Relationships and families in contemporary New Zealand [2017] NZLCSP 22; Relationships and families in contemporary New Zealand [2017] ; He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau I Aotearoa o Nāianei

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback New Zealand Law Commission - Study Papers

The Law Commission is an independent, publicly funded, central advisory body established by statute to undertake the systematic review, reform and development of the law of New Zealand. Its purpose is to help achieve law that is just, principled, and accessible, and that reflects the heritage and aspirations of the peoples of New Zealand.

The Commissioners are: Douglas White – President Donna Buckingham Belinda Clark QSO

The office of the Law Commission is at Level 19, 171 Featherston Street, Wellington

A catalogue record for this title is available from the National Library of New Zealand. ISBN: 978-1-877569-83-8 (Online)

_{This title is also available on the Internet at the Law
Commission’s website: www.lawcom.govt.nz}

Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Law Commission and abide by other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Alongside our Issues Paper, Dividing Relationship Property – Time for Change? Te mātatoha rawa tokorau – Kua eke te wā?, the Law Commission is publishing this Study Paper.

It was immediately apparent as we began our review of the law governing the division of property when relationships end (the Property (Relationships) Act 1976) that we needed to understand how New Zealand has changed over the last 40 years. Social legislation such as the Property (Relationships) Act cannot be reviewed without understanding its context. Contemporary political decision-making places considerable emphasis on evidence-based policy making.

This Study Paper describes the significant demographic changes which have taken place in New Zealand since the Property (Relationships) Act was first enacted and sets out what we know about the way in which relationships and families are formed, how they operate and what happens when relationships end. You may be surprised to learn that 46 per cent of New Zealand children were born outside marriage in 2016 and that in the 2013 Census, 22 per cent of all couples reported they were in a de facto relationship. This has occurred against a background of ongoing demographic change in

New Zealand, including our ethnic diversity and the age of the population. Knowing such facts, together with understanding likely future trends, informs our understanding of the society we live in.

The limitations of the sources of our information mean that the Study Paper also highlights the gaps in our knowledge. Current official statistics are still catching up with the wide variety of living arrangements which exist in New Zealand today and there is a recognised problem with an absence of family-specific data and research in New Zealand. For example, little is known about de facto relationships, re- partnering and stepfamilies, although the limited data available indicates that all three are becoming more common.

We hope that the Study Paper increases your knowledge about contemporary New Zealand and sets the scene for your consideration of the matters discussed in our Issues Paper.

Terms in this Study Paper reflect the statistical definitions used in the collection of the data. Common terms and abbreviations are described below.

The Christchurch Study refers to the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a longitudinal study following a cohort of 1,265 children born in the Christchurch urban region during 1977.

Civil union means a civil union entered into by two people under the Civil Union Act 2004.

Couple with children means a family of a couple and one or more dependent or adult children. It includes couples who are opposite-sex or same-sex, and who are married, in a civil union or in a de facto relationship. It includes families where the couple are the biological or adoptive parents of the children and stepfamilies.

De facto relationship means two people who usually live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage. This is different to the definition of de facto relationship in section 2D of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

Dependent child, unless otherwise stated, means a child under the age of 18 and, if aged 15 to 17, is not in full time employment.

The Dunedin Study refers to the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a longitudinal study following a cohort of 1,037 children born in Dunedin between 1972 and 1973.

Equivalised incomes have been adjusted for household size, taking into account the greater

economic needs and economies of scale of larger households, so that the relative wellbeing of different sized households can be compared.

Family means two or more people living in the same household, who are either a couple, with or

without children, or a single parent with children. Related people who are not in a couple or parent-child relationship are excluded from this definition. Children who live in different households, and children

who live in the same household but who also have a partner or children of their own living with them,

Family home means the dwelling house in which the family or household lives.

The Growing Up in New Zealand Study is a longitudinal study following approximately 7,000 children born during 2009 and 2010 in the greater Auckland and Waikato regions.

A Household can consist of one person living alone, or two or more people or families residing together in a private dwelling and sharing facilities.

Issues Paper means the Law Commission’s Issues Paper published alongside this Study Paper, Dividing Relationship Property – Time for Change? Te mātatoha rawa tokorau – Kua eke te wā? (NZLC IP41, 2017).

LAT means “living apart together”, and refers to two people who are in an intimate relationship but are

Marriage means a legally registered relationship entered into by two people according to the laws and customs of the country in which they got married. In New Zealand, it refers to marriages solemnised under the Marriage Act 1955, and has included marriages between same-sex couples since 2013.

Median means the midpoint of observed values, with half of the items of data below it and half above it. It is different to the average, or mean, which refers to the total divided by the number of data points.

The median is used when the average or mean might be distorted by a small number of data points at the highest or lowest ends of the distribution.

The NZW:FEE Survey refers to the 1995 New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education Survey of 3,017 women born 1936–1975 and covering the period 1950–1995, investigating the dynamic processes of family formation and change in New Zealand. See Chapter 1.

OECD means the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. There are 35 member countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Partner means a person to whom another person is married, in a civil union with, or in a de facto relationship with. For statistical purposes a person can only be partnered with one other person.

Single parent family means a family of one adult and one or more dependent or adult children. It includes single parent families that live in households with others.

SoFIE means the Survey of Family, Income and Employment, a longitudinal sample survey of 22,000

New Zealanders conducted across eight years or “waves”, from 2003 to 2010. See Chapter 5.

Stepfamily means a couple with children where at least one of the adults is not the biological or adoptive parent of one or more of the children. Stepfamilies include couples who are married, in a civil union or in a de facto relationship. Stepfamilies also include blended families, which is a stepfamily where, in addition to stepchildren, at least one child is the biological or adopted child of both partners.

Superu means the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, formerly the Families Commission.

Whānau means a family group including nuclear or extended family. See Introduction.

Workforce participation rate means the proportion of working-aged people (15–64 years) who are employed, or unemployed and actively seeking employment.

Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 1 Changing patterns in relationship formation................................................. 14

Chapter 2 Having children in New Zealand ..................................................................... 22

Chapter 3 Changing patterns in relationship separation .............................................. 25

Chapter 4 Re-partnering and stepfamilies ...................................................................... 30

Chapter 5 Wider patterns of change in the family and household ................................ 33

Chapter 6 Sharing the work.............................................................................................. 39

Chapter 7 Families’ financial wellbeing........................................................................... 46

Chapter 8 What happens when partners separate? ....................................................... 54

Chapter 9 Looking to the future ...................................................................................... 65

Property (Relationships) Act 1976. This Act sets out rules of property division that apply when partners separate or when one of them dies. These rules apply to marriages, civil unions and de facto relationships longer than three years.

In order to understand whether the Property (Relationships) Act remains appropriate 40 years on, we need to first understand how relationships and families are formed and structured, how they function and what happens when relationships end in contemporary New Zealand.

This Study Paper provides an overview of what we know about relationships and families in contemporary New Zealand, drawing on official statistics and other available information. We address key life events including the formation of relationships, having and raising children, separation and re-partnering, working, buying a home and saving for and living in retirement.

This Study Paper is published alongside the Law Commission’s Issues Paper, Dividing Relationship Property – Time for Change? Te mātatoha rawa tokorau – Kua eke te wā?

New Zealand has undergone significant demographic, social and economic change in the last 40 years. These changes both reflect and influence changing social norms and attitudes on issues such as living together before marriage (or not marrying at all), separation, having and raising children outside marriage and same-sex relationships.

New Zealand is much more ethnically diverse than it was in the 1970s. The Māori, Pacific and Asian populations have more than doubled

since 1976, while the proportion of people who identify as European is in decline (from approximately 88% of the total population in
1976, to 74% in 2013).¹

New Zealanders are also increasingly identifying with more than one ethnicity, as more relationships cross ethnic and cultural divides.²In 2013, children were ten times more likely to identify with more than one ethnic group compared to older New Zealanders (22.8% of children aged under 15 compared with 2.6% of adults aged 65 and over).³

The New Zealand population is ageing, although at different rates, both ethnically and regionally. The European population is on average significantly older than the other major ethnic groups. In 2013, the median age of people identifying as European was 41 years, compared to 24 years for Māori, 22 years for Pacific peoples, and 31 years for people identifying as Asian.⁴

Population ageing reflects the combined effect of people having fewer children and people living longer. The impact is accentuated by the large number of people born between 1950 and the early 1970s who are now moving into the older ages.⁵As New Zealand’s population
ages, more people will be entering retirement in the near future. The proportion of the
population aged 65 and over is projected to increase from 15% in 2016, to 20–22% by
2032.⁶

Religious identity in New Zealand is also changing. Fewer people identify as Christian (49% of all people who stated their religious affiliation in 2013, down from 56% in 2006),⁷while almost half of the population report they have no religion (42% in 2013, up from 35% in
2006).⁸In contrast, more people are identifying with the Sikh religion, Hinduism, Muslim and Islam, although these are still proportionately small groups.⁹

These changes have all contributed to major shifts in how relationships form, change and end. The result is that relationships, families and households are increasingly diverse and complex.

This Study Paper draws together information about how relationships and families in New Zealand are formed and structured, how they function and what happens when relationships end.

Most of the information presented here is sourced from Statistics New Zealand, the country’s official source of statistical information. This includes official birth, death, marriage and divorce statistics, the five-yearly Census of Population and Dwellings (census),¹⁰and results from the regular Household Economic Survey, Household Labour Force Survey and General Social Survey.

We also draw on other key surveys and research. This includes recent longitudinal research into the economic consequences of separation using the “Working for Families dataset” (see Chapter 8) and the 1995 New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education Survey (NZW: FEE), which investigated family formation and change between 1950 and 1995 (see Chapter 1).

We look at results from several longitudinal studies of different groups (cohorts) of New Zealanders, which measure changes over time in participants’ lives. The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development

Study is the longest running study, and follows a cohort of 1,037 children born in Dunedin between 1972 and 1973.The Christchurch Health and Development Study follows a cohort of 1,265 children born in the Christchurch

New Zealand Study is the youngest longitudinal study, and currently follows approximately
7,000 children born during 2009 and 2010 in the greater Auckland and Waikato regions.

We also refer to secondary analysis of official statistics where relevant, including reports published by the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit (Superu, formerly the Families Commission) and Statistics New Zealand, as well as academic literature published by demographers and other experts.

Terminology

Our terminology in this Study Paper reflects the statistical definitions used in the collection of
the data. Key terms are often given a specific meaning when information is collected, and we need to adopt the same definitions to ensure accurate representation of the data. Sometimes this means the terms we use in this Study
Paper are different, or have a different meaning, to terms used in the Issues Paper.

The statistical definition of “de facto relationship”, for example, means two people who usually reside together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union. This is different to the definition of de facto relationship in the Property (Relationships) Act.¹¹

A “family”, for statistical purposes, is based on the traditional family nucleus. It refers to two or more people living in the same household, who are either a couple, with or without children, or
a single parent with children. Related people who are not in a couple or parent-child relationship (for example, adult siblings) are therefore excluded from this definition. Children who live in different households, or adult children who have a partner or children of their own living in the same household, are also excluded.¹²

One consequence of this definition is that people who live alone are not deemed to be in a “family” for statistical purposes, even though they will very likely be part of a family or

whānau living across different households. This includes adults who may have children living with them only for some of the time, as children are deemed to live only in the household where they spend most of their time or, in the case of equal shared care arrangements, wherever

they are staying on the night the statistical information was collected (see Chapter XX).

The scope of this Study Paper is limited by the nature of information collected in New Zealand. Unlike Australia and many other developed countries, New Zealand does not routinely collect information with the specific purpose of investigating family characteristics and transitions.¹³There is also little information available about underlying changes in values, attitudes and social norms, which are less visible in official statistics and demographic data.

The information that is collected on families in New Zealand is generally household-based, which assumes all members of a family live in the same household, and that people only live in one household.¹⁴This is problematic because, as Superu notes, families are diverse and dynamic, households change over time,

and patterns of co-residence do not necessarily reflect family connectedness.¹⁵As a result, current official statistics do not sufficiently cover the wide variety of living arrangements that

These limitations mean that little information is available about the rate of separation or the prevalence of re-partnering, shared care

arrangements (children living in more than one household), stepfamilies, couples who live apart and extended family households, although all are likely becoming increasingly common.¹⁷

There is also a lack of longitudinal data about relationships and families in New Zealand, which is required to identify family transitions and determine length and frequency of different relationship and family states.¹⁸The last key study (the NZW:FEE Survey) was undertaken
in 1995. This is a particular problem for identifying de facto relationships, because, unlike marriages and civil unions which are registered, there is no recorded start or end date for de facto relationships. Some de facto relationships may even overlap with marriages or civil unions that have not yet been oficially dissolved. Current data does not tell us much about the formation and dissolution of these relationships or the children living in them.¹⁹

Superu has also identified that the household- based definition of “family” used for statistical purposes is problematic when describing culturally diverse families.²⁰Families operate in different ways based on a diverse platform of cultural influences.²¹While “western” cultures tend to place greater emphasis on the wants and needs of the individual (individualistic cultural values), and on the independence of individual family members (independent orientation), non-western cultures tend to focus more on the wants and needs of the group (collectivistic cultural values), and relationships and obligations between family members (interdependent orientation).²²

There are differences between cultures as to who is considered “family” and how family functions are interpreted.²³In western cultures, the traditional form of family is the “nuclear family”.²⁴In other non-western cultures, including Asian and Pacific cultures, the extended family is considered to be just as

fundamental and important as the nuclear family, in a way that is very similar to whānau for Māori.²⁵In these non-western cultures family relationships may extend well beyond the household, with ties to the broader ethnic and religious community, or even to other countries.²⁶

The absence of family-specific data and research in New Zealand, particularly compared to other developed countries, is a recognised problem, directly impacting on the

ability to analyse most aspects of family life and inform public policy in this area.²⁷

While there is no universal or generic way of defining whānau, there is broad consensus that genealogical relationships form the basis of whānau, and that these relationships are intergenerational, shaped by context, and given meaning through roles and responsibilities.²⁹

Whānau is distinct from the concepts of family and household used in the collection of statistical information in New Zealand. As a result, there is a substantial gap in the evidence base relating to whānau.³⁰Te Kupenga, the first Māori Social Survey carried out by Statistics New Zealand in 2013, sought to address this gap and to better understand whānau in a way that reflects Māori values.

Te Kupenga re-affirmed the pre-eminence of whakapapa relationships as the foundation of whānau, with 99% of respondents thinking of their whānau in terms of genealogical relationships.³¹However the breadth of those relationships varies greatly.³²Just over 40% of respondents reported that their whānau only comprised of immediate family members (parents, partner/spouse, brothers, sisters, in- laws and children),³³while 15% of respondents reported that their whānau also included

grandparents and grandchildren, but not extended whānau or friends.³⁴A further 32% of respondents stated that their whānau included aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces and/or other in-laws, but stopped short of including close friends.³⁵Finally, just under 13% of respondents included close friends and others in their expressions of whānau.³⁶A person’s perception of whānau was also likely to change over his or her lifetime, and in response to changes in locality, networks and whānau composition.³⁷

Superu’s analysis of Te Kupenga identified that a respondent’s household-based family type had no bearing on how they described who belonged to their whānau.³⁸This, Superu
notes, is significant as it suggests that, for

are a “very poor proxy for the more complex set of relationships that exist within whānau”.³⁹It also suggests that the focus on the household- based family as the unit of analysis in research “may be generating knowledge and policy responses that have limited relevance for whānau Māori”.⁴⁰

This limits what, if anything, the official statistics and information presented in this paper can tell us about the Māori worldview of whānau, and how this influences the formation and functioning of intimate relationships for Māori.

Measuring ethnicity

Throughout this paper we identify where there are divergences in relationship and family trends across different ethnicities. Due to the way this information has been collected by Statistics New Zealand in the past, we limit our consideration to differences across the four largest pan-ethnic groups in New Zealand: European, Māori, Pacific peoples and Asian. However, it is important to note that these are far from homogeneous groups, particularly the

Pacific peoples and Asian groups.⁴¹Further, the European ethnic group includes “New Zealand European” but also includes people of other European ethnicities (comprising approximately 240,000 people in 2013).⁴²We also note the next largest pan-ethnic grouping (Middle Eastern/Latin American/African) is experiencing a strong rate of growth, up from

0.9% of the population in 2006 to 1.2% of the population in 2013.⁴³However due to the relatively small size of this group, less reliable data is available, particularly historic data.

Even though New Zealand has a relatively small population, the experience of New Zealand families over the last 40 years generally reflects trends in other developed countries, in particular, the increasing diversity of relationship forms and family composition.⁴⁴

We refer to international data and research where it is relevant, or where there is a lack of New Zealand-based data to draw on. It is important, however, to keep in mind that there are always differences in social and cultural norms in other countries, as well as differences in legal systems. Accordingly, we treat international data with appropriate caution.

Throughout this Study Paper we refer to several different points in time over the past 40 years. Sometimes this is due to limitations around data availability and reliability, but sometimes it is for a particular purpose. We look at 1976 because that is when the Property (Relationships) Act was first enacted. There was also a census that year, which provides a

helpful comparator. 1982 is a key date because it followed significant changes to divorce laws

(in October 1981), which eased access to divorce.⁴⁵2001 is also significant because that

was when the Property (Relationships) Act was extended to cover de facto relationships for the first time, including same-sex de facto relationships. 2001 was also a census year.
The most recent census was undertaken in

statistics refer to 2013.

