• Full Story

Child poverty killing hundreds - report

Print

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 8:07a.m.

Skin infections and respiratory illnesses are rife

Skin infections and respiratory illnesses are rife

Up to 150 babies who died in New Zealand last year might well be alive if they had been born in Sweden, Japan or even the Czech Republic, a documentary investigation says.

Inside New Zealand: Inside Child Poverty - A Special Report screens on TV3 on Tuesday at 7.30pm.

Filmmaker Bryan Bruce explores almost 100 years of child welfare in New Zealand and reveals how child health has deteriorated in recent years.

• Live updates from the election campaign – click here

A recent report found more than half of the 200,000 children living in poverty in New Zealand are Maori or Pacific Island.

Bruce begins his journey in East Porirua - just 15km from Parliament - it has the highest rate of rheumatic fever in the country - a disease of poverty.

He found skin infections and respiratory illnesses are rife.

"And it's not because their parents don't care. They do. They're just poor. Typically they can't afford heating so they huddle together in one room and in large families that's how diseases such as tuberculosis, meningitis and rheumatic fever are spread."

Bruce travels to Sweden, which is number two in the OECD for child wellbeing. New Zealand is now ranked 28th out of 30.

"What I discovered in Sweden is that we can have a fair market economy - one in which people can still get rich but not at the expense of our children's health."

New Zealand Ministry of Health figures show that 24,588 surgical procedures were performed on children under 14 last year at a cost of $142 million.

If half of these were preventable, the $71 million saved could pay for every child under 14 to see a GP four times a year, Bruce says.

"The money's already there. We just have to spend smarter," he says. "A nation with poor children is a poor excuse for a nation."

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

27 Nov 2011 08:19p.m.

Andrew wrote:

There can be no doubt that the report was a legitimate statement. But the timing of its release and its airing on TV in the days leading up to the general election were blatantly political acts. We expect and demand balanced and unbiased news media in New Zealand. Whether it’s state owned or private is entirely irrelevant.

23 Nov 2011 03:34p.m.

Greg wrote:

@ Pondering... perhaps if you knew or did my job you'd think differently and NO we don't allow or condone family violence. ALOT of our domestic reports come in via second hand info where the informant wants to remain anonymous and doesn't want to get involved or even give a statement outlining what they witnessed, the woman who got assaulted doesn't even want to lay a complaint. There is only so much you can do for someone and if their not willing to help themselves then that's their predicament. I've given up on adults as their able to choose their own paths in life but the kids haven't got that luxury so I CARE FOR THEM and forward off the necessary documentation to CYF's and even Bacardo's. I can only work within the laws and not outside it and if you have a problem with the laws then go see the ones who make them and if you have a problem with the Police doing there job then feel free to go and see your nearest recruiting officer and join! YES, there are those who are genuinely on the benefit but for the most of it the people i deal with think of it as a gravy train and just don't care.

23 Nov 2011 01:28p.m.

Julianne wrote:

Its a very hard public debate, it involves both the taxpayer and the people who who are on the benefit, we keep passing judgement yet no constructive business is happening, I agree with Ricardo, why do these familys have 5 kids they can not support their children, and it sucks for the children they miss out, they get the diseases and tax payers pay for a parent who could not bare the thought of contraception. In light of Swedens model it cost $4 to prevent. It could have cost $3 from family planning to stop the birth of a child over 100 time compared to a $30,000 loss that these parent could not cough up and tax payers fall behind and the government pick up the pieces. There are areas of improvement required but most, it only could have cost $3. Smarten up New Zealand, If you want a baby, ensure that you have money to support, It is not your right to have a baby if it becomes the right of the government to support, your rights are lost form that moment on.

23 Nov 2011 01:25p.m.

Wayne wrote:

Let's follow the Swedish model! (No, I'm not talking about beauty queens, Volvo, or even Abba).

23 Nov 2011 12:57p.m.

Gary wrote:

A National disgrace. John Key must be very proud.

23 Nov 2011 09:10a.m.

pondering wrote:

Greg The Cop: Maybe you should request a transfer out of the aspiring to be affluent areas of Auckland ( Howick, Takapuna, Albany)out to the low income areas ( Otara, Mangere , Otahuhu) and see how people live with out SKY, Fast Food, P , status symbols and truly put their kids 1st. Where banana trees and taro gardens dot the horizon. It is hard to feed , clothe and accommodate kids on a bene or low wage especially as a single parent. But hey many parents out there do it. Even if silver beet, tomatoes and potatoes mar the back yard landscape. Shame on married high income people who drink drug and bash their families. Shame on the cops who enable them.

23 Nov 2011 12:04a.m.

Paul wrote:

It is time now for our politicians (on both sides of the House) to stand up for our children. This should be about defending our children, who are our future. The Prime Minister should be the Minister for Children. Lack of funding is not an excuse as if you asked every tax paying New Zealander where they wanted the tax to be spent my guess is the vast majority would say fix these problems and look to the likes of Sweden for policy directions. This needs a concerted effort on part of the media to force the politicians on both sides of the divide into rectifying this national shame. If ever there was a time for partisan agreement and policy implementation, it is now! Our children can no longer wait. Act now or suffer the consequences.

22 Nov 2011 08:00p.m.

Greg wrote:

Ricardo... bang on! I work as a Cop in some of the worse neighbourhoods in Auckland, you go to these houses and see that the families have sky TV which i can't even afford on my government salary, they have xboxs, playstations, DVD's, the fridge and pantry are empty, kids under dressed running around beer foot and not to mention don't have shoes in the first place and the parents simply don't care. The kids get a feed a day of either KFC, McD's, fish n chips or bread and butter with some fizzy drink. Out the back of the house you'll find green wheely bins FULL of beer bottles or cody's bourbon & cola as most of the benefit is spent on booze, cigarettes & drugs which is why i'm likely to be at the house in the first place as someone is drunk causing a domestic. The government are trying to do their best but some people don't want to move off the benefit and are happy to stay on it for the remainder of there life, they go on to have more kids just to stay on it. There needs to be a 2-3 kid policy, food coupons so it can't be spent on booze or cigarettes and schemes set in place so that people work for their benefit. I see all soughts of scams with the benefits and it truly is unbelieveable what goes on out there.

21 Nov 2011 08:46p.m.

Jaberwocky wrote:

Why has no one looked at what these kids are eating? Sugar is an immune suppressant. It would not surprise me in the slightest if these kids have a rubbish diet. Instead of blaming this that, and the other thing, why don't agencies give these people a basic nutritional course, and give them something real they can work with, not just for the parents health, but the kids health as well. They might find their kids have better behaviour. Healthy kids don't make pharmaceutical companies money...

21 Nov 2011 11:23a.m.

Laurek wrote:

The Maori Party had taken the wrong turn when opted for private wealth with National. The events around the world suggests that accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few does not resolve social issues. Instead, Maori is traditionally people of culture with social behaviour. It's health, welfare, and wellbeing are inherent of people organisation rather than individual elitism. This is happening with Maori, a few are filthy rich while the rest are struggling in poverty along with children, and elderly.