Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Commission - Study Papers |
Last Updated: 16 October 2017
October 2017, Wellington, New Zealand | STUDY PAPER
22
RELATIONSHIPS AND FAMILIES IN CONTEMPORARY NEW ZEALAND
HE HONONGA TANGATA, HE HONONGA WHĀNAU I AOTEAROA O NĀIANEI
STUDY PAPER
RELATIONSHIPS AND
FAMILIES IN CONTEMPORARY NEW ZEALAND
HE HONONGA TANGATA, HE HONONGA WHĀNAU I AOTEAROA O NĀIANEI
STUDY PAPER
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
Helen McQueen
The General Manager of the Law Commission is Jasmine Tietjens
The office of the Law Commission is at Level 19, 171 Featherston Street, Wellington
Postal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Document Exchange Number: sp 23534
Telephone: (04) 473-3453, Facsimile: (04) 471-0959
Email: com@lawcom.govt.nz
Internet: www.lawcom.govt.nz
A catalogue record for this title is available from the National Library of New Zealand. ISBN: 978-1-877569-83-8 (Online)
ISSN: 1177-7125 (Online)
This title may be cited as NZLC SP22
This title is also available on the Internet at the Law
Commission’s website: www.lawcom.govt.nz
Copyright © 2017 New Zealand Law Commission. This work is licensed under the Creative
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/.
Foreword
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.
Ngā mihi nui
Douglas White
President
Glossary
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 means two people who are partnered with each
other.
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,
are also excluded. Children includes dependent and adult children.
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
not married or in a de facto relationship. See Chapter 1.
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.
Contents
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
Introduction
The Law Commission is currently reviewing the
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 change in 40 years
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.2 In 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.5 As 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),7 while almost half of the population report they have no
religion (42% in 2013, up from 35% in
2006).8 In 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.
Our information sources
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),10 and 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
urban region during 1977. The Growing Up in
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).
These and other key terms are defined in the
Glossary.
The limitations of our information sources
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.13 There 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.14 This 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.15 As a result, current official statistics do not sufficiently cover the wide variety of living arrangements that
exist in New Zealand today.16
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.18 The 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.20
Families operate in different ways based on a diverse platform of cultural
influences.21 While “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.23 In western cultures, the traditional form of family is
the “nuclear family”.24 In 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.25 In 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
Identifying Whānau
Whānau are the cornerstone of Māori society.28
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.30 Te
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.31 However the breadth of those relationships varies greatly.32 Just over 40% of respondents reported that their whānau only comprised of immediate family members (parents, partner/spouse, brothers, sisters, in- laws and children),33 while 15% of respondents reported that their whānau also included
grandparents and grandchildren, but not extended whānau or
friends.34 A 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.35 Finally, just under 13%
of respondents included close friends and others in their expressions of
whānau.36 A 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.38 This,
Superu
notes, is significant as it suggests that, for
Māori, household-based measures of family
are a “very poor proxy for the more complex set of relationships that
exist within whānau”.39 It 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.41 Further, the European ethnic group includes “New Zealand European” but also includes people of other European ethnicities (comprising approximately 240,000 people in 2013).42 We 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 2013.43
However due to the relatively small size of this group, less reliable data
is available, particularly historic data.
Looking at the international experience
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.
Why do we look at 1976, 1982, 2001 and 2013 in particular?
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.45 2001 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
2013, and for that reason many of our “current”
statistics refer to 2013.
By looking at these years in particular, we
can see how much New Zealand society has changed over this period.
Chapter 1
Changing patterns in relationship formation
In 2013, 56% of New Zealanders aged 15 and over were
partnered.46
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.
