Child Poverty Action Group (Aotearoa New Zealand) (CPAG) is a non-profit political advocacy group with the goal of eliminating Child poverty in New Zealand. It has used evidence-based research to develop public positions on the root causes of poverty and advocates at a governmental level for the prioritisation of children's needs in policy and funding. Between 2002 and 2013, the group was involved in a long-running legal dispute with the New Zealand Government about how tax policies impacted the rights of children.

Structure and values

Child Poverty Action Group, composed of "academics, activists, practitioners and supporters", was formed in 1994[1]: p.i  and registered as a New Zealand charity in 2008.[2] CPAG is made up of 11 elected Management Committee members who manage the finances and decide the direction of the organisation. This committee has one convener, a full time executive director and other members who take responsibility for communications and research.[2] CPAG describes itself as "an independent charity working to eliminate child poverty in New Zealand through research, advocacy and education".[3] One of the key values of CPAG is kotahitanga, working together on important social issues, and Laura Bond, executive director of the organisation said in 2021 that the group worked "constructively with the government to try and push them to keep children's voices front and centre in any policy decisions".[4] Other key values of the organisation are manaakitanga[5] and mātauranga.[6] The organisation received international recognition in a 2015 article in The Guardian which noted that Child Poverty Action Group played an important role in a "full spectrum attack" on confronting New Zealand governments on issues related to poverty by contributing reports on the "consequences of and solutions to, poverty".[7]

Public policy positions

Putting children at the centre of policy

In 2017 Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, responded to input from advocacy groups, including CPAG, for a united approach and greater consensus on the issue of child poverty in the country.[8] When in 2019 an agreement was reached across all New Zealand political parties that child poverty was a major issue, a spokesperson for CPAG said this recognized that poverty was "something all New Zealanders feel is one our nation's top priorities to address."[9] The implementation of the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy by the Labour Government in 2019[10] was seen by CPAG as expressing "recognition of the fundamental rights of the child...[with the need]...to see politicians put this strategy into action".[9]

In 2018, the New Zealand Government commissioned an expert advisory group to review the social security system in the country and recommend changes. The document, Whakamana Tangata Restoring Dignity to Social Security in New Zealand, was released by the advisory group in May 2019 and had 42 recommendations for the government to consider.[11] A stocktake report by CPAG assessed the progress of action being taken on these recommendations in November 2020 and questioned the government's speed in addressing the recommendations, noting that "given the coalition government's child poverty reduction focus, and the fact that WEAG identified that people receiving welfare payments are living 'desperate lives' due to 'seriously inadequate incomes', the progress on implementation of the recommendations appears unjustifiably slow".[12][13] Jacinda Ardern acknowledged to Newshub that more work needed to be done, but said that she disagreed with some of the claims made by CPAG, in particular that there had been no progress on the issue of income when it comes to people on Government support. Ardern also said the Families Package was one of the recommendations they had acted on, but CPAG said that this initiative fell well short of releasing families from poverty.[14]

Following the release of the New Zealand Government's Budget in 2021, a researcher for CPAG said on Newstalk ZB that the contribution to meeting targets to reduce child poverty was a start, but a slow roll-out of benefits did not solve inadequate income and the expectation that 33,000 children would be lifted out of poverty was unrealistic and the government should have gone further and faster.[15]

Health and safety of children

Free primary healthcare for all children is a key aim for CPAG and in New Zealand since 2015, children under 13 years have received free GP visits and prescriptions.[9] CPAG has claimed that income is the main determinant of health and noted that the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study had found adults who had been socio-economically disadvantaged as children, had more disease in later life.[1]: p.74  In a later publication the organisation stated that "for many children, poverty means "lacking the material resources to stay well...[and adequate income is needed for]...transport, doctors' fees, prescription costs [and] hospital parking".[16]: p.122 

In 2013, CPAG published a report that said there was a proven link between maltreatment and neglect of children, and child poverty, and this was unacceptable because it was a violation of children's rights that the New Zealand Government as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, was legally obliged to protect . While it accepted the complexity of the issue, the report concluded that there must be central government policies in place that identified risk factors and how these interacted with social structures in families, neighbourhoods and communities that may support or limit violence.[17]

Housing issues

The group has advocated strongly for the right of every child in New Zealand to have a home that is warm and secure, with improve residential tenancy laws to make them safer and affordable.[9] It noted in 2008 that decreased housing affordability was affecting the ability of Māori, Pasifika and low income families to live in stable living arrangements that supported the welfare of children, and these disadvantages needed to be addressed at a political policy level.[1]: p.6  CPAG analysed the data from the 2006 New Census,[18] concluding that children living in rental accommodation were more likely to move regularly causing disruptions in schooling, and noting figures of around 80,000 of children aged 14 or younger were in "temporary or makeshift" living arrangements.[16]: p.137  In an opinion piece in the NZ Herald, Lucy Lawless said that many of the child poverty issues stemmed from the "wretched standard of housing...[that was]...acceptable in NZ".[19]

