Families, children and employment
After the 1999 election the Labour-led coalition government made few changes to family welfare. However, in 2002 it removed the requirement for parents with young children on the domestic purposes benefit to seek paid work or forfeit the benefit. In the same year 12 weeks paid parental leave was introduced for employed parents with new babies. This was originally initiated by the Alliance Party (one of Labour’s coalition partners).
Charles Waldegrave of the New Zealand Poverty Measurement Project welcomed Working for Families tax credits because they recognised the high costs of rearing children. However, Susan St John from the Child Poverty Action Group focused on the impact on the children of beneficiaries who do not receive these payments. She argued: ‘Leaving the worst off further outside the normal living standards of society is a recipe for disaster.’1
Working for Families
In 2004 Labour announced the ‘Working for Families’ programme, which raised parental income support, the accommodation allowance and childcare subsidies from 2006. This programme focused on employed parents rather than beneficiaries, providing additional support through tax credits to moderate- and low-income families. The maximum amounts of family tax credit and the extra in-work payment increased gradually for families with dependent children if their incomes were lower than $35,000, giving more support to the first child than subsequent children.
Working for Families also included a higher accommodation allowance and slightly higher childcare subsidies. The subsidy for preschool children in low-income households was extended to a maximum of 50 hours per week and gradually increased depending on parental incomes. However, this subsidy did not cover all actual costs of childcare. From 2006 the Out of School Care and Recreation subsidy (OSCAR) was paid for up to 20 hours a week at the same hourly rate.
Child poverty rates are often defined as the percentage of children living in households with incomes less than 50% of the national median after taxes and transfers, and adjusted for family size. UNICEF figures show that New Zealand’s child poverty rates, especially for sole-parent households, are relatively high, although they are lower than in the United States. While UNICEF argues that responses to child poverty should include universal child programmes as well as poverty reduction, New Zealand targets programmes to children assumed to be ‘at risk’.
Commentators have highlighted the consequences for children of poverty. For example children from low-income families have more than twice the incidence of chronic illness and disabilities as children living in families on higher incomes, and are more likely to experience social impairments, and emotional and conduct disorders.
Childcare subsidies and family benefits
In July 2007 the Labour government began funding early childhood education without parental fees for children aged three and four years for up to 20 hours a week. Although the fees charged by many centres exceeded the maximum subsidy, the reforms substantially improved state support for early childhood education.
In 2013 public and private spending on early childhood education for children over 3 years old placed New Zealand the top third of OECD countries. Eighty-seven percent of this expenditure is public spending. State expenditure takes the form of subsidies from government to private providers. In part, New Zealand’s high ranking can be explained by most 5 year olds being in primary school. In most comparable countries 5 year olds are still in early childhood education. It is also the outcome of new policy directed as subsidizing the costs of early childhood education for those over 3 years old.
Public spending on a range of family benefits, services and tax reductions was also above the OECD average in 2011. This was partly due to the provision of cash transfers to sole parent families in New Zealand. In many other OECD countries support for these families was part of more general social assistance programmes for families.
It’s social engineering!
Hundreds of people marched on Parliament grounds on 28 March 2007, singing the national anthem and shouting their opposition to what they dubbed the ‘Anti-smacking’ Bill. One of the demonstrators, Louise Simpson, said that the legislation was ‘social engineering’. On the same day, celebrity supporters inked their handprints to a big banner headed ‘Hands Up for Change’, which was handed to MPs supporting the bill.
Families, discipline and the state
Some view state regulation directed at the welfare of children as interference in families. Against the background of moves in some European countries to ban the physical punishment of children, Green Party MP Sue Bradford introduced the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill into Parliament. It removed parents’ legal right to use ‘reasonable force’ to discipline their children, a change that was strongly supported by the Families Commission (later called Superu). This change to the Crimes Act became law in 2007.
Groups opposing this legislation initiated a referendum in 2009 on the question: ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’ Eighty-seven percent of those who cast their votes in this referendum voted ‘no’, but only 54% of eligible voters participated. Some commentators argued that the question was ambiguous and misleading as it implied that any parent who smacked their child would be criminalised.
Prime Minister John Key stated after the referendum that the 2007 legislation was working well. However, the government decided that the law would be changed if a review of procedures showed that parents were being criminalised for lightly smacking their children. A series of police reviews found there had been 8 prosecutions for smacking between 2007 and 2013 and there was no indication by the government that the law would be changed.
Whānau Ora – a different approach to family welfare
Māori and Pasifika whānau are overrepresented among those with lowest incomes. They are also families that are most dependent on welfare benefits. Analyses of child poverty have highlighted the plight of children in these families, especially if their parents were not in paid work and not eligible for Working for Families tax relief.
In 2010 Whānau Ora was developed – a new approach to supporting families in need initiated by the Māori Party and adopted by the National Government. The focus was on whānau and the sets of relationships around them, rather than on welfare benefits for individuals. It recognized that state agencies such as Work and Income were not always the most appropriate organisations to work with families and also that communication between these agencies was limited. Interacting with multiple bureaucracies was often stressful for families needing support.
Whānau Ora was developed to provide cross-government support to families in need through non-governmental organisations contracted to work closely with families to find out what will be useful for them. The programme was informed by a model of partnership between families and individuals who might support and assist them – identified as Kaiārahi (or navigators). Kaiārahi met with individual families to find out directly from them what they saw as their needs and how they could be supported. They then liaised with non-governmental agencies to ensure that they had the support they needed. These non-governmental community organisations were contracted by commissioning bodies responsible to a central government agency for delivery of the programme.
Te ao Māori principles and practices shaped the development of this programme and it was specifically directed at supporting Māori and Pasifika families. However, it was available to families of all ethnicities in need of support.
A review by the Auditor General in 2015, concluded that while programme was innovative in its collective approach to family well-being, better planning and financial management was needed.