By looking at these years in particular, we can see how much New Zealand society has changed over this period.

What it means to be “partnered” has changed significantly since the 1970s, when the paradigm relationship was a marriage between a man and a woman. Now, fewer people are marrying and more people are in de facto relationships. There is a new form of partnership – civil union – and different relationships are also receiving greater recognition, including same-sex relationships.

Historically the law only provided for one form of intimate relationship between two adults – marriage – which was available only to partners of the opposite sex. In recent decades

extension of legal rights and protections to other forms of intimate relationships.

In 2001, the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 gave partners in qualifying de facto relationships (including same-sex partners) the same legal rights and protections in respect of property as married partners.

Since 2005, partners (including same-sex partners) have been able to enter into a registered civil union in New Zealand under the Civil Union Act 2004, which, for the first time, provided a legally equivalent alternative to marriage.

In 2013, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 changed the legal definition of marriage to allow same-sex partners to marry.

These legal changes reflect growing social acceptance of more diverse intimate relationships.

There are fewer marriages in New
Zealand now than in 1976

_{In 2016, the marriage
rate was 10.9, down from}

Source: Statistics New Zealand "General marriage rate, December years (total population) (Annual-Dec) (June 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

35.5 in 1976 (Figure 1a).⁴⁷The marriage rate is now around one quarter of what it was when it peaked at 45.5 in 1971.⁴⁸

The overall number of marriages each year is also decreasing, despite population growth (from 3,163,400 in 1976 to 4,747,200 in

2016).⁴⁹In 2016 there were 20,184 marriages in New Zealand, down from 24,153 in 1976.⁵⁰

Superu notes that many factors will have contributed to the fall in the marriage rate, including the growth in de facto relationships (discussed below), increasing numbers of New Zealanders remaining single,⁵¹and a general trend towards delaying marriage.⁵²

The median age at marriage has continued to increase since it reached record lows in the early 1970s.⁵³

30 for men and 29 for women, compared to 23 for men and 21 for women in 1971, when the marriage rate peaked.⁵⁴

More people are in de facto relationships

In 2013, 22% of people who were partnered were in a de facto relationship, up from 8% in
1986 (Figure 1b).⁵⁵

Few people enter into civil unions

The number of people entering into civil unions since 2005 has remained relatively small, accounting for 1.4% of all marriages and civil unions between 2005 and 2013.⁵⁶

The number of civil unions has dropped even further since same-sex marriage was legalised in 2013. In 2016, there were only 48 civil unions, accounting for 0.2% of all marriages and civil unions.⁵⁷

Figure 1b. Partnerships by relationship type (marriage and de facto relationships), 1986 to

Sources: Statistics New Zealand Population Structure and Internal Migration (1998) at 10; Statistics New Zealand Population Structure and Internal Migration (2001) at 52; Statistics New Zealand “Partnership status in current relationship and ethnic group (grouped total responses) by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses”

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Partnership status in current relationship and ethnic group (grouped total responses) by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2001, 2006 and 2013 census" <nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.

Māori are significantly more likely to live in a de facto relationship compared to any other ethnic group (Figure 1c). In 2013, 40% of Māori who were partnered were in a de facto

relationship.⁵⁸In Part A of our Issues Paper we explore how the relationship practices of Māori

Many young people live in de facto relationships

A breakdown of census data by relationship type and age (Figure 1d) demonstrates that de facto relationships are common among young people. The prevalence of de facto relationships then declines in the older age groups, where more people are married.

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Legally registered relationship status and partnership status in current relationship by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses" <nzdotstats.stats.govt.nz>

No official records are kept for de facto relationships, unlike marriages and civil unions, which must be registered.

Most of what we know about de facto relationships comes from census data, and relies on people identifying themselves as living in a de facto relationship on census night.⁵⁹

This can be problematic because the definition of a de facto relationship is less precise than the definitions of marriage and civil union (which rely on the official registration of a

relationship), and may be interpreted differently by different people.⁶⁰There is a risk that the census undercounts the actual number of people living together in de facto

The census is a “point in time” survey that can only provide a breakdown of the different relationship types reported in each census. It cannot tell us how long de facto relationships last, and how many end by marriage or separation.

To understand more about de facto relationships, we can look to the New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education (NZW:FEE) Survey.

The NZW:FEE Survey was a nationwide survey of 3,017 women born 1936–1975 and covering the period 1950–1995. It was conducted in

1995 by the Population Studies Centre at the University of Waikato and investigated the dynamic processes of family formation and change in New Zealand. The survey collected a wide range of retrospective information

including information about relationships, births, education and work. It was the first comprehensive survey of its kind in New Zealand and remains a key source of

information on family formation and change on a national scale.⁶²It is also the only data set in New Zealand which makes links between cohabitation, marriage and divorce at an individual level.⁶³It does not however consider civil unions, as these were not introduced until
2005.

The NZW:FEE Survey collected information about marriage and cohabitation. “Cohabitation” referred to people who were in an intimate relationship and living together in
the same household but who were not married. To ensure that the data is presented accurately in this Paper, we also use the term “cohabitation” when referring to the NZW:FEE Survey results in this Study Paper.

Most people live together before marriage

The NZW:FEE Survey identified that each generation has seen a greater proportion of women live with a partner before marriage.⁶⁴
Only 4% of women born 1936–1949 entered cohabitation as a “first union” (that is, before marriage) by age 20, compared to 38% of women born 1970–1975.⁶⁵

Of those women who married, the vast majority born after 1960 had previously cohabitated,⁶⁶and over 90% of first marriages for women in the latest birth cohorts were preceded by one
or more periods of cohabitation.⁶⁷

The NZW:FEE Survey also identified that almost half of all cohabitations that were
entered into as a “first union” had, at the time of the survey, resulted in marriage (Figure 1e).⁶⁸
While Māori women were more likely than non- Māori to cohabit as their first union, this did not translate to a higher proportion of Māori women who subsequently married.⁶⁹

marriage, compared to 77% of all couples who married in 2013.⁷¹Of those who were in a de facto relationship in 2012, 45% expected to marry their current partner, and this expectation was higher for younger people (63% of people
_{aged 34 and under).}⁷²

Source: Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 17.

Superu observes that it is now the norm for a de facto relationship to be the first form of partnership for most New Zealanders, and for partners who marry to first spend time in a de facto relationship.⁷⁰

Little is known about long-term de facto relationships

We do not know how many people remain in de facto relationships long-term.

The NZW:FEE Survey results suggest that long-term de facto relationships may be uncommon. Within two years, 53% of all cohabitations that were entered into as a first union had ended, either by marriage or separation.⁷³This increased to 86% within five years, and 95% within 10 years.⁷⁴

However the proportion of first cohabiting unions that were still intact five years on increased among younger cohorts (figure 1f).⁷⁵

Similarly, first cohabiting unions became more enduring over time, with the proportion of

Figure 1f. NZW:FEE Survey, Cumulative percentage of first cohabiting unions ending

(either moving to marriage or dissolving) within a given duration, by birth cohort

Source: Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 25.

cohabitations still intact five years on increasing from 11% of cohabitations entered into before

1970, to 14% of cohabitations entered into between 1980 and 1989.⁷⁶This suggests that “that enduring cohabiting unions were increasingly likely to be acceptable to the wider community and in that sense ‘formalised’.”⁷⁷

The NZW:FEE Survey is now over 20 years old, so it is unknown how enduring de facto relationships are in New Zealand today. More recent research from Australia (discussed in Chapter 3) suggests that de facto relationships may be more enduring today.

The increase in the number of people living in de facto relationships in New Zealand follows international trends. However the rate tends to be higher in New Zealand than in other comparable countries.

In OECD countries, on average 10% of adults aged 20 and over lived with a partner outside of marriage (or a registered partnership such as a civil union) in 2011, compared to the New Zealand-reported figure of 16%.⁷⁸The rate is highest in Sweden (19%), where living together outside marriage is quite normal and marriage

is more of a lifestyle choice rather than an expected part of life.⁷⁹Rates in Australia (10%), the United Kingdom (12%) and Canada (12%) are all lower than New Zealand.

The trend in New Zealand for more couples to live together outside marriage earlier in life is consistent with the international experience. In OECD countries on average 17% of adults aged 20–34 live with a partner outside of marriage, compared to the New Zealand- reported rate of 26%.⁸⁰

Same-sex relationships are small in number

Changing social attitudes towards same-sex relationships and coinciding changes to the law in New Zealand have occurred over a relatively short space of time. Homosexuality was still a criminal offence in New Zealand up until
1986,⁸¹yet just 15 years later same-sex partners in qualifying de facto relationships were given the same property entitlements as opposite-sex de facto partners under the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001. Same-sex couples could first “formalise” their relationship in 2005 through civil union, and then through marriage in 2013.⁸²

These rapid social and legal changes mean that data on same-sex relationships is limited, and historical data in particular can be unreliable.⁸³Census data relies on self- identification and there is a risk of under- reporting because of some people's reluctance to identify as living with a same-sex partner.⁸⁴

Census data from recent years is therefore more likely to represent a truer record of actual numbers of same-sex couples, rather than an increase in prevalence.⁸⁵The census does not otherwise collect information about sexual orientation.

What we know is that more people are recording that they are in a same-sex relationship.

In 2013, 8,328 same-sex couples lived together, up from 5,067 in 2001.⁸⁶As a percentage of all couples, this represented an increase from 0.7% in 2001 to 0.9% in 2013.⁸⁷

Figure 1g. Number of same-sex marriages and civil unions in New Zealand, 2005 to 2016

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Marriages and Civil Unions by relationship type, New Zealand and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)" (May

By the end of 2016 there had been 2,100 civil unions and 1,614 marriages between New Zealand resident same-sex couples.⁸⁸As Figure 1g demonstrates, the number of same- sex civil unions has dropped sharply since same-sex marriage was enacted in 2013. In

Same-sex couples remain a small group, making up just under 1% of all couples living together in 2013. This is comparable to Australia, where the 2011 Census of Population and Housing recorded that same- sex couples represented about 1% of all couples living together in Australia.⁸⁹

Analysis of 2013 census data for opposite-sex partners identifies that most people have a partner whose age is not significantly different

to their own.⁹⁰While men are usually older than their female partner (70% of the time), few men have a significantly younger female partner.

men aged 40 had a partner who was 10 or more years younger.⁹¹

Partnering rates vary depending on educational attainment

2013 census data also identifies different partnership rates based on educational attainment. People aged 25–34 who reported holding no formal qualifications also reported the lowest level of partnering (52% for men and
50% for women with no qualifications, compared to 62% of men and 69% of women with a degree or higher qualification).⁹²

If people reported being partnered in the 2013 census, they were more likely to be married or in a civil union if holding a degree or higher qualification.⁹³

Many partners “live apart together”

Little information is collected about people who consider themselves in a committed relationship with someone who lives in a different household. These relationships are

In recent decades LAT relationships have received increasing attention in international research and literature. Most studies agree that just under 10% of adults are LAT, including in the United Kingdom and Australia.⁹⁵

Researchers are divided over whether LAT is a “new” type of relationship, driven by changes in patterns of relationship formation and dissolution, or whether there have always been partners who live apart together when they are unready or unable to cohabit.⁹⁶

3,112 individuals in LAT relationships, observed there were four distinct profiles of LAT relationships that occurred at different stages in life:⁹⁷

• Young adults in dating relationships (44% of LATs). This group was aged under 30 and lived in the parental home, often while studying.

• Independent adults (32%), older than 30 and mostly living outside the parental home.

• Single parents (11%), who were clustered in midlife, and most of whom have never married.

• Seniors (13%), most of whom were older than 50 years and had been previously married. While the study did not identify whether this group also included people who were LAT because their partner had gone into an aged care facility, many in this group cared for others outside the household.⁹⁸

Each profile had distinctive behaviours and intentions. The primary reason for LAT relationships shifted from “constraint” early in life (for example due to distance between jobs or care responsibilities for children or elderly

parents), to “choice” later in life, and in particular the desire to balance intimacy and autonomy.⁹⁹While young adults tended to see LAT as a state of transition and intended to live together in future, seniors typically lived apart for longer periods with no intention to live together.¹⁰⁰

That research also identified that LAT relationships were concentrated early in the life course, after which it became a minority practice as most people entered cohabitation and (then) marriage.¹⁰¹

In New Zealand, the NZW:FEE Survey identified that, in 1995, 20% of women aged
20–24 years were in an intimate relationship with someone who lived in a separate household.¹⁰²However this data is now out of date. More research is needed into the prevalence, behaviours and intentions of people in LAT relationships in New Zealand.

Changing patterns in relationship formation have coincided with changes in when and how New Zealanders are having children.

The median age of women giving birth has been steadily increasing since the 1970s. In

25 (23 among Māori), increasing to 30 (26 among Māori) in 2016.¹⁰³Changing expectations around education, career, travel, relationships and economic stability are all likely to be playing a role in this trend.¹⁰⁴

As more women delay having children, the proportion of women remaining childless has steadily increased, and has more than doubled

since the 1970s.¹⁰⁵This increase has been linked to social change (life circumstances or choice), rather than biological change (involuntary childlessness).¹⁰⁶

The fertility rate is declining

Fertility rates¹⁰⁷in New Zealand (Figure 2a) increased dramatically from the mid-1940s and peaked at 4.31 births per woman in 1961.¹⁰⁸
New Zealand then experienced a period of decreasing fertility, due in part to delayed childbearing and increasing rates of childlessness. In 1976 the fertility rate was
2.27, declining to a record low of 1.87 in

2016.¹⁰⁹However, since 1980 the fertility rate has been relatively stable, averaging 2.01
births per woman.¹¹⁰This follows patterns seen in most other comparable countries.¹¹¹

There is significant variation in fertility rates across different ethnic groups. Māori and Pacific women have fertility rates well above those of European and Asian women, and
patterns of younger childbearing.¹¹²In the 2014

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Total fertility rate (Māori and total population) (Annual-Dec)" (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

In 2016, 46% of all births in New Zealand were to parents who were not married or in a civil union (ex-nuptial births).¹¹⁴This has increased significantly since 1976, when ex-nuptial births only accounted for 17% of all births (Figure

The rate of ex-nuptial births in New Zealand is higher than the OECD average of 40% (in

2014)¹¹⁶and the rate of ex-nuptial births in Australia (34.4%), but is similar to the rate in the United Kingdom (47.6%).¹¹⁷

Historically low rates of ex-nuptial births reflected different social attitudes

Historically, marriage was a common response to ex-nuptial conception among non-Māori.¹¹⁸

ex-nuptial conception did not end in marriage, adoption was a common outcome.¹²⁰

By the 1960s, marriage precipitated by pregnancy was starting to decline, with an increasing tendency for unmarried women to give birth outside marriage.¹²¹At the same time, improved access to birth control, changing social attitudes to children born outside marriage and the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in 1973 all contributed to a decline in ex-nuptial adoptions.¹²²Today adoptions are very rare, totalling around 100 per year.¹²³

Ex-nuptial rates are higher among
Māori

Rates of ex-nuptial births are consistently higher for Māori (Figure 2b). This reflects changing relationship practices over time, explored in Part A of our Issues Paper, and different patterns of support for unmarried women.¹²⁴

Figure 2b. Proportion of ex-nuptial births in New Zealand, total population and Māori

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Live births by nuptiality (Māori and total population) (annual-Dec) " (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>. Note: Data for Māori births is not available for 1991-1995.

The increase in de facto relationships is likely driving the increase in ex-nuptial births

Available data on ex-nuptial births does not distinguish between births to de facto partners and births to single mothers.

ex-nuptial births since the 1960s has been due to the rise in the number of children born to de facto partners.¹²⁵

This was evident in the NZW:FEE Survey, which identified women of more recent birth cohorts had a higher likelihood of having their first child in cohabitation.¹²⁶For example,

15.4% of non-Māori women born between 1960 and 1969 gave birth to their first child while cohabiting, compared to just 1.9% of women born between 1936 and 1949.¹²⁷The increase was significantly higher among Māori women, with 44.6% of Māori women born between

1960 and 1969 giving birth while cohabiting, up from 8.7% of Māori women born between 1936 and 1949.¹²⁸

In the more recent Growing Up in New Zealand Study, 63% of mothers during late pregnancy were married or in a civil union, 28% were

living with their partner, 4% were in a relationship but not living together and 5.4% were not in a relationship.¹²⁹The parental relationship status had changed for very few of the cohort children (5%) by the time they were aged 9 months, with approximately 4% reporting a separation over this time and 1% reporting a new partnership.¹³⁰

It is difficult to provide an accurate picture of relationships ending in separation in New Zealand because of data constraints. Information is not regularly collected on relationship and family transitions, and we are therefore required to rely primarily on official divorce statistics (capturing dissolutions of marriages and civil unions).

Official divorce statistics are not an accurate measure of separation, because not all marriages and civil unions that end will be officially dissolved. Divorce statistics are also inadequate because they do not include de facto separations. This is a significant knowledge gap in our understanding of relationships in New Zealand.

Divorce statistics are also an unreliable measure of the duration of relationships. Many partners will have spent some time living together in a de facto relationship before marrying (see Chapter 1), and divorce records only tell us when a relationship was legally dissolved, not when the partners separated. In New Zealand, marriages and civil unions can only be dissolved after the parties have been separated for two years.¹³¹As a result the length of a marriage will not accurately represent actual length of that relationship.

However, on the data that is available, it is clear that separation affects the lives of many New Zealanders.

The divorce rate is higher than in
1976, but has been declining since the early 2000s

In 2016, the divorce rate was 8.7 per 1,000 existing marriages and civil unions, compared to 7.4 in 1976 (Figure 3a).¹³²

While the divorce rate has increased since

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Divorce rate (total population) (Annual-Dec)" (June 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

The downward trend in the likelihood of divorce was also observed in the NZW:FEE Survey, which identified a 35% decline in the likelihood of divorce between the 1980s and 1990s.¹³³

Several factors are likely to have affected the divorce rate since 1976, starting with the enactment of the Matrimonial Property Act

1976), which provided for equal division of matrimonial property at the end of a marriage.¹³⁴

The sharp increase in the divorce rate in 1982 is due to changes in the law that made it much easier to obtain a divorce.¹³⁵This also coincided with a small increase in the number

of remarriages (see Chapter 4), which suggests many people who legally divorced in 1982 had already separated and re-partnered.

These legal changes were responding to a demand that was driven primarily by the high levels of first conception and marriage at young ages that occurred several decades earlier, including during the post-World War Two period.¹³⁶These types of marriages were notorious for high rates of dysfunctionality and breakdown.¹³⁷

The subsequent relaxation of divorce laws and a corresponding increase in the divorce rate is a trend observed in most other developed countries during the 1970s to 1990s.¹³⁸

Possible factors contributing to the declining divorce rate in recent years include the declining marriage rate and the later age at which people are marrying. International research suggests that the age at which a relationship starts is one of the most powerful

factors associated with subsequent breakdown, and that younger relationships are generally less stable.¹³⁹

Just over one-third of marriages end in divorce

The divorce rate does not give a complete picture of how many marriages end in divorce. Analysis of divorce statistics by year of marriage shows that just over one-third (38%) of New Zealanders who married in 1991 had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary (25 years).¹⁴⁰This is higher than for those who married in 1981 (34%), and in
1971 (29%).¹⁴¹

The median duration of marriages ending in divorce has increased slightly

While more marriages end in divorce, the median duration of marriages ending in divorce has been rising since the early 1990s, and was
14 years in 2016, up from 12 years in 1977.¹⁴²

However this might not suggest marriages are longer lasting, as a couple may be separated for some time before divorcing.

People are divorcing later in life

As people marry later, they are also divorcing later in life. The median age at divorce in 2016 was 47 for men and 44 for women compared to
44 for men and 41 for women in 2006.¹⁴³

The rate of de facto separation is unknown but may be higher

One possible reason for the decreasing divorce rate is that people are now much more likely to live together in a de facto relationship before marriage (see Chapter 1), and will have already experienced, and passed, some form of “relationship fragility test”.¹⁴⁴

This suggests that the separation rate for de facto relationships may be higher than the divorce rate. While information on de facto separations is not routinely collected in New Zealand, some evidence suggests that a de

The NZW:FEE Survey identified that first cohabiting unions have, over time, become increasingly more likely to end in separation.¹⁴⁵

Among women who entered into their first cohabitation before 1970, 14% of cohabitations had ended in separation within five years. The rate of separation increased to 33% for first cohabiting unions entered into between 1970 and 1979, and 45% for first cohabiting unions entered into between 1980 and 1989.¹⁴⁶

While this does not include subsequent cohabitations (this analysis is not available), the NZW:FEE Survey also found that women who had their last child in a cohabiting relationship were much more likely to become single parents than those who had their last child in a marriage.¹⁴⁷Experts suggest this supports the view that cohabitations are more fragile than marriages.¹⁴⁸

The Christchurch Study also identified that rates of parental separation in the participant child’s first five years were higher among de facto parents (43.9%) compared to married parents (10.9%).¹⁴⁹However, the original sample size of de facto parents was much smaller than that of married couples (57 compared to 945).¹⁵⁰

The NZW:FEE Survey and Christchurch Study are now over 20 years old. It is unknown whether the trends they identified have continued, or if they have been altered by subsequent changes to the legal and social context.

Recent international research suggests de facto relationships may be more enduring

More recent research from Australia suggests that cohabiting unions may now be more enduring than the NZW:FEE Survey or the

Christchurch Study suggest. A study of opposite-sex couples cohabiting in 2001 identified that, three years on, 61% were still cohabiting, 19% had separated and 20% had married.¹⁵¹

Research in England and Wales also challenges the view that cohabiting relationships are more fragile than marriages.¹⁵²While statistics may point to marriages being on average less likely to end in separation, and marriages lasting longer than cohabiting relationships, this does not
compare like with like.¹⁵³If separation rates are

adjusted for differences between people who are married and people who cohabit, including differences in age, the presence of children and whether the relationship is a first or subsequent union, there would be little difference between separation rates for cohabiting and married partners.¹⁵⁴

The number of parents divorcing who have children under the age of 17 years has been decreasing since the early 2000s (Figure 3b),

in line with the general trend in the divorce rate. Data on divorces involving children aged 17

In 2016, 3,450 divorces involved children under the age of 17 years (affecting 6,135 children in total), accounting for 42% of all divorces.¹⁵⁵

The exposure of children to parental separation can be investigated in longitudinal studies.

The Christchurch Study observed a fairly steady rate of parental separation for its cohort of over 1000 children born in 1977, with, on average 2.3% of parental relationships ending in separation each year in the first 10 years of

the cohort had either experienced parental separation or had entered a single parent family at birth.¹⁵⁸

The Christchurch study also identified that families with more children were less likely to separate, the risk of separation halving for families with three children under five, compared to one child under five.¹⁵⁹The presence of preschool-aged children was therefore seen to act as a “protective factor” reducing the risk of relationship instability (although such effect may only be temporary).¹⁶⁰This is consistent with international research, which estimates that the presence of children can reduce separation rates by as much as 40%.¹⁶¹

These findings have also been reflected in early results of the more recent Growing Up in New Zealand Study, which identifies that, overall, the number of children living in a single parent household is increasing as the children get older: 3% lived in a single parent household before birth, rising to 5% by age 2 and 8% by age 4.¹⁶²

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Divorces (Marriages and Civil Unions) (Annual-Dec) (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>; Statistics New

Zealand "Divorces involving children aged under 17 years (Marriages and Civil Unions) (Annual-Dec) (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

Another recent study that investigated the living arrangements of 209 young people from birth

to age 15 found that only 20 per cent had spent all of their childhood living with both biological parents.¹⁶³

Most single parent families today are likely to have resulted from relationship separation

There has been a significant increase in single parent families in New Zealand, with the proportion of single parent households almost doubling since 1976, from 5% to 9% of all New Zealand households (see Chapter 5).¹⁶⁴

While we do not know exactly how many single parent families result from separation, this is likely to be the primary contributor to the rise in the number of single parent families since the

An analysis of census data from the early to mid-2000s identified that approximately two thirds of New Zealand’s single parents had been married or in a civil union.¹⁶⁶The

remaining one third may have separated from a de facto partner, may be in a relationship but living apart (see Chapter 1), or they may have had their child or children outside a

Many New Zealanders will have more than one intimate relationship in their lifetime.

Re-partnering is an important determinant of family structure, size and arrangements, in particular influencing the prevalence of stepfamilies.

Since 1982 approximately one third of all marriages in New Zealand have been remarriages (29% in 2016), where at least one partner has previously been married or in a civil union (Figure 4a). This proportion has

increased since the 1970s. In 1971, just 16% of marriages were remarriages.¹⁶⁷

Other than official statistics on remarriages, little is known about re-partnering and

stepfamilies in New Zealand.

Statistics on remarriages do not capture people who divorce and then enter into a de facto relationship, people who re-partner without officially divorcing, or people who have been in more than one de facto relationship throughout their lifetime. Information about these types of transitions is not regularly collected in New Zealand.

The NZW:FEE Survey investigated re- partnering among women during 1950–1995, and identified that the vast majority who re- partnered had entered into a cohabiting union rather than remarrying (80% of women who re- partnered within five years of separation).¹⁶⁸
Therefore the number of remarriages alone is unlikely to reflect the rate of re-partnering in New Zealand.

The NZW:FEE Survey identified that, within two years of separation from a first marriage, 30%
of women had re-partnered (Figure 4b).¹⁶⁹The likelihood of re-partnering then decreased as the time since separation increased.¹⁷⁰

The NZW:FEE Survey also identified substantial differences in the likelihood of re-

Figure 4a. Number of first marriages, remarriages and total marriages (including civil unions), 1970 to 2016

Source: Statistics New Zealand "First Marriages, Remarriages and Total Marriages (including Civil Unions) (Annual-Dec)" (May 2017)

separation after 1975 were more likely to re- partner in the first three years of separation than those whose separations had occurred earlier.¹⁷⁵

Stepfamilies in New Zealand have become more common

Stepfamilies are couples with children where at least one of the adults is not the biological or

Figure 4b. NZW:FEE Survey, Cumulative proportion of women repartnering after separation from a first marriage

Source: Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 138.

partnering depending on the woman’s age at separation, the presence of children and the age of the youngest child.¹⁷¹A woman’s chances of re-partnering were highest if she had separated from her partner before age

30.¹⁷²Childless women were about 60% more likely to re-partner than single mothers.¹⁷³

Single mothers with children over the age of 15 were twice as likely to re-partner than single mothers with younger children.¹⁷⁴

Results of the NZW:FEE Survey also identified that women whose first marriages ended in

adoptive parent of one or more children in that family. Stepfamilies are difficult to define as there can be several variations, as explained in the Glossary to this Study Paper.

Stepfamilies often form when people re- partner, bringing with them children from a previous relationship. The limited data available suggests that stepfamilies are becoming more common.¹⁷⁶

The NZW:FEE Survey identified that about

18% of mothers had lived in a stepfamily at some point, and that the younger birth cohorts were more likely to live in a stepfamily than the older cohorts.¹⁷⁷In the vast majority of stepfamilies, only one adult brought children from a previous relationship into the family, with
_{only
1 in 8 stepfamilies including children
from}

Figure 4c. NZW:FEE Survey, Percentage of children who have lived in a stepfamily before a given age

Source: Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 79.

The NZW:FEE Survey also identified that 1 in 5 children had lived in a stepfamily before age

17, with children born after 1970 being increasingly more likely to live in a stepfamily (figure 4c).¹⁷⁹29% of Māori children lived in a stepfamily before age 17, compared to 18% of non-Māori.¹⁸⁰

The prevalence of stepfamilies can also be measured in longitudinal surveys. Data from the Christchurch Study identified that 18.4% of

the participant children had lived in a stepfamily for some period of time by age 16.¹⁸¹

A more recent analysis of the Survey of Family, Income and Employment (SoFIE, see Chapter

5) data identified that, at the conclusion of the survey, approximately 9.3% of all dependent children and 7.5% of adults living with dependent children were living in a stepfamily at that point in time.¹⁸²

While little is known about stepfamilies, some evidence suggests they are more likely to end in separation than other couple with children

families, especially in the first few years.¹⁸³The Christchurch Study identified that entry into a stepfamily following parental separation within the first six years of a child’s life was “associated with relatively poor survival probabilities”, with 55% experiencing stepfamily separation within a four year period.¹⁸⁴

The increased likelihood of separation may be because stepfamilies can face unique challenges. A New Zealand study of 44 stepfamilies identified four common issues particular to stepfamilies: how to discipline children and who would do so; agreement on household rules and routines; the external influence of non-resident parents; and having enough time to develop the couple’s relationship.¹⁸⁵

“‘Family’ has been experienced differently by different generations and age groups of people in New Zealand. This is because each generation is influenced by period-specific events, policies, beliefs and responses. The bicultural and multicultural nature of New Zealand means, too, that there is considerable diversity at any one time in the ways that families are defined and understood.”¹⁸⁶

The increasing diversity of relationship forms and changing patterns in childbearing, separation and re-partnering detailed in the previous chapters all have implications for family and household structures.

These changing patterns have seen a move away from the dominance of the traditional

nuclear family unit (a man and a woman, married with children) and towards an increasingly wide range of different family forms.¹⁸⁷Figure 5a shows the changes in household composition since 1976.

There is also growing evidence to suggest that many New Zealanders experience frequent changes in their family and household arrangements over time. A recent study investigating the living arrangements of 209 young people from birth to age 15 found that only 14 (7%) lived their whole lives in households containing only nuclear family members.¹⁸⁸While not a representative study,
it suggests that families today take many forms and are frequently changing and evolving.¹⁸⁹

Changes in the three “family types”

The census collects information on three family types: couples with children, couples without children and single parent families. Figure 5b breaks down the proportions of these family types in 2013.

Sources: Statistics New Zealand "Household composition, for households in occupied private dwellings, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA, AU)" <nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>; Dharmalingam and others A Demographic History of the New Zealand Family from 1840: Tables (Auckland University Press, 2007) at 17.

childlessness but it also reflects New Zealand’s ageing population, and the increase in couples whose children have grown up and left home.

There are more “single parent families”

While the proportion of single parent families has remained relatively stable since 1991, the late 1970s and 1980s saw a period of rapid growth in single parent families, with the
_{number of single
parents increasing by a third}

Source: Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats about families and households (November 2014) at 6.

“Couples with children” is still the most common family type in New Zealand, making

However, as a proportion of all families, couples with children have been on the decline since 1991, when they made up 48% of all families in New Zealand.¹⁹⁰

In contrast to couples with children, the number of couples without children has steadily increased since 1991.

Couples without children cluster in two age ranges; those in their mid-to-late 20s or early

60s and 70s.¹⁹¹This reflects the life stages of younger couples who have not yet had children, and of older couples who may have had children, but no longer have children living with them. The increase in the number of

couples without children could be in part due to delayed childbearing and increasing

in each census period.¹⁹²

As a result, the proportion of single parent households has almost doubled since 1976, from 5% to 9% of all households in 2013.¹⁹³

Many people move in and out of single parent families

Single parenting is a situation which many people move in and out of.¹⁹⁴While census
data gives us a picture of how many people are in single parent families at a particular point in time, it does not tell us how many people have spent some time in single parent families
during their lifetime.

In 2003 Statistics New Zealand began the Survey of Family, Income and Employment (SoFIE).

What is SoFIE? SoFIE was a longitudinal sample survey of 22,000 New Zealanders, representing the usually resident population of New Zealand living in permanent, private dwellings. It involved a series of interviews conducted across eight years or “waves”, from
2003 to 2010. It asked participants a series of questions at each interview including questions about family type. From this data we can identify individuals who changed family type between interviews, although we do not know who the family members were, or why their living arrangements changed. It provides a

SoFIE sorted people into one of four groups – the three family types used in the census (couple only, couple with children and single parent family), and a fourth group, “not in a family nucleus”, to capture people not living with a parent, partner or child (or if their children have a partner or children of their own living with them).

Analysis of SoFIE data by Superu identified that 11% of adults and 32% of dependent children lived in a single parent family at some point over the eight year survey period. The proportion of dependent children who spent time in a single parent family was higher for Māori (50%) and lower for Asian (19%) children.¹⁹⁵11.5% of dependent children spent the entire eight year survey period living with a single parent.¹⁹⁶

It also identified that the most common trend was for single parents to remain single parents throughout the survey period, and that the rate was higher for women than men (44.2% for women and 29% for men).¹⁹⁷Women were more likely than men to move into a couple with children (15.7% of women compared to 9.7% of men), while men were more likely than women to transition to being single (20% of men compared to 14.4% of women).¹⁹⁸

The classification of family according to three family types (couples with children, couples without children and single parent families) does not tell us anything about children who live in more than one household, such as shared care arrangements following separation, or in stepfamilies.

Beyond census data, there is very little information available about these families and

households. The little information that we do have suggests that they are common. For example, in a 2012 survey of 8,500 secondary school students (Youth’12 survey), 29% of students reported that they lived in two or more homes.¹⁹⁹

In another study of 209 young people, 59% were either in single parent or shared care by age 15. The most common care arrangement
for those not living with both parents was where the children had no contact with one of their biological parents.²⁰⁰At all ages, the biological mother was most likely to be the primary or
sole carer.²⁰¹Rates of shared care (where more than 35% of time was spent with each parent) was low.²⁰²However this was not a representative sample.

We discuss post-separation families more in

Chapter 8.

Same-sex couples with children are small in number

Same-sex couples are statistically less likely to have children than opposite-sex couples.²⁰³
Biological, psychological and other constraints faced by same-sex couples generally result in smaller family sizes, unless both partners bring children from previous opposite-sex relationships to a same-sex relationship.²⁰⁴

In 2013, there were only 306 male couples with child(ren), and 1,170 female couples with child(ren), together making up less than 1% of all couples with children in New Zealand.²⁰⁵

Families with adult children

Families with adult children reflect a diverse set of characteristics and contexts.²⁰⁶They may include parents caring for adult children with severe disabilities, or adult children staying home while studying, saving money or caring
for elderly parents.²⁰⁷

In 2013, families with all children aged 18 and over accounted for 12% of all families.²⁰⁸

20 years and over, 64,707 of these were couples with children families and 45,846 were single parent families.²⁰⁹

The number of families sharing their household with members of their extended family is increasing. In this context, an “extended family” is a group of related people usually living together, either as a family with one or more other related people, or as two or more related families (with or without other related people).