Greater legal recognition of more diverse 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
changing social norms have prompted the
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
Per 1,000 not married population aged 16 and over
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 1a. New Zealand marriage rate, 1976 to 2016
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).47 The 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).49 In 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,51 and a
general trend towards delaying marriage.52
People are marrying later in life
The median age at marriage has continued to increase since it reached record
lows in the early 1970s.53
In 2016, the median age at first marriage was
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
Percentage
100
90
80
Marriage
70
60
50
30
20
10
0
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2013
Figure 1b. Partnerships by relationship type (marriage and de facto relationships), 1986 to
2013 census years
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”
<nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.
Asian 52
7 2 39
European 47
14 1 38
Married
Maori 26
Pacific Peoples 35
19 2 53
12 3 50
De Facto
Partnered
NFD Not partnered
Total stated 46
13 2 39
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 1c. Relationship status by ethnicity, 2013 census
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>.
De facto relationships are more
prevalent among Māori
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.58 In Part A of our Issues Paper we explore how the relationship practices of Māori
have changed over time.
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.
Percentage of total stated population aged 15 and over
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Marriage
De facto relationship
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Age group
Figure 1d. Relationship type (marriage and de facto) by age, 2013
census
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>
Problems with measuring de facto relationships
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.60 There is a risk that the census undercounts the actual number of people living together in de facto
relationships.61
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.
What is the 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.62
It is also the only data set in New Zealand which makes links between
cohabitation, marriage and divorce at an individual level.63 It 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,66 and 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
Intact
11%
Converted into marriage
48%
marriage, compared to 77% of all couples who married in 2013.71 Of
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
Separated
41%
Figure 1e. NZW:FEE Survey, Status of first union cohabitations in
1995
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
A similar trend is identifiable in Australia. In
1976, just 16% of couples lived together before
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.73 This
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
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1936-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1975
10%
0%
<1 year <2 years <5 years
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 1989.76
This 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.
New Zealand has higher rates of de facto relationships than other
countries
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%.78 The 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.79
Rates 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
1986,81 yet
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.83 Census 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.85 The 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 2001.86 As a percentage of all couples, this represented an
increase from 0.7% in 2001 to 0.9% in 2013.87
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Same-sex civil unions
2010
2009
2008
Same-sex marriages
2007
2006
2005
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
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
2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
By the end of 2016 there had been 2,100 civil unions and 1,614 marriages between New Zealand resident same-sex couples.88 As Figure 1g demonstrates, the number of same- sex civil unions has dropped sharply since same-sex marriage was enacted in 2013. In
2016, there were only 18 same-sex civil unions.
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
Most partners are similar in age
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.90 While men are usually older than their female partner (70% of the time), few men have a significantly younger female partner.
For example, in 2013 only 5% of partnered
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
often termed “living apart together” (LAT)
relationships.94
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
Research in the United Kingdom, investigating
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.99 While 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.102
However 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.
Chapter 2
Having children in
New Zealand
Changing patterns in relationship formation have coincided with changes in
when and how New Zealanders are having children.
Women are having children later in life
The median age of women giving birth has been steadily increasing since the 1970s. In
1976 the median age of mothers at birth was
25 (23 among Māori), increasing to 30 (26 among Māori) in
2016.103 Changing expectations around education, career, travel,
relationships and economic stability are all likely to be playing a role in
this
trend.104
More women are remaining childless
As more women delay having children, the proportion of women remaining childless has steadily increased, and has more than doubled
since the 1970s.105 This increase has been linked to social change
(life circumstances or choice), rather than biological change (involuntary
childlessness).106
The fertility rate is
declining
Fertility rates107 in 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
2016.109 However, since 1980 the fertility rate has been
relatively stable, averaging 2.01
births per woman.110 This
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.112 In the 2014
Household Labour Force Survey, 68.5% of
Māori and 73.4% of Pacific women had
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure 2a. Total fertility rate, 1940 to 2016
Source: Statistics New Zealand "Total fertility rate (Māori and total population) (Annual-Dec)" (May 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
dependent children, compared to 62.6% of
European and 55.7% of Asian women.113
More children are born outside marriage
In 2016, 46% of all births in New Zealand were to parents who were not married or in a civil union (ex-nuptial births).114 This has increased significantly since 1976, when ex-nuptial births only accounted for 17% of all births (Figure
2b).115
The rate of ex-nuptial births in New Zealand is higher than the OECD average of 40% (in
2014)116 and 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
From 1920 to 1940 over 60% of ex-nuptial
conceptions ended as nuptial births.119 When
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.121 At 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.122 Today 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
Percentage of all births
100
90
80
70
60 Māori ex-
nuptial
50 births
40
20 births
10
0
Figure 2b. Proportion of ex-nuptial births in New Zealand, total population and Māori
population, 1976-2016
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.
