Ele Ludemann: Families failing

Crime, drug addiction, educational failures, homelessness; poor health, poverty, violence, welfare dependency . . . the main contributors to these and many of the other woes facing us are often the result of families failing.

Being brought up in a loving, stable family where children are taught manners and respect for themselves and others; where education is valued; they’re given boundaries and face consequences when, as inevitably happens, they’re breached; doesn’t guarantee a model citizen, but the chances of becoming one are greater.

Being brought up in a family without any of that doesn’t automatically mean becoming anything less than a model citizen is certain, but it is much harder to rise about family failings and most who succeed in spite of their families almost always have someone else in their lives who inspires, nurtures and teaches them.

The state too often has to step in when families fail but it is no substitute for a well-ordered family, and it’s expensive.

But Child Poverty Reduction Minister Louis Upston is right, that more money on welfare isn’t necessarily what’s needed:

. . . An April Ministerial briefing from the Treasury reveals the Labour Government’s poverty targets were “no longer realistically achievable”.

In 2018, then-Child Poverty Reduction Minister Jacinda Ardern set a long-term goal of reducing the number of children experiencing “material hardship” from 13.3 percent down to 6 percent by mid 2028.

That’s a reduction of around 80,000 children between 2018 and 2028.

Ardern also set an intermediate target of 9 percent by June this year.

The latest data shows that target will be missed significantly; Statistics New Zealand figures show 12.5 percent of children – some 143,700 kids – are experiencing material hardship.

The previous Government points to factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic as reasons for missing the target.

Nevertheless, officials at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) advised that, given the Government is currently so far off achieving this year’s intermediate target of 9 percent, the long-term 6 percent target by mid 2028 was unrealistic.

“The necessary year-on-year progress is not on track and the estimated costs of now meeting these targets would require investment in the region of $3 billion per year,” officials advised, according to documents released under the Official Information Act.

They also presented two other “lower ambition targets” for 2028 – which they said were more realistic and could be achievable without spending more money.

But Upston’s office has confirmed the Minister rejected both options, which would have seen the current 6 percent material hardship target increase – likely to a figure closer to 10 percent.

However, she said the Government won’t be spending the extra $3 billion a year to achieve that 6 percent target that she said the Government was sticking to.

Instead, Upston believes a more effective way to lift children out of poverty is by growing the economy and cutting taxes.

She said the official advice was based on modelling of what would have needed to be spent, to carry on the previous Government’s child poverty approach, such as increasing benefits.

Meanwhile, Upston’s pointed the finger at Labour, over its inability to meet the child poverty targets that it set when it was in office.

“It left office with a growing number of families trapped by long-term welfare dependency, a growing number of children living in benefit-dependant homes, and low-to-middle income New Zealanders falling further behind due to the cost-of-living crisis that resulted from their economic mismanagement.” . .

Lindsay Mitchell writes about the child poverty conundrum:

. . .While the fall in the hardship rate is good news, the percentage of all children living in beneficiary families increased from 15 to 19 percent between 2017 and 2024 (see Table 6).

So the rate of hardship has fallen but there are more children subject to it.

In my opinion, the growth in benefit-dependent children is primarily the result of increasing benefit payments and incentivising more families to opt for welfare and stay on it for longer. . .

Having at lest one parent in work doesn’t guarantee a loving and stable home, and benefit-dependency doesn’t always preclude it. But part of bringing children up well is modelling a good work ethic and the responsibilities that come with holding down, and succeeding, in a job.

Family failure is complex, and too often multigenerational, but getting people off benefits and into work is part of the solution.

Being in work and therefore better off doesn’t guarantee a stable loving family and the poor and jobless can, and do, provide loving, stable homes for their offspring. But the ability to provide love and stability is improved when the family has a better income through work than the state can provide through welfare.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.