According to census data, the number of extended families living in the same household increased by just over 50% between 2001 and

Many people may move in and out of extended family households. The Growing Up in New Zealand Study identified that 24% of children lived with extended family before birth (that is, while their mother was pregnant), and that this dropped to 20% by the time the child reached age 2, and 17% by age 4.²¹¹

Living with extended family members can be beneficial for several reasons, including reduced living costs and shared childcare and other household activities.²¹²However, extended household living can also have

negative impacts, including overcrowding which can be associated with negative health outcomes.²¹³

Certain ethnic groups are more likely to live in extended family households. Māori have strong

cultural intergenerational connections, and it is common for Māori grandparents to live with members of their extended families.²¹⁴Pacific peoples are even more likely to live with extended family members.²¹⁵

In the Growing Up in New Zealand Study, by age 4 approximately 40% of Pacific children,
32% of Asian children and 26% of Māori children were living in extended family households, compared to 8% of European children. ²¹⁶

Grandparents in a parental role

In 2013 there were 9,543 grandparents in a parental role (that is, where the parents of the children were not living in the same household).²¹⁷

While little is known about grandparents in a parental role, some suggest this arrangement is becoming more common, and that parental separation is one of the main reasons why grandparents take on a parental role.²¹⁸

The Youth’12 survey identified that grandparents acted as a parent for 13% of students, and that other relatives acted as a parent for 17% of students.²¹⁹These proportions were higher for students living in more socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods.²²⁰

For Māori, the traditional practice of whāngai, where children are raised by whānau members other than their parents, provides opportunities for grandparents to raise mokopuna.²²¹In a recent study of 209 young people, four had spent time in a whāngai arrangement.²²²

Family transitions – What happens in a year?

Data is not routinely collected in New Zealand on family transitions. While census and other survey information can give us a snapshot of what New Zealand families look like at a

particular point in time, relatively little is known about how the living arrangements of New Zealanders change and evolve.

Superu (then the Families Commission) analysed SoFIE data from 2003 and 2004 to explore how many people change living arrangements over a 12 month period. Figure

• One in 10 New Zealanders changed family living arrangements during one year.

• Younger people were more likely to change family type – 20% of 15–34 year olds, compared to 9% aged 35 years and over, or

• Single parent families demonstrated the most change – 18% of adults and 11% of dependent children left this family type during one year.

• Of people aged 25–34 who changed family type, 12% went from not living in a family nucleus to living in a couple without children; 24% went from living in a couple without children to not living in a family nucleus; and 12% went from living in a

• There were as many 25–34 year old couples who stopped living together as those who had a first child and became a “couple with children” family.

• 5% of dependent children in a couple with children family transitioned to a single parent family.

• About three-quarters of adults who went from a single parent family to a couple with children family were women. This roughly reflects the proportions of women and men in single parent families in 2003, meaning that men were just as likely as women to make this move. Similarly, 79% of people who went from not living in a family nucleus to living in a couple with children family

were men. It seems likely that many would have been moving in with their partner and partner’s children.

Superu’s analysis of family transitions over the full course of the eight year survey period indicated relative stability in the living arrangements of New Zealanders, with 57% of adults and 79.2% of dependent children experiencing no change in family type.²²⁴
Many transitions followed common life course

changes, for example younger “couples without children” transitioning to “couples with
children”, and older “couples with children” transitioning to “couples without children” (consistent with children growing up and

A significant minority (12.7%), however, experienced three or more changes in living arrangements over that period.²²⁵

One of the key principles of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 is that all forms of contribution to a marriage, civil union or de facto relationship are treated as equal.²²⁶

Contributions can include paid and unpaid work, such as workforce participation, caring for children of the relationship and performing other household duties.²²⁷

In this chapter we explore changes in how partners share the work in relationships.

One of the most significant changes affecting contributions within relationships is the increasing likelihood for both partners to participate in the workforce, particularly among couples with dependent children (Figure 6a).

Around two-thirds of couples with children are dual-earner families, up from half in the early

1980s. This pattern appears to have stabilised.²²⁸

The most common arrangement is for both partners to work full-time (45% of couples with dependent children in 2016).²²⁹In contrast, in
1982 the dominant pattern was one partner working full-time while the partner was not in the workforce (52% of couples with dependent children, down to 33% in 2016).²³⁰

The proportion of couples with dependent children where one partner works full-time and one partner works part-time has decreased slightly, from 28% in 1982 to 22% in 2016.²³¹

“Unlike 1976, therefore, by the 1990s the quality and quantum of family life was more dependent on both partners juggling the demands of both the workforce and family life.”²³²

The increase in dual-earner families has been linked to a growing polarisation of families with little paid work (the “work-poor”) and those whose family members spend long hours in the workforce, either out of choice or economic

Figure 6a. Proportion of couples with dependent children where there is at least one full- time adult worker, 1982 to 2016

Source: Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social

In recent years, the proportion of couples with children where both parents are in paid work (68%) has been higher than the OECD average (65%).²³⁴There are variations, however, depending on the age of the youngest child (Figure 6b). Part-time rates tend to be higher in New Zealand compared to the OECD average.

More women are in the workforce, but the rate remains lower than that for men

The changes in workforce participation among couples with children reflect the rising workforce participation rate of women.

In 2016, the workforce participation rate for women was 65%, up from 43% in 1976.²³⁵This increase has been largely driven by the rise in the number of women with dependent children who are working, especially single mothers (discussed in Chapter 8).²³⁶

participation rate than women, although it has fallen slightly in the last thirty years, from 79% in 1986 to 75% in 2016.²³⁷This drop has been observed to disproportionately affect men with little or no formal qualifications, who find it harder to enter paid work and, if they do, find a job that can support a family.²³⁸

Many different reasons for the rise in women’s workforce participation

Reasons for the increase in women’s workforce participation likely include changes in personal preferences and social expectations.

Many women with children will, however, continue in or return to the workforce for economic reasons.²³⁹Increasing income inequality during the 1980s and 1990s means that a single full-time income is now not enough for many families to maintain an adequate income and keep the family out of poverty.²⁴⁰

Women with children have lower workforce participation rates than women without children

Motherhood is a significant factor in how

Figure 6b. Distribution of employment arrangements in couple with children households by the age of the youngest child, New Zealand and OECD average

Source: OECD "LMF2.2 The distribution of working hours among adults in couple families by age of youngest child and number of children" (December 2015) at 4-5.

73% of partnered mothers with dependent children were in the workforce, compared to

Partnered mothers are also more likely than women without children to work part-time. In

2014, 43% of partnered mothers in the workforce worked part-time compared to just

The age of a mother’s youngest child has a significant effect on their workforce participation. Partnered mothers with preschool-aged children are the least likely to be in the workforce, but became increasingly involved in the workforce as their children get older (Figure 6c).²⁴⁴

Childcare costs may influence
women’s workforce participation

One possible reason for the lower workforce participation among mothers of pre-school aged children is the comparatively high cost of childcare in New Zealand.²⁴⁸Figure 6d shows gross childcare fees for two children (aged 2 and 3) attending typical accredited early childhood education services in OECD countries in 2012, as a percentage of average wage.

In the Growing Up in New Zealand Study, of the 47.3% of mothers not in paid work when their child was 2, 18% said that it was because it was not worthwhile with childcare costs, and
7% said they could not find suitable childcare.²⁴⁹By the time the child was 4, 97% of children were participating in non-parental care, 94% of which making use of the Government’s scheme of 20 hours of
subsidised childcare, available for children from

Figure 6c. Proportion of partnered mothers working full time and part time, by age of youngest child, 2012

Similar effects are observable in other OECD countries. The employment rate²⁴⁵of partnered mothers in New Zealand was 66% in 2014, compared to the OECD average of 67%.²⁴⁶The rate was the same in Australia (66%), but

Figure 6d. Average child care fees in OECD countries for 2 children (aged 2 and 3)

Parenthood affects workforce participation for men and women differently²⁵¹

In 2016, according to the Household Labour Force Survey, 90% of people who left their job or withdrew from the workforce due to parental/family responsibilities were women.²⁵²

Women were also more likely to not seek work because of childcare responsibilities or because they are looking after others.²⁵³

Men, in contrast, tend not to vary their workforce participation, and continue to work full time, often assuming the role of primary
_{earner in the household. Since 1986,
fathers}

Figure 6e. Workorce participation of men and women, for opposite sex couples with children, 2013

Source: Statistics New Zealand "Work and labour force status of father, for opposite-sex couples with dependent child(ren) in occupied private dwellings, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA)"; "Work and labour force status of mother, for opposite-sex couples with dependent child(ren) in occupied private dwellings, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA)" <nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.

with preschool-aged children have been working increasingly longer hours,²⁵⁴and there is some evidence that suggests fathers may work longer hours than men without dependent children.²⁵⁵

These differences can be observed by looking at the workforce status of partnered men and women with dependent children in the 2013 census (Figure 6e).

The differences in workforce participation are most pronounced for parents with younger children, as identified in Table 6a.

Measuring the effects of parenthood on workforce participation at age
30: The Christchurch Study

The different effects of parenthood on workforce participation for men and women at age 30 was recently investigated as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study (Christchurch Study).²⁵⁶987 individuals from the original birth cohort completed the age 30 survey. Given the age of the cohort, the majority of their children were within the preschool age range.

The Christchurch Study found that the effects of parenthood were different for men and women.

For women, parenthood was associated with a substantial reduction in workforce participation and income. Mothers overall worked 15 hours a week compared to 35 hours for women who were not parents, and had an employment rate of 54.8% compared to 89.1%.²⁵⁷Compared to mothers, women without children were 6.7
times more likely to be employed, and worked

20 more hours a week.²⁵⁸

For men, however, parenthood was not associated with a decrease in workforce participation.²⁵⁹Instead, there was a small increase in the number of hours worked by fathers, compared to men who were not parents (41.89 hours per week compared to
37.76).²⁶⁰

The results of the Christchurch Study suggest that, where preschool aged children are present, parenthood leads to a clear gender based division of labour in the way resources are allocated to parenthood and workforce participation.²⁶¹Women overwhelmingly took the major responsibility for childcare during the preschool years, and this translated into a very large gap in rates of workforce participation.²⁶²

Performing unpaid work in relationships – childcare and other household duties

According to census information, women are more likely than men to perform unpaid activities such as childcare, household work, helping someone who is ill or disabled, and other voluntary work, with higher rates of participation reported in every activity type in the 2013 census.²⁶³

Statistics New Zealand’s Time Use Surveys provide an additional source of information on how New Zealanders spend their time. The latest Time Use Survey conducted in 2009/10 identified that:²⁶⁴

Another analysis of paid and unpaid work was performed as part of the Christchurch Study’s review of the study cohort at age 30.²⁶⁵Unlike the Statistics New Zealand Time Use Survey, it identified that, when the total hours spent in paid and unpaid work were compared, women spent more time than men in all work activities, the gap being approximately 7 hours per week (Table 6b).²⁶⁶

The Christchurch study also identified that men and women reported similar levels of satisfaction with overall time allocation between themselves and their partners. Over 90% of men and women reported being “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their work-life
balance and the allocation of time within their partnership.²⁶⁷

Table 6b. Average hours per week spent in paid and unpaid work for men and women at age 30, Christchurch Health and Development Study
	Men (n=478)	Women (n=509)
Paid employment	40.3	28.0
Childcare	7.7	23.7
Housework	6.0	10.6
Total work hours	54.2	61.5
Source: Sheree J Gibb, David M Fergusson and Joseph M Boden “Gender Differences in Paid and Unpaid Work: findings from a New Zealand birth cohort” (2013) 9 Policy Quarterly 65 at 67.

Overall, the results from the Statistics New Zealand Time Use Survey and the Christchurch Study suggest that traditional gender roles continue to influence people’s time-use patterns.²⁶⁸Despite the significant increase in women’s participation in the workforce, outlined above, men generally take primary
responsibility for financial support of the family, spending more time in paid employment, while women take primary responsibility for the home and family, spending more time looking after children and performing housework.

Behind the general trends, there is a diversity of situations

The statistics canvassed in this chapter these are general trends, not absolute rules. Fathers are now more likely to take on the primary caregiver roles than in any other generation.²⁶⁹

While the number of men who leave the workforce for parenting/family responsibilities is relatively low, this has risen since 1986 (from

3,800 to 5,800), while the number of women doing the same has dropped (from 73,900 to

61,600).²⁷⁰The Growing Up in New Zealand Study recently identified that 1% of over 4,000 fathers and co-parents²⁷¹of six year olds were “stay at home” parents.²⁷²

In future, we may see a greater diversity in the share of paid and unpaid work in relationships, in response to changing social norms and increasing diversity of relationship and family forms.

While this chapter has focused on the contributions of partners within a relationship, it is important to recognise the contributions

made by other family members, and in particular how this can vary across different cultures.

The changing workforce participation of mothers means that the care and development of children has become more varied,²⁷³with childcare increasingly undertaken by the child’s grandparents, as older New Zealanders are living longer and in better health than in the past. ²⁷⁴The 2013 census identified that 12.7% of older New Zealanders looked after a child

In extended family households, daily tasks and responsibilities are often shared between individuals, such as keeping up the home or looking after children, and it is common to have flexibility of roles between family members.²⁷⁶

Grandparents or older siblings may perform important childcare roles in respect of younger children, while their parents focus their attention and time on providing income and resources for the family.²⁷⁷

Superu’s work on family and whānau wellbeing identifies that Māori and Pacific families have consistently higher rates of providing extended family support and volunteering in the community.²⁷⁸

In this chapter we briefly explore the financial wellbeing of New Zealand families, by looking at changes in household income and wealth, home ownership, the use of trusts and saving for retirement.

We draw primarily on the annual Household Economic Survey, a sample survey run by Statistics New Zealand since 1982, and Perry’s analysis of that survey for the Ministry of Social Development.²⁷⁹That survey collects information about household income and, more recently, household net worth (total financial and non-financial assets less liabilities).²⁸⁰

Household income and net worth largely determine the economic resources available to households to support their material standard of living.²⁸¹

Income and net worth accumulation vary over the life-cycle. Net worth (wealth) tends to grow steadily through to near retirement age, taking into account retirement savings, home ownership and mortgage repayment, while household incomes tend to rise much more rapidly and earlier than wealth, but then falls away as paid work reduces or ceases.²⁸²

Household income varies significantly depending on household type

In 2016, the median²⁸³household income in New Zealand was $76,200, after taking account of all income tax paid and transfers received (including benefits, Working for Families tax credits and superannuation).²⁸⁴

Household income, however, varies significantly for different household types. Figure 7a shows the changes in median equivalised household incomes for certain household types since 1982.

_{Equivalised incomes are those that have been}

Figure 7a. Median equivalised household incomes in New Zealand by selected household type, 1982 to 2016

Source: Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social

adjusted for household size, taking into account the greater economic needs and economies of scale of larger households, so that the relative wellbeing of different sized households can be compared.²⁸⁵

Figure 7a indicates that the median equivalised household income for all household types generally follows the trend for couple with children households.²⁸⁶The two factors that have the largest impact on the incomes of couples with children (and, by extension, the overall median household income) are average wage rates and the total hours worked by the two parents.²⁸⁷

Income is not distributed evenly across the population, even after taxes and transfers (including benefits, tax credits and superannuation) are taken into account.²⁸⁸

30% receive just over half (53%) of all equivalised income in New Zealand.²⁸⁹This distribution has not changed significantly in recent years, and is broadly similar to that in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada.²⁹⁰

An analysis of household incomes since 1982 identifies a longer term trend of increasing inequality between households with the highest and lowest incomes. This trend is mostly driven by a large increase in inequality that took place from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.²⁹¹From

Single parent families have some of the lowest household incomes in New Zealand

In 2013, around 90% of single parent families had incomes below the median household income for all households, compared to 50% of couples with children.²⁹³

The relatively low incomes of single parent households reflect two main factors: first, there is only one potential earner in a single parent family; and second, the relatively low full time employment rate for single parents (around
35% in 2013).²⁹⁴

Wealth varies significantly depending on household type

In 2015, the median net worth of New Zealand households was $289,000.²⁹⁵

Median household net worth, like income,

Table 7a. Median household net worth, 2015, by household composition
Household composition	Median household net worth ($)
Couple only	489,000
Couple with one dependent child	248,000
Couple with two or more dependent children	258,000
All other “couples with children only” households	491,000
Single parent with dependent child(ren) only	26,000
All other “single parent with child(ren) only” households	196,000
Other one-family households	74,000
Single person household	229,000
All households	289,000

Wealth is distributed unequally across households

Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income. In 2015, the top 10% of New Zealand

_{Source: Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics: Year
ended June 2015 - tables (June 2016)}

households accounted for around half of total net worth,²⁹⁶a wealth pattern consistent with the OECD average.²⁹⁷

Figure 7b shows the distribution of net worth across households. The largest proportion of New Zealand households (25%) had a net worth of $0–$100,000 in 2015, while 5% of households had negative net worth.²⁹⁸

owned the house they lived in (the family home), while a further 12% held their family home on trust.³⁰⁰

The family home represents the biggest asset for most New Zealand households, and makes up almost one third of total net worth in New

The 2015 Household Economic Survey also identified that, even adjusting for the significantly younger age structure of Māori and Pacific peoples, there was a large difference in the median personal net worth of people in the European ethnic group ($114,000) compared with all other major ethnic groups (Māori

Figure 7c. Proportion of household assets in New Zealand, by asset type,
2015

Source: Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics: Year ended June 2015 - tables (June 2016). (1) Includes bonds and other debt securities, equity in
unincorporated enterprises, shares, mutual funds and other investment funds, life insurance funds and annuities.