Superu suggests that most of the increase in
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.126 For 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 1949.127 The 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.129 The 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
Chapter 3
Changing patterns in relationship separation
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).
Divorce statistics are problematic
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.131 As 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
1976, it has been steadily declining since it
1982 peak, when it reached 17 divorces per
Per 1,000 existing marriages and civil unions
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 3a. New Zealand divorce rate, 1976 to 2016
Source: Statistics New Zealand "Divorce rate (total population) (Annual-Dec)" (June 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
1,000 existing marriages.
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 (now the Property (Relationships) 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.135 This 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.136
These 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).140 This 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
facto relationship is more likely than a marriage to end in
separation.
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.147 Experts 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%).149 However, 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.152 While 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.153
If 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
Almost half of all divorces involve children
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
and over is not available.
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
This compared to 4,836 divorces (affecting
9,132 children) in 1990.156
Parental separation in longitudinal studies
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 child’s life.157 By the age of 16, 34.2% 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.159 The 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).160 This 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
Number of divorces
12,000
10,000
8,000
Total divorces
6,000
4,000
Number of divorces involving children
2,000
0
Figure 3b. Divorces involving children under the age of 17, 1990 to
2016
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
1970s.165
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.166 The
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
relationship.
Chapter 4
Re-partnering and stepfamilies
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.
Remarriages have increased as a proportion of all marriages
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
Little else is known about re- partnering in New Zealand
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).169 The 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-
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
All marriages First marriages Remarriages
5,000
0
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
30
|
27
|
17
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percentage
Within
2yrs
Within
5yrs
Within
10yrs
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.171 A woman’s chances of re-partnering were highest if she had separated from her partner before age
30.172 Childless 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.177 In 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
Māori
Under 5yrs
Under 10yrs
Non-
Māori
Under 17yrs
Under 20yrs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage
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.
previous relationships of both partners.178
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).179 29% 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.183 The 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
Chapter 5
Wider patterns of change in the family and household
“‘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.187 Figure 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.188 While 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.
2013 27
26 9 11
24 4
Couple with
child(ren)
Couple only
2001 27
25 10 10
23 5
with child(ren)
Family and
others
1976 43
20 5 10
14 7
One-person
household
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Household of unrelated
people
Figure 5a. Household types, 2013, 2001 and 1976 census years
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.
Single parent
17.8%
Couple with child(ren)
41.3%
Couple without child(ren)
40.9%
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
Figure 5b. Family types, 2013 census
Source: Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats about families and
households (November 2014) at 6.
Couples with children are decreasing in proportion to other family
types
“Couples with children” is still the most common family type in New Zealand, making
up 41.3% of all families (27% of all households)
in 2013.
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
Couples without children are increasing as a proportion of all
families
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
30s, and, to a greater extent, those in their 50s,
60s and 70s.191 This 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.194 While 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
useful insight into the living arrangements of
New Zealanders over an eight year period.
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.195 11.5% 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).197 Women 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 three “family types” tell us very
little about post-separation families
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.200 At all ages, the
biological mother was most likely to be the primary or
sole carer.201
Rates of shared care (where more than 35% of time was spent with each
parent) was low.202 However 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.206 They 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
110,559 families included adult children aged
20 years and over, 64,707 of these were couples with children families and
45,846 were single parent families.209
More people live in extended family households
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
2013, from 64,929 to 100,605 families.210
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
We discuss extended family living as a result of separation in Chapter
8.
