Monday, December 10, 2012

Born onto a benefit

I expect child poverty to be topical again today as the 2012 Childrens Social Health Monitor (link is to 2011 version) is released. There's a fair bit about it in the press already by journalists who have a pre-release. The TV is reporting Jacinda Ardern complaining about one in 5 children being in homes supported solely by a main benefit. It was barely any better under Labour. Even when the unemployment rate had dropped to it's lowest point around 18 percent of children were still on benefits. That's because the DPB is entrenched.

The following is an article I wrote for The Truth which was published the week before last. It's not on-line so reproduced in full below.



BORN ONTO A BENEFIT

A huge amount is said about child poverty, but bugger all about what causes it.

By the end of last year 13, 634 of the babies born in the previous 12 months had a parent or caregiver relying on a benefit. Data supplied under the Official information Act reveals that 48 percent of these caregivers were Maori. Assuming the ethnicity of dependent children generally matches the ethnicity of their caregivers, 37 percent of all Maori children born in 2011 were on welfare by the end of the same year. The corresponding figure for non-Maori was less than half at 16 percent.

Most of these babies are born directly onto a benefit - usually the domestic purposes benefit. Some are first births. It's not unusual for their mothers to initially be dependent  on either the sickness benefit for pregnancy or the dole, then transfer to the DPB with the newborn in tow. But according to a Cabinet Paper publicly released earlier this year, in 2010 4,800 births were second (or subsequent) children being added to an existing  DPB. This happens most commonly in Whangarei, Whakatane, Rotorua, Kawerau and Wairoa, and the rate at which children are added has also been increasing.




The high rate of  NZ children born onto welfare  gives rise to numerous health and social problems down the line, not least abuse and neglect. We now know thanks to a recent Auckland University study that 83 percent of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases concern children who appear in the benefit system before the age of two.

There is an especial problem with Maori children. Not only are they more likely to be born onto a benefit, but they are more likely to have a very young mother who will have difficulty raising her child away from the sort of environmental risks that result in teenage parenthood in the first place; a dysfunctional family life, alcohol and drug abuse, family violence, transience, and crime. A strong correlation exists between the over-representation of Maori children on welfare and their marked predominance in many other negative statistics surrounding poor health and low educational achievement. Being born onto a benefit does not set them up for life.

Some of these children are going to be a cost to society for their entire lives. There isn't any equivalent NZ research but American studies into the backgrounds of prison inmates find many had very young mothers, were raised on welfare, or in foster care or other state institutions. That the NZ prison population is half Maori is almost certainly associated with the very high Maori rate of teenage birth; almost four times higher than non-Maori. Sadly, it isn't just the first-born children whose lives are affected, but those who follow as well.

Back in 2006 New Zealand Medical Association deputy chairman Don Simmers told a conference that too many women were contemplating pregnancy on a benefit. It's taken a long time - too long - but the government has now officially recognised the problem.

Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett believes that work has both social and economic benefits for parents and their children. Last month new rules were introduced to require people on the DPB with a youngest child aged 5 or older to look for and be available for part-time work. The Minister understands however that some mothers will try to avoid this new rule by having another baby. As a consequence, she says, "Sole parents who have another child while on a benefit will be exempt for [only] one year, in line with parental leave, before work obligations resume."

Unfortunately, this measure alone leaves loopholes. Cabinet illustrates the lengths some will go to when identifying children, "who are moved between households to avoid work expectations." There is currently no rule that prevents a parent from going off the benefit for a short period, having another baby, and returning with the clock starting afresh. This situation could have been avoided by adopting the US approach which simply time-limits the benefit. Federal law permits a maximum of 60 months over a lifetime of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (though individual states can deviate using their own funds). That regime unequivocally puts the responsibility firmly on the parent to limit their family size without totally dumping a safety net.

The other unthinkable work-dodge would be to produce a child annually. Ironically this outcome would be the exact opposite of what the government is trying to achieve. Again time-limiting the amount of welfare available would remove any incentive to go down this track.

Some favour capping the amount of money available to subsequent children born onto a benefit. Paula Rebstock's Welfare Working Group considered this option but was persuaded by the Ministry of Social Development that adverse affects on the child or children might outweigh any favourable effect on child-bearing patterns amongst beneficiaries.

Beneficiary advocates have reacted to Paula Bennett's new rule with hostility. Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesperson Sue Bradford says, "We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction." This encapsulates the conflict between the so-called rights of women and the rights of children. Knowingly bringing a child into the world with no ability to raise him independently or adequately is hard to justify at any level.

The Norm Kirk government of 1973 which bowed to pressure to provide statutory assistance for mothers who'd lost the support of a partner, would have been aghast if afforded a glimpse of a future in which supposedly single woman were allowed, and even encouraged by some, to breed on a benefit. Twenty two percent of all babies born in 2011 were on welfare by Xmas. But even pre-recession, when  NZ briefly enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in the world during 2007,  the percentage only dropped to eighteen. Having babies on a benefit is part of the NZ culture. That's what's primarily driving this country's child poverty scandal. In a word, irresponsibility; irresponsibility of the people who produce the kids, but arguably worse, irresponsibility of the society that sanctions it.