12.3% in 2006.³⁰⁸

The 2015 Household Economic Survey also indicated that 19% of New Zealand households had involvement with a trust (322,000 households).³⁰⁹

Of the households that held assets on trust in

2015, the median value of those assets was around $700,000, and for households with liabilities on trust, the median value of liabilities was close to $300,000.³¹⁰A large proportion of trust assets and liabilities related to farms and
_{family homes.}³¹¹

Most households that owned the family home in 2015 did so with a mortgage (56%), with family home mortgages comprising over 60% of all household liabilities (Figure 7d).³⁰³The

In 2015, 14% of New Zealand households owned real estate other than the family home, including holiday homes and investment properties.³⁰⁵Of the households that owned

The rate of home ownership is decreasing

Because the Household Economic Survey only started collecting information about net worth of households in 2015, it is necessary to refer to census information to track trends in home ownership over time.

Census data identifies that, between 1986 and

2013, the proportion of people living in an owner-occupied dwelling fell by 15.3%.³¹²

In the 2013 census, 64.8% of households owned their home or held it on trust (Figure
7e).³¹³

other real estate, 60% had an outstanding mortgage on the property, with a median amount owing of $167,000.³⁰⁶

percentage is slightly higher on census data, with 14.8% of households reporting that their

Figure 7e. Home ownership status by households, 2013 census

Source: Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats about housing (March 2014) at 12.

2013, less than 5% of people aged 15-24 owned their own home, compared with around three-quarters of people aged 55 and over.³¹⁴

However home ownership has dropped across all age groups, but the largest drops were experienced by those in their 30s and 40s. In

2013, 43% of people aged 30–39 owned their home, down from 54.6% in 2001. For those in their 40s, 60.8% owned their home in 2013, down from 71.5% in 2001.³¹⁵

The drop in the rate of home ownership over the past 25 years has been attributed to a range of factors that has seen house prices increase at a rate that has outpaced rises in average household income.³¹⁶

“Real house prices increased by close to 80% between March 2002 and March 2007, around the same increase as was recorded across the entire 1962–2002 period”.³¹⁷

As a result, housing costs now make up a much greater proportion of the household budget than they used to, particularly for low to middle income households.³¹⁸Housing costs

have increased for all New Zealanders under the age of 65, from 14% of the average household income in the late 1980s to 21% on average in 2015 and 2016.³¹⁹A sharper increase was experienced by the bottom 20% of households, which spent 51% of income on housing costs in 2016, up from 29% in the late
1980s.³²⁰

High housing costs relative to income are often associated with financial stress for low to middle income households, with single parent households having the highest levels of
housing stress in New Zealand.³²¹

“Historically, families have tended to buy their first houses in their 20s, as they formed partnerships or became pregnant with their first child. Today, it is more likely for a family to live together and rent (or live-apart-together) while they consolidate their relationship and before they start having children.”³²²

Home ownership is strongly linked to relationship status

Home ownership is strongly related to partnership status. In the 2013 census, 55.7%

Figure 7f. Home ownership by partnership status in current relationship, 2013 census

Source: Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats about housing - tables (March 2014).

of people who were partnered owned or partly owned the family home compared with just

The Growing Up in New Zealand Study also identified that housing tenure varied by household structure. Participant children at age

2 who were in a couple with children household were most likely live in a family owned house (62%), compared to those living with a single parent (29%) or in households consisting of parent(s) living with extended family (43%).³²⁴

The proportion of children under age 15 living in dwellings that were not owned increased even more than the total population between

also identified that almost half of children live in rental accommodation, and that this rate changed little over the first four years of the children’s lives, despite a high rate of

residential mobility, with just over half of all children experiencing one or more residential moves before age 4.³²⁶This suggests that this generation of children are potentially going to be growing up in families who are “lifelong renters”.³²⁷

Home ownership varies significantly by ethnicity. In 2013, the rate of home ownership was higher for the European and Asian ethnic groups (56.8% and 34.8% respectively), compared to Māori and Pacific peoples (28.2% and 18.5% respectively).³²⁸

Māori and Pacific people have also experienced sharper declines in the proportion of people owning their family home.³²⁹The

most effect on the youngest people in Māori and Pacific populations. In 1986, around half of Pacific and Māori children under age 15 ived in an owner-occupied dwelling. By 2013 this had dropped to 38.5% of Māori children and 28.4% of Pacific children.³³¹

Possible barriers to home ownership for Māori and Pacific people include urbanisation, living in higher-cost areas (eg Auckland region), the younger age structure of the population, living in larger households, lower educational
achievement, and the wish to live near whānau

and extended family.³³²

Just over half of adults are saving for retirement

As the New Zealand population ages and people live longer (see Chapter 9), retirement savings are becoming more important. The
2015 Household Economic Survey identified that just over half (53%) of all adults aged 15 and over had a private superannuation scheme.³³³Most adults (92% of those with a private scheme) had a KiwiSaver superannuation scheme.³³⁴

Women have less retirement savings than men

The 2015 Household Economic Survey identified significant differences in the median value of superannuation schemes for men and women.³³⁵Men had higher median wealth in their superannuation schemes than women in the 25+ age groups, peaking in the 65+ age group where men had a median value of
$54,000 and women $20,000 in their superannuation schemes.³³⁶The difference was more significant in non-KiwiSaver

ANZ estimates that on average women retire with less money than men ($141,000 compared to $223,000).³³⁸

There might be different reasons for the gender difference in the median values of superannuation schemes, such as the gender pay gap and the effect of motherhood on workforce participation (see Chapter 6).³³⁹

Women’s generally lower income and their breaks in work to care for children will slow the growth in value of their superannuation scheme.³⁴⁰

The gender pay gap is a way to understand the differences in pay between men and women. Statistics New Zealand calculates New Zealand’s official gender pay gap by measuring the difference between the median hourly earnings of men and women in full-time and

The gender pay gap was last assessed as at the June 2017 quarter at 9.4%, the smallest gender pay gap in five years.³⁴²

There are, however, different methods of measuring the gender pay gap. In March 2017 the Ministry for Women assessed the gender pay gap at 12.71%, after controlling for differences in individual, household, occupation, industry and other job characteristics.³⁴³

The gender pay gap is caused partly by men and women working in different occupations and industries, or by interrupted and changing

The impact of parenthood on the gender pay gap is often referred to as the “motherhood penalty”. Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry for Women found that the gender pay gap between male and female parents (17% in the June 2016 quarter) was significantly larger than the gender pay gap between male and female non-parents (5%). The difference between the two (12%) was the motherhood penalty.³⁴⁵Evidence also indicated the motherhood penalty was larger for mothers working part-time than for those working full- time.³⁴⁶These results align with international research.³⁴⁷

Family transfers may become increasingly common in the short term

While data is not routinely collected in New Zealand on how people are funding the purchase of their family home, international research suggests that family transfers, such as loans, gifts and early inheritances, make up a large part of wealth and have a significant influence on the ability of households to purchase a home.³⁴⁸

Family transfers may be more common in different cultures. In non-western cultures, particularly in Asian and Pacific cultures, the concept of reciprocity can involve the sharing of financial resources across generations.³⁴⁹

Family transfers may become increasingly common as it becomes harder for first home buyers to enter the property market, and those nearing retirement having financially benefited from capital gains in the property booms over recent decades.³⁵⁰

Further into the future this trend could change, as the characteristics of people entering retirement in the future will be different.³⁵¹
Adults that are currently of working age may have a more uneven employment history, and may have been divorced or separated. The

type and level of wealth they will accumulate and may be able to transfer may be less in the future.³⁵²

In this chapter we consider the economic consequences of separation, the known impacts of childcare responsibilities on the workforce participation of single parents, and changes in living arrangements following separation.

When relationships end, the income that was supporting one household must now support two. While the two separate households may be smaller in size and require less income individually, there are economies of scale associated with larger households that are lost when partners separate. Separating partners are also likely to face new costs, which may include the costs of setting up a new home, increased childcare costs and legal costs associated with separation.

The economic cost of separation can be illustrated through the use of equivalence

ratios. Equivalence ratios estimate the levels of income different households need in order to achieve the same level of material well- being.³⁵³For example, a couple with two children living in one household requires 2.17 times the income of a single person household in order to achieve an equivalent level of material wellbeing.³⁵⁴We apply these ratios in the fictional scenario of Prue and David below.

Prue and David – Estimating the economic cost of separation using equivalence ratios

Prue and David are married and have two children. David works full time, and earns
$50,000 pa. Prue works part time, and earns

$75,000 pa.

Prue and David separate. They both move out of the family home and into separate households. For the purposes of this exercise it is assumed that the children spend most of
their time with Prue.

Equivalence ratios can be used to determine how much income Prue and David need to both enjoy a standard of living equivalent to what they enjoyed prior to separation. David, in a single person household, needs an income of approximately $34,600 pa. Prue, in a single parent with two children household, needs approximately $60,500 pa.

Overall, an extra $20,100 pa is required for both Prue and David to have an equivalent standard of living to what they enjoyed before they separated.

The scenario of Prue and David used above demonstrates how separation can affect former partners differently, especially when dependent children are involved. However, we note that this scenario makes no adjustment for inter- household transfers, such as child support, maintenance or other contributions by David, or any government assistance available to Prue. These could significantly improve Prue’s economic position (and that of the children),
but, in the case of inter-household transfers, have a negative economic consequence for David.

Measuring the economic cost of separation with the Working for Families dataset

While the economic cost of separation for men and women is well established in international studies,³⁵⁵until recently there has been very little research on this issue in New Zealand.

Recent research by Fletcher at Auckland University of Technology provides, for the first time, empirical evidence of the economic consequences of separation in New Zealand, using the “Working for Families dataset”, now held by Statistics New Zealand as part of its Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI). ³⁵⁶

About the IDI and the Working for Families dataset

The Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a large research database maintained by Statistics New Zealand containing anonymised information about people and households from a range of government agencies.

The Working for Families dataset is a longitudinal dataset of administrative records compiled by Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development and covering the period 1
April 2003 to 31 March 2013. It includes anonymised demographic and income information for approximately 1.2 million adults, including all:

• individuals who received a State benefit or any supplementary payment from Work and Income New Zealand;
• individuals who received Working for

• individuals included in a one-off survey conducted as part of the Working for Families evaluation; and

• partners of any of the above individuals, where partnership status is defined according to the rules of the relevant programme or benefit.

When individuals stopped receiving any of these social assistance payments they were retained in the dataset and records of their income and tax continued to be collected. When an individual joined the dataset, information was back-filled to the start of the research period when possible.³⁵⁷

While not representative of the whole population, the dataset covers approximately two-thirds of all parents with dependent children in New Zealand.³⁵⁸

Fletcher analysed the demographics and incomes of over 15,000 individuals in the Working for Families dataset who were separated from an opposite-sex partnership in

2009 and who, prior to separating, had at least one child living with them. Using equivalised income as a proxy measure for living standards, he looked at the short to medium term economic consequences of separation by first comparing outcomes with similar, still partnered individuals, and then by comparing the relative consequences of separation between partners.

The findings from this research, discussed below, are broadly consistent with findings in international research.³⁵⁹

Total household incomes decline substantially in the year following separation, with women experiencing an average reduction in family income by 41%, and men a reduction by

After equivalising family incomes to take account of household composition following separation, women were substantially worse off post-separation, and on average experienced a drop in equivalised income of 19%. Men, in contrast, were on average better off, experiencing an increase in equivalised income of 16%.³⁶¹

The negative effects of separation on incomes persisted over the medium term. In fact, among women the average impact on equivalised incomes was worse in the third year after separation. For men, slower income growth compared to those who remained partnered partially eroded the initial gains observed in the

average impact in the first year after separation.³⁶²

A wide range of different outcomes was observed

Beyond those averages, there is a wide range of different incomes and effects. Among both men and women, some are significantly better off and some are significantly worse off.³⁶³

Comparing outcomes for former partners

Fletcher’s analysis of the Working for Families dataset also looked at how separation affected separating partners differently. Outcomes for
7,749 couples were analysed for the first post- separation year, and 5,781 couples for the three post-separation years.

Fletcher identified that it was rare for separation not to be associated with a significant financial impact for at least one of the partners. In only 3% of cases neither partner experienced a change in family income
of at least 10% the first year after separation.³⁶⁴

The most common scenario was where the female partner was worse off after separation and the male partner better off. In 35% of cases the woman’s equivalised income reduced by more than 10%, and her partner’s income increased by at least that much.³⁶⁵
These couples were characterised by a high average income before separation which came primarily from the male partner’s earnings.
After separation the average number of children living with the male partner had fallen substantially (from 1.99 to 0.16 children), and while the female partner’s post-separation earnings increased substantially, this was insufficient to offset the loss of her partner’s income. ³⁶⁶

Of those couples that both experienced a significant decline in income (17% of cases), this was associated with a fall in employment

for both men and women, and a different pattern of care of children, with the proportion of men with children living with them post- separation being relatively high (on average

0.52 children per adult).³⁶⁷Similarly, in the smaller group where men’s earnings decrease and women’s increase, the gap in care is less pronounced than in other groups.³⁶⁸

The couples where the woman is significantly better off and the man worse off were characterised by more equal sharing of pre- separation earning and a reasonable combined level of income.³⁶⁹

In most cases, men’s equivalised incomes were higher than their former partner’s following separation

Fletcher also analysed post-separation outcomes by comparing the relative consequences of separation, irrespective of whether individuals are better or worse off compared to their own situation prior to separation. On this analysis, Fletcher identified that 70 per cent of men had equivalised incomes that were higher than their partners, and 25 per cent of men had equivalised incomes more than double their partner’s.³⁷⁰

Fletcher identified that overall the average total family income (that is, the combined income of the former partners) rose by $14,600 (23 per cent) in the year following separation.³⁷¹This was due to a combination of increased workforce earnings, benefit receipt and child support. However this increase was not sufficient to avoid an overall decline in average equivalised incomes across both

and women were approximately $7,000 worse off. ³⁷³

Responsibility for the care of children played a dominating role in income distribution

Fletcher identified that responsibility for the primary care of children post-separation played a “dominating role” in influencing outcomes.³⁷⁴
Women were far more likely to be living with dependent children after the separation than the men, and in the small number of cases where the situation was reversed, the men experienced a decline in average equivalised incomes following separation.³⁷⁵

Separation increased the risk of poverty and benefit receipt

Separation substantially increases poverty among both men and women. The percentage of men and women in poverty (defined as an equivalised income below 50% of the median) rose from 11.5% to 24.6% for women, and also rose among men (even though the average effect of separation on men’s equivalised income was positive), from 8.1% before separation to 15.7% after separation.³⁷⁶

Separation also significantly increased welfare receipt among both men and women in the short and medium term.³⁷⁷For women, the average increase in benefit receipt was over
300% in the first year after separation (44% for men).³⁷⁸In the first year following separation,
24% of men and 47% of women received a benefit, compared to 15.3% of all families in the dataset.³⁷⁹

Child support has little impact on post- separation income

Child support payments were found to contribute little to post-separation incomes.³⁸⁰
Of those parents receiving child support,

Most information collected about New Zealand families and households does look not beyond where children spend most of their time. As a result, we do not know how many children divide their time between two households following a separation.

Where childcare responsibilities are shared between former partners, the economic cost might also be shared, through private arrangements or child support payments (although Fletcher notes these have little impact on total family incomes). How this economic cost is shared is not, however, observable from official statistics.

Information on parents who reside in separate households most of the time (non-resident parents) is not collected in the census.³⁸²It cannot be assumed that they live in a “single person household”, as they could have re- partnered and be living in a couple household, or live in a household with other adults.

