Opinion & Commentary
Breaking the cycle
The tragic case of the Kahui twins has generated a lot of hand-wringing amongst critics, but not enough discussion of the causes and solutions to such misery. Why are these families so different and what can we do about it?
John Minto's column (The Press, July 3) blames increasing poverty and income disparity, but the facts don't back this up. According to Treasury studies, household incomes at all levels have increased steadily since 1998 and inequality has decreased. The members of the Kahui household clearly had no problem affording alcohol, cigarettes and drugs.
A more relevant factor is the massive change in family structure over the last 30 years. Almost a third of families with children now have only one parent in the household, and the figure is higher for Maori. Inevitably, this has an impact because on average children growing up with both parents tend to be more law abiding, better achievers at school, have a lower suicide rate and are happier.
Many people, including myself, feel uncomfortable raising these facts because we don't like to be judgmental. We always need to acknowledge that these are generalisations, and that most sole parents do a great job while plenty of kids from traditional nuclear families fall off the rails. But we are burying our heads in the sand if we try to ignore this massive correlation in family breakdown and social dysfunction.
One obvious area where government policy has impacted on family structure is through the welfare system. The domestic purposes benefit (DPB) was introduced in 1972 and has successfully allowed many women to escape from abusive and unhealthy relationships. Most women on the DPB today are over 30, coming out of relationship break-up, and usually find work within a few years.
The problem is that for a small number of young men and women it has completely distorted lives and family relations.
spac_writeAd("/site=s/area=s.nznewspapers.thepress.opinion.perspective/aamsz=300x250/ch="); Having children is a big decision in life which involves weighing up whether it's the right time, whether you can afford to, what sort of upbringing you can provide, and if you're in a stable relationship. But a small dysfunctional group are clearly not bothering with these considerations, and thanks to the DPB, they don't have to.
For those with low motivation, low skills, low aspirations, and a rough upbringing, parenting can be an easy lifestyle to drift into. And so the cycle continues as more babies are born to different fathers and dysfunctional households. Sadly, had the Kahui twins survived their abuse, the statistics were against them succeeding in life.
The results are all around us. The Kahui twins' mother already has four other children to a different father, while the mother of Lillybing – the Wairarapa toddler killed in 2000 – has had at least five children. Clearly these people are not taking the responsibility of parenthood seriously enough, yet the taxpayer pays them to have more children.
The police acknowledge that a small number of these dysfunctional "families" (in the loose sense of the word) are often responsible for a disproportionately large amount of crime. Figures reported by The Press earlier this year identified one Canterbury family which has cost the justice system $18.5 million. Of the family's 67 extended members, 62 have been arrested.
What's more, the DPB is a proven poverty trap.
There are three main actions a person can take to avoid poverty: finish high school, don't have children before you're 20, and get married before you have children. This is backed up by research and evidence from around the world, yet the DPB removes the risk from these activities.
This is the fundamental dilemma for social policy: how to help people who genuinely need it, but without encouraging irresponsible behaviour. There are no easy answers, but clearly we can do better.
A good start would be to hold irresponsible fathers to account. Around one in six women on the DPB now don't name the father, and for those that are known, the amount of child support owing is approaching a billion dollars. A tougher line might make some couples appreciate more fully the seriousness (and cost) of raising children.
We need to make work a more attractive option than a benefit. DPB recipients face harsh abatement rates when they start working and their benefits reduce, so that often they are no better off. The poverty trap just gets worse.
Removing work obligations for the DPB was a mistake. We are now one of the few countries in the world that allows the sole parent benefit to be received indefinitely, even when the children reach school age. This is totally unnecessary when New Zealand has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world.
These kinds of changes could help return the DPB to its original goal of being a temporary hand- up, rather than trapping more children in a cycle of dysfunction.
Phil Rennie is a policy analyst with the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia.