Living with extended family members can be beneficial for several reasons, including reduced living costs and shared childcare and other household activities.212 However, extended household living can also have
negative impacts, including overcrowding which can be associated with
negative health outcomes.213
Extended family living can have cultural significance
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.214
Pacific 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.219 These 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.221
In 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
5g summarises key transitions, adjusted for the
New Zealand population, estimated at
3,718,000.
Superu’s key observations from SoFIE
included: 223
• 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
5% percent aged 65 and over.
• 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
couple with children family to a single parent family.
• 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
leaving home).
A significant minority (12.7%), however, experienced three or more changes in living arrangements over that period.225
Chapter 6
Sharing the work
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.
Significant changes in workforce participation among couples with
children
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).229 In 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
Percentage
100
90
80
70 One working
50
40
30
20 Both working
10
0
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
Development, July 2017) at 147.
need (the “work-rich”).233
The rate of dual earner families is higher than comparable
countries
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%).234
There 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
1976.235 This 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
Men continue to have a higher workforce
participation rate than women, although it has fallen slightly in the last
thirty years, from 79% in 1986 to 75% in 2016.237 This 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.239 Increasing 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
Both Full Time
One Full Time, One Part Time
Sole Earner
Both Jobless
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
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.
women participate in paid work.241 In 2014,
73% of partnered mothers with dependent children were in the workforce, compared to
87% of women without dependent children.242
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
16% of women without children.243
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
100
90
80
70
60
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.248 Figure 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.249 By 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
age 3.250
50
40
30
20
10
0
14+ years 5-13 years 0-4 years
Part
time
Full time
Figure 6c. Proportion of partnered mothers working full time and part
time, by age of youngest child, 2012
Source: Flynn and Harris Mothers in the New Zealand
Workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at
23.
Similar effects are observable in other OECD countries. The employment rate245 of partnered mothers in New Zealand was 66% in 2014, compared to the OECD average of 67%.246 The rate was the same in Australia (66%), but
higher in the United Kingdom (70%) and
Canada (75%).247
80
70
60
50
% of 40
the
averag 30
e wage
20
10
0
Figure 6d. Average child care fees in OECD countries for 2 children (aged 2 and 3)
attending accredited early-years care and education services,
2012
Source: OECD PF3.4: Childcare support (May 2014) at
2.
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
350
300
250
200
150
Men
Women
100
50
0
Employed full time Employed part time Unemployed Not in labour
force
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>.
<www.nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.
with preschool-aged children have been working increasingly longer
hours,254 and 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).256 987 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%.257 Compared 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.259
Instead, 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.261 Women 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 30.265 Unlike 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.268 Despite 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).270 The Growing Up in New Zealand Study recently
identified that 1% of over 4,000 fathers and co-parents271 of 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.
Recognising the contributions of other family members
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,273 with childcare increasingly undertaken by the child’s grandparents, as older New Zealanders are living longer and in better health than in the past. 274 The 2013 census identified that 12.7% of older New Zealanders looked after a child
not living in the same household on an unpaid
basis.275
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
Chapter 7
Families’ financial wellbeing
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.279 That 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 median283 household income
in New Zealand was $76,200, after taking account of all income tax paid
and transfers received (including benefits, Working for Families tax credits and
superannuation).284
Household income, however, varies
significantly for different household types. Figure 7a shows the changes in
median equivalised household
incomes for certain household types since
1982.
Equivalised incomes are those that have been
Income ($)
60,000
50,000
Single person < 65
40,000
30,000
Couple only < 65
Other multi-adult family (no
children)
<65
Two parent
20,000
Single parent
10,000
All households
0
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
Development, July 2017) at 72.