Superu has previously noted that there is a need to rethink the way in which the active involvement of the non-resident parent is conceptualised, as joint and shared care arrangements become more common.³⁸³

changes for families at an economic level do not appear to have been well analysed in New Zealand to date.³⁸⁴

With these limitations in mind, we note that the significant majority of single parents – that is, the parent with whom a child spends most of his or her nights (or if time is shared between

two parents, where the child was on census night) – are women (84.2% in 2013).³⁸⁵

Superu’s analysis of adults who were single parents in the Survey of Family, Income and Employment at the start of the survey period identified that the vast majority were women (84%), consistent with census data.³⁸⁶

This is comparable with Australia, where approximately 84% of all single parents are women.³⁸⁷

While fathers account for the minority of single parents, the number of families headed by a single father increased at a faster rate in the late 1980s to late 1990s.³⁸⁸The proportion of single fathers reduced slightly more recently, from 16.6% in 2006 to 15.8% in 2013.³⁸⁹

Māori and Pacific women are more likely to be single parents

The 2014 Household Labour Force Survey identified that 27.5% of all Māori women and
21.6% of all Pacific women aged 25–49 identified themselves as a single parent, compared to just 10.1% of all European and
6.3% of all Asian women (Figure 8a).³⁹⁰

This carries over into the experiences of children. The NZW:FEE Survey identified that

56% of Māori children and 49% of Pacific children born between 1953 and 1995 had lived with a single mother before age 17, compared

to 31% of other children.³⁹¹On average, Māori and Pacific children were more than twice as likely to live with a single mother during the early years of childhood compared to other children.³⁹²

The Growing Up in New Zealand Study also identifies that a greater proportion of Māori children were living in single parent households (26% at age 4), compared to European (7%), Pacific (9%) and Asian (3%) children.³⁹³

“On average, [single] parent families have lower living standards, less income and fewer assets, and pay out a greater proportion of their income for housing than other kinds of families.”³⁹⁴

As we discussed in Chapter 3, many, if not most, single parent families will have resulted

from relationship separation.

In Chapter 7 we identified that single parent households tend to have incomes significantly below the median household income, as well
as significantly lower levels of wealth compared to other household types.

Single parent families with dependent children also have the highest income poverty rates of all household types, typically around 55% compared with a general population rate of
16%.³⁹⁵

Single parent families also have high rates of benefit receipt in New Zealand. According to the 2013 census, 60.4% of single parent families received income from a government transfer at some time in the previous 12 months, compared to 25.1% of all families.³⁹⁶
Similar findings are also observed in Fletcher’s

analysis of the Working for Families dataset.³⁹⁷

Workforce participation is key to economic recovery after separation

When a couple separates, the economic inactivity (or reduced activity, through part time work) of one partner can usually no longer be

Figure 8a. Parental status of women aged 25-49 by ethnic group, 2014 Household Labour

Source: Flynn and Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 13.

absorbed by the household income. The workforce participation of that partner (or increased participation, as the case may be) is often seen as the route to economic independence and wellbeing following separation, because of the correlation between workforce participation and income.³⁹⁸

The functions performed in the relationship can affect economic recovery after separation

As we identified in Chapter 6, women are more likely now than in the 1970s to be participating in the workforce. Yet women’s participation

This means that, when opposite-sex couples separate, men are more likely to already be in full time work, while women are more likely to face the prospect of returning to the workforce, or increasing their workforce activity in order to support themselves and any children.

division of paid and unpaid work between men and women during the relationship can result in different rates of economic recovery after separation, with women taking longer to
recover than men.³⁹⁹Fletcher’s findings, summarised above, also identify a gender difference in post-separation outcomes that persists over the medium term.⁴⁰⁰

Parenthood has a significant effect on workforce participation of single parents after separation

The effects of parenthood on workforce participation, discussed in Chapter 6, are more pronounced for single parents than for partnered parents. 49% of children who live in single parent households in New Zealand live in workless single parent households. This is significantly higher than the OECD average of
36%.⁴⁰¹Figure 8b illustrates the reported employment rates of single parents with at least one child aged 14 and under in OECD countries.

Source: OECD LMF2.3: The distribution of working hours among adults in sole-parent households (December 2015) at 1.

Single parents are “time poor” compared with partnered parents and parents not living in the household, as they are attempting to both earn an adequate family income as well as allocate time to meet the needs of their children.⁴⁰²At the same time, their economic needs will generally be higher than those of the non- resident parent.⁴⁰³

2013) are women, most of the research on the workforce participation of single parents in New Zealand is focused on single mothers.

Despite the pressures of childcare, there have been significant increases in the workforce participation of single mothers aged 25–49, rising by 23% from 1994 (46.5%) to 2014 (69.5%).⁴⁰⁴

Table 8a. Workforce participation of women aged 25–49, by parent status (dependent children), in 2014
	Employed	Unemployed	Not in worforce
Single mothers	57.8%	11.7%	30.5%
Partnered mothers	69.6%	3.4%	27.0%
Women with no children	82.9%	4.3%	12.7%
All women	73.2%	4.7%	22.0%
Source: Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 9.

The workforce participation rate for single mothers is now much closer to the participation rate for partnered mothers, as illustrated in Table 8a.⁴⁰⁵

Single mothers are slightly less likely to work part time than partnered mothers (38.6% compared to 42.5%), but this is still higher than the part time rate for women without dependent children (16.1%).⁴⁰⁶The likelihood of single mothers working full time increases with the
age of their youngest child.⁴⁰⁷

Single mothers are more likely to experience difficulties from working non-standard hours

Statistics New Zealand’s 2012 Survey of Working Life identified that single mothers were more likely than partnered mothers to experience difficulties from working non- standard hours (outside 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday). 50.1% of single mothers compared to
32.6% of partnered mothers (and 26.2% of women with no dependent children) reported experiencing difficulties from working non- standard hours.⁴⁰⁸The most commonly reported difficulties related to the home or family, with 35.8% of single mothers reporting difficulties in this area.⁴⁰⁹

Gendered differences in workforce participation are less pronounced for single parents

While there remain differences between the workforce participation of single mothers compared to single fathers, these differences are less pronounced than those of partnered parents.

Single fathers are more likely to be in paid work than single mothers. Statistics New Zealand’s
2009/10 Time Use Survey identified that single fathers spend just over 3 hours more a day on workforce activity than single mothers.⁴¹⁰This
is also reflected in access to benefits, with 92% of all recipients of Sole Parent Support (which replaced the Domestic Purposes Benefit) being women.⁴¹¹

Table 8b. Employment rate of single parents with dependent children, 2013 census
	Men	Women	Total rate
Employed full time	56.4%	31.8%	35.5%
Employed part time	7.7%	19.1%	17.4%
Unemployed	11.8%	13.8%	13.5%
Not in the workforce	24.1%	35.3%	33.6%
Source: Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and households (November 2004) at 14–15.

Superu notes that possible reasons for these differences include that single mothers generally tend to earn less than single fathers, they are likely to be younger and to have more children to care for.⁴¹²

“A lower rate of pay can make it less financially viable for mothers to work than fathers, particularly if childcare costs are deducted from the additional income earned. This also makes it difficult for single mothers, particularly, to

earn an adequate income for a family after childcare and other in-work costs.” ⁴¹³

Other workforce dynamics can affect women’s economic recovery from separation

There are several aspects of New Zealand’s workforce that may also impact upon women’s ability to recover economically from a separation.

First, the impact of the gender pay gap (discussed Chapter 7) on household income can be more significant for single women compared to partnered women, as income sharing within a partnership allows lower incomes to be absorbed into the pool of household income.⁴¹⁴

Second, the New Zealand workforce remains highly segregated by gender.⁴¹⁵In 2013
Statistics New Zealand identified that:⁴¹⁶

the “caring” professions (eg nursing, teaching and social work), clerical, administrative and sales occupations, and lower-skilled service work;

• 44% of women would have had to change occupation for there to be no gendered occupational segregation.

Third, women are over-represented in minimum wage jobs, comprising 66.6% of minimum
wage earners over 25 in 2014.⁴¹⁷Māori and Pacific women and young mothers are particularly likely to be in low wage employment.⁴¹⁸

Separation impacts on living arrangements

While New Zealand does not collect information on the changes in living arrangements following separation, it can be expected that at least one former partner will move households post-separation.

In a recent survey of 1099 tenants in New Zealand, over one-third of tenants reported that they had owned their own home previously,
and the main reason given for selling their home was relationship separation (36%).⁴¹⁹

An investigation of residential mobility in a child’s first few years as part of the Growing Up in New Zealand Study also identified that a

parental separation was significantly associated with a higher chance of moving house than those who experienced no change in parental partnership status.⁴²⁰

Where dependent children are involved, living arrangements following separation may take a variety of different forms. Children may share their time across two households, or live primarily with one parent. Recent research in Australia involving over 9000 separated parents identified a wide range of different types of child care arrangements, and that a substantial portion of children experienced a change in arrangements over a 12 month period.⁴²¹That research identified that children most commonly spent between 66–86% of nights with their mother.⁴²²

An emerging trend in other countries is that of “bird nest” or “satellite” living arrangements. This involves retaining the former couple’s family home as the children’s principal residence, with both parents taking turns living in and out of the home. There is, however, no information on the prevalence of this living arrangement in New Zealand.

We do know that a significant number of single parents, approximately one third, live in larger households with other adults.⁴²³Because of the shared economies of scale in larger households, these single parent families tend

to be in a better economic position, including lower poverty rates than those living in single parent households (typically around 20% compared to 65%).⁴²⁴

Many separating couples may own the family home they lived in during the relationship. According to census data, 55.7% of partnered people owned their home in 2013.⁴²⁵

While one (or both) partners may prefer to remain in the family home, particularly where dependent children are involved, many will face the financial necessity of having to sell and move elsewhere. As identified in Chapter 7, most home owners have mortgages, and the income of one separating partner may not be sufficient to continue to pay that mortgage. Furthermore, the family home may need to be sold in order to distribute the equity in the property as part of a settlement under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

Research in Australia identified that the family home was the most common type of asset involved in property divisions, affecting 62% of separated parents.⁴²⁶

Given the high cost of housing in New Zealand, and the losses of economies of scale in moving from a couple household into a single adult household, former partners who previously owned their home may struggle to afford to buy a new home on their income alone.

These financial realities are likely to be reflected in the lower home ownership rates for single adults and single parent families observed in Chapter 7. Research in Australia identified that, five years after separation, the most common housing arrangement among separated parents was living in a rental property (44% of fathers and 49% of mothers).⁴²⁷

Conclusion

Some argue that there would be no gendered difference in the economic recovery from separation if men and women had equal employment levels and income, if childcare were no restriction on paid employment, and if the costs of childcare were shared equally.⁴²⁸

In New Zealand, as in other comparable countries, the evidence suggests that gender differences in the performance of paid and

unpaid within relationships work persist beyond separation. Most single parents are women, the economic needs of single parent families are generally greater than those of single adults

New Zealand has undergone unprecedented demographic, cultural and workforce changes since the 1970s, that have had a significant impact on relationship and family formation and transitions.⁴²⁹

Since 1988, the 65 and over age group has doubled in size, to reach 700,000 in 2016.⁴³⁰

As the proportion of older New Zealanders increases, the proportion of people in the younger age groups will decrease, with people aged under 15 years projected to decrease from 20.4% in 2013 to 15.9% by 2063.⁴³²

People are also living longer. In 2012, a 65 year old woman could expect to live another

21.3 years, and a man another 18.9 years. This is up 6.5 years for women and 6.1 years for

The ageing population has significant implications for New Zealand. It will mean that more people will be single in future, as the proportion of partnered people decreases as age increases.⁴³⁴The “dependency ratio” (the number of people aged 65 and over per 100 people aged 15–64 years) is projected to increase significantly, from 23 in 2016 to 33-39 by 2035, 37-49 by 2055, and 42-61 by 2068.⁴³⁵

Women currently make up 54.1% of the population aged 65 and over, reflecting differences in life expectancy.⁴³⁶This means that, while both men and women are living

longer, there will be a larger increase in women living at the oldest ages compared to men.⁴³⁷
Women can, therefore, be expected to require more retirement savings than men.

Ethnic differences in population ageing will drive diversity

The significant exception to the ageing structure is the trend amongst Māori and Pacific peoples. Higher fertility rates for these groups mean that the Māori and Pacific populations have very youthful age structures,
with half of the population under the ages of 24 and 21 years of age respectively.⁴³⁸By comparison, the median ages of the European and Asian populations are 41 and 31 respectively.⁴³⁹

For the future workforce, this means that, as

the structurally older European population enter retirement in disproportionately higher
numbers, Māori and Pacific peoples entering the workforce will greatly contribute to their replacement.⁴⁴⁰

Jackson notes that family-related policy development needs to take into account these ethnicity-based differences, as the increasing focus on population ageing may direct attention away from the needs of younger families, which will, in the future, be disproportionally Māori
and Pacific families compared to other ethnic groups. ⁴⁴¹

The age structures of the Māori and Pacific populations today are almost identical to the age structure of the European population in the
1960s, when New Zealand’s baby boom was in full swing.⁴⁴²Under the policies of that era, there was a variety of support available to families (for example, the universal family benefit, which could be capitalised to purchase a home, low cost tertiary education and health support and an era of full employment).⁴⁴³That context, experts argue, lies behind many of the

current differences in economic circumstances between younger and older families. ⁴⁴⁴

“Diversity has wide-ranging implications for societies. Not only do many different populations have to live together; these groups of people bring culture and traditions that influence the country where they live. These traditions are, in turn, influenced by the culture of that society more broadly.” ⁴⁴⁵

Not only will New Zealand become more diverse as a result of the growth in different ethnic groups, particularly amongst Māori and Pacific peoples, cultural diversity will also be driven by increasing migration.

Migration into New Zealand is at a record high, with a net migration gain of 69,100 experienced in the year to June 2016, compared to a natural increase (more births than deaths) of 28,200.⁴⁴⁶

The increase in cultural diversity of families over time has seen an increasingly complex range of family structures. This is particularly notable in the increase in extended family households in New Zealand.

Looking to the future, therefore, we need to be mindful of the cultural differences in terms of relationship formation and family functioning in order to ensure that the law is relevant and inclusive.

Experts in this area expect that the diversification of family forms and living arrangements is likely to continue, and may even accelerate.⁴⁴⁷

Single parent families, same-sex relationships, step and blended families, couple only families, living apart together (LAT) relationships and

multicultural families are all likely to become more common as society and social values change.⁴⁴⁸Experts also expect that there are likely to be more people living alone in the future, either by choice or circumstance, particularly as the New Zealand population ages at an increasing rate.⁴⁴⁹

In relation to relationship forms, the trends of reduced rates of marriage, increased rates of de facto relationships and the increase in the number of children born outside marriage are all expected to continue, with predictions that marriage and childbearing will be increasingly undertaken for different, but not mutually exclusive, reasons.⁴⁵⁰

Major changes in family structures, including delayed childbearing, increasing childlessness and reduced family size are unlikely to be reversed.⁴⁵¹

Performance of family functions may continue to undergo change

Changes in women’s workforce participation, as well as the demographic trends of smaller families, delayed parenting and population ageing will also have significant implications for core family functions, and in particular the capacity for caring functions.⁴⁵²

The caring of dependent children by people other than parents is expected to increase, particularly if families continue to require two incomes to maintain an adequate standard of living.⁴⁵³Reliance on extended family and whānau in this respect may be a key future trend.⁴⁵⁴

The ageing New Zealand population, the increase in the number of people living alone and other changes in family structure are also likely to impose care pressures on families in the future, with the demand for informal caring predicted to increase.⁴⁵⁵

The role of the informal (unpaid) carer is most often carried out within families, and differs from the usual tasks and responsibilities that form part of a relationship between partners in

older age or between child and a parent. This is because the informal carer role requires commitment beyond usual levels of reciprocity.⁴⁵⁶During the 1960s and 1970s, older people tended to enter rest homes while still relatively independent.⁴⁵⁷Government policy, however, has now shifted towards

ageing in place and enabling older people to be supported in their own homes.⁴⁵⁸

These changes may also lead to a broadening of gender roles, with more men taking on the care of their children or elderly parents.⁴⁵⁹

Experts also predict that households of unrelated persons who may share responsibilities for care of each other will perform some of the functions of families. ⁴⁶⁰

¹From 1976 to 2013 the number of people identifying with the European, Māori, Pacific peoples and Asian ethnic groups have grown from 2,749,000 to

3,129,383 in 1976 to 4,242,051 in 2013. In relation to data for 1976 see Department of Statistics New Zealand Official 1992 Year Book (April 1992) at

Table 4.15 (recording the total 1976 population); and Ian Pool “Population change - Key population trends” (5 May 2011) Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand <www.TeAra.govt.nz> (recording the ethnic breakdown from 1976). For 2013 statistics see Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats about

¹⁰The census time series is now irregular as the last census was postponed from 2011 to 2013 following the Canterbury earthquakes.

¹¹This definition of “de facto relationship” for statistical purposes is based on the definition in section 29A of the Interpretation Act 1999, rather than the definition of “de facto relationship” in section 2D of the

Property (Relationships) Act 1976. See Statistics New Zealand Statistical Standard for Partnership Status in Current Relationship (August 2008) at 9.

¹²Statistics New Zealand Statistical Standard for

¹³In 2007 Statistics New Zealand recommended that a survey on family circumstances of individuals be conducted in New Zealand, noting this would add value to the existing body of family-related statistics. This however was never carried out. See Statistics New Zealand Report of the Review of Official Family Statistics (March 2007) at 1 and 36.

¹⁴Paul Callister and Stuart Birks Two Parents, Two Households: New Zealand Data Collections, Language and Complex Parenting (Families Commission, Blue Skies Report No 2/06, March

¹⁷Statistics New Zealand Report of the Review of Official Family Statistics (March 2007) at 9-10; JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 3.

²⁷Statistics New Zealand Report of the Review of Official Family Statistics (March 2007) at 9–13; Paul Callister and Stuart Birks Two Parents, Two Households: New Zealand Data Collections, Language and Complex Parenting (Families Commission, Blue Skies Report No 2/06, March

2006) at 4; Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from

Press, Auckland, 2007) at 27-32; and JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 2.

