Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won power in 2017 on the basis of statements such as “My goal is to eradicate child poverty in New Zealand”. The Government’s progress on child poverty will be under scrutiny at this year’s general election, but progress is slow, and many are claiming not enough is being done to address this urgent problem.

Statistics NZ has just published details of child poverty levels for the last few years, as required under the new Child Poverty Reduction Act. For the best report on this, see Sarah Robson’s New figures show little change in child poverty. She reports: “for the year ended June 2019, there was no significant change to the percentage of children living in material hardship, compared to the previous year – remaining at about 13 percent, or one in eight children”.

The Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft has described the figures as “underwhelming”.

The problem is the statistics can be interpreted in different ways – or at least cherry-picked by supporters and critics. Also, the statistics are limited in what they measure, particularly in terms of the time periods involved.

Some critics to the left and the right of the Government are pointing to various elements of the report to say things are getting worse, while the Government is highlighting elements that show they’re making progress.

Overall, there’s probably a consensus that if improvements have been made, they are marginal, and much more needs to be done to combat child poverty.

Interpretation of the child poverty statistics

Jason Attewell of Stats NZ gave an insight yesterday into why measures of poverty are contested and interpreted differently: “Now child poverty is a real complex issue, and it’s really hard to define who’s poor and who’s not poor… So we don’t look at just one measure we look at nine measures across.”

For the best discussion of the different interpretations of the new stats, see Jason Walls’ PM Jacinda Ardern and National’s Simon Bridges spin child poverty numbers – but who’s right? (paywalled). He points to the Government and Opposition arguments on the latest report, and declares “Both are right but for different reasons.”

Here’s the Government’s interpretation: “Ardern used what is known as the after-housing costs measure to argue her case for successfully combating child poverty. That showed that after housing costs, 235,400 kids lived in homes with less than 50 per cent of the overall median household income, in the year to June 2019. That’s a drop of 18,400 children, or a 2 per cent fall compared to the previous year.”

Here’s the Opposition interpretation: “Bridges used the numbers to suggest child poverty was getting much worse ‘under Jacinda Ardern’. He used the before-housing cost measure for the bottom 60 per cent of households and compared the year to June 2017 figures with those from 2019. On this measure, the 20,000 figure is correct – 243,300 kids were in this category in 2017, compared with 263,400 in 2019.”

In contrast, Walls points out that there is arguably a third and more important interpretation of the figures: “the most important measure – according to Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft – was actually increasing. Material hardship, which measures the things most people would consider to be essentials – such as access to fresh fruit and vegetables, going to the doctor and the ability to pay bills on time – increase by just over 4000 in the year to June last year.”

For further discussion of the different measures of child poverty and what is changing, see Thomas Manch’s Child poverty: Numbers show marginal change, but more children in material hardship. This includes reporting of Stats NZ’s principal statistician Diane Ramsay, who “said she could not be confident there was a downward trend in the figures due to margin, and results in the coming years would clarify this.”

Also, see Max Rashbrooke’s analysis, which is more positive, suggesting that the PM should be relieved to finally have “a tangible – if tentative – sign of progress” – see: Child poverty stats promising, but more is needed.

Rashbrooke also points to the contrast with what was occurring under the last National Government: “If the improvements are real, they will be all the more impressive when seen in the light of the previous National-led governments, of which the best that can be said is that they maintained, overall, a very high level of poverty. In their nine years in power, poverty fell on some measures but increased on others, and in general seemed to be becoming cemented into the foundations of New Zealand life. We may look back on this moment, then, and see it as a turning point”.

Criticism about the failure to deliver

Critics on both left and right of Labour are saying the Government is failing to deliver the promised improvements in child poverty.

On the right, Mike Hosking is calling this out as “another promise not met”, which he says is especially damaging for the PM, as child poverty reduction “was the Prime Minister’s calling card” – see: Child poverty is the KiwiBuild of social failure. Hosking concludes: “Every social indicator has gone backwards – food handouts, housing queues, jobless payments and poverty. Every single one of them in the wrong direction.”

Heather du Plessis Allan also has a hard-hitting take on the findings – see: Child poverty figures shows PM is not helping those she promised to. She says this about Ardern: “Remember when she promised to lift 100,000 children out of poverty by 2020. Well, it’s 2020, that is so far from happening… it’s just gutting. We expect centre-left governments to come and do the best they can for people at the bottom of the heap, because those people are there.”