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.286 The 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
Inequality in household incomes
Income is not distributed evenly across the population, even after taxes and
transfers (including benefits, tax credits and superannuation)
are taken into
account.288
The top 10% of households (by income earned)
receive just over a quarter (26%), and the top
30% receive just over half (53%) of all equivalised income in New
Zealand.289 This 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.291 From
1994 to 2016, growth across the income distribution was reasonably
even.292
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 $289,000.295
Median household
net worth, like income,
varies significantly depending on the household composition (Table
7a).
Table 7a. Median household net worth,
2015, by household composition
|
|
Household composition
|
Median household net worth ($)
|
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
More than $1.5M
$1.400M to $1.5M
$1.3M to $1.4M
$1.2M to $1.3M
$1.1M to $1.2M
$1M to $1.1M
$900K to $1M
$800K to $900K
$700K to $800K
$600K to $700K
$500K to $600K
$400K to $500K
$300 to $400K
$200 to $300K
$100 to $200K
$1 to $100K
-$100K to $0
Less than -$100K
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Proportion of households
Figure 7b. Distribution of household net worth, 2015
Source: Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics: Year
ended June 2015 - tables (June 2016)
households accounted for around half of total net worth,296 a
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
Other household
Wealth patterns vary significantly
across ethnic groups
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
$23,000; Asian $32,000 and Pacific peoples
$12,000).299
financial assets (1)
37%
Pension funds
5%
Currency and deposits
7%
Other non- financial assets
13%
Owner- occupied dwellings
30%
Other real estate
8%
Most household wealth and debt is tied up in the family home
In 2015, according to the Household Economic
Survey, 51% of all New Zealand households
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.
Education loans
5%
Other real estate loans
24%
Other loans and liabilities
7%
Owner- occupied residence loans
64%
dwelling was held on trust in 2013, up from
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 $300,000.310 A large proportion of trust assets and liabilities
related to farms and
family homes.311
Figure 7d. Proportion of household
liabilities in New Zealand, by liability type, 2015
Source: Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 - tables (June 2016).
Zealand (Figure 7c).301
The median family home value was $350,000 in 2015.302
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).303 The
median value of family home mortgages in was
$172,000.304
In 2015, 14% of New Zealand households owned real estate other than the family home, including holiday homes and investment properties.305 Of 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
Dwelling held on trust
other real estate, 60% had an outstanding mortgage on the property, with a
median amount owing of $167,000.306
Many homes are held on trust
A significant number of family homes in New
Zealand are held on trust. According to the
2015 Household Economic Survey, about 12%
of family homes were held on trust.307 The
Dwelling not owned or held on trust
35.3%
14.8%
Dwelling
owned or partly
owned
49.9%
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.
Home ownership rates tend to rise with age. In
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.318 Housing 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
2016.319 A 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%
Never
Married
12.3
Separated from Spouse
40.8
Divorced or
Dissolved
51.0
Widowed
68.3
De Facto
40.9
Spouse
75.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent who own or partially own usual residence
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
26.3% of people who were not partnered.323
Figure 7e breaks down the home ownership rate by relationship status.
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
Falls in home ownership affect children
The proportion of children under age 15 living in dwellings that were not owned increased even more than the total population between
1986 to 2013, from 26.1% to 43.1%.325
The Growing Up in New Zealand study has
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 4.326 This suggests that this
generation of children are potentially going to be growing up in families who
are “lifelong renters”.327
The decline in home ownership is
greater for Māori and Pacific people
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.329 The
rates of decline in home ownership from 1986
to 2013 were 34.8% for Pacific people and 20%
for Māori.330
It is likely that falling home ownership
rates had
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.333
Most 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.335 Men 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.336 The difference was more significant in non-KiwiSaver
schemes, where men had a median value of
$69,000, compared with women’s $42,000.337
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 and the
“motherhood penalty”
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
part-time work from the New Zealand Income
Survey.341
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
work patterns due to parenthood (see Chapters
6 and 8).344
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.345 Evidence also indicated the motherhood penalty
was larger for mothers working part-time than for those working full-
time.346 These 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
Chapter 8
What happens when partners separate?