²⁸Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 52.

²⁹Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 53.

³⁰Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 74.

³¹Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 74.

³²Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 74.

³³Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 60.

³⁴Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 63.

³⁵Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 64.

³⁶Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 66.

³⁷Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 58.

³⁸Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 72.

³⁹Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 72.

⁴⁰Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 72.

⁴¹Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016

⁴²Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about culture and identity – tables (April 2014).

⁴³Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats about culture and identity (April 2014) at 6.

⁴⁴Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, June 2008) at 16; JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 2.

⁴⁵The Family Proceedings Act 1980 introduced substantial changes to the procedure for applying for an order dissolving a marriage (or, from 2005, a civil union). In this Study Paper we use the more widely known term “divorce” to refer to marriage and civil union dissolutions under that Act, as that is the term used by Statistics New Zealand.

⁴⁶Statistics New Zealand "Partnership status in current relationship by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2001, 2006, and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA, AU)"

⁴⁷The marriage rate measures the number of marriages per 1000 unmarried people aged 16 and over. See Statistics New Zealand “General Marriage Rate, December years (total population) (Annual- Dec)” (June 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

⁴⁸Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017) at 3.

⁴⁹Statistics New Zealand “Population estimates in NZ –

<www.stats.govt.nz>; and Statistics New Zealand “Estimated Resident Population by Age and Sex (1991+) (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017)

⁵⁰This excludes marriages of overseas residents in New Zealand. See Statistics New Zealand “Marriages and civil unions by relationship type, NZ and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017)

⁵¹Analysis of census results identifies a decline in partnering rates amongst those aged 25–34, with the strongest decline being experienced between the

1986 and 1991 censuses. In 1986, 74% of women aged 25–34 were partnered, but by 2013 this had declined to 65%. For men, the partnership rate declined from 67% in 1986 to 61% in 2013. See Paul Callister and Robert Didham The New Zealand ‘Meet Market’: 2013 census update (Callister & Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at 11.

⁵³The median age of women at first marriage reached a record low of 20.8 years in 1971. See Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 134–135.

⁵⁴Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017) at 5.

⁵⁵Statistics New Zealand “Partnership status in current relationship and ethnic group (grouped total responses) by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses”

<nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>. For data from earlier census years see Statistics New Zealand Population Structure and Internal Migration (1998) at 10; and Statistics New Zealand Population Structure and Internal Migration (2001) at 52.

⁵⁶Excluding marriages and civil unions of overseas residents. See Statistics New Zealand “Marriages and civil unions by relationship type, NZ and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017)

⁵⁷Statistics New Zealand “Marriages and civil unions by relationship type, NZ and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

⁵⁸Statistics New Zealand “Partnership status in current relationship and ethnic group (grouped total responses) by age group and sex, for the census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses”

⁵⁹The census has not always collected data about de facto relationships. It only started asking questions about living arrangements in the 1970s and data from this timeframe is not considered to be statistically reliable for the purposes of identifying de facto relationships.

⁶⁰Statistics New Zealand Statistical Standard for

⁶¹For example, in the 1991 census 16% of people aged 20–24 reported they were in a de facto relationship, compared to 28% of participants in the New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education survey (NZW:FEE) who reported that they were cohabiting with a partner in that same period. See Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and

Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 228.

⁶²For a comprehensive analysis of the New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education survey, see: Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) and Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007).

⁶³Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 236.

⁶⁴Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 231–233; Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 17.

⁶⁵Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 26.

⁶⁶Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)19.

⁶⁷Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 8.

⁶⁸Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)17.

⁶⁹Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)16.

⁷⁰Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014 (June 2014) at 164. The increasing trend for New Zealanders to live together before marriage is supported by other indicators. For example, a comparison of the “usual residential address” information supplied by applicants on the Notice of Intended Marriage form between 2000 and 2003 indicates that more than three-quarters of those who married were living together beforehand: See Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 139–140.

⁷²Australian Bureau of Statistics Family Characteristics and Transitions, Australia, 2012–13 (February 2015) at 71.

⁷³Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 25.

⁷⁴Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 17 and 25.

⁷⁵Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 17.

⁷⁶Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 237.

⁷⁷Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 237.

⁷⁸These rates were as at 2011, except for the New Zealand-reported figure which was as at 2013. See OECD Family Database “SF3.3. Cohabitation rate and prevalence of other forms of partnership” (27

⁷⁹Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 384.

⁸⁰These rates were as at 2011, except for the New Zealand-reported figure which was as at 2013. See OECD Family Database “SF3.3. Cohabitation rate and prevalence of other forms of partnership” (27

⁸¹The Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 amended the Crimes Act 1961 by removing criminal sanctions against consensual homosexual conduct between males (homosexual conduct between females was

⁸³For a discussion on the problems with data available on same-sex relationships in New Zealand, see: Statistics New Zealand Characteristics of Same-sex Couples in New Zealand (2010) at 5.

⁸⁴For example, in a 2004 survey of over 2,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people in New Zealand,

83.4% of singles and 89.8% of partnered respondents said they would respond honestly to a

Same-Sex Relationships in Aotearoa New Zealand” (2010) 22 J Gay Lesbian Soc Sci 40 at 47. Henrickson notes however that people completing this survey had already self-identified as LGB and self-selected to participate in that survey. The rate of willingness to be publically identified as LGB in the

⁸⁶Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November

⁸⁷Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November

⁸⁸Statistics New Zealand “Marriages and Civil Unions by relationship type, NZ and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017).

⁸⁹Australian Bureau of Statistics “Australian Social

⁹⁰Paul Callister and Robert Didham Age Gaps in Opposite Sex Partnering in New Zealand (Callister & Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at 4.

⁹¹Paul Callister and Robert Didham Age Gaps in Opposite Sex Partnering in New Zealand (Callister & Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at 6.

‘Meet Market’: 2013 census update (Callister & Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at Summary and 13–14.

‘Meet Market’: 2013 census update (Callister & Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at 15 and 27.

⁹⁴While there is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes an LAT relationship, they are often defined as a monogamous intimate partnership between unmarried individuals who live in separate homes but identify themselves as a committed couple. See Vicky Lyssens-Danneboom and Dimitri Mortelmans “Living Apart Together and Money: New Partnerships, Traditional Gender Roles” (2014) 76

Journal of Marriage and Family 949 at 950; and Jacquelyn Benson and Marilyn Coleman “Older Adults Developing a Preference for Living Apart Together” (2016) 78 Journal of Marriage and Family

⁹⁵Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 20; Vicky Lyssens- Danneboom and Dimitri Mortelmans “Living Apart Together and Money: New Partnerships, Traditional Gender Roles” (2014) 76 Journal of Marriage and Family 949 at 950.

⁹⁶Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 2.

⁹⁷Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 13.

⁹⁸Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 16.

⁹⁹Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 22. See also Vicky Lyssens-Danneboom and Dimitri Mortelmans “Living Apart Together and Money: New Partnerships, Traditional Gender Roles” (2014) 76 Journal of

Marriage and Family 949 at 956; and Jacquelyn Benson and Marilyn Coleman “Older Adults Developing a Preference for Living Apart Together” (2016) 78 Journal of Marriage and Family 797 at

¹⁰⁰Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 16-17.

¹⁰¹Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family Issues 1 at 9.

¹⁰²Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 231. A 2004 survey of 2,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual people in New Zealand also reported that 13.5% of participants were in a relationship with a partner who lived elsewhere (compared to 44.9% who were living with their partner, 11.9% who were single and dating someone and 26% who were single and not dating). See Mark Henrickson “Civilized Unions, Civilized Rights:

2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>. Information on median age of fathers is not available.

¹⁰⁴Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 135.

¹⁰⁵Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 132–135.

¹⁰⁶Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 132–135.

¹⁰⁷The fertility rate refers to the average number of live births that a woman would have during her life if she experienced the age-specific rates of a given period.

¹⁰⁸Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Births and Deaths: Year Ended December 2016 and March

¹¹⁰Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Births and Deaths: Year Ended December 2016 and March

¹¹¹Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 266; and Robert Didham and Bill Boddington “Fertility, Ethnic Diversification and the WEIRD Paradigm: Recent trends in Māori Fertility in New Zealand” (2011) 37 NZ Popul Rev 89 at 90.

¹¹²Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 141. Increases in Māori and Pacific fertility rates since the mid-90s have been largely attributed to those identifying with more than one ethnicity: see Robert Didham and Bill Boddington “Fertility, Ethnic Diversification and the WEIRD Paradigm: Recent trends in Māori Fertility in New Zealand” (2011) 37 NZ Popul Rev 89 at 94–96. See also Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson

“The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families

Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

¹¹⁹Ian Pool Population and Social Trends: Implications for New Zealand Housing (Research Paper 86/3, National Housing Commission, Wellington, 1986) at

Social Policy Journal of New Zealand at 9. For example, in 1965 the number of children adopted equated to approximately 50% of ex-nuptial births,

Social Policy Journal of New Zealand at 9–10.

¹²³Adoption Option “Adoption in New Zealand”

number of adoptions is attributable to several factors, including changing social attitudes to ex-nuptial

single parents. See also Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 42.

¹²⁴See also Kay Goodger “Maintaining Sole Parent Families in New Zealand: An Historical Overview” (1998) 10 Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 122 citing Joan Metge New Growth from Old: Whānau in the Modern World (Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1995) at 200.

¹²⁶Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 46.

¹²⁷Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 49.

¹²⁸Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 49.

¹²⁹Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Report 2: Now we are

born (University of Auckland, March 2012) at 62; and Susan Morton, Polly Atatoa Carr and Dinusha Bandara “The status of our families: Evidence from Growing Up in New Zealand” in Families

¹³⁰Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Report 2: Now we are

born (University of Auckland, March 2012) at 63; and Susan Morton, Polly Atatoa Carr and Dinusha Bandara “The status of our families: Evidence from Growing Up in New Zealand” in Families

¹³²Statistics New Zealand "Divorce rate (total population) (annual-Dec)" (June 2017)

¹³³Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 236.

¹³⁴Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 235.

¹³⁵The Family Proceedings Act 1980 introduced changes that simplified the procedure for applying for an order dissolving a marriage. See Statistics New Zealand Information Release: Marriages, Civil

¹³⁶Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

¹³⁷Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 389.

¹³⁸Tony Fahey “Divorce trends and patterns: an overview” in John Eekelaar and Robert George (eds) Routledge Handbook of Family Law and Policy (Routledge, Oxford, 2014) at 97.

¹³⁹Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 389.

¹⁴⁰Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017) at 6.

¹⁴¹Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017) at 6

¹⁴²Information prior to 1977 is not available. See Statistics New Zealand “Divorces by duration (marriages and civil unions) (Annual-Dec)” (May

¹⁴³Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017) at 6.

¹⁴⁴Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 140.

¹⁴⁶Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 237 and Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 18 and 26 (Table 2.9).

¹⁴⁷Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 55.

¹⁴⁸Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 17; and Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 237.

¹⁴⁹DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and FT Shannon “A Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown” [1984] Journal of Marriage and Family 539 at 542.

¹⁵⁰DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and FT Shannon “A Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown” [1984] Journal of Marriage and Family 539 at 543.

¹⁵¹Lixia Qu, Ruth Weston and David de Vaus “Cohabitation and Beyond: The Contribution of Each Partner’s Relationship Satisfaction and Fertility Aspirations to Pathways of Cohabiting Couples” (2009) 40(4) Journal of Comparative Family Studies

587 at 592-593. This study was based on a sample size of 715 cohabiting couples in 2001. The results exclude those for whom no information was available in 2003 (23% of couples). If those couples are included, the results are: 46% were still cohabiting in

¹⁵²Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 388.

¹⁵³Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 388–

¹⁵⁴Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 388-

¹⁵⁵Statistics New Zealand “Divorces involving children aged under 17 years (marriages and civil unions) (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

¹⁵⁶Information prior to 1990 is not available. See: Statistics New Zealand “Divorces involving children aged under 17 years (marriages and civil unions) (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

¹⁵⁷DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and FT Shannon “A Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown” [1984] Journal of Marriage and Family 539 at 542; and David M Fergusson, L John Horwood and Michael Lloyd “The Effect of Preschool Children on Family Stability” 52 (1990) 531 at 535.

¹⁵⁸David M Fergusson and L John Horwood “Resilience to childhood adversity: Results of a 21 year study” in Suniya S Luthar (ed) Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaption in the Context of Childhood Adversities (Cambridge University Press, 2003) 130 at table 1.

¹⁵⁹David M Fergusson, L John Horwood and Michael Lloyd “The Effect of Preschool Children on Family Stability” 52 (1990) 531 at 536.

¹⁶⁰David M Fergusson, L John Horwood and Michael Lloyd “The Effect of Preschool Children on Family Stability” 52 (1990) 531 at 536.

¹⁶¹Simon Duncan, Anne Barlow and Grace James “Why don’t they marry? Cohabitation, commitment and DIY marriage” (2005) 17 Child & Fam L Q 383 at 389.

¹⁶²Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 39.

¹⁶³JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 5. Note this is not a representative sample.

¹⁶⁴Statistics New Zealand "Household composition, for households in occupied private dwellings, 2001,

<nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>; Dharmalingam and others A Demographic History of the New Zealand Family from 1840: Tables (Auckland University Press, 2007) at 17.

¹⁶⁵Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 40; Ministry of Social Development Sole parenting in New Zealand: an update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage (July 2010) at 14; and Families Commission Economic Wellbeing of Sole-Parent Families (Issues Paper 03, November 2010) at 3.

¹⁶⁷Statistics New Zealand "First Marriages, Remarriages, and Total Marriages (including Civil Unions) (Annual-Dec)" (May 2017)

¹⁶⁸Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 238–239.

¹⁶⁹Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 32.

¹⁷⁰Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)33.

¹⁷¹Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 32.

¹⁷²Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 32.

¹⁷³Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 33.

¹⁷⁴Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 56.

¹⁷⁵Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet

Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 238 – 239.

¹⁷⁶Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 239; Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development,

¹⁷⁷Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 72–73.

¹⁷⁸Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 72–73.

¹⁷⁹Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 73.

¹⁸⁰Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) 73.

¹⁸¹JM Nicholson, DM Fergusson and LJ Horwood “Effects on later adjustment of living in a stepfamily during childhood and adolescence” (1999) 40

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 405; discussed in Megan Gath Identifying stepfamilies in longitudinal data (Statistics New Zealand, Working Paper No 16-01, 2016), at 7.

¹⁸²Megan Gath Identifying stepfamilies in longitudinal data (Statistics New Zealand, Working Paper No 16-

¹⁸³Jeremy Robertson Addressing the challenges of stepfamily life (Families Commission, Report No

8/14, April 2014) at 5; and Megan Gath Identifying stepfamilies in longitudinal data (Statistics New Zealand, Working Paper No 16-01, 2016) at 15–16.

¹⁸⁴DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and ME Dimond “A Survival Analysis of Childhood Family History” (1985)

¹⁸⁵Jeremy Robertson Addressing the challenges of stepfamily life (Families Commission, Report No

¹⁸⁶Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, 2008) at 104.

¹⁸⁷For a more detailed discussion of changes to family form and structure in New Zealand during this period, see: Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and

Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007).

¹⁸⁸JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 7.

¹⁸⁹JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 3.

¹⁹⁰Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and households (November 2014) at 6.

¹⁹¹Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and households (November 2014) at 6.

¹⁹²Ministry of Social Development Sole parenting in New Zealand: an update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage (July 2010) at 14; and Families Commission Economic Wellbeing of Sole- Parent Families (Issues Paper 03, November 2010) at 3.

¹⁹³Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 250–251.

¹⁹⁴Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

2013 (July 2013) 19 at 45.

¹⁹⁵Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014

(June 2014) at 128 and 132.

¹⁹⁷Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014

(June 2014) at 128–129.

¹⁹⁸Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014

¹⁹⁹Adolescent Health Research Group The Health and Wellbeing of New Zealand Secondary School Students in 2012: Youth ’12 Prevalence Tables (University of Auckland, 2013) at 31.

²⁰⁰JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 6, Table 1.

²⁰¹JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 5.

²⁰²JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 5.

²⁰⁵Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November

²⁰⁸Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) at 30. This included children aged 18 and over in couples with children families (7.4%) and single parent families (4.9%).

²⁰⁹Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November

²¹⁰Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November

²¹¹Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 39.

²¹²Michelle Poland and others “Pacific Islands Families Study: Factors associated with living in extended families one year on from the birth of a child” (2007) Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 17 at 19.

²¹³Michelle Poland and others “Pacific Islands Families Study: Factors associated with living in extended families one year on from the birth of a child” (2007) Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 17 at 19.

²¹⁴Families Commission Tupuna Ngā Kaitiaki Mokopuna: A resource for Māori grandparents (Research Report 05, September 2012) at 42.

²¹⁶The numbers living in extended family households has changed over the course of the children’s lives. See Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 39; and Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now We Are Two: Describing our first 1000 days (University of Auckland, June 2014) at 23. See also Michelle Poland and others “Pacific Islands Families Study: Factors associated with living in extended families one year on from the birth of a child” (2007) Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 17, in which a study of 1,398 Pacific infants in 2000 identified that 50% lived in an extended family household.

²¹⁷Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and households (November 2014) at 18.

²¹⁸Families Commission Tupuna Ngā Kaitiaki Mokopuna: A resource for Māori grandparents (Research Report 05, September 2012) at 42–43 and 49.