Du Plessis Allan warns it will damage Labour and Ardern’s credibility with their own supporters: “It has charities, NGOs, churches, unions, all telling them to get on with it. Labour’s entire support base is telling them to help people, but they’re not. How can they expect those people to re-elect them or even respect them? How can the Prime Minister ever say again that she will help the worst off and expect us to believe it? Today’s figures haven’t just hurt the government’s credibility; they’ve hurt the Prime Minister’s.”

Those NGOs are also speaking out. Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Susan St John says: “Put simply: these statistics do not show any change for the children living in the worst, most entrenched poverty… This confirms our view that the Families Package (implemented July 2018) was not designed to give the necessary income boost to those in the deepest poverty. This picture is unlikely to change when the full Families Package is counted in the next report due in 2021” – see: The latest child poverty statistics are a wake-up call.

Her group says “child poverty requires urgent and immediate action. Meaningful adjustments to the benefit system and working for families must not wait until after the election for implementation.”

And even in Max Rashbrooke’s cautiously congratulatory account, he warns much more action is needed, saying: “the government will have to marshal resources of which it has only just begun to dream. Most of its efforts so far have focused on taking those who are just below the poverty line and lifting them just over it. That is valuable, and makes a real difference to families’ lives. But there are still tens of thousands of families in far deeper poverty. Their situation, the new data suggests, has barely improved.”

Rashbrooke says the PM needs to take a bolder approach: “That will require considerably more political courage from a leader who has so far governed cautiously. But it is the reality of the task she has set herself. The early steps she has made, though valuable, may turn out to have been the easiest.”

Ardern is promising more, and she is reported as believing that her government is “on track” to meet its promises. She says part of the problem is that the latest statistics don’t reflect how much has recently been done – see Zane Small’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern confident child poverty reduction policies ‘yet to show’ full results.

Finally, last month the Child Poverty Action Group commissioned Spinoff cartoonist Toby Morris to illustrate the need for “the government to fix the broken welfare system so all children and families can thrive” – see: Fairer Future: Fixing Poverty in Aotearoa.

The Minister of Finance visited his local soup kitchen one night last month, and tweeted “Good to catch up with folk I worked with/helped over the years+remember how important it is to give every helping hand we can”. But are Grant Robertson and his colleagues giving enough of a helping hand to those in poverty?

Yesterday’s Political Roundup column looked at the very poor state that the country is currently in with inequality and deprivation – see: How rotten is New Zealand?. The question is whether the Government is doing enough, and what is holding them back from doing more.

Big changes needed say advocates on poverty

The person leading the fight for the Government to do more is the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, who has been in the media saying that it’s time for a series of “big, bold” and permanent initiatives such as raising benefit levels. He recently asked: “Why didn’t Grant Robertson spend some of the $12 billion on children and families instead of infrastructure?”

Becroft also went on TVNZ’s Q+A programme recently and accused the Government of being “weak, supine and passive” in the face of overwhelming evidence for the need to make immediate and substantive moves to fix poverty – see 1News’ Children’s Commissioner urges Govt to take action on child poverty – ‘We’ve got the money, now’s the time’.

Becroft says the Government simply has to spend more money where it is needed, arguing “we’ve got the money, it’s in the piggy bank, it’s a rainy day – now’s the time to spend it – on children”. And he rejects calls for patience, saying “We can’t fiddle, as it were, while Rome burns. While 100,000 children remain in disadvantage… Change and action is urgently required”.

For more detail on some of the Children’s Commissioner’s concrete suggestions for the Government, see RNZ’s Child poverty: Commissioner says need for housing, income levels to improve. In this, Becroft says “I want to see family incomes dramatically raised by increasing benefits and making the minimum wage a living wage… And the government needs to move much faster at increasing the supply of social housing – building, buying and repurposing – and working closely with community-based housing providers.”

Although the Government have made some useful moves to deal with poverty, Becroft labels them “a fantastic start”, but a “band-aid”. He suggests enduring and transformative change is necessary: “we need to see significant and permanent changes to unlock opportunities for those doing it hardest. One-offs aren’t going to cut it anymore.” Other suggestions include: “free lunches rolled out across more schools, free dental and mental care through to ages 18 or 21.”

Similarly, long-time public policy expert, Victoria University of Wellington’s Jonathan Boston wrote last week that although the Government “has embarked upon some important social reforms”, “Modest adjustments to current policy settings, however welcome, will be insufficient. Transformative change is needed” – see: We need a step change to transform the welfare state.