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.
Separation has an economic cost
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.353 For 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.354 We 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
$25,000 pa. Their total household income is
$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,355 until 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
Families tax credits;
• individuals assessed as liable to pay or receive child support payments;
• 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
Family incomes reduce significantly on separation
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
39%.360
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
These effects persisted over the medium-term
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).367 Similarly, 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
Post-separation income gains do not offset losses
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.371 This 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
households.372
Men are, on average, were approximately
$5,000 better off in equivalised income terms
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.377 For women, the average increase in benefit receipt was
over
300% in the first year after separation (44% for men).378 In
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,
average receipts were $2,367 for women and
$709 for men.381
Post-separation families are
“hidden” in the data
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.382 It 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
Superu observes that the impact of societal
changes for families at an economic level do not appear to have been well
analysed in New Zealand to date.384
Most “single parents” are women
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.388 The 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.391 On 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
Single parent families are generally worse off than other
families
“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
Asian
European
Single mother with dependent children
Māori
Partnered mother with dependent children
Pacific
Peoples
No dependent children
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Figure 8a. Parental status of women aged 25-49 by ethnic group, 2014 Household Labour
Force Survey
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
remains at a lower rate than men’s, and women
are also more likely to work part time.
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.
International research identifies that the
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.399
Fletcher’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%.401 Figure 8b illustrates the reported employment rates of
single parents with at least one child aged 14 and under in OECD
countries.
100
90
80
70
60 Not working
50
Working part-
40 time
20
10
0
Figure 8b. Employment status of single parents in OECD countries,
2013
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.402 At the same time, their economic needs will generally be
higher than those of the non- resident parent.403
Single mothers are less likely to work than other women
As the vast majority of single parents (84.2% in
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%).406 The 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.408 The 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.410 This
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.415 In 2013
Statistics New Zealand identified
that:416
are concentrated, with women being much more likely than men to be employed in
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
2014.417 Māori 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.421
That 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.423 Because 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
Separation is likely to impact on home ownership status
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
and single parents face more challenges to full workforce participation.
Chapter 9
Looking to the future
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
New Zealand’s population is ageing
Since 1988, the 65 and over age group has doubled in size, to reach 700,000 in 2016.430
By 2032, it is expected that 20-22% of New
Zealanders will be aged 65 and over, up from
15% in 2016.431
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
men since 1950-1952.433
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.434 The “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
This will put pressure on the caring functions of families, as discussed
below.
Women currently make up 54.1% of the population aged 65 and over, reflecting differences in life expectancy.436 This 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.438 By 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.442 Under 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).443 That context, experts
argue, lies behind many of the
current differences in economic circumstances between younger and older
families. 444
Cultural diversity will continue to drive social change
“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.
Diversification of family arrangements is expected to continue
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.448 Experts 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.453
Reliance 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.456 During the 1960s and 1970s, older people tended to enter rest homes while still relatively independent.457 Government 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
1 From 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
2,969,391 (European); 246,000 to 598,605 (Māori);
70,000 to 295,941 (Pacific peoples); and 33,000 to
471,711 (Asian). Total population has grown from
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
culture and identity (April 2014) at 6.
5 Statistics New Zealand National Population
Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (19 October 2016) at
5.
6 Statistics New Zealand National Population
Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (19 October 2016) at
7.
10 The census time series is now irregular as the last census was postponed from 2011 to 2013 following the Canterbury earthquakes.
11 This 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.
12 Statistics New Zealand Statistical Standard
for
Family Type (March 2009) at 1.
13 In 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.
14 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.
15 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 80.
16 Statistics New Zealand Report of the Review of
Official Family Statistics (March 2007) at 9.
