Time to do something about child poverty

Today the OECD released its first report on the well-being of children. Doing Better for Children compares the well-being of children across OECD member-states, and makes policy recommendations on how to improve it. unfortunately, New Zealand's country report [PDF; HTML here] is dismal reading:

New Zealand government spending on children is considerably less than the OECD average. The biggest shortfall is for spending on young children, where New Zealand spends less than half the OECD average.

Material conditions for Kiwi kids are relatively poor. Average family incomes are low by OECD standards, and child poverty rates are high. The number of New Zealand children who lack a key set of educational possessions is above the OECD median.

We have the highest youth-suicide rate in the OECD, above-average child mortality, low immunization rates, and a long tail of people with poor educational outcomes (despite a very good overall average). And the reason for this is simple: money:

New Zealand spends less than the OECD average on young children and much less than it does on older children. Spending more on young children is more likely to generate positive changes and, indeed, is likely to be fairer for more disadvantaged children. Based on international evidence, the OECD concludes that New Zealand should spend considerably more on younger, disadvantaged children. Equally, the New Zealand government should ensure that current high rates of spending on older children are much more effective in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged amongst them.

This is advice the government should take to heart. Spending on the young - on healthcare, on early childhood education, and on improving their standard of living - is the most basic way of ensuring that every kiwi gets a good start in life. It improves wellbeing, equality, and, for those who care about it, the economy (in that those children grow up to be healthier, better educated, and ultimately wealthier than if we simply left them to rot). It is both progressive and pragmatic. It would be a great chance for the government to show that they're not the neo-liberal bogeymen they appear to be.

But somehow, I suspect they'd rather give tax-cuts to the rich instead. "Ambitious for New Zealand"? I think not.