Boston says, “all is not well with New Zealand’s welfare state” explaining, that “For the most vulnerable people, the welfare state is not delivering an adequate income, accessible public services or even a safe place to sleep.”

Other voices have been an important part of the debate – especially the Child Poverty Action Group, which has reacted to last week’s $12 billion spending announcement, saying the “plans don’t reflect the urgent welfare reforms needed” – see: Evidence of poverty relief lacking in 2020 Budget Policy Statement.

Spokesperson and University of Auckland economist, Susan St John, says “What is urgently needed is a significant increase across all benefits, higher abatement thresholds for earned income, and immediate policy changes to Working for Families”. She also criticises the Government’s Winter Energy Payment, which she costs at $2.4 billion over five years, as being “ill-focused” saying that this year it was provided to nearly 780,000 superannuitants, regardless of their need, and suggests it should instead be “turned into a permanent increase to core benefits”.

St John’s analysis is also reported in a very good article by Sarah Robson, which asks: “What happened to the Coalition government’s promise to overhaul the welfare system and lift families out of poverty?” – see: Solo mums on benefits having to decide between food and fuel.

St John looks at the very few changes that have been enacted as a result of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and says “Those two changes are simply completely insufficient as a response”.

The article explains that precious little has come of the report: “Its 200-page report concluded the welfare system was no longer fit-for-purpose and needed fundamental change. It made 42 recommendations. Implementing all of them would come with a price tag of just over $5 billion. So far, the government has adopted just three.”

However, the article reports Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni promising that more reform is indeed coming, and she “expects to be taking a three to five year plan for the overhaul of the welfare system to cabinet before the end of the year.”

Sepuloni, doesn’t appear keen to increase benefit levels, however – which was one of the core recommendations of her working group: “She’s defended the decision not to introduce a general increase to benefit levels, saying the previous government’s $25 one-off increase in 2015 was lost with the rising cost of housing.”

For more on this, see Thomas Manch’s Substantial benefit hikes appear off the Government’s agenda. This reports on the Minister addressing a Child Poverty Action Group forum, where she implied there might be some big movements in next year’s Budget: “Excuse me if I haven’t come with all the answers to the short term action you’d like to hear about… Much of what you wanted to hear today … that is the stuff that is budget sensitive”. And in general, she asked them to have “trust in the coalition Government”.

What the Government has already done

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern campaigned in 2017 on dealing with child poverty, took on the portfolio of Child Poverty Reduction, and then promised that 2019 would be her “Year of Delivery”. She is now being called to account for whether enough is being done.

Ardern answered some of these questions on TVNZ’s Q+A recently, saying she rejects the criticism from the Children’s Commissioner: “the Government has done some ‘significant’ and ‘enormous’ investment into the incomes of families with children in the greatest need” – see 1News’ Jacinda Ardern rejects criticism from Children’s Commissioner over Govt’s response to Welfare Expert Advisory Group.

The PM also stated: “Are we perfect? No. Do we have more to do? Yes. But I do not accept that what we have done has not been significant. It has”. According to this report, she also rejected the statement of the head of Christchurch’s City Mission who told Q+A that his organisation “was underfunded, better off under a National government and that poverty has worsened.”

The Government has some statistics on its side, with the release of a report last month showing that its 2018 Families Package was making a real difference – see Yvette McCullough’s Government quotes welfare stats after child poverty inaction accusations. Carmel Sepuloni is quoted saying “By the time the Families Package is fully rolled out in 2020/21 – 385,000 families with children will be better off by an average of $75 a week.”

Sepuloni also went on TVNZ’s Breakfast to point out the Government was therefore on target to meet their child poverty reduction targets – see 1News’ Government’s $5.5b Families Package on track to lift 74,000 children out of poverty – report.

Universal benefit for kids

If the Government is to do more for children in poverty, an increasingly popular suggestion is the resurrection of the old “family benefit” for families with children, which was abolished in 1991. There are various ways that cash payments could be assigned to children, as explained by Susan Edmunds – see: ‘Pension’ for kids could level income inequality between young and old.

In this, economist Shamubeel Eaqub is reported as saying that “the experience of superannuation showed that a universal payment was an effective way to reduce poverty in a swathe of the population. Doing the same for children would have the same effect, he said”. He is quoted saying: “Would it cost a lot of money? Yes. Would it provide lots of benefits? Yes”.

