by Metiria Turei
An important report was launched today about child health in Aotearoa New Zealand. The first ever Children’s Social Health monitor was launched today at the conference of the New Zealand Paediatric Society. This report is the baseline from which children’s social health will be measured in future, using a range of both economic and health indicators.
You might have seen media coverage of the report this morning. It notes a number of alarming realities.
One in five New Zealand children are currently reliant on benefit recipients, and the ongoing recession means that this number is going to keep rising.
Given this fact, and the fact that there are already vast disparities in health for vulnerable children, we can expect to see further negative health impacts for children in the future.
When families struggle to meet basic needs, the report shows, kids often go without fresh fruit and vegetables, suitable wet-weather gear and shoes that fit, adequate heating, school trips and sports events, school books, suitable sleeping space, and many other basic needs.
This all impacts negatively on their health. With beneficiary numbers growing and jobs hard to come by for many parents, we can expect to see this worsening in future.
Catherine and I questioned Social Development Minister Paula Bennett about the report in the House today.
The Minister tried to claim that beneficiary numbers would not go up under this Government, despite the fact that they have risen considerably already. She also suggested that the Government’s policy of forcing beneficiaries into work would improve child health outcomes, but with the number of full time jobs for women declining, the market for part-time work highly competitive, hours being cut back in existing jobs threatening in-work payments, and rental housing prices continuing to rise, she cannot back this assertion up.
By contrast, Catherine presented solid examples from time spent with beneficiary advocates in Rotorua earlier this week that right now, Work and Income is failing to provide basic support such as food grants to families who need it.
This report is unequivocal: New Zealand’s benefit provisions are unlikely to protect a large proportion of our children from severe or significant hardship in the short and medium term future.
Its release is welcome and timely, and we should all be taking it extremely seriously.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Health & Wellbeing | Parliament by Metiria Turei on Wed, November 25th, 2009
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
...
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
21 (-18)
Maybe a voucher system is the way to go. No cash. If the kids still havent got food, shoes, clothing, etc. investigate where the vouchers have gone.
Simple number tracking would leave a paper trail to follow in case the vouchers appear on a black market.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Going after poeople who are dead beat from being gone sfter,
all their possible lives bro?
Would you know anyway?
Doubtfull bugger.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Child Health is the measure of our Care of Government duly performed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Mark
Do parents feature at all in that measure of care?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Vouchers are the way to go.
Don’t hand losers more money. The racing industry may love it, but the rest of us don’t.
Like or Dislike:
6 
13 (-7)
“When families struggle to meet basic needs, the report shows, kids often go without fresh fruit and vegetables, suitable wet-weather gear and shoes that fit, adequate heating, school trips and sports events, school books, suitable sleeping space, and many other basic needs.”
Are breeding females with no supporting partner “families”?
Like or Dislike:
3 
10 (-7)
Gerrit; Sorry, delays here are incessible….Parents are always first and foremost. Has someone interfered with that?
PS I am not a parent – but saw all too much and such in my social work….please extrapolate in particular – I’m sure there are endless genuine claims
Hell I got 15 an no knee knockers – sorry.
You feel absconded,…..?
as a Parent?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The key detail is that there 60,000 on the UB and 150,000 registered as unemployed. This shows an increase in partners who have lost their job and thus more families “surviving” on one income, because of unemployment.
The current (and former) government is not providing assistance to these half unemployed couples because it will not allow the unemployed partner access to the dole.
Where there are children they are reliant on WFF to cover the loss of one of the two incomes – but it was not designed to do this. And let’s note many in the current government opposed WFF and hope that tax reform ends it. Yet research shows it was only WFF which ended child poverty many low income families where one or both parents were working.
As to assisting those on benefits alone, there are options
1. the increased ability to earn money from part-time work before the benefit is abated (planned).
2. increasing the accommodation benefit to those on benefits with children (in return paying the money as a voucher which can only be cashed as part-payment of rent by the landlord).
3. ensuring funding and access to extra assistance when required and for such purposes (vouchers for power during the winter, only cashed as part-payment of the bill by the power company and vouchers for food).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
SPC,
I am going to show my naiveity here again: the UB is not availible to individuals with a working partner?
I do not believe that having a partner should disqualify one from receiving such assistance. I do believe that there should be some abatement as a partners income increases but there should not be a flat out refusal if one has a partner with income. This is for the same reason as the SB/IB qualification, which we have touched on before.
That said, it is still important that, as per the UB requirements, the individual is actively seeking work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The social implications of relative poverty, and the effects on people’s self esteem are serious. But as an economist I unashamedly look at the material economic affects.
