Source: Child Poverty Action Group
The persistent child poverty definition is the last of the ten measures under the Child Poverty Reduction Act to be released. The Minister for Child Poverty Reduction is required to set a reduction goal by December 2024, making it the fourth and final primary goal under the Act.
Persistent child poverty is now officially defined as ‘children living in households with less than 60% of the median household equivalised disposable income before housing costs are deducted (relative rate), in the current year and for at least 2 of the previous 3 years’.
The preliminary Stats NZ data released alongside shows 98,900 children are currently considered to be in living in persistent poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is 9.4% of all children in our country.
Child Poverty Action Group welcomes the release of the persistent child poverty definition, acknowledging the work of Stats NZ to develop the definition, particularly given the constraints of reduced government funding and the abandonment of the longitudinal Living in Aotearoa survey.
Limitation of measure
CPAG Researcher Harry Yu Shi notes however, ‘It’s important to highlight the limitations of this measure – indeed all child poverty measures when viewed in isolation – as relying on one measure risks overlooking the wider causes and solutions of child poverty.’
‘One of our particular concerns is that the selection of the Before Housing Costs 60 income rate means the impact of our particularly high housing costs in this country may be obscured. That is, while this definition will indeed capture many children living without the necessary resources to thrive, family incomes after they’ve paid their essential housing costs are vitally important to discussions of persistent child poverty. Scotland, for example, reports on persistent poverty with both before and after housing costs statistics.’
Shi states, ‘Housing costs are one of the biggest contributing factors to poverty and we need to be really transparent about that. Our high living costs are sweeping families into poverty and locking them in there. If we are to truly tackle persistent child poverty in New Zealand we need to take a multi-factorial, long-term approach, which includes the provision of high-quality and affordable housing. A persistent poverty measure that does not take into account household income after housing costs misses a core piece of both the causes and solutions to child poverty’.
Statistics NZ inadequately funded to continue key longitudinal studies
Unfortunately, the recent defunding of key longitudinal studies has significantly constrained Stats NZ’s ability to gather information about a family’s housing costs and material hardship rate over time. Therefore, tracking persistent poverty by administrative data in a retrospective manner is the only feasible data collection method. A point discussed in the Government Statistician’s accompanying paper.
CPAG says this indicates the need for the government to adequately fund Stats NZ in order to capture timely and accurate information about child poverty.
This latest measure is an opportunity for New Zealand to reflect on the high number of children that are experiencing the cumulative impact of deprivation during formative and important years of their lives. It is unacceptable that so many are experiencing prolonged deprivation, as defined by 3 out of 4 years. It is vital for the government to deliver support without further delay. We need to focus on the 2028 goal of halving child poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand.
As Shi states, ‘We need a holistic plan to help all children constrained by poverty – particularly those who are experiencing the deepest and most entrenched poverty. We need a long-term national poverty reduction strategy with the intent to stamp out systematic oppressions, not just short-term policy fixes, to truly address child poverty in New Zealand. A coordinated cross-ministerial strategy must be formulated that includes public housing, nutritious food in schools, a welfare system based on dignity and compassion, and benefit levels equal to liveable incomes.’