7 comments:

Johnny said...

Sorry, but it's 'effects' not 'affects'.

So will your next article explain to the new Truth reader what we can do to reverse this now intergenerational pattern of deliberate pregnancy as a means of providing support for life?

Seems to me that the entire article was exactly what Muriel Newman was writing what feels like a generation ago, and nothing has changed. Will someone be writing exactly the same thing about the child born this year, repeating the cycle in 15 years, and deliberately getting pregnant just like her mum is still doing?

Yes, everyone knows about it. No-one likes it (even the mothers themselves within not too many years), but no-one is taking it to the next stage. Is this the inevitable locked-in view of the future?

Is it the same in Oz? UK? Norway? Holland? France? Russia? etc (forget China). Which countries have got this right? What magic bullet does Jacinda have, that goes beyond talking up political mileage from it. Beats me.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I thought I did discuss how this practice could be reduced; what the government is doing and what might have been preferable.

Yes Muriel was talking
about the same topic in the 1990s. But ideas gain currency through repetition. A few years back govt didn't openly talk about children being added to a benefit let alone try and devise ways to stop it.

Also, continuing to write about the same problem means the Left aren't dominating the discourse (which may result in more people voting for the very policies that created the current situation.)

I don't know what age you are Johnny but this kind of change takes time. Ideas start small and gain traction gradually. That process precedes actual change.

Which countries have got this right? Those that never got into single parent welfare in a big way. But they tend also to be countries where religion is quite strong esp catholicism eg Italy, Spain. Or where a work ethic is very strong eg Norway, Denmark.

Western countries including the UK, Ireland, US, Canada and Australia have similar problems to NZ. As I have said many times the US reforms are the best fit for NZ in my opinion.

To be fair a number of reforms have been enacted under National which aim to disrupt the intergenerational pattern, particularly the focus on the young. The status quo is no longer accepted.

Anonymous said...

Where to start?

So will your next article explain to the new Truth reader what we can do to reverse this now intergenerational pattern of deliberate pregnancy as a means of providing support for life?

Simple. stop the benefits. Frankly I like Roger Douglas' arguments - everyone feels the pain. So stop all the benefits, whether Dole or DPB or ACC or WFF - and especially the super (aka the Codger-Dole). That way the whole job gets done at once and nobody can complain we're bene-bashing.

Will someone be writing exactly the same thing about the child born this year, repeating the cycle in 15 years, and deliberately getting pregnant just like her mum is still doing?


Of course - because there is only one solution that can work to this problem.

Yes, everyone knows about it. No-one likes it (even the mothers themselves within not too many years),

Crap. The vast majority of bludger-mums, sperm donor dads, codger-bludgers - and bien-pensant middle class great and good all like this idea, especially Labour/Greens who get elected on the votes of the 47% of Kiwis who are bludgers!

Is it the same in Oz? UK? Norway? Holland? France? Russia? etc (forget China).

It's the same in Oz - except for Kiwis, and guess what, Kiwis in OZ simply don't have the horrific statistic that they do in NZ? Why? Because they aren't eligible for any benefits

And why forget China - China is the only place that doesn't have this problem so why forget it? Why not? One child policy and no f***ing welfare.



Which countries have got this right? What magic bullet does Jacinda have, that goes beyond talking up political mileage from it. Beats me.

China has it right. No question. Jacinta has a magic bullet all right, a magic bullet to get elected on bludgers' votes!

Anonymous said...

I don't know what age you are Johnny but this kind of change takes time. Ideas start small and gain traction gradually. That process precedes actual change.


Rubbish. Remember 1991? Ruth's single biggest mistake was not doing everything that needed to be done when she had the chance - and now every one of her reforms has been reversed, more than reversed actually, over the intervening years.

Ruth remains the only politician to have actually cut welfare in a western country.

Johnny said...

Jesus, one asks a question here at ones own peril. Not nice, Anon, and I'm not talking about the content of your "help", I'm talking about the tone. Not everyone is the genius that you obviously think everyone is required to be.

Lindsay, my comment about the same comments being made by Muriel a decade ago, was not to suggest that they are less valid second time of telling. Indeed, I was convinced by Muriel then, and am horrified that there is the need to be repeating. So yes, worth more and more repetition. And not everyone saw Muriel's comments then, nor will your Blog readers be the same people as your Truth readers. So as long as you have new listeners, keep telling it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, repetition is necessary. 20 years ago, I either hadn't heard these arguments or, more likely, wasn't convinced by them because they were so 'extreme'. Now they seem quite sensible, in part because people like Lindsay produce plausible evidence in support of their opinions.

Kiwi Dave

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Kiwi Dave, That means a lot to me because I trust that your sentiments are replicated many times. Thank you.