
Identifying Deprivation
Australia -- Overall Changes in Deprivation, 2006 to 2010 (weighted %)
Essential items 2006 2010Warm clothes and bedding, if it's cold 0.3 0.4Medical treatment if needed 2.1 1.7Able to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor 4.5 3.5A substantial meal at least once a day 1.2 0.9Dental treatment if needed 14.5 13.1A decent and secure home 7.1 6.7Children can participate in school activities and outings 4.9 4.3A yearly dental check-up for children 13.2 11.0A hobby or leisure activity for children 7.8 6.8Up to date schoolbooks and new school clothes for school-age children 5.9 4.7A roof and gutters that do not leak 4.8 7.4Secure locks on doors and windows 5.0 5.8Regular social contact with other people 4.7 6.2Furniture in reasonable condition 2.8 2.2Heating in at least one room of the house 2.1 2.5Up to $500 in savings for an emergency 19.6 17.8A separate bed for each child 2.2 2.1A washing machine 1.1 1.0Home contents insurance 11.1 9.5Presents for family or friends at least once a year 6.8 5.5Computer skills 4.6 2.9Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance 9.8 9.1A telephone 1.9 3.8A week's holiday away from home each year 23.6 19.8Average deprivation rate 6.7 6.2
Deprivation Rates: 3+ enforced lacks, using 9 item EU index (%), 2007
Children 0-17 Aged 65+ Total Population
New Zealand 18 3 13
UK 15 5 10
Ireland 14 4 11
Germany 13 7 13
Sweden 7 3 6
Netherlands 6 3 6
Spain 9 11 11
Italy 18 14 14
Czech 20 17 20
Australian data -- Are Identified Essentials Robust?(unweighted percentages)
Australian data -- Are Children’s Needs Universal?(unweighted percentages)
Why are many family incomes low?1. Parental unemployment or under-employment:
– Overall labour market conditions– Mismatches of supply and demand – relative lack of jobs for those
with limited skills or qualifications– Family break-ups, dysfunction and social hazards
2. Low wages:– Most low-skill jobs are relatively poorly paid
3. The design of government policies:– The structure, level and complexity of family assistance– Low take-up rates for some child-related benefits– Child support arrangements– Employment and training policies– Childcare, ECE, OSCAR and related policies
The causes of child poverty in NZ
There are many myths, misconceptions and half-truths about poverty, both here in NZ and elsewhere. Let me briefly consider 9 claims:
Claim 1: There is no real poverty in NZ; no one misses out on anything really important; no child goes hungry
Response: 1. There may be little abject poverty (i.e. starvation), but there is
evidence that many children (20,000+) go to school hungry and/or have no lunch on a regular basis; and large numbers miss out on many other ‘essential’ items and opportunities
2. The negative consequences of low incomes/material deprivation on children are many and varied (see later slides)
Some common claims
Claim 2: People are in poverty because they are lazy and don’t want to work; they deserve to be poor; and/or Claim 3: People are in poverty because they are addicted to drink or drugs; they deserve to be poor; and/orClaim 4: People are in poverty because they don’t know how to manage their money properly; they are incompetent
Response:1. Why did child poverty rates rise 2-3 times during the late
1980s and early 1990s? Was it because of an outbreak of parental laziness, and/or financial incompetency, and/or substance abuse? There are rather better explanations …
2. Should children be expected to suffer for the inadequacies of their parents? Should we simply say: ‘bad luck, you should have chosen your parents better?’
Some common claims
Claim 5: People are in poverty because they have too many children (‘the more they breed, the more we [taxpayers] bleed’)
Response:1. This is partly true, but what is the appropriate policy response?
How much paternalism and/or coercion is justified? What are the relevant moral principles?– Should we sterilize poor people so they cannot ‘breed’?– Should we tell the poor that they should not have children – this is
only a privilege for the better off?Or– Should we try to ensure that all children get the best possible start in
life?