There are various ways to distribute the money – it could be universal, or targeted. Researcher Jess Berentson-Shaw is cited as proposing a highly-targeted version, while Eaqub favours universalism, albeit paid for by the means-testing of superannuation: “If I had my way you’d take it away from the decrepit old folk and give it to the young ones. Make super means-tested and a benefit for children unconditional. Older people don’t need it, they have money.”

Another advocate, Lana Hart, proposes a “universal child benefit of $60 a week for every child up to the age of 17”, which would cost $3.8 billion a year, and in “one single, bold stroke, we could take the biggest bite yet out of New Zealand’s child poverty problem” – see: Time to make significant inroads into child poverty.

Hart says the Government just needs to be courageous in adopting such a programme that is already relatively popular: “There’s plenty of public backing for the schemes that France, Ireland, Sweden and other countries have already adopted. In 2017, a survey asked New Zealanders if they would support or oppose a basic income payment of $60 per week to all 1.22 million Kiwi kids. More than half (55 per cent) said they would support it and only one in five New Zealanders surveyed said no.”

Also making the case for payments to children, economist and leader of TOP, Geoff Simmons writes today: “All children under three should get $200 a week, no questions asked. We give our elderly an unconditional benefit, so why not our youngest citizens? Currently the group with the highest rates of poverty in New Zealand is families with children” – see: Means-testing pension to free up money for young Kiwis should be a no-brainer.

Simmons also advocates finding the money through cuts to Superannuation. However, it’s worth noting Jonathan Boston’s arguments in his opinion piece that the use of highly-targeted approaches to welfare have reduced public support for such programmes. He advocates less means-testing, saying “Exclusion invariably breeds discontent and overrides compassion.”

Finally, there’s now a scheme for wealthy superannuants to give money to those in need, and for the cartoon explanation of this, see Toby Morris’ The Good Life: How superannuants can change NZ’s inequality story.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Tonight’s historic first vote on abortion laws will inevitably disappoint many advocates of reform. This is because of the watered-down proposals put forward by the Government, and the politicking that has accompanied the legislation – especially New Zealand First’s insistence on seeking a referendum. 

Of course, abortion law reform has been inevitable for some time, and the nature of the issue means it was always going to be complicated. Politicians have been avoiding the reform question for decades, while a public consensus has continued to build in favour of liberalisation. The public are generally more progressive on abortion than the politicians, who continue to risk only moderate change for fear of alienating more conservative voters.

That’s why, even over the last year, the Government’s promises of reform continued to be stalled as Labour attempted to negotiate a compromise package of reform that would keep their New Zealand First colleagues happy. The results of this process, as well as all the overall politicking around it, are nicely laid out today in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Abortion bill heads to Parliament: What’s changing and when.

Reform success looks likely

It is clear that the more moderate legislation planned by the Labour-led Government has been designed so as not to buy too much of a fight or mean it will struggle to get passed. Hence, early signs are that the first reading tonight will very easily get the numbers. Henry Cooke and Thomas Coughlan are projecting, at this stage, 73 votes for and 26 against – see: Abortion vote will sail through with or without NZ First, according to Stuff survey.

Aside from the mysterious New Zealand First orientation to the bill, the stances of other parties’ MPs are becoming clearer: “All 8 Green MPs have said they will support it, while 32 of Labour’s 46 MPs have said they will definitely back it. Four more say they’d be likely to support it. National is slightly more divided with 17 of its 55 MPs saying they will definitely back it, with just 7 saying they will definitely oppose it. Ten say they’re not yet sure how they’ll vote. Act leader David Seymour and independent MP Jami-Lee Ross have both said they back the Bill.”

And for more on how a number of conservatives, including the National Party leader, seem to be on board for at least the first reading of the legislation, see Henry Cooke and Thomas Coughlan’s Simon Bridges will vote for abortion bill at first reading but wants more safeguards.

Bridges’ own position seems to have become more liberal lately, as this article reports that he now supports “the changes to the law for abortions in the first 20 weeks”, with him saying “the position pre-20 weeks of gestation is one where law and practice should match, they haven’t, so I accept that’s the right decision” – which is a turnaround from his position last year in which he insisted that the current rules don’t need fixing.

