AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Child poverty is a critical social policy issue in New Zealand. It is predicted that around 22 percent of the nation’s children live below established poverty lines, an increase of upto ten percent since 2007 (Johnston 2013, 14). Child poverty has been accompanied by widening income disparities and the over-representation of ethnic minorities in marginalised population groups (St John & Wynd 1998, 31). Solutions to the issue have been wide-ranging, and are often shaped by the political values of the individual (Expert Advisory Group 2012, 14). Policy documents form a clear example, as the ideological values of authors are often embodied within the texts of their publications (Partridge 2010, n.p.).  This study will compare the 2012 recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group for Child Poverty Solutions (EAG) with related policy initiatives undertaken by National Governments of the 1990s.  The implicit ideologies found within these polices can be identified by comparing their approaches toward the state assistance of low income families

The origins of child poverty have been typically attributed the period of Neoliberal economic reform in the 1980s and 90s (Snook et al. 1999, 21). Elected in 1984, the Fourth Labour Government embarked upon a reformist agenda that terminated decades of tight governmental fiscal management (Roper 2008, 14). Inspired by economists of the ‘New Right’, Labour privatised state assets and deregulated the national economy to effect economic diversification and improved consumer choice (Kelsey 1995, 114). Although these reforms were wide-ranging, Labour retained the country’s social welfare system to avoid upsetting its working-class support base (Cheyne, O’Brien & Belgrave 2005, 39). Unrestrained by such concerns, successive National Governments of the 1990s injected ideologies of self-responsibility and market efficiency into the social welfare regime. In her first annual budget, Finance Minister Ruth Richardson (1991, 19) remodelled the welfare scheme into a system of “targeted assistance” applicable only to those in “genuine need”. Such changes resulted in a reduction of the value of most benefits, and fostered the growth social issues such as unemployment, poverty and inequality (Poata-Smith 1999, 102). Consequences of the neoliberal reforms still to present themselves in the current era, as modern day New Zealanders continue to face issues such as child poverty (Shirlaw 2012, n.p.).

Released in December 2012, the Expert Advisory Group’s report provides 78 recommendations that aim to mitigate child poverty. The Group was established by the Children’s Commissioner, a Crown entity that is autonomous from the Government (Office of the Children’s Commissioner, 2013). Although the Group’s recommendations are directed at governmental actors, the roles of private charities, businesses and individuals in addressing poverty are also recognised (EAG 2012, viii). This endorses the report’s secondary objective as a means of raising public debate concerning the phenomenon of child poverty in New Zealand (Boston 2012, n.p.). The report received media attention, and has been subjected to discussion by politicians from across the political spectrum (Shirlaw 2012, n.p.). The Expert Advisory Group’s report is therefore a significant document that has potential to shape governmental approaches to child poverty. Through an analysis of the ideological framework that undermines the report’s recommendations, conclusions can be drawn about the shifts in policy discourse that have occurred since the 1990s. 

Child Payments – a step back to universalism?

One of the Expert Advisory Group’s most significant recommendations is the Universal Child Payment (Burr 2012, n.p.). The report contends that existing systems of child-related income support, benefits and tax credits are in need of review and streamlining (EAG 2012, 41). It therefore recommends that the Government implements a universal Child Payment to be made accessible to all families containing children below the age of six (EAG 2012, 41). Above this age criteria, payments would continue to be available on a targeted basis (EAG 2012, 41). The report claims that such an initiative would mitigate child poverty rates, as insufficient income levels are a key contributor to the problem (Hanson & Olson 2012, 1175). Furthermore, the report contends that the success of universal payment schemes have been unequivocally observed in other countries (EAG 2012, 41). The Advisory Group therefore recommends universal child payments as a viable method of governmental assistance for parents of young children.  

The proposed child payment bears a resemblance to the universal family benefit that existed from 1945 to 1991 (Boston 1999, 8). When first implemented, the family benefit entitled mothers to the equivalent of half of the woman’s weekly wage for their role in raising children (McClure 2004, 144).  Although the Advisory Group’s proposed child payment circumvents such gendered family assumptions, it reemphasises the state’s role in providing for all citizens (McClure 2004, 145). Such ideology identifies the government as an important actor in ensuring egalitarianism of opportunity and well-being (Cheyne, O’Brien & Belgrave 2005, 74). The Advisory Group’s policy of universal child payments therefore presents ideological overtones that represent New Zealand’s social democratic roots.

