• The number of children living in poverty before housing costs are taken into account
• The number of children living in poverty after housing costs are taken into account
• The number of children living in households experiencing 'material hardship'.
However, only the first two metrics are capable of being modelled, at this stage, the child poverty report says.
That modelling estimates that the government should be on track to meet its first set of targets for reducing the numbers of children living in poverty both before and after housing costs.
According to the 2017/18 baseline for before housing costs poverty (BHC), some 16.5 per cent, or 180,000 children were living in that definition of poverty. On an after-housing costs (AHC) basis, some 22.8 per cent, or 250,000 children, were living in poverty.
In 2020/21, the formal targets are to reduce the BHC cohort to between 10.1 per cent and 12.7 per cent of children. Treasury projections suggest it will come in at around 11 per cent, within the targeted band.
On an AHC basis, the estimates suggest the government may squeak into its target range of between 15.2 per cent and 18.6 per cent of children living in poverty, which would reduce the total of 250,000 children living in poverty to between 172,000 and 212,000 children in those circumstances.
However, the report says that the target of reducing the numbers of children living in material hardship – a measure based on children who lack six or more of 17 indicators of material wellbeing – is unable to be modelled at present.
By 2028, the government is targeting 5 per cent of children still in poverty on a BHC basis, 10 per cent on an AHC basis, and 6 per cent in material hardship.
The Well-Being Budget main narrative says that ongoing government intervention to assist people on the lowest incomes is almost inevitable in a country "experiencing broadly favourable economic conditions and wage growth".
That's because "the general pattern is for incomes in the middle of the income distribution to increase at a slightly faster rate than incomes at the bottom".
As a consequence, without specific government intervention, rates of child poverty on the moving-line measure will generally gradually increase over time."
The Budget also acknowledges that other priorities won't always assist wellbeing for low income households and singles out the imposition of additional fuel excises to fund Auckland public transport initiatives as an example.
However, the Treasury has not tried to include that additional cost in its modelling, while the Budget suggests that "in the longer term, transport costs for families could come down owing to resulting investment in roads, rail and transport".
Elsewhere, the Budget acknowledges that the Treasury's LSF work is "a first version and further work is needed to ensure future versions improve known gaps and limitations" and "look for opportunities to increase alignment" with a national indicators dashboard being developed by Stats NZ.
The Budget acknowledges it is "too soon to tell" whether the new focus on collaborative policy-making that constantly assesses well-being impact is succeeding and warns that it is "important we don't get too fixated on targets alone".
"Some initiatives may not affect the headline numbers on the primary measures but will still make a material difference to the lives of children and families living in poverty."
