Adrian Sinfield: UK shows the way on child poverty

COMMENT

This Budget promises to put money back into the pockets of struggling families.

In this regard, there are lessons New Zealand can learn from Britain's experience in trying to solve some of its own deeply embedded social problems.

Five years ago, child poverty in Britain was recognised as a major problem. In New Zealand just under 30 per cent of children are living in poverty but the British rate was even higher.

What does that mean in practical terms? Families cannot afford to house, clothe and feed their children adequately, let alone pay for school books, or find the money for school trips or sports.

In March 1999, Britain's Labour Government astonished critics of its "third way" by promising to tackle child poverty head on.

Prime Minister Tony Blair made the commitment to end child poverty in 20 years, even though Britain was confronting the highest child poverty rates in Europe.

How did they do it? In Britain there has been a significant shift of financial support towards children, especially children in low-income households.

The strategy has included keeping unemployment down, providing a minimum wage floor, increasing pay rates and lifting the standard of living of low-income families.

At the centre of the strategy has been a major change to the tax system. The Blair Government introduced new tax credits. In particular, child tax credits provide a single, seamless system of increased support for families with children. It is widely accepted that spending through family tax credits and work means a better life for children - a very different emphasis to the initial New Labour approach to family support.

Inclusive and non-discriminatory, the new child tax credit is going to more than four out of five families, with greater help for those on low incomes.

This is in addition to the still universal child benefit which survived the onslaught of Conservative cuts to social security.

These benefits apply regardless of the work or benefit status of adults. The new system recognises that penalising the children of parents on benefits is not going to lead to a more productive society. Spending on families means a better life for children.

Has the British experiment worked? In five years child poverty has probably been reduced by a quarter, say Government and independent analysts. In real terms this means one million children are no longer living in poverty. There is also independent evidence of less material hardship.

So what lessons can New Zealand draw from the British experience? These are simple. Significant reductions in child poverty can be achieved in five years and Governments can make a difference.

Five years ago, British Government thinking penalised many poor children. The present strategy focuses on social inclusion and what sort of a society British people want to live in.

In New Zealand or Britain can we afford - morally, politically, or economically - to leave so many out of their country's economic gains?

Since my arrival here three months ago, I have been told constantly that the Government models itself closely on Blair's Labour Government. I find this surprising, given New Zealand's apparent lack of a coherent strategy on child poverty, which is running much higher than the European average.

Perhaps the Government has lost sight of the fact that policy does matter and a coherent strategy on child poverty is necessary.

The UK approach now sharply contrasts with the New Zealand tax and benefit system which penalises families on benefits.

The Budget is a major opportunity to reverse child poverty, but statements by Finance Minister Michael Cullen raise doubts about the level of increased support for the children of beneficiaries.

We have been told the package is to lift the incomes of all low-income families, simplify the benefit system and "make work pay".

It is curious that the Government has said it is planning a Budget to help low and middle-income families, yet there has been no mention of child poverty.

This is surprising given the Government produced New Zealand's Agenda for Children with the clear aim of the subtitle, Making Life Better for Children. The report's authors found child poverty was the most frequently mentioned negative aspect about New Zealand as a place for children to live.

The stated goal of the strategy to make New Zealand "a great place to bring up children" cannot be achieved while the lives of so many children are constrained by poverty and deprivation.

* Adrian Sinfield is professor emeritus of social policy at Edinburgh University and visiting fellow at the Auckland University of Technology's institute of public policy.