Professor Jonathan Boston argues that New Zealand already has an ambitious long-term poverty-reduction target applies to children, and we should work vigorously and assiduously to achieve it.

The following commentary is by Professor of Public Policy Jonathan Boston from the School of Government, who co-chaired the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty for the Children's Commissioner in 2012. It was originally published in the Dominion Post, 5 October 2016.

John Key has rejected advice from the Children's Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, to set a specific target to reduce child poverty in the near term. He argues that governments should not set such targets.

Why? According to the Prime Minister measuring poverty is difficult and there is no single, agreed measure.

Also, he thinks it is better to focus on specific goals, like reducing rheumatic fever, rather than vague goals like alleviating poverty.

But the Prime Minister's arguments lack credibility, as his government already has a target to reduce child poverty.

In September last year his government, along with virtually every other government around the world, endorsed the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

The first of the 17 goals is to end poverty everywhere in all its forms. Included under this broad objective is a more specific poverty-reduction target, namely to 'reduce by at least half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions'.

So, New Zealand already has an ambitious long-term poverty-reduction target. And it applies to children. Such a goal is welcome. We should work vigorously and assiduously to achieve it.

Why, then, are many people, including the Prime Minister, unaware of what the government has committed to? After all, the Sustainable Development Goals are hardly trivial. They were negotiated over many years before being globally endorsed last year.

Moreover, there is nothing new about governments setting child poverty-reduction targets. Governments around the world have done so for many years. In Britain, a Child Poverty Act was enacted in 2010 with cross-party support committing governments to setting and achieving specific targets to curb child poverty.

Any suggestion, therefore, that governments cannot set child poverty-reduction targets is implausible.

A single measure of poverty?

But the Prime Minister has another concern. He is against child poverty-reduction targets because there is no single, agreed measure of poverty, but such an argument is unconvincing.

Just because there is no one correct measure does not mean that poverty cannot be measured, or that targets cannot be set.

Imagine saying that we cannot set targets for improving economic performance or enhancing environmental quality because there is no single, correct measure of performance or quality.

Multi-dimensional problems, like poverty or poor economic performance, need multiple measures and thus multiple targets.

In the case of poverty, including child poverty, the Ministry of Social Development publishes a series of authoritative and reliable measures annually. These assess the levels of both income-related poverty and material deprivation or hardship.

The target embodied in the Sustainable Development Goals to halve all dimensions of poverty by 2030 applies to each of these published national measures. What we currently lack are sensible medium-term targets and a plan to achieve them.

Next, the Prime Minister argues that setting targets for harmful things like rheumatic fever is better than having poverty-reduction targets. But this represents a false choice. We can readily have both kinds of targets.

More importantly, reducing child poverty will help reduce rates of rheumatic fever, as well as alleviating many other childhood afflictions.

Poverty targets and policy choices

Perhaps the Prime Minister's objections to poverty targets reflect doubts about whether governments can improve societal outcomes. If so, then there is a simple, evidence-based response: government policies can make a big difference.

Indeed, to a significant extent, the rates of income-related poverty and material deprivation reflect the policy choices of governments. New Zealand has chosen over many decades to have low rates of hardship amongst our elderly. We have yet to make the same choice for our children.

Perhaps, then, the fundamental issue is moral: is child poverty bad and should governments try to reduce it? Surely the answer must be 'yes'. Setting targets is an important way of giving visible expression to significant moral concerns.

The government has set an ambitious target to eradicate all non-native predators from New Zealand by 2050 and the process of developing plans and setting milestones has begun.

The government is committed internationally – even if the Prime Minister is unaware – to halving poverty, including child poverty, by 2030. What is currently lacking are plans and milestones to achieve this goal.

Is halving child poverty less important than eradicating all non-native predators?

Commentary on National Radio

Contact:

Phone:

Email: