The government is relying on growth in the economy to reduce stubbornly static child poverty numbers.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ view is ‘‘the absolute best thing we can do to get children out of poverty is to support their parents into work and to better-paying jobs’’.
But even if that eventually turned out to be true, it does not help the thousands of children suffering now.
Those still smarting from the government’s surprise changes to the pay equity regime might well wonder what effect lifting the wages of many more low-paid women, and more quickly, might have had on the status of children of some working poor.
For the last seven years governments have been required to report on progress towards child poverty targets and what difference the Budget might make.
There are three measures - the proportion of children living in material hardship, those living in poor households before housing costs are considered, and those living in poor households after allowing for housing costs.
While both housing measures were better than they were in 2018, material hardship, which had dipped to 12.5 % in 2022 from 13.3% in 2018, was back up to 13.4% last year.
The child poverty report issued this month by Ms Willis says the failure to meet the targets for 2023-24 reflected in part the impact of high inflation at that time on the cost of living.
An estimated 156,000 children are living in material hardship.
The government says reducing child material hardship is a particular focus and a priority in its child and youth strategy, but it is hard to swallow those worthy words when the government’s refresh to the strategy downgraded the importance of food security. It also removed the measure relating to house quality.
It should not be forgotten either that the government, without any fanfare, watered down the previous government’s 2023-24 target to reduce material hardship last year to 9%, raising it to 11%.
There have been few crumbs in this year’s Budget likely to shift the child poverty dial, with Treasury forecasts showing rates of child poverty will change little in the next few years.
Giving 142,000 families an average $7 a week extra from Working for Families is not a game changer.
Nor was last year’s poorly planned and oversold FamilyBoost early childhood education policy which voters were told would give relief of up to $75 a week for families earning less than $180,000. The reality was few regularly received the full amount.
Ms Willis may be hoping the tweaks to the system she will announce next month will raise confidence in the scheme, but questions remain about why this was not closely monitored from the outset and any necessary changes made well before now.
The government says its focus is on changing the circumstances trapping people in poverty by providing them with opportunities to make changes and choices.
But with high unemployment rates still biting, the opportunities for changes and choices are not obvious.
In such circumstances, stepping up sanctions for those on jobseeker benefits seems mean-spirited, time-wasting, and pointless.
Continuing funding for foodbanks for another 12 months has been welcomed, but as the Salvation Army points out, this alone does not address the ongoing demand for food security.
There are also concerns housing commitments are insufficient and that changes to emergency housing criteria are resulting in more homeless people.
The government has talked up its social investment approach which it describes as using data and evidence to allow earlier and more effective intervention, but it is hard to see the $275 million allocated for this will go very far.
The government says it is still committed to the 2027-28 10-year targets for child poverty - only 5% of children in poor households before housing costs are included, and 10% once costs are included, and 6% in material hardship.
However, so far its actions are more akin to commitment phobia.
