There can be few parents who do not begin parenthood at least hoping, if not actively trying, to provide a good life for their children.
Some will have much at their disposal to ensure this: financial security, family support, adequate housing, education and prospects, good mental and physical health, happy childhood memories and experiences, all of which help create an optimistic outlook and support positive outcomes for children.
Others will enter parenthood with limited incomes or reliant on benefits, come from troubled family backgrounds, be victims of domestic violence, struggle with drug or alcohol addiction, live in substandard accommodation, may not have had successful education outcomes, have reduced prospects, and are less mentally, physically, emotionally and psychologically equipped to deal with the most important role of their lives.
Even love cannot conquer all when fundamentals such as warmth, nourishment and health are missing.
The fact hundreds of thousands of New Zealand children are lacking in these fundamentals goes against the grain of everything we cherish: peace, freedom and equality - political, social and economic.
In reality, that egalitarianism seems more of a myth than our modern modus operandi.
In a world where faster, newer, bigger, flasher, richer are increasingly valued, as a society we seem to have become harsher, more self-centred, less capable of empathy and altruism.
It takes a community to grow a child, yet children have become casualties of changing priorities.
For many years, our child poverty statistics have been reported, analysed and discussed.
Governments have implemented programmes and defended actions.
Opposition parties have criticised and promised alternatives.
Meanwhile, those at the coalface continue to say many children are trapped in a life of material deprivation and reduced prospects.
A report in December last year by Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, titled ''Kids Missing Out'', which was a summary of the first 20 years of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in New Zealand, was highly critical of our progress on implementing the convention.
It said, since 1993, the UN had ''made a range of recommendations as to how New Zealand might better implement the convention raising, often repeatedly, over 35 different issues''.
It criticised the Government for not committing to implementing the 78 recommendations for alleviating child poverty made by Children's Commissioner Dr Russell Wills' expert advisory group on child poverty in 2012.
The latest Unicef report into the issue, ''Children of the Recession'', released this week shows little progress.
The report looked at the impact of the global financial crisis on child wellbeing in 41 OECD and EU countries.
It found, since 2008, the level has remained virtually stagnant in New Zealand, which ranked 16th in terms of progress.
Australia ranked third.
It and countries similar in size to New Zealand, such as Finland and Norway, reduced child poverty levels by about 30%.
The Government has defended its response to our levels of child poverty (poverty is generally defined as a household living on less than 50% to 60% of the median wage) in light of the global financial crisis, but during the same time period has touted our ''rock star'' economy and given tax cuts to the wealthy.
So where does the truth - and the solution - lie?
The report states ''policy responses'' have been the most critical factor in determining the ''extent and character of the [financial] crisis' impact on children''.
It says ''remarkably, amid this unprecedented social crisis, many countries have managed to limit - or even reduce - child poverty'' and that countries must ''respond boldly'' to the issue.
The Government, in its third term, must start taking real action and making meaningful change on the issue.
Rather than the ''trickle-down effect'', building strong foundations has more chance of creating long-lasting, meaningful change.
A total mind shift is also required, for surely the most fundamental role of a truly egalitarian society is to protect our most vulnerable?
The damning results are drowning out the continued arguments to the contrary, harming our reputation, and stymieing our overall potential.
