A major contributor to the financial constraints revealed in this and other research is the high cost of accommodation as a proportion of disposable income. This is a cost over which people with low incomes have little control, apart from the choice of moving into an overcrowded house or to a rural area where there is likely to be high unemployment. Nevertheless, 73 percent of those included in this study, who gave details of their accommodation costs, paid 30 percent or more of their disposable income on rent or a mortgage, 44 percent paid 40 percent or more of their disposable income, and fully one quarter paid 50 percent or more. The conclusion is inescapable that lower accommodation costs for low income households would relieve much of the financial pressure they experience now in the areas of food, clothing and health.

Accommodation costs are likely to be a factor underlying the high rate (40%) of overcrowding found among the respondent households. The relationship between household overcrowding and certain health problems, principally respiratory and infectious diseases, is well established. As this study has shown, the potential health problems are compounded for low income households by the difficulties they have in meeting necessary medical costs.

Difficulty ensuring the regular consumption of essential foods has nutritional consequences for people's health and education. The future social impacts of this are likely to be severe in view of the high proportion of children who are living in poverty. Focus group research we have carried out, suggests that food quality is a discretionary budget item for many low income households after other essential bills have been paid. Food is bought with what is left over. The high rates of respondents who have not been able to afford essential food items (over 60%) or on occasions not been able to provide a meal for their family (49%) testifies to this.

The difficulty that household members had in accessing medical care is quite alarming. Over 56% of all households in this study had members who in the previous year had been unable to afford to go to a doctor, a dentist or purchase medication when they needed to. The combination of crowded or unaffordable housing, household nutritional deficits and unaffordable healthcare creates the classic poverty cycle of disadvantage. Each can feed the other creating for example, further illhealth and nutritional problems, and in so doing lock the people involved out of participation in society

The other deprivation indices, such as debt, clothing, the ability to raise finance in an emergency, hire purchases and household bills, used in this study, simply add to the depressing picture of life on the breadline in New Zealand. 64 percent were in debt, 63 percent considered people in their household were only just adequately clothed and 73 percent had defaulted on at least one household bill during the previous year because of a shortage of money. These are compounded by the ethnic biases against Maori and Pacific people in housing and food provision.

It is interesting to note in this study though, that stereotypic notions of low income householders as profligate drinkers, smokers and gamblers were not supported. Certainly 54 percent smoked cigarettes confirming the strong association between smoking and socio-economic status in New Zealand and international studies, but less than 12% gambled apart from buying a lotto ticket, and 75 percent had not touched a glass of alcohol in the previous week. Furthermore, there was considerable evidence of healthy and useful activities. 52 percent played sport or did some physical activity to keep fit, many gardened (46%) and quite a number grew their own vegetables (33%).

The results of this study tend to confirm the realism of the NZPMP poverty threshold and strongly suggest that many low income New Zealand households are substantially deprived of essential household items and services. This snap shot of the living conditions of these families, using questioning in a range of differing areas of basic household living, consistently exposed the hardship they had in meeting their necessary costs and accessing essential services. These findings raise serious questions about the effectiveness of social policy outputs in New Zealand. The results strongly suggest that the stated goal of social cohesion is being seriously undermined by classic expressions of poverty and an inability of poor New Zealanders to participate equitably in their own society.

This research presents a "wake up call" on living standards for around eighteen to twenty percent of New Zealand citizens. The fundamental social policy changes undertaken in New Zealand during this decade require analysis and assessment. This is particularly true when a considerable proportion of New Zealand's population are living in conditions which limit their ability to participate fully in social and economic life.

The findings highlight disadvantage and issues of equity, particularly regarding the affordability of essential food, housing and access to healthcare. As stated above, these suggest serious deficits in social policy. In the opinion of the authors, they should also be viewed as deficits in economic policy for two reasons. Firstly, because this sort of hardship has to do with income inadequacy and thus household economics and income distribution. Secondly, deprived children are less likely to experience the sort of household security and health status they require to reach their potential as effective educated and innovative members of the workforce that New Zealand requires for a dynamic economy.

In essence then, this study not only suggests that the levels of benefits and wages at the lower end require some reassessment, but also that broader social and economic policies need to be developed to ensure all New Zealanders live out of poverty. These would include policies that address equitable access to healthcare, affordable housing, income distribution that protects low income households and active labour market policies that create jobs with adequate incomes.