By contrast, the Neoliberal agendas of New Zealand’s governments in the 1990s promoted ideals of personal individuality and self-reliance (Boston 1999, 13). This new emphasis required a fundamental redesign of the state’s obligations to its citizens, as citizenship became a matter of personal obligation instead of the gateway to a universal entitlement of rights (Humpage & Craig 2008, 45). Ultimately, the language of the labour market was affixed to the social welfare system (Kelsey 1995, 271).  The family benefit was therefore targeted to low income groups alone in 1991, as its universal distribution was seen as fiscally unviable (Stephens 2008, 31). The role of the family benefit in abating poverty was left unconsidered in this decision (Stephens 2008, 31). The only benefit to remain consistently universal throughout these changes was the superannuation programme, although even this was not uncontested (St John 1999, 278). The Advisory Group’s recommendations for universal child payments therefore form an interesting attempt to return to the universalist welfare ideologies that have been largely absent from New Zealand’s welfare landscape for two decades.

Housing - the state’s duty to mend?

The Expert Advisory Group (2012, 45) identifies housing as a crucial element in the child poverty equation. It is posited that housing quality has a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the child, and can impact their educational performance (EAG 2012, 46). The report identifies key housing issues as the lack of their quantity and quality (EAG 2012, 46). This results in the overcrowding of families into dwellings that fall below established quality standards (Johnston 2013, 67). The Report’s response is a proposed mass housing construction scheme, through which the Government would build two thousand state houses annually (EAG 2012, 47). This is expected to mitigate the extreme demand that exists for state housing. To assess housing quality, the Advisory Group proposes a “Building Warrant of Fitness” which would grade dwellings on their adherence to building standards (EAG 2012, 47). Incentives would then encourage landlords to improve the “fitness rating” of their properties (EAG 2012, 47).  In tandem with this, the Advisory Group commends the Government’s current home insulation subsidy scheme, and recommends the extension of its eligibility to include all poorly insulated homes (EAG 2012, 49). The report therefore makes recommendations that identify the role of good quality housing in proactively combating child poverty.

Once again, the Advisory Group’s emphasis on housing mirrors governmental policy of times past. State houses have been constructed on a large scale since the 1930s, as governments have emphasised good housing as the cornerstone of a healthy welfare state (Belgrave 2004, 29). The Report’s recommendations signify a return to these values, as housing construction is seen as a practical step that the government can take to mitigate inequality (EAG 2012, 46).  The responsibility of the state in mitigating this problem is made clear, as the social and health-related costs of poor housing will be deeply taxing for future governments. (EAG 2012, 45). The Advisory Group therefore puts an onus on the state to provide housing for its citizens.

The Report’s recommendations mark a detachment from the market-oriented housing policies of the 1990s, which transferred mortgage administration to the private sector and charged market-value rents for state houses (Johnston 2003, 8). Although an Accommodation Supplement was introduced to subsidise these changes, a mass increase in rental rates ultimately left tenants in a disadvantaged position (Waldegrave 2000, 1). These policies were representative of neoliberal ideology, as housing maintenance was delegated to private landlords who are predicated to have a pecuniary interest in the market value of their properties (Kelsey 1995, 120). This removal of state intervention from housing  contrasts the state-centred values that are implicit in the Advisory Group’s report. Despite this contention, however, it may be noted that the report’s recommendations for state intervention stops at providing maintenance incentives for landlords (Expert Advisory Group 2012, 47). This signifies that the Report is not written without recourse to the neoliberal policies that have become normative factors of New Zealand’s society (Stephens 2008, 49).

 Food In Schools – beyond the neoliberal appetite?

In addition to housing, the Advisory Group’s report identifies the education system as a vehicle which can be utilised to address child poverty. One recommendation made in this regard is the provision of food to children in low-decile schools (EAG 2012, 60). By feeding children in this direct manner, they can be ensured an adequate and nutritious diet (EAG 2012, 60). Although food is currently being provided to selected schools by private organisations, the state’s role is seen as vital in safeguarding the consistency of food distribution (Johnston 2013, n.p.). The Advisory Group (2012, 60) therefore recommends that the central government undertakes a leadership role in the food programme. This recommendation harks back to the First Labour Government’s ‘milk in schools’ programme, which existed until 1967 with the intention of improving child health (New Zealand Milk Board 1978, 1). Although food-in-schools would be targeted in its distribution, it embodies a pragmatic response to child poverty and seeks to ensure that all children have an unmitigated opportunity to learn.