Equity in public education

CPAG has been outspoken on issues of equity in the public education system and supported campaigns for free lunches in schools so all children can learn effectively by having their nutritional needs met. The New Zealand Government began a pilot programme for this in 2019.[9] In 2008 CPAG stated that inequalities in the New Zealand education system were compounding the disadvantages of many children because of the way funding was managed resulting in low parental involvement and community contributions.[1]: pp 6-7  Issues of inequity in early childhood education (ECE) were identified by the group as important considerations for the government to address if possible disadvantages in future learning and life opportunities for children living in poverty were to be avoided.[16]: p 173  In a media release in 2020, CPAG called for early childhood education (ECE) provision in New Zealand to be nationalised. In the release, Jenny Ritchie, Associate Professor in Te Puna Akopai, the School of Education, at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington and researcher Caitlin Neuwelt-Kearns, noted that rather than the sector being seen as an investment, it should be supported as a public good and nationalised [because] "ECE has the potential to act as an 'equaliser', and a vehicle for mitigating child poverty in Aotearoa".[20]

COVID-19

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Child Poverty Action Group challenged the New Zealand Government to redesign the country's welfare system to ensure children received the support they needed. Georgie Craw, Executive Officer at the time stated: "The unfairness and the irrationality of the welfare system are being exposed in this crisis...[and the change needed to be]...swift and simple to use, easy to administer and treat people with dignity, while being broad enough to help all those struggling with the impacts of Covid-19 to ride out the turmoil". In the same article, CPAG's Social Security spokesperson Mike O’Brien said that benefit levels should be raised, other changes made with regard to tax discriminations, entitlements and debt collection should be removed. Craw held that a punitive approach to social welfare causes poverty traps and a system built on trust was needed.[21]

A review of the impact on low-income children after one year of the New Zealand Government's response to COVID-19 noted the work that the government needed to do to "close the gaps in poverty to ensure our most vulnerable do not continue to bear the highest burden in times of pandemic".[22]: p.4  The co-author of the review, Janet McAllister said that this was particularly relevant for Māori and Pacific families who may have been unable to access relief payments and Nikki Turner concluded that COVID-19 was stretching the Government's resources and there needed to be a focus on ensuring preventable diseases in children in deprived areas did not have a resurgence.[23] The report noted during this period of the pandemic that families were under stress due to food insecurity and debt and inequities in the cost of living, attendance at school and immunisation, and some of these experiences had a direct relationship to systemic inequities and institutional racism. The statement was made:

Through bold, evidence-based policy, the New Zealand Government avoided one massive humanitarian health and economic crisis from March 2020. However, through omission and oversight, it enabled another one – that of homelessness, food insecurity and inequality – to grow rapidly, almost unchecked, for the year to March 2021. If prior to Covid-19, virtually no children had been experiencing food insecurity, and it had only been after Covid-19 hit that one in every five families sometimes or often ran out of food (an indicator of serious income inadequacy), then we expect there would have been rapid evidence-based policy response to reverse that situation. Was this endemic chronic emergency allowed to continue, just because families had already been suffering for longer? The longer the deprivation, the deeper and more long-lasting the detrimental effects on young bodies and minds.[22]: p.57 