The same article delves into the positions of some of the more socially conservative Labour MPs, and also finds increasing support for change. For example, “Aupito William Sio, Peeni Henare, and Kris Faafoi all said that they were ‘leaning’ to or ‘probably’ voting yes. None opposed the bill.” Similarly, “Several MPs who voted against the End of Life Choice Bill on euthanasia were supportive, such as Health Minister David Clark and backbencher Kiri Allan. Some members, like Maori caucus co-chair Meka Whaitiri, said they would vote for the bill at its first reading, but would not commit to voting the bill any further.”

But there will still be some Labour MPs who vote against it, and are not willing to speak publicly about their stance. For example, the article reports: “Nanaia Mahuta refused to say how she would vote, simply describing it as a conscience issue.”

The Government’s conservative reform

Despite some degree of positivity that politicians are finally catching up with the broader public mood in favour of increased liberalisation, the details of the Government’s reform are finding less favour with many advocates of reform.

After all, the Government bill really amounts to only partial-decriminalisation instead of full decriminalisation of abortion. This won’t satisfy those who believe that abortion should fundamentally come down to a “woman’s right to choose”. Instead of going along with that demand and principle, Justice Minister Andrew Little has very determinedly decided that it’s a woman’s right to choose up until 20 weeks of pregnancy, but women lose the right after that, by which it essentially remains a criminal issue rather than a health issue.

I wrote about the details of this issue in a previous column, earlier in the year – see: Abortion reform in question. This pointed to an array of health professionals and reform advocates wanting a more progressive result than the Government was looking to deliver.

And it has come to pass that the Government has gone with a watered-down and relatively conservative option for moderate reform. This has caused some to complain that Labour have let the reform movement down, as they have on other important issues. For example, the No Right Turn blogger says it’s “another example of Labour chickening out. They promised to listen to medical professionals, and they haven’t. While a technical delivery on their promise, its a substantive failure” – see: Labour chickens out on abortion.

Here’s the main point: “Health professionals were crystal clear in supporting complete decriminalisation. But instead of that, Labour has taken the most conservative option, then made it worse, imposing a test for women to access an abortion after 20 weeks. Such abortions are almost always performed for medical reasons, and so should be a health issue, but instead Labour is going to make women continue to endure the wagging finger of society if they need proper medical care.”

The blogger argues that Labour MPs need to push amendments to make the legislation more radical, but fears they will “refuse to in order to avoid upsetting their bigot rump and their conservative coalition partner.”

RNZ has published one anonymous opinion piece on the issue, which criticises the reform bill for retaining much of the status quo for pregnancies beyond the 20-week mark, saying: “The proposed bill is not much better. It sends the message that you may know what’s best for yourself up to 19 weeks, six days, 23 hours and 59 minutes. Once the clock ticks over at midnight, boom, a doctor suddenly becomes the expert on your life. How can a country that trusted women enough to allow us to vote, not trust us to know our own situations?” – see: Abortion is a medical necessity, reform is needed.

According to this writer, “The proposed bill has been called a “mixed bag”. To be blunt, it’s a bit of a cop-out. Sure, the government took a turn in the right direction by making it a health issue and proposed some steps to ensure better access to abortions. But it does not go far enough.” They urge the Government to go further, and to use this moment to create a legacy rather than just another compromise fix.

Similarly, leftwing commentator Gordon Campbell is disappointed that the reform falls so far short of what has been required for modernisation: “Abortion is to be medicalised, rather than criminalised. That’s progress, I guess. If that sounds grudging… it is. Undoubtedly, the proposed law will be better than the 1977 legislation it replaces. Yet surely, you’d hope there would be progress, 42 years down the track” – see: On reforming the abortion laws.

Campbell doesn’t believe that abortion control should simply be converted from being a criminal issue to a medical one: “there is no objective need for the level of medicalisation envisaged by the current Bill. The message being: the ultimate control of women’s reproductive choices is being handed over from the Police to doctors. That’s supposed to be counted as progress.”

And if the issue is a simple health one then why, Campbell asks, isn’t it being treated like this by the Government and Opposition: “If abortion really is just a medical procedure, then the Health Minister should be owning it, and promoting it as part of the government’s health programme. That’s what a grown-up country would do.” He argues against the vote being a conscience one.

Campbell also makes the case that the legislation is entirely backward in assuming that abortion has to be a “medicalised procedure enacted by a doctor”, when the trend – especially in other parts of the world – is towards the use of chemical abortifacients: “they offer a safer, less invasive means of abortion than surgical means. It is a process that can be supervised by a nurse.”