²¹⁹Adolescent Health Research Group The Health and Wellbeing of New Zealand Secondary School Students in 2012: Youth ’12 Prevalence Tables (University of Auckland, 2013) at 33.

²²⁰Adolescent Health Research Group The Health and Wellbeing of New Zealand Secondary School Students in 2012: Youth ’12 Prevalence Tables (University of Auckland, 2013) at 33.

²²¹Families Commission Tupuna Ngā Kaitiaki Mokopuna: A resource for Māori grandparents (Research Report 05, September 2012) at 11 and

²²²JL Sligo and others “The dynamic, complex and diverse living and care arrangements of young New Zealanders: implications for policy” [2016] Kōtuitui N Z J Soc Sci Online 1 at 8.

²²³Michelle Poland and others Moving On: Changes in a year in family living arrangements (Families Commission, Research Report No 2/07, February

²²⁸Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 147.

²²⁹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 147.

²³⁰Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 147.

²³¹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 147.

²³²Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 264.

²³³Susan Singley and Paul Callister Polarisation of Employment, 1986–2002 (Ministry of Social Development, Working Paper 06/04, July 2004) at 1; and Ministry of Social Development New Zealand Families Today: A Briefing for the Families Commission (2004) at 49. See also Paul Callister “Overworked Families? Changes in the paid working hours of families with young children, 1986 to 2001” (2005) 24 Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 160.

²³⁴Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 51.

²³⁵The workforce participation rate from 1976 is based on census data and relates to women aged 15–64. See P Hyman “Trends in Female labour force participation in New Zealand since 1945” (1978) 12

New Zealand Economic Papers 115 at 157 cited in Russell T Ross “Disaggregate Labour Supply Functions for Married Women in New Zealand” 21

participation rate from 2016 is based on the Household Labour Force Survey. See Statistics New Zealand “Labour Force Status by Sex by Age Group” (February 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

²³⁶Based on the annual Household Labour Force Survey. See Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 29.

²³⁷The workforce participation rate is based on the Household Labour Force Survey. See Statistics New Zealand “Labour Force Status by Sex by Age Group” (February 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

²³⁸Paul Callister “New Zealand fathers: Overworked, undervalued, and overseas? (paper presented to NZ Men’s Issues Summit, Christchurch, August 2005) at

7. See also Paul Callister and Robert Didham The New Zealand ‘Meet Market’: 2013 census update (Callister & Associates, Research Note, September

²⁴⁰Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, 2008) at 81; and Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 263.

²⁴¹Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 6. For further discussion on the impact of motherhood on workforce participation in New Zealand, see Russell T Ross “Disaggregate Labour Supply Functions for Married Women in New Zealand” 21 New Zealand Economic Papers 41; Sarah Hillcoat-Nalletamby and A Dharmalingam “Workplace, Informal Childcare Arrangements and Maternal Employment in New Zealand” (2002) 28 NZ Popul Rev 253; Ministry of Social Development New Zealand Families Today: A Briefing for the Families Commission (2004) at 47–54; and Statistics New Zealand Childcare use and work arrangements in

²⁴²Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 9.

²⁴³Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 22.

²⁴⁴Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 12 and 23.

²⁴⁵The employment rate is different to the workforce participation rate, as it only measures those who are employed, while the workforce participation rate also includes those who are unemployed but actively seeking work.

²⁴⁶OECD LMF1.3: Maternal employment by partnership status – tables (26 September 2016).

²⁴⁷OECD LMF1.3: Maternal employment by partnership status – tables (26 September 2016).

²⁴⁸Ministry of Social Development New Zealand Families Today: A Briefing for the Families Commission (2004) at 86.

²⁴⁹Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now We Are Two: Describing our first 1000 days (University of Auckland, June 2014) at 41–42.

²⁵⁰Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 44.

²⁵¹Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14; W Robert Alexander and Murat Genç “Gender and Ethnicity in the Labour Market Participation Decision” (paper presented to Workshop on Labour Force Participation and Economic Growth, Wellington, April

2005); Ministry of Social Development New Zealand Families Today: A Briefing for the Families Commission (2004) at 48.

69,300 women and 7,900 men who were unemployed or not in the workforce left their last job as due to parental/family responsibilities. See:

²⁵³Statistics New Zealand “Not in LF by Sex by Reason for Not Seeking Work (Qrtly–Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec)” (August 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.

²⁵⁴Paul Callister “New Zealand fathers: Overworked, undervalued, and overseas? (paper presented to NZ Men’s Issues Summit, Christchurch, August 2005) at

13 – 14; and Paul Callister “Overworked Families? Changes in the paid working hours of families with young children, 1986 to 2001” (2005) 24 Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 160 at 167.

²⁵⁵Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 20.

²⁵⁶Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14.

²⁵⁷Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 20.

²⁵⁸Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 23.

²⁵⁹Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 20.

²⁶⁰Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 20.

²⁶¹Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 23.

²⁶²Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35 J Fam Econ Iss 14 at 24.

²⁶³Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about work and unpaid activities (March 2015) at 31.

²⁶⁴Statistics New Zealand Time Use Survey: 2009/10

²⁶⁵Sheree J Gibb, David M Fergusson and Joseph M Boden “Gender Differences in Paid and Unpaid Work: findings from a New Zealand birth cohort” (2013) 9 Policy Quarterly 65.

²⁶⁶Sheree J Gibb, David M Fergusson and Joseph M Boden “Gender Differences in Paid and Unpaid Work: findings from a New Zealand birth cohort” (2013) 9 Policy Quarterly 65 at 67. The authors note that the difference in findings may be accounted for in part by the specific activities included in each time use measure. In particular, the Christchurch Study did not include commuting time in measures of time

²⁶⁷Sheree J Gibb, David M Fergusson and Joseph M Boden “Gender Differences in Paid and Unpaid Work: findings from a New Zealand birth cohort” (2013) 9 Policy Quarterly 65 at 69.

²⁶⁸Statistics New Zealand Time Use Survey: 2009/10 (June 2011) at 5; and Sheree J Gibb, David M Fergusson and Joseph M Boden “Gender

²⁶⁹Susan Morton, Polly Atatoa Carr and Dinusha Bandara “The status of our families: Evidence from Growing Up in New Zealand” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

²⁷⁰Statistics New Zealand “Household Labour Force Survey – Labour Force Status by Sex by Reason for Leaving Last Job (Annual-Dec)” (February 2017)

²⁷¹This survey included biological fathers, step-fathers, co-mums, foster and adoptive parents as well as other family members who have a father role. See Centre for Longitudinal Research Who are today’s dads? Fathers and co-parents of children in the Growing Up in New Zealand study (University of Auckland, September 2006); and Centre for Longitudinal Research Key findings: Dads and work (University of Auckland, September 2016).

²⁷²Centre for Longitudinal Research Key findings: Dads and work (University of Auckland, September 2016).

²⁷⁴Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

²⁷⁵Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged 65 and over (June 2015) at 25.

²⁷⁸For example, Superu identified that 80% of Māori and 81% of Pacific couples aged under 50 without children provided extended family support, compared

to the national average of 62%. Rates were also higher in the couples with children family group. See Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) at 35 and 39.

²⁷⁹The results of the Household Economic Survey are analysed in a series of Ministry of Social Development reports. For analysis of the 2015–16 survey, see: Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017).

²⁸⁰Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

²⁸¹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 4.

²⁸²Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 5.

²⁸³In this section we refer to median incomes, which indicate the midpoint of observed values, rather than average or mean incomes. This is because mean incomes are strongly influenced by what happens to higher incomes whereas median incomes are more influenced by what happens to incomes in the middle parts of the distribution. See Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 28.

²⁸⁴Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 27.

²⁸⁵Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 12–13.

²⁸⁶Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 49.

²⁸⁷Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 49.

²⁸⁸Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982

²⁸⁹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 42.

²⁹⁰Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 42.

²⁹¹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 66.

²⁹²Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 67.

²⁹³Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 33.

²⁹⁴Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 33.

²⁹⁶Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 4. This is consistent with the findings of the Survey of Family, Income and Employment for 2003–2004, discussed in Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 213.

²⁹⁹Statistics New Zealand “Wealth patterns across ethnic groups in New Zealand” (4 November 2016)

³⁰⁰Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 9 and 11.

Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 10.

³⁰⁴Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 10.

³⁰⁵Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.

³⁰⁶Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.

³⁰⁷Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

³⁰⁸Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 12. The census first started collecting information about homes held on trust in

³⁰⁹“Involvement” means that at least one household member was involved as a settlor, beneficiary, trustee or in some other way (but excluding people who are only acting as independent trustees). See.Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.

³¹⁰Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.

³¹¹Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth

³¹²Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 18.

³¹³Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 12.

³¹⁴Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 29.

³¹⁵Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 14.

³¹⁶Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, 2008) at 87 and 97. Factors include increasing demand in the housing market and changing Government policies.

³¹⁷Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Final report of the House Prices Unit: House price increases and housing in New Zealand (2008), as cited in Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-

³¹⁸Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 62.

³¹⁹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 62.

³²⁰Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 62.

³²¹Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 60.

³²²Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, 2008) at 98.

³²³Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 14.

³²⁴Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now We Are Two: Describing our first 1000 days (University of Auckland, June 2014) at 33.

³²⁵Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 19.

³²⁶Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 50–51.

³²⁷Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 51.

³²⁸Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 14.

³²⁹Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 18.

³³⁰Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 18.

³³¹Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 20.

³³²M Flynn, S Carne and M Soa Lafoa’l Māori housing trends 2010 (Housing New Zealand Corporation, Wellington, 2010), as cited in Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 34-

New Zealand (April 2017) at 5.

³³⁴Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in

New Zealand (April 2017) at 6.

³³⁵Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in

New Zealand (April 2017) at 8-9.

³³⁶Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in

New Zealand (April 2017) at 8-9.

³³⁷Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in

³³⁸Based on average KiwiSaver Balance (ANZ Investments estimate). See ANZ Close the gap – NZ Women’s progress to an #equalfuture (2016)

New Zealand (April 2017) at 9.

³⁴⁰Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in

³⁴²Statistics New Zealand “Gender pay gap smallest since 2012” (press release, 1 September 2017).

³⁴³Gail Pacheco, Chao Li and Bill Cochrane Empirical evidence of the gender pay gap in New Zealand (Ministry for Women, March 2017) at 7.

³⁴⁴Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter (February 2017) at 6.

³⁴⁵Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of motherhood on pay – summary of results: June 2016 quarter (February 2017) at 5; Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter (February 2017) at 10.

³⁴⁶Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter (February 2017) at 12.

³⁴⁷Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter (February 2017) at 13.

³⁴⁸See for example Zhu Xiao Di and Yi Yang Intergenerational Wealth Transfer and its Impact on Housing (Joint Centre for Housing Studies, Harvard University, 2002), discussed in Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March 2005) at 4, 11–12.

³⁵⁰Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March

³⁵¹Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March

³⁵²Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March

³⁵³Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 12–13.

³⁵⁴Applying the 1988 Revised Jensen equivalence scale. See Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 13.

³⁵⁵See for example Hans-Jürgen Andreß and others “The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution - A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden” (2006) 22 Eur Sociol Rev 533; and Hayley Fisher and Hamish Low Financial implications of relationship breakdown: does marriage matter? (W12/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2012) .

³⁵⁶MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis

³⁵⁷For more information about the Working for Families dataset see Statistics New Zealand IDI Data Dictionary: Working for Families research data (September 2015).

³⁵⁸MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 3.

³⁵⁹MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 184-185.

³⁶⁰MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 122 and 183.

³⁶¹MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 121–122 and 183.

³⁶²MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 124.

³⁶³MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 123 and 184-185.

³⁶⁴MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 151 and 185-186.

³⁶⁵MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 131.

³⁶⁶MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis

³⁶⁷MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 136.

³⁶⁸MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 136.

³⁶⁹MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 151.

³⁷⁰MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 140–141.

³⁷¹MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 148–149.

³⁷²MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 148–149.

³⁷³MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 148–149.

³⁷⁴MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 152.

³⁷⁵MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 152.

³⁷⁶MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation

among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 116 and 144–186.

³⁷⁷MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 143.

³⁷⁸MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 120.

³⁷⁹MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 143.

³⁸⁰MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 137–152.

³⁸¹MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 138.

³⁸²Paul Callister and Stuart Birks Two Parents, Two Households: New Zealand Data Collections, Language and Complex Parenting (Families Commission, Blue Skies Report No 2/06, March

³⁸³Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 11.

³⁸⁴Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 11.

³⁸⁵Statistics New Zealand “Age group and sex of sole parent, for one parent with dependent child(ren) families in occupied private dwellings, 2001, 2006,

³⁸⁷In 2012–13 single mother families accounted for 16% of all families with children aged 0 to 17 years in Australia, while single father families accounted for just 3%. See Australian Bureau of Statistics Family Characteristics and Transitions, Australia, 2012–13 (February 2015).

³⁸⁸Ministry of Social Development Sole parenting in New Zealand: an update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage (July 2010) at 13.

³⁸⁹Ministry of Social Development Sole parenting in New Zealand: an update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage (July 2010) at 13.

³⁹¹Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 57.

³⁹²Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004) at 57.

³⁹³This does not include single parents who may be living with extended family or other adults. See Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Now we are Four: Describing the preschool years (University of Auckland, May 2017) at 39.

³⁹⁴Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 4.

³⁹⁵Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 134. Income poverty rates refer to the rate of individuals who are in households with incomes below selected thresholds, or “poverty lines”. The threshold used here is 60% of the median household income in 2007, adjusted for household size and composition, after housing costs. See Sections E

³⁹⁶Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About income (September 2014) at 30.

³⁹⁷MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 143.

Proud: A Working Paper on Raising the Qualifications and Earnings of Low Income Women (2014) at 4; Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole-parent families (Issues Paper 03,

³⁹⁹See, for example Hans-Jürgen Andreß and others “The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution - A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from Belgium, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden” (2006) 22 Eur Sociol Rev 533 at 550–

551. That study found that in all countries investigated, women on average experience a substantial decline of income after separation immediately after separation, and that the time to recover economically from separation varied by national context. The financial situation of men, in contrast, either does not or does just slightly change, and therefore the costs of separation are not equally distributed between men and women.

⁴⁰⁰MJ Fletcher An investigation into aspects of the economic consequences of marital separation among New Zealand parents (draft Phd thesis submitted for examination, Auckland University of Technology, 2017) at 183 and 187.

⁴⁰¹OECD LMF1.1: Children in households by employment status (December 2015) at 4.

⁴⁰²Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report

No 3/08, June 2008) at 80; and Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole-parent families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 9.

⁴⁰³Hans-Jürgen Andreß and others “The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution - A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from

(2006) 22 Eur Sociol Rev 533 at 539.

⁴⁰⁴Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the

⁴¹²Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 14.

⁴¹³Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, June 2008) at 67.

⁴¹⁴Hans-Jürgen Andreß and others “The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution - A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from

⁴¹⁷New Zealand Government Women in New Zealand: United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Eighth Periodic Report by the Government of New Zealand

⁴¹⁸New Zealand Government Women in New Zealand: United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Eighth Periodic Report by the Government of New Zealand

⁴²⁰Susan MB Morton and others Growing Up in New Zealand: A longitudinal study of New Zealand children and their families. Residential Mobility Report 1: Moving house in the first 1000 days. (University of Auckland, December 2014) at 26 and

⁴²¹Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,

⁴²²Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,

⁴²³Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982

⁴²⁴Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017) at 142; and Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole-parent families (Issues Paper 03,

⁴²⁵Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 14.

⁴²⁶Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,

⁴²⁷Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,

⁴²⁸Hans-Jürgen Andreß and others “The Economic Consequences of Partnership Dissolution - A Comparative Analysis of Panel Studies from

⁴²⁹See discussion in Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (October 2016) at 6.

⁴³¹Statistics New Zealand National Population

⁴³²Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged 65 and over (June 2015) at 7.

⁴³³Statistics New Zealand New Zealand life expectancy increasing (2015) cited in Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in New Zealand (April 2017) at 5.

⁴³⁴Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged 65 and over (June 2015) at 9.

⁴³⁵Statistics New Zealand National Population

⁴³⁶Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged 65 and over (June 2015) at 8.

⁴³⁷Families Commission Families and Whānau Status

⁴³⁸Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴³⁹Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴⁴⁰Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴⁴¹Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴⁴²Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴⁴³Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴⁴⁴Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July

⁴⁴⁷Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁴⁸Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁴⁹Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁵⁰Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁵¹Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁵²Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁵³Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁵⁴Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁵⁵National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability How Should we Care for the Carers, Now and into the Future? (Ministry of Health, Wellington, March 2010) at 7-8.

⁴⁵⁶National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability How Should we Care for the Carers, Now and into the Future? (Ministry of Health, Wellington, March 2010) at 3.

⁴⁵⁷National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability How Should we Care for the Carers, Now and into the Future? (Ministry of Health, Wellington, March 2010) at v.

⁴⁵⁸National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability How Should we Care for the Carers, Now and into the Future? (Ministry of Health, Wellington, March 2010) at v.

⁴⁵⁹Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families Commission Families and Whānau Status Report

⁴⁶⁰Ian Pool, Janet Sceats and Natalie Jackson “The wellbeing of New Zealand families and whānau: Demographic underpinnings” in Families

New Zealand Law Commission - Study Papers

Relationships and families in contemporary New Zealand [2017] NZLCSP 22; Relationships and families in contemporary New Zealand [2017] ; He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau I Aotearoa o Nāianei