Human rights case

In 2002, the Child Poverty Action Group made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission (New Zealand) alleging discrimination against children as a result of tax legislation.[24] Following a ruling from the New Zealand Crown Law Office that the Child Tax Credit "did not give rise to discrimination on either the ground of family status or employment status",[25] CPAG responded that this complaint should continue,[26] and a Statement of Claim was made in 2004 that requested the Human Rights Review Tribunal to make an order that sections of the legislation were "inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination affirmed by section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990".[27] On 15 November 2005, the Tribunal found in CPAG's favour[28] and while the Crown appealed the ruling,[29] the High Court dismissed this, and the decision in favour of CPAG was allowed to stand.[30] Following a judicial review by the Crown, CPAG filed as a public interest group. The case was heard in June and July 2008, and the Tribunal in its decision recorded overall conclusions that the "discrimination...[was of]...a kind justified in a free and democratic society", and that there had been no breach of the Human Rights Act.[31] After an appeal by CPAG was lost in 2011, the group endorsed the court’s decision that there was "differential treatment between beneficiary parents and their children who could not get the tax credit and working parents who could...[however]...the court was wrong in finding the discrimination was justified...[and that]...the harm to beneficiary children was disproportionate to the gain to society".[32] In 2014, Frances Joychild who acted for CPAG in these proceedings published a document that summarised some of the "precedents set by the CPAG litigation...[and these included]...the right of a public interest group to bring Human Rights Act proceedings on behalf of others affected by government action and the right to take claims of discrimination in relation to government economic and social policy upheld".[33] Another commentator noted: "While the courts ultimately ruled that this decision was legal, they also found it was discriminatory. The court case kept the issue in the media for long spells and prompted many political parties to promise to end the discrimination".[7]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 St John, Susan; Wynd, Donna, eds. (2008). Left behind: How Social & Income Inequalities Damage New Zealand Children. Child Poverty Action Group. ISBN 978-0-9582263-6-3.
  2. 1 2 "Charity Summary". Charities Services. Archived from the original on 19 January 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  3. ↑ Child Poverty Action Group. "About Us". Child Poverty Action Group. Archived from the original on 11 February 2011. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  4. ↑ Ralph, Fiona (29 July 2021). "The charities taking on child poverty, from cause to effect" (Guest writer). The Spinoff. Archived from the original on 29 July 2021. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  5. ↑ "Manaakitanga Improve quality of life: Satisfaction with our environments and standard of living". Independent Mа̄ori Statutory Board. Archived from the original on 1 December 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  6. ↑ "Mātauranga". Te Aka Māori Dictionary. Archived from the original on 18 January 2022. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  7. 1 2 Rashbrooke, Max (8 July 2015). "What child poverty campaigners in the UK could learn from New Zealand". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 21 July 2015. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  8. ↑ "Cross-party bid on child poverty law" (National news). Otago Daily Times. 25 November 2017. Archived from the original on 23 January 2022. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 "Child Poverty Action Group – An Aotearoa Where All Children Flourish". JR McKenzie Trust. Archived from the original on 20 January 2021. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  10. ↑ "Child and youth wellbeing strategy". Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). 29 August 2019. Archived from the original on 17 December 2018. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  11. ↑ Welfare Experty Advisory Group (February 2019). Whakamana Tangata Restoring Dignity to Social Security in New Zealand (Report). Archived from the original on 26 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2022.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  12. ↑ Robson, Sarah (30 November 2020). "Work to reform welfare system 'unjustifiably slow' - Child Poverty Action Group". RNZ. Archived from the original on 29 November 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  13. ↑ Robson, Sarah (8 December 2021). "Slow pace of welfare reform increasing pandemic-related inequity - report". RNZ. Archived from the original on 24 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  14. ↑ Small, Zane (30 November 2020). "Jacinda Ardern disagrees with Child Poverty Action Group's accusation of 'unjustifiably slow' welfare reform". Newshub. Archived from the original on 23 January 2022. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  15. ↑ Barnett, Simon; Daniels, Daniel (20 May 2021). "Child poverty researcher: Budget announcement not enough". Newstalk ZB. Archived from the original (Radio interview on Afternoon programme) on 24 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  16. 1 2 3 Dale, Claire M.; O'Brien, Mike; St John, Susan, eds. (2011). Left Further Behind: How policies fail the poorest children in New Zealand (PDF). Child Poverty Action Group. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 September 2011.
  17. ↑ Wynd, Donna (June 2013). Child Abuse: what role does poverty play? (PDF). Child Poverty Action Group. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 April 2022.
  18. ↑ "2006 Census". Stats NZ. 2006. Archived from the original on 22 January 2022. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  19. ↑ Lawless, Lucy (12 September 2014). "Lucy Lawless: Hungry children - the hidden toll". NZ Herald. Archived from the original on 25 January 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  20. ↑ Child Poverty Action Group (15 July 2020). "CPAG calls for nationalisation of ECE sector" (Press release). New Zealand Doctor. Archived from the original on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  21. ↑ The Daily Blog (10 April 2020). "Let's change NZ's welfare system now – Child Poverty Action Group". The Daily Blog. Archived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  22. 1 2 McAllister, Janet; Neuwelt-Kearns, Caitlan; Bain, Leah; Turner, Nikki; Wynd, Donna (June 2021). "The first year of Covid-19: Initial outcomes of our collective care for low-income children in Aotearoa New Zealand" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 April 2022. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. ↑ Sadler, Rachel (26 July 2021). "Poverty burden for children increases in first year of COVID-19 due to Government neglect - Child Poverty Action Group". Newshub. Archived from the original on 26 July 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  24. ↑ "Challenging the Child Tax Credit" (PDF). Child Poverty Action Group. 2002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 February 2022.
  25. ↑ France, Simon (29 July 2003). "Complaint D1951: Child Poverty Action Group/Child Tax Credit Our Ref:ATT114/1123" (Crown Counsel). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  26. ↑ Child Poverty Action Group Inc. (2003). "HRC Complaint D1951: Child Poverty Action Group / Child Tax Credit" (Response from CPAG). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  27. ↑ Rodgers-Smith, Catherine (23 November 2004). "In the matter of a claim under the Human Acts Right 1993 and its Amendment" (Statement of Filed by The Office of Human Rights Proceedings). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  28. ↑ Hindle, R.D.C.; Davies, P.J.; Perese, S. (15 September 2005). "Decision No. 28/05: Reference No. HRRT 41/04" (Decision: Access to the Tribunal). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  29. ↑ Sim, Val; Foster, Jane (23 December 2005). "Appellant's Submissions" (Appeal against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  30. ↑ Young, Robert (May 2006). "CIV 2005 485 2140 Reserved Judgement" (Appeal against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  31. ↑ Hindle, R.D.C; Trlin, A.D; Davies, P.J. (16 December 2008). "Decision No. 31/08 Reference No. HRRT 41/05" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  32. ↑ Child Poverty Action Group (2011). "CPAG's Human Rights Case: Timeline and Legal Documents" (PDF): 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2022. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  33. ↑ Joychild, Francis (2014). "Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney General - what did we gain?" (Child Poverty Action Group). Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 January 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.