17 Statistics 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.
18 Statistics New Zealand Report of the Review of
Official Family Statistics (March 2007) at 12.
19 Statistics New Zealand Report of the Review of
Official Family Statistics (March 2007) at 12.
20 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 81.
21 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 11.
22 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 11.
23 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 11.
24 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 83.
25 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 83.
26 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 81.
27 Statistics 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
1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
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.
28 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 52.
29 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 53.
30 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 74.
31 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 74.
32 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 74.
33 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 60.
34 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 63.
35 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 64.
36 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 66.
37 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge “Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 58.
38 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 72.
39 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 72.
40 Tahu Kukutai, Andrew Sporle and Matthew Roskruge
“Expressions of whānau” in Superu Families and Whānau
Status Report 2016 (July 2016) 51 at 72.
41 Superu
Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 85.
42 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about
culture and identity – tables (April 2014).
43 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats about culture and
identity (April 2014) at 6.
44 Families 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.
45 The 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.
46 Statistics 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)"
<nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.
47 The 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>.
48 Statistics New Zealand Information Release –
Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017)
at 3.
49 Statistics New Zealand “Population
estimates in NZ –
DPEA (Annual-Mar)” (April 2012)
<www.stats.govt.nz>; and Statistics New Zealand “Estimated Resident Population by Age and Sex (1991+) (Annual-Dec)” (May 2017)
50 This 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)
51 Analysis 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.
52 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 164.
53 The 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.
54 Statistics New Zealand Information Release –
Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017)
at 5.
55 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”
<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.
56 Excluding 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)
57 Statistics New Zealand “Marriages and civil unions by
relationship type, NZ and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)” (May
2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
58 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”
<nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.
59 The 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.
60
Statistics New Zealand Statistical Standard for
Partnership Status in Current Relationship (August
2008) at 1–3.
61 For 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.
62 For 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).
63 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 236.
64 Ian 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.
65 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 26.
66 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development,
2004)19.
67 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
8.
68 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development,
2004)17.
69 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development,
2004)16.
70 Superu 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.
71 Australian Bureau of Statistics Marriages and
Divorces Australia (February 2015)
72 Australian Bureau of Statistics Family Characteristics
and Transitions, Australia, 2012–13 (February 2015) at 71.
73 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 25.
74 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
17 and 25.
75 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
17.
76 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 237.
77 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 237.
78 These 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
November 2016) at 3.
79 Simon 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.
80 These 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
November 2016) at 2–3.
81 The 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
not a criminal offence).
82 The Civil Union Act 2004; and Marriage (Definition of
Marriage) Amendment Act 2013.
83 For 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.
84 For 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
census question about sexual identity. See Mark
Henrickson “Civilized Unions, Civilized Rights:
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
census may therefore be lower across the population as a whole.
85 Statistics New Zealand Characteristics of Same-sex
Couples in New Zealand (2010) at 5.
86 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November
2014).
87 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November
2014).
88 Statistics New Zealand “Marriages and Civil Unions by
relationship type, NZ and overseas residents (Annual-Dec)” (May
2017).
89 Australian Bureau of Statistics
“Australian Social
Trends: Same-Sex Couples” (July 2013)
90 Paul Callister and Robert Didham Age Gaps in Opposite
Sex Partnering in New Zealand (Callister & Associates, Research Note,
September 2014) at 4.
91 Paul Callister and Robert Didham Age Gaps in Opposite
Sex Partnering in New Zealand (Callister & Associates, Research Note,
September 2014) at 6.
92 Paul Callister and Robert Didham The New Zealand
‘Meet Market’: 2013 census update (Callister &
Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at Summary and 13–14.
93 Paul Callister and Robert Didham The New Zealand
‘Meet Market’: 2013 census update (Callister &
Associates, Research Note, September 2014) at 15 and 27.
94 While 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
797 at 797.