Some common claims
Claim 6: The problem is poor parenting not poverty
Response:1. There is evidence of both poor parenting (neglect, abuse, etc.) and
poverty2. There is evidence that poor parenting is at least partly the product
of poverty (which causes parental anxiety, stress, poor health, etc.)3. We need to address both poverty and poor parenting; it is not one
or the other; both are important and amenable to policy action
Some common claims
Claim 7: Helping those in poverty just makes the situation worse
Response:1. There is little empirical evidence to support this claim. 2. If the claim were true, then several millennia of Christian
charity and 100+ years of a welfare state has been a waste of time
3. The way help is provided obviously matters – need cost-effective assistance and interventions that build capability, extend opportunities and reduce undesirable dependency
Some common claims
Claim 8: Giving the poor money does not help; they will simply misuse it
Response:1. Some people find it hard to manage money well; but this is
not limited to the poor. The poor have less margin for error.2. Why do we think that the rich benefit from tax cuts, but the
poor do not benefit from having more income?3. There is much evidence that income matters, and that
providing additional income to poor families generates positive outcomes
4. But income is not the only thing that matters; in-kind assistance is often appropriate and desirable (e.g. free education, free health care, social housing, etc.)
Some common claims
Claim 9: We cannot afford to reduce child poverty
Response: 1. We could equally say that we cannot afford NOT to reduce child
poverty. Why? Because child poverty imposes significant costs (see next slide); investing well in children produces positive returns (and saves on future fiscal costs)
2. Child poverty can be reduced; we have much lower rates of poverty and material deprivation amongst those 65+ in NZ.
3. The scale and severity of child poverty/deprivation is a partly matter of societal choice. Fundamental issues: What do we regard as an adequate social ‘safety net’? Do we expect most of those on welfare assistance to live in poverty? Since the early 1990s we have chosen to tolerate child poverty of significant levels and duration; reducing child poverty has not been a high policy priority. Why?
Some common claims
1. This is an ethical issue – there is much relevant empirical evidence, but weighing up this evidence depends on our values
2. There are many theological grounds for saying that child poverty matters:– The value of all people in God’s sight (‘imago dei’)– God’s special concern for the vulnerable and powerless (widows,
strangers, orphans, etc.)– The second commandment – love our neighbours (broad conception of
neighbour)– The importance of everyone having a stake in their society and economyJesus said: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14)
3. There are many other grounds for saying that child poverty matters:– Principles of social justice, notions of rights, minimization of harm,
economic considerations, etc. (often based on theological grounds)
Does child poverty matter?
A large and growing body of research highlights:A. The negative impacts of family poverty on children, including:1. Greater likelihood of death in childhood2. 3x higher incidence of ill-health, including 2x greater likelihood of hospital
admission for acute infectious diseases3. 5-6x higher incidence of hospitalisation from assault4. Lower participation in ECE and higher school absenteeism5. Negative impact on cognitive development and educational attainment 6. Higher residential mobility, poor housing and homelessness7. Lower family resilience – higher parental stress and separation rates
B. The negative impacts of childhood poverty on the wider society, including:8. Higher unemployment and lower productivity growth9. Higher fiscal costs: health care, benefit payments, criminal justice system, etc.10. Significant overall economic and social costs
Does child poverty matter?
Further, the evidence suggests that:
1. Child poverty imposes greater costs/harms when it is severe and/or persistent
– Evidence suggests that hardship tends to increase the longer a family is on a low income
2. Child poverty imposes greater costs/harms when it occurs in early childhood
Does child poverty matter?
1. Establishment of Expert Advisory Group (EAG) by the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills (13 members)
2. EAG’s Terms of Reference – advice on how to reduce child poverty and mitigate its effects
3. Issues and Options paper (late August), 24 Working Papers and 4 Background Papers
– Consultation process for 7 weeks– 23 public meetings around the country– 100 web-based survey responses– 233 formal submissions (many substantial)– 300 children consulted
4. Final Report published on 11 December5. Government’s response on 28 May
What should be done?