By contrast, National Governments of the 1990s would regard the direct provision of food to children as a responsibility outside of its mandate. In a system that emphasises self-reliance, the provision of food in schools is regarded as the responsibility of parents (Cheyne 2005, 40). Furthermore, neoliberal policies dictate that parents who struggle to feed their children should make themselves more competitive on the job market to improve their potential incomes (Kelsey 1995, 279). To encourage this focus on paid work, the monetary value of most benefits were cut by as much as 24 percent (Kelsey 1995, 277). These reforms saw drastic social implications in a period of high unemployment, as child poverty and food insecurity rates soared (St John 2008, 80). By 1992, the Salvation Army had increased its foodbank delivery rate by 423 percent over the previous year, whilst the Government blamed foodbanks for creating their own demand (Kelsey 1999, 292). The National Government’s policy in the 1990s therefore reflected the neoliberal values of individual responsibility and autonomy. Such an approach would be repulsed by the Advisory Group’s suggestion of food in schools, as the programme would be seen as a critical undermining of parental responsibility.

Conclusion

Through the analysis of this study it can be understood that child poverty is a considerable issue in modern day New Zealand. A consideration of the country’s socio-political history over the last two decades provides an explanation for the political ideologies and reforms that have contributed to the country’s social deficits (Kelsey 1995, 296). It is therefore noteworthy that a selection of the Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations resemble a calculated return to welfare policies of New Zealand’s pre-neoliberal era. Although the report does not suggest a complete return to Keynesianism, it reconsiders the role of state intervention in an issue that is too complex for private actors to resolve alone (EAG 2012, viii). It is hoped that the advice of the Advisory Group’s report will guide the current Government in the formidable task of eradicating child poverty from our social landscape.  

Bibliography

Baker, Maureen. 2008. Low-income mothers, employment and welfare restructuring. In New Zealand, new welfare, eds. Neil Lunt, Mike O'Brien and Robert Stephens. Melbourne: Cengage Learning: 69-77.

Belgrave, Michael. 2004. Needs and the state: evolving social policy in New Zealand history. In Past judgement: social policy in New Zealand history, eds. Bronwyn Dalley and Margaret Tennant. Dunedin: University of Otago Press: 9-22.

Boston, Jonathan. 1999. New Zealand’s welfare state in transition. In Redesigning the welfare state in New Zealand, eds. Jonathan Boston, Paul Dalziel and Susan St John. Auckland: Oxford University Press: 3-19.

Boston, Jonathan. 2012, October 8. Three myths about child poverty. The New Zealand Herald. Available from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10839028 [accessed 13 May 2013].

Burr, Lloyd. 2012, August 28. Children's Commissioner unveils plan to combat child poverty. 3 News. Available from www.3news.co.nz/Childrens-Commissioner-unveils-plan-to-combat-child-poverty/tabid/1607/articleID/267103/Default.aspx [accessed 13 May 2013].

Cheyne, Christine, Mike O'Brien, and Michael Belgrave. 2005. Social policy in Aotearoa New Zealand: a critical introduction. 3rd ed.  Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty. 2012. Solutions to child poverty in New     Zealand: Evidence for action. Wellington: Children’s Commissioner. Available from www.occ.org.nz/data/assets/pdf_file/0008/10151/Child_Poverty_Report_Web.pdf [accessed 13 May 2013].

Hanson, K. L., & Olson, C. M. (2012). Chronic health conditions and depressive symptoms strongly predict persistent food insecurity among rural low-income families. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 23(3), 1174-1174. Accession number 17085298 [accessed 13 May 2013].

Humpage, Louise, and David Craig. 2008. From welfare to welfare-to-work. In New Zealand, new welfare, eds. Neil Lunt, Mike O'Brien and Robert Stephens. Melbourne: Cengage Learning: 41-48.

Johnston, Alan. 2003. Room for improvement: current New Zealand housing policies and their implications for our children. Auckland: Child Povery Action Group. Avaliable from http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Publications/RFI.pdf [accessed 13 May 2013].

Johnston, Alan. 2013. She’ll be all right: a state of the nation report from the Salvation Army. Manukau: The Salvation Army Social Policy and Parlimentary Unit. Avaliable from  http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/uploads/file/20130211SPPUTSASotN2013Web.pdf       [accessed 13 May 2013].

Johnston, Annaliese, ed. 2013. Editorial. In Public sphere: news and updates from the Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit. Manukau: The Salvation Army Social Policy and Parlimentary Unit. Avaliable from http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/uploads/file/20130415SPPU-PublicSphere-April-2013.pdf [accessed 13 May 2013].

Kelsey, Jane. 1995. The New Zealand experiment: a world model for structural adjustment? Auckland: Auckland University Press.

McClure, Margaret. 2004. A badge of poverty or a symbol of citizenship? Needs, rights and social security, 1935-2000. In Past judgement: social policy in New Zealand history, eds. Bronwyn Dalley and Margaret Tennant. Dunedin: University of Otago Press: 141-156.

New Zealand Milk Board. 1978. New Zealand’s milk in schools scheme 1937-1967. Wellington. Avaliable from http://www.moh.govt.nz/notebook/nbbooks.nsf/0/9FCAF39CD5D18B0FCC257A05008083EC/$file/Milk%20in%20schools.pdf [accessed 13         May 2013].

Office of the Children’s Commissioner. 2013. About the Office of the Children's Commissioner. Avaliable from http://www.occ.org.nz/aboutus/about_the_office_of_the_childrens_commissioner [accessed 13 May 2013].

Partridge, Emma. 2010. Book review: Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be?. In Social policy research centre newsletter 106, eds. Duncan    Aldridge, Christiane Purcal and Cathy Thomson. Sydney: the Social Policy Research Centre. Avaliable from http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/SPRC_November_2010_106_amended.pdf [accessed 13 May 2013].

Poata-Smith, Evan. 2008. Closing the gaps?. In New Zealand, new welfare, eds. Neil Lunt, Mike O'Brien and Robert Stephens. Melbourne: Cengage Learning: 101-110.

Richardson, Ruth. 1991. Budget 1991: Speech. In  Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives. Wellington: The Treasury: 5-31.

Roper, Brian. 2008. The welfare state: origins, development, crisis and redesign. In New Zealand, new welfare, eds. Neil Lunt, Mike O'Brien and Robert Stephens. Melbourne: Cengage Learning: 10-18.

Shirlaw, Nicola. 2012. 2012 – year of the (poor) child. New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. Available from            http://www.socialdevelopment.org.nz/featured/2012-%E2%80%93-the-year-of-the-poor-child/ [accessed 13 May 2013].

Snook, Ivan, Paul Adams, Raymond Adams et al. 1999. Educational reform in New Zealand 1989-1999: is there any evidence of success?. Palmerston North: Massey University College of Education.

Stephens, Robert. 2008. The changing social security system. In New Zealand, new welfare, eds. Neil Lunt, Mike O'Brien and Robert Stephens. Melbourne: Cengage Learning: 27-40.

St John, Susan. 1999. Superannuation in the 1990s: where angels fear to tread?. In Redesigning the welfare state in New Zealand, eds. Jonathan Boston, Paul Dalziel and Susan St John. Auckland: Oxford University Press: 278-300.

St John, Susan. 2008. Working for families: work, families and poverty. In New Zealand, new welfare, eds. Neil Lunt, Mike O'Brien and Robert Stephens. Melbourne: Cengage Learning: 78-91.

St John, Susan and Donna Wynd. 2008. Left behind: How social and income inequalities damage New Zealand children. Auckland: Child Poverty Action Group. Available from www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Publications/LB.pdf [accessed 13 May 2013].

Waldegrave, Charles. 2000. Assessing the social impact of the New Zealand housing reforms during the 1990s. Wellington: The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit. Availabe from http://www.familycentre.org.nz/Publications/filesSocialPolicyResearc    h/assessingTheSocialImpactsOfTheNewZealandHousingReformsDuringThe1990s.pdf?PHPSESSID=1b83c39d7d04b20698ecb6727c6ecd70 [accessed 13 May 2013].

Word Count: 1990 words.