The problem is to achieve a sustainable economy with high living standards for all the people who depend on it we need well educated and well adjusted children growing into well educated and well adjusted adults who can adapt to technological progress and participate in a meaningful way in the economy.
What we are doing is allowing a larger and larger group of marginalised families who produce a larger and larger pool of young adults who have less and less ability to participate and adapt. Immigration of skilled workers is no solution as this pool of marginalised people still exists.
Digressing for a moment away from economics to illustrate that economics alone will not help. When I was a young person, the year the “Mr Asia” herion syndicate was leaving bodies all over the globe in shallow graves Jim Fletcher got a knighthood for (it seemed to me at the time) for running a very similar business to Terry Clarke (Dominion Breweries). Also that year (1980) Watties, which was one of NZ’s biggest firms, paid zero tax. This had a huge influence on me and despite my advantaged economic conditions (upper middle class professional pākehā family) I spent the next ten years completely disillusioned and refused to contribute at all. It all seamed hopelessly corrupt.
Economically, to ensure the availability of the material means for families to be integrated in the economy to the point where their children have a chance to b the sort of adults that we need: We must increase the incomes of people who work and increase the availability of work.
As things stand it is not poissible to live a materially satisfactory life for the sorts of incomes people can achieve through honest work. That is have a warm secure home, dress and feed their children adequately with some thing left over for some luxuries. Not in the parts of the country where most people want to live. It is possible with two good jobs in the house. Sometimes. Where does that leave the children? No parents (they are working). Living in over crowded conditions (the more working adults in the house hold the better off materially everyone is. The worse every bodies health). Visible differentials between the working poor and the (seemingly) idle rich. Study after study show that these children do not grow up to be the sorts of adults that our economy needs. Harsh, but true.
To establish a full employment economy (again, we used to have one till Muldoon destroyed it ion a nepotistic frenzy) will require interference in the markets. For all sorts of reasons (that I can enumerate if there is disbelief) free markets will not produce full high wage employment.
To achieve the sorts of interference necessary will require a lot of resources. So we must get used to a high tax high benefit economy.
In this context “high benefit” does not mean just welfare benefits (which should be high enough to live on, which they are not currently) but mostly “high benefit” means things like:
* Good quality cheap (or free) health care. Especially primary services
* Good quality free education. Schools need to be properly resourced (they are not now – witness the higher and higher “donations” required). We need tertiary courses matched to our needs without saddling students with debt. (hard to predict what our needs are, but one sure way to get that wrong is not to try)
* Good quality affordable food. This very hard to achieve. But again one way of ensuring that we do not achieve it is not to try.
* Good quality affordable housing. This is definitely possible with a decent state housing programme.
Remember that children living in poverty is not a “market failure” but it is an “economic failure”. We need to manage our economy so it does not happen. That requires high taxes and high expenditure, and an imaginative approach. It is quite clear that neither the Labour or the National party have the imagination for this. They are too wedded to the failed “free market” solutions that are so clearly part of the problem.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
How much are you going to tax me for that, and why wouldn’t I move my business to a country with lower taxation?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Blue Peter
Going to tax you a lot.
I will help you take your luggage to the air port!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Sure, but there will be many more like me on that flight, and the next, and the next.
Then what? You really think the people who generate most of New Zealand’s income are easily replaced? By whom?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Bliss,
Im going to do something abnormal for me and gift you ‘positive-kudos’ for that post as I see that well-thought out post/mini-essay as something we need more of.
My comments though:
Our health care is already cheap/free but I would agree the availibility and quality need to increase substantially.
I agree with the need for better education and greater funding. Education is the main method through which we are able to eleveate these children and eliminate the negative imprinting their failures-of-parents have imprinted upon them. Almost complete educational reform is needed and, as much as I hate to admit it, private schools have the potential to pave the way in this respect.
I think the food is best achieved through meals being provided, and to some extent grown and prepared, at school. This aspect of education could hold great potential for benefit to the well-being of the children through-out their schooling and in latter life. This approach also frees up benefit money.
The benefit is already at a level well in excess of what is needed. Though, if what SPC says is true, then there are some eligablilty changes that need to be made.
I do agree with increased state housing, though I would like to see a small amount of it, for individuals, take a more prison-block style such as students are used to and a more monestry like approach for small families. I would also like to see some fundign of state housing to Iwi whom have had lands granted back to them. This would save both sides money and encourage maori community development while making it easier to provide culturally apropriate services.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I worked in London with a lot of people from Europe, particularly Denmark. They were working in London because the tax rates were too high in Denmark. No doubt they returned to Denmark when they needed medical care.
I see much the same problem occurring with Bliss’ plan.
New Zealand – nice place for a holiday, but wouldn’t want to live there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)