1. Acknowledge policy complexity, trade-offs and tensions2. Build on current government policy initiatives to enhance
employment opportunities, improve the quality of childcare/ECE, encourage beneficiaries into the workforce, set targets, take an investment approach, etc.
3. Draw on the best available international evidence regarding what works and what is cost-effective
4. Draw on a range of ethical principles and considerations to guide policy development
5. Focus on both reducing child poverty and mitigating its effects6. Focus on boosting incomes via both an employment strategy and
a complementary social assistance strategy7. 78 recommendations covering many areas of public policy
The Approach of the Expert Advisory Group
Core messages
1. Child poverty can, and should, be reduced2. New Zealand needs a strategic policy framework based on
multi-party agreement (as for National Superannuation) – with official poverty measures, specific reduction targets, and a proper monitoring and reporting framework (including child poverty-related indicators); consistent with the Government’s targets under ‘Better Public Services’
3. The EAG recommended reducing child poverty rates by at least 30-40% and severe and persistent poverty by well over 50%, with the aim of achieving child poverty rates that are comparable to the best performing OECD countries
– Implies raising the disposable incomes of many low-income families by at least $100 per week (e.g. taking those on 50% of the median household disposable income to 60%)
Core messages
How to achieve such targets?1. Need a mix of policy measures; no single magic bullet2. Boost the incomes of low-income families:
– Focus on assisting younger children and larger families via changes to Family Tax Credits
– Reform child support– Reform housing assistance– Encourage and support child-age appropriate employment by
parents (especially sole parents)
3. Provide additional in-kind support, e.g.– Free child health care from birth to 18 years– Develop a national strategy for food in schools (especially for year 1-
8 students in low-decile schools)– Establish multi-service hubs in low-decile schools
The Government’s Response
1. The Government has responded positively to many of the EAG’s 78 recommendations, but not those relating to income support; nor has it accepted the EAG’s proposals for a comprehensive child poverty reduction strategy
2. Some new initiatives to mitigate the worst consequences of poverty have been announced (e.g. an extension to the food in schools programme); some other proposals are under active consideration (e.g. low-interest loans)
3. Hopefully some of the EAG’s proposals relating to income support will be taken up in future budgets; otherwise child poverty and material deprivation rates are unlikely to fall much over the medium term
Next steps
1. Note the response of other political parties, community groups, etc.
2. We need to change public attitudes, values and priorities:– Many New Zealanders appear ready to tolerate significant child
poverty (and some appear not to care about the welfare of poor children)
– Survey evidence points to a loss of public support over recent decades for progressive taxation and income redistribution
3. How might public attitudes be changed?– Aristotle: logos, ethos and pathos– Reason (evidence, logic); ethical arguments; emotional appeal
(based on suffering and shame)
4. The Christian community needs a stronger focus on child poverty issues (action and advocacy)
Conclusions
1. Child poverty is a serious issue in NZ, with significant long-term economic and social implications
2. The level of child poverty is partly a matter of policy choice 3. NZ has tolerated much higher rates of poverty (and especially child
poverty) than was the case in the immediate post-war period4. Fundamentally, we need to increase the incomes of low-income
households (especially families) – this requires a combination of measures: increased employment, more generous child assistance, changes to child support, increased subsidies for childcare and training, etc.
5. But also need to address some deeper issues: economic performance, the level of income and wealth inequality, family functioning (how to reduce the incidence of sole parenthood?), social values (what kind of society do we want to live in?)
Supplementary slides
1. Policy principles2. Poverty measurement3. Specific proposals4. The global picture5. Acknowledgements
Principles for policy design for addressing child poverty
The following principles and considerations should guide policies:1. The rights enunciated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child2. The best interests of the child, including the child’s developmental needs3. The provisions and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi4. A ‘social contract’ that recognizes:
The mutual responsibilities of parents, the community and the wider society for the care and wellbeing of children
The requirement to provide social assistance to those unable to work or secure paid employment sufficient to meet the basic needs of children
The importance of parental employment in reducing child poverty, but in a context where the developmental needs of children are protected (e.g. through accessible, affordable, high-quality childcare, ECE, etc.)
The vital role of housing, high-quality education, and equitable access to health care
5. The desirability of a strong future focus, and hence an investment approach6. The desirability of selecting policy measures that are simply, effective,
efficient and fair7. The need for fiscal responsibility
Need a range of poverty measures (should be official/authoritative). The EAG proposed:
a. Moving line – 60% of median equivalized household disposable income, annually adjusted, AHC and BHC
b. Fixed line/constant value – 60% of median equivalized household disposable income, adjusted every 10 years, AHC and BHC
c. Material deprivation – material wellbeing index score in levels 1 or 2 out of 7
d. Severe poverty – mix of (a) and (c); and poverty gap (distance of median income of the poor from the moving-line measure)
e. Persistent poverty – at least 3 of 4 years, using both (a) and (c)
• Supplementary measures: inter-generational transmission, life-cycle, and geographic
Measuring Poverty
Specific Proposals:Income and Employment
Short- term proposals:1. Improve tax/welfare system:
Rebalance Family Tax Credits to favour young children and larger familieso Lift all payments to rate of eldest child aged 16+ ($101.98 per week);
implies an increase of about $10 per week for eldest child under 16, and close to $40 per week for additional children under 13
o Subsequently, raise rates incrementally for children aged 0-6
Index all child-related benefits annually Monitor and publish annual take-up rates Establish performance incentives to encourage high take-up rates Appoint a person to the Work and Income Board with child well-
being and development expertise
Specific Proposals:Income and Employment
Short- term proposals:
2. Amend the Child Support Act to require: Pass on a proportion of payments to custodial
parents who receive a sole-parent benefit Government underwriting of payments
o These changes would benefit over 130,000 children, close to 90,000 of whom live in poverty
o $159m was withheld from these children in 2011 by IRD; if all this were passed on, the average per child benefit would be $1,200 per annum or $23 per week
o The proposed changes would have many other benefits
Specific proposals:Income and Employment
Longer-term policy framework:
1. Focus on children’s developmental needs, tilt assistance to young children, and incentivize paid employment that is appropriate to age of child
2. Establish a Child Payment – universal for the first 6 years, targeted thereafter; higher rate during infancy and declining gradually in steps
3. Undertake an independent review of all child-related benefits, including In-Work Tax Credit
4. EAG doing further work on income support regime for our Final Report
Specific proposals:Income and Employment
Rationale for universal element to the proposed child payment:
1. Need a pragmatic approach to the debate over universality versus targeting; various criteria need consideration
2. There is a good case for universal funding under certain conditions
3. NZ has universal funding of ECE, compulsory education, aspects of tertiary education, most of health care, old age pension, etc.
4. 21 of 34 OECD countries have a universal child payment as part of their child assistance policies
Specific proposals:Income and Employment
Rationale for universal element to the proposed child payment:
1. Reduces labour market disincentives (by reducing EMTRs)2. Recognizes the wider social benefits of raising children and the high costs of
younger children3. Recognizes the complexity of contemporary families4. Simpler and more transparent, with lower transaction & compliance costs5. Ensures high take-up rates 6. Potentially provides an alternative to more extensive paid parental leave, and
would be fairer than current paid parent leave arrangements7. Supports a parent to stay at home during infancy (with positive child development
impacts)8. Provides a population database (for use by health and social service agencies)9. Provides a symmetry with the universal nature of National Superannuation10. Enhances political commitment for, and long-term stability of, the policy (political
economy reasons)
Specific proposals:Income and Employment
Employment policies:
1. Weak case for raising the minimum wage2. Little scope for further reduction in employment regulation3. Job subsidy schemes may have merit, but only under strict conditions4. Need to ensure adequate incentives for paid employment and support for
parents of younger children via subsidies, accessible and good quality child care, ECE, OSCAR, holiday programmes etc.