Here’s Campbell’s main problem: “In other European countries, the two pills involved are moving towards being available as an over-the-counter abortifacient. The reforms being proposed in New Zealand do not recognize this trend. For the foreseeable – and by that I mean potentially for decades to come – the women who import such drugs and/or those people who help them to access such drugs will continue to be prosecuted under the Crimes Act.”

Referendum debates

The law reform itself has been overshadowed in recent days by New Zealand First’s desire to make reform contingent on a public referendum – see Jenna Lynch’s Justice Minister Andrew Little caught off guard as New Zealand First hints at abortion referendum.

It seems that in the months of negotiations between Andrew Little and New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin, the traditional stance of her party in favour of referendums on moral issues like abortion never arose. But then in NZ First’s caucus meeting this week, MPs pushed back, despite – or perhaps, because – Martin had said publicly the same day that no referendum was necessary.

According to Henry Cooke: “It’s understood NZ First members have been giving the party some grief about the fact it is demanding a referendum on euthanasia but not abortion” – see: Winston Peters pulls rug out from under Andrew Little – again.

Cooke gives his view: “Little has every right to be furious with this blindside from NZ First, even if he can’t quite say it. He’s already softened the bill to keep NZ First happy, shrinking the number of weeks that an abortion can be accessed without a statutory test. But he shouldn’t be surprised. Peters has used the Parliamentary process to have several bites of the same cherry before, and has also humiliated Little in the past over three strikes. At the end of the day these people are from different parties and will be fighting over the same voters in about a year’s time.”

Of course, New Zealand First wanting a referendum doesn’t necessarily impact on the legislation at all. The party has already signed off on the bill being introduced to Parliament tonight. It simply means that the party is likely to put up an amendment to the bill to include a referendum. This wouldn’t happen in practice until after the second vote on the bill, and it’s very unlikely to be successful. The big question is whether New Zealand First MPs will vote for the bill without a referendum being put in place.

This is all best dealt with in Claire Trevett’s column, NZ First abortion referendum ploy leaves sour taste (paywalled). She argues that no one should be surprised that Winston Peters would want a referendum: “It was not that long ago both NZ First’s leader Winston Peters and Martin herself had provided statements setting out the party’s position that abortion was for a referendum. Given that, if it was not raised in caucus perhaps Martin should have raised it herself to ensure it would not become a stumbling block later.”

Trevett suggests that the re-positioning by New Zealand First could simply be one of empty strategy: “NZ First could simply be posturing to allow Peters to say the party had tried to stick to its policy but was thwarted by others”.

So, who’s to blame for the miscommunication and incorrect assumptions about New Zealand First’s policy on referendums? Mike Hosking points the finger at both Tracey Martin and Andrew Little – see: Winston Peters again pulls the wool over Labour’s eyes on abortion referendum.

And today Winston Peters has struck back, accusing Andrew Little of bad faith and blindsiding New Zealand First – see: Winston Peters takes aim at Labour over abortion law reform.

There is now some very interesting discussion going on about the role of referendums in determining law. For the best of these, see Sam Sachdeva’s Why Winston Peters is wrong on referendums, and today’s editorial in The Press: Abortion debate: let the politicians decide.

Finally, for satire on these issues, going back a long way, see my blog post, Cartoons about abortion law reform in New Zealand.

By RNZ Pacific

A legal advocacy group has told the UN Human Rights Council that more than 100 asylum seeker and refugee children are living without hope on Nauru.

The Human Rights Law Centre addressed the latest council session in Geneva.

The centre’s Daniel Webb told the council that despite the fact the Australian government was professing its committment to human rights in Geneva, it continued to indefinitely imprison 102 children in its offshore detention centre on Nauru.

“Imprisoned for fleeing the same atrocities our government comes here and condemns. And after five years of detention, these children have now lost hope.

“Some have stopped speaking. Some have stopped eating. A 10-year-old boy recently tried to kill himself.”

Webb said if the detention was not stopped there would be deaths.

-Partners-

He said even the government’s own medical advisers were warning that the situation was untenable.

“Yet the Australian government still refuses to free these kids, and is fighting case after case in our Federal Court to deny them access to urgent medical care. Mr President, we are talking about 102 children.”

Australia presented their concerns regarding human rights around the world at the same session but did not mention their detention camps on Nauru or Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz