A radically different approach is needed to address material deprivation and grinding poverty

The stats remain grim

There are wide-reaching lifetime impacts from inadequate supports. Disability should not - and doesn’t need to be - a precursor for hardship. Yet our statistics on this remain embarrassingly stagnant.

Quick stats

• 13.4 % of New Zealand children (approx. 156,600) live in material hardship[1]. This figure sees no significant improvement from the previous year. This means that families continue to struggle to afford basics such as food, warm clothing, healthcare, and educational costs.

• Māori and Pacific children, and children in households with a disabled person, face disproportionately high rates of material hardship - disabled children are 1.7x more likely to live in households experiencing material hardship than non‑disabled children, and 1.9x more likely to live in severe hardship[2], reflecting both lower household incomes and the additional costs associated with disability

• Households with a disabled member face additional financial pressures (e.g., disability‑related costs) that deepen material hardship even when income statistics may appear similar[3].

• Research commissioned by the Ministry for Social Development indicates that households with a disabled family member face extra costs for specialized equipment, services, and higher daily living expenses (such as heating or transport), all of which consume a greater proportion of their income[4].

• While there is a range of disability-related supports available, these are piecemeal, hard to access, and often inadequate. Government funded supports are deliberately provided at less than the cost of known needs and additional expenses of disabled people[5].

In short, substantial increases in income and/or direct supports for households with disabled people are needed to address the higher levels of material deprivation experienced by these households.

Insufficient income means insufficient food

Recent New Zealand research published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health demonstrates that children living in economically constrained households experience poorer diet quality and food insecurity[6]. This has direct implications for physical health, cognitive development, and learning outcomes.

Poor nutrition in childhood is directly linked to poorer health, learning outcomes, growth, and long-term wellbeing across their life course.

For disabled children, inadequate nutrition compounds existing barriers, increasing the already higher risk of poorer health, reduced educational participation, and long-term disadvantage[7].

In effect, disability in households both increases the risk of poverty and intensifies its impacts[8] [9]. Families are forced to make trade-offs between food, housing, transport to services, and educational supports. Poverty, nutrition and disability outcomes are interdependent dimensions. Reducing inequities and improving life outcomes requires meaningful action across all three areas. Without direct investment into families and into education, health, and disability services, we will continue to fail families and fall short of achieving intended outcomes.

Statistics and research are consistently showing that disability in Aotearoa New Zealand currently acts as a poverty‑amplifying factor that compounds inequity and limits full participation in society. This has long-term implications across the life-course for disabled children in particular. It doesn’t have to be this way - this is a deliberate policy and political choice.

if only we were all living like kings and queens with afternoon teas like this

We underinvest in education and employment

The employment and education outcomes for disabled people remain poor [10]. For disabled people aged 15 to 64 years, in the June 2025 quarter:

• labour force participation rate was 44.4%, compared with 82.8% for non-disabled people

• employment rate was at 38.2%, compared with 78.5% for non-disabled people

• unemployment rate was 14.1%, compared with 5.2% for non-disabled people

• disabled people aged 15 to 64 years were almost twice as likely as non-disabled people to be underutilised (underutilisation rates of 24.4% and 12.6%, respectively)

• median weekly income: $526 disabled and $1,151 non-disabled. The weekly income gap is $625.

None of these gaps, or the rates for disabled people, have changed significantly since the series began in 2017 [10]. Let me say that again:

None of these gaps have changed significantly since the series began in 2017

For young disabled persons, similar statistics exist. In the June 2025 quarter [11]:

• Disabled young people aged 15 to 24 years were much less likely than non-disabled people to be working or in education.

• The NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) rate for disabled young people was 45.9%, more than four times the NEET rate for non-disabled young people (11.3%) - the June 2017 figure was 42.3% NEET disabled youth.

• Nearly a third of disabled young people (31.5%) had no qualification, compared with 13.3% of non-disabled people in the same age group.

• Disabled people were much less likely to hold a bachelor’s degree or higher than non-disabled people in that age group (16.3% and 34.4%, respectively).

The persistent gaps in education and employment outcomes for disabled young people are not isolated labour market failures; they are the predictable life-course consequences of childhood poverty, inadequate nutrition, and systemic exclusion within education systems. Disabled children are more likely to grow up in material hardship, more likely to experience food insecurity, and more likely to face unmet disability-related costs. These factors directly impact on health, cognitive development, school attendance, learning engagement, and qualification attainment.

Schools in Aotearoa New Zealand have consistently failed to provide a truly inclusive education for disabled learners. This is a combination of insufficient funding, school staff and boards who fail to understand their obligations, inadequate training, and historic attitudes. The end result is disabled learners end up pushed out out of schooling and learning.

The end result of this systematic underinvestment in children is compounding disadvantage: lower rates of school completion and tertiary participation, higher rates of NEET status, and significantly reduced employment and income outcomes in adulthood. The persistence of these gaps since measures began in 2017 demonstrates that current policy settings, funding levels, and approaches are insufficient to disrupt this cycle.

In essence, disability operates as a poverty-amplifying factor across the life course, entrenching inequities that extend from early childhood through to adulthood. Without addressing these wider factors (poverty, nutrition, inclusion), efforts to improve employment outcomes for disabled people will continue to be fragmented and ineffective.

What can we do?

Sometimes I feel like a broken record, but there is a lot that can be done. Voting in a government that prioritises the needs of families over the greedy desires of wealthy corporations would be a start.

A radically difference approach to what we have currently would be the implementation of a UBI (Universal Basic Income), enforceable inclusion by every school for every learner (alongside support, training, and resourcing), accessibility legislation, plentiful state housing (with accessibility features and universal design), employ the doctors and nurses and support staff our hospitals need, and implement a joined-up public transportation network across the country (moar trains please).

Failing that, within the current system, we could do any and all of the following without really breaking a sweat:

1. Implement the recommendations from the Highest Needs Review in Education

2. Implement the recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG)

3. Implement Enabling Good Lives (EGL) across disability, health, and education systems, ensuring approaches and policies align with EGL principles.

4. Implement the Government’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), including the most recent Concluding Observations.

We could also have a solid go, within the existing system, at reducing child poverty and material hardship for families. This could be done by the above recommendations. Other specific changes that would make a near-instant significant difference include:

• Remove abatements and obligations for the Supporting Living Payment (SLP), making it more like the pension.

• Remove means-testing for the Disability Allowance, reduce the administrative burden to apply, and double the allowance.

• Double the Child Disability Allowance.

• Provide a raft of accessible state housing homes across the country.

• Boost access to nutritious food by properly funding and expanding Ka Ora, Ka Ako | Healthy School Lunches Programme.

There are a raft of policies and programmes that are known to reduce poverty and material deprivation. What is currently lacking is the political willingness to do so.

In the meantime, we can keep letting our local and national representatives know what is important to us. We can keep being considerate and thoughtful to each other. We can keep pushing back on deficit narratives that blame people for not ‘making better choices’. We can keep looking after each other, the best we can with what we have.

References and foot notes:

---

[1] Child Poverty Action Group. 2023/24 Child Poverty Statistics Released 20 February 2025. https://www.cpag.org.nz/statistics/20232024-child-poverty-statistics-released-20-feb-2025-awtwl-2z9nh

[2] Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People. Disabled children are more likely to live in material hardship. https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/news/news/disabled-children-still-more-likely-to-live-in-material-hardship

[3] Ibid

[4] Katoa Limited (2024). In-depth study to understand costs and income support for Tāngata Whaikaha Māori me o rātou whānau, and Māori living with long-term health conditions. A report for the Ministry of Social Development. https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/findings/reports/in-depth-study-to-understand-costs-and-income-support-for-t-ngata-whaikaha-m-ori-me-o-r-tou-wh-nau-and-m-ori-living-with-long-term-health-conditions.pdf

[5] Wilson, McLeod, and Godfery (2025). https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/9760/8605

[6] BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. Diet quality of 12-year-olds is associated with sociodemographic disparities and food insecurity: Growing Up in New Zealand cohort. 2025. https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2025/11/11/bmjnph-2025-001315

[7] Ibid

[8] Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People. Disabled children are more likely to live in material hardship. https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/news/news/disabled-children-still-more-likely-to-live-in-material-hardship

[9] Child Poverty Action Group. 2023/24 Child Poverty Statistics Released 20 February 2025. https://www.cpag.org.nz/statistics/20232024-child-poverty-statistics-released-20-feb-2025-awtwl-2z9nh

[10] Labour market activity by disability status – people aged 15-64 years, June 2025 quarter. https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/news/news/labour-market-statistics-for-disabled-people-june-2025-quarter

[11] Ibid