Susan St John is an honorary associate professor of economics at Auckland University and spokeswoman for the Child Poverty Action Group.
John Roughan's opinion piece on Saturday comfortingly implied that solving child poverty does not require families be given more money.
He pats National on the back for the "social investment" approach. Just find the ones really in need and help them directly. Get them to sort out their "poor life choices" and "unwise spending decisions". Don't throw money at the problem willy-nilly. Sounds sensible to anyone who has never lived in the constant shadow of not having enough money to care for their children.
Apparently, because the latest child poverty figures are based on 2015 figures and miss the $25 lift in benefit payments in 2016, we don't have the full picture of "the numbers left behind by economic growth" to vote intelligently. Given the way benefits have fallen behind average wages, the lift in benefit payments was a small realignment, such as recommended by the OECD years ago. It should have been paid to all beneficiaries, not just those with children.
Roughan asserts he would "not be surprised if a little extra income has made no discernible difference to the statistics". Yes, because the $25 increase is a drop in the bucket. After offsets, the average beneficiary family got only $17 more a week. For a couple with four children, it is about an extra $3 per person per week.