5. Need appropriate support for training/up-skilling/tertiary education for parents, especially beneficiaries
6. Need to encourage child-friendly workplaces 7. Need strong incentives for welfare agencies to place parents with children
into sustainable, child-appropriate forms of employment
Specific Proposals:Housing
• Improve the quality and quantity of housingo Prioritize housing in the National Infrastructure Plano Establish a Warrant of Fitness for all rental accommodationo Extend subsidies for insulation and heating
• Enhance the supply of social housing• Re-focus the Accommodation Supplement and Income-
Related Rent subsidies• Enhance opportunities for home ownership
Specific Proposals: Health
Short-term:• Support free primary health care for all children from 0-6 years especially
after hours• Establish a common assessment framework and pathway for all children
from before birth to identify and respond to needs, shared by all health practitioners
• Apply principle of ‘proportionate universalism’
Longer-term:• Expand free primary health care progressively to all children (0-17)• Improve information systems via a unified enrolment system• Develop a national plan to improve child nutrition• Establish youth-friendly health and social services in all low-decile
secondary schools
Specific Proposals: Education
• Continue to implement ECE work programme• Develop a national strategy for food in schools• Incentivize schools and ECE centres in disadvantaged
areas to become ‘full service schools’ or ‘community hubs’
• Improve access to after-school care and holiday programmes
• Expand the Teen Parent Units
Specific Proposals: Pasifika
• Develop measures and indicators using Pasifika understandings of identity and success
• Focus on making progress in Auckland especially– Overcrowding– Employment– Education– Health promotion– Justice
• Ensure government services have effective links with Pasifika community and church groups
• Encourage high-quality research to drive innovation & responsiveness in public services for Pasifika children
Specific Proposals: Māori
• Develop measures of Māori well-being and set targets to eliminate the disparities in rates of poverty for Māori children
• Better outcomes in education, health, employment & justice
• Develop a strategy to prevent Māori homelessness • Better integrated health & social services for Māori
children, including parenting programmes • Support trusted workers and develop integrated service
hubs
Specific Proposals: Other
Other specific proposals cover:• Community & local initiatives• Debt• Substance abuse• Gambling• Research needs
5. White Paper for Vulnerable Children6. ‘Vulnerable Kids Information System’ – to enable greater cross-sectoral
collaboration and information sharing; identify, assess and respond7. ‘Child Protect’ telephone line8. Better training for professional involved with child protection9. Children’s teams10. Regional Children’s Directors – to enhance accountability11. More social workers in CYF and schools12. Public awareness campaign13. Children’s Action Plan
Issues:14. Limited to child abuse and neglect; does not address domestic violence15. Does not address wider social issues including deprivation and poverty16. Adequacy of resources17. Privacy risks
EAG and Context
Acknowledgements
Expert Advisory Group, Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand: Issues and Options Paper for Consultation, August 2012
Expert Advisory Group, Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand: Evidence for Action, December 2012
Bryan Perry, Household Incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, 1982 to 2011, Wellington, Ministry of Social Development, 2012)
Peter Saunders, Presentation for IGPS Workshops, 19 and 21 September 2012
The NZ Treasury, Improving outcomes for children – Initial Views on Medium-term Policy Directions (2013)
1. Around 1 billion people (around 15% of the world’s population of 7 billion+) experience regular hunger
2. Many millions die of poverty-related causes each year
3. By NZ standards, most people in the world are poor – about half live on less then US$2.50 per day
4. In relative terms, things are improving globally, but many future risks, including the impact of climate change and political instability
The Global Picture
