Child poverty group wants Working For Families replaced as hardship numbers climb
The Child Poverty Action Group has released a manifesto calling for cross-party support to reduce child material hardship, citing StatsNZ figures showing the number of children in material hardship rose by 47,500 between 2022 and 2025. RNZ
CPAG chief executive Lyn Amos told RNZ's Morning Report that child poverty was a "political choice" and urged all parties to make policy changes. "Absolutely going backwards" was her assessment of New Zealand's trajectory relative to the 2028 statutory target. RNZ
The numbers bear that out. The Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018 set a target to halve child poverty to six percent by 2028. Instead, the material hardship rate has risen to 14 percent, meaning one in seven children — approximately 169,300 in the 2024/25 year — are living without daily essentials. CPAG At June 2025, CPAG's manifesto records nearly 170,000 children in material hardship and more than 350,000 in financially insecure households. RNZ
The burden falls unevenly. One in four tamariki Māori, one in three Pacific children, and one in four disabled children were living in material hardship. RNZ
The manifesto's lead author, emeritus professor Innes Asher, noted that most political parties agreed in 2018 to halve child poverty by 2028. Rates did fall between 2019 and 2022 after the Act became law. They have since climbed. A retired paediatrician, Asher said the government can reverse the trend. RNZ
CPAG attributes the persistence of poverty to failures across labour market, housing, health and disability, education, welfare and tax settings, which the group frames as political choices. The manifesto estimates child poverty costs New Zealand between $13.5 and $18 billion a year in avoidable demands on health, education, social support, and justice. RNZ
The flagship proposal is structural. CPAG wants Working For Families replaced with a single child tax credit reaching all children in low- and middle-income families, decoupled from parental benefit status. Working For Families is the main government package of tax credits and payments for families with children. The In Work Tax Credit, one part of that package, goes only to families where parents are in paid work. CPAG's proposal would remove that work requirement, so children whose parents are on benefits would qualify for the same support. This directly revisits a long-running grievance. The Court of Appeal found in 2013 that the In Work Tax Credit discriminated against children of parents on benefits and caused material harm to families. RNZ
The broader context for Parliament is a statute that commanded cross-party support in 2018 now moving further from its targets rather than closer. The 2018 Act put child poverty reduction on a statutory footing — meaning it became a legal requirement with measurable targets and regular reporting. The interim trajectory was positive. The reversal since 2022 means the 2028 target of six percent material hardship now requires a substantial reduction from the current 14 percent within a two-year window.
For those working in policy and across the Beehive, the manifesto's cost estimate puts a fiscal frame on the issue. The $13.5 to $18 billion figure spans health, education, social support, and justice expenditure that CPAG characterises as avoidable. Whether Treasury or individual ministries would accept that costing methodology is a separate question, but it positions the argument in terms the Cabinet table has to engage with rather than purely moral claims.
The proposed replacement of Working For Families is the policy lever most likely to generate resistance. Working For Families is embedded in the tax and welfare system and any restructuring would have wide fiscal and distributional consequences. Decoupling child support from work status has been contentious since the In Work Tax Credit was designed, and the Court of Appeal's 2013 finding has not produced a structural change to that mechanism. CPAG's proposal would do what litigation could not.
With the 2028 statutory deadline approaching and the numbers moving in the wrong direction, the manifesto is designed to force a substantive policy response rather than a rhetorical commitment. Whether any party picks up the Working For Families replacement proposal is the test of whether cross-party appetite for structural change survives the fiscal implications.