95 Rory 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.
96 Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and
Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family
Issues
1 at 2.
97 Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and
Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family
Issues
1 at 13.
98 Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and
Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family
Issues
1 at 16.
99 Rory 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
798.
100 Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and
Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family
Issues
1 at 16-17.
101 Rory Coulter and Yang Hu “Living Apart Together and
Cohabitation Intentions in Great Britain” [2015] Journal of Family
Issues
1 at 9.
102 Ian 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:
Same-Sex Relationships in Aotearoa New Zealand”
(2010) 22 J Gay Lesbian Soc Sci 40 at 46.
103 Statistics New Zealand “Median age of mother
(Māori and total population) (Annual – Dec)” (May
2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
Information on median age of fathers is not available.
104 Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in
childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 135.
105 Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in
childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at
132–135.
106 Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in
childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at
132–135.
107 The 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.
108 Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Births and Deaths: Year Ended December 2016 and March
2017 (16 May 2017) at 4; and Statistics New Zealand
Information Release – Births and Deaths: Year
Ended December 2016 and March 2017 (16 May
2017) at 4.
109 Statistics New Zealand “Total fertility rate (Māori and
total population) (Annual–Dec)” (May 2017)
<www.stats.govt.nz>.
110 Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Births and Deaths: Year Ended December 2016 and March
2017 (16 May 2017) at 4.
111 Ian 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.
112 Bill 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
Commission Families and Whānau Status Report
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 39.
113 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 13.
114 Statistics New Zealand "Live births by nuptiality
(Maori and total population) (annual-Dec)" (May
2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
115 Statistics New Zealand "Live births by nuptiality
(Maori and total population) (annual-Dec)" (May
2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
116 OECD SF2.4 Share of births outside of marriage –
tables (April 2016).
117 OECD SF2.4 Share of births outside of marriage –
tables (April 2016).
118 Kay Goodger “Maintaining Sole Parent Families in
New Zealand: An Historical Overview” (1998) 10
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand at 7; and 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 44.
119 Ian Pool Population and Social Trends: Implications for New Zealand Housing (Research Paper 86/3, National Housing Commission, Wellington, 1986) at
65, as cited in Kay Goodger “Maintaining Sole Parent
Families in New Zealand: An Historical Overview”
(1998) 10 Social Policy Journal of New Zealand at 7.
120 Kay Goodger “Maintaining Sole Parent Families in
New Zealand: An Historical Overview” (1998) 10
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,
down to just 1% by 2004: see Bill Boddington and
Robert Didham “Increases in childlessness in New
Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 139.
121 Kay Goodger “Maintaining Sole Parent Families in
New Zealand: An Historical Overview” (1998) 10
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand at 7-8.
122 Kay Goodger “Maintaining Sole Parent Families in
New Zealand: An Historical Overview” (1998) 10
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand at 9–10.
123
Adoption Option “Adoption in New Zealand”
<adoptionoption.org.nz>. The reduction in the
number of adoptions is attributable to several factors, including changing social attitudes to ex-nuptial
childbearing and increased Government support for
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.
124 See 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.
125 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 169.
126 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 46.
127 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 49.
128 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 49.
129 Susan 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
Commission Families and Whānau Status Report
2013 (July 2013) 95 at 102.
130 Susan 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
Commission Families and Whānau Status Report
2013 (July 2013) 95 at 102.
131 Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 37–43.
132 Statistics New Zealand "Divorce rate (total population) (annual-Dec)" (June 2017)
133 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 236.
134 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 235.
135 The 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
Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3
May 2017) at 6.
136 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 35 and 42.
137 Simon 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.
138 Tony 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.
139 Simon 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.
140 Statistics New Zealand Information Release – Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017) at 6.
141 Statistics New Zealand Information Release –
Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017)
at 6
142 Information prior to 1977 is not available. See Statistics New Zealand “Divorces by duration (marriages and civil unions) (Annual-Dec)” (May
2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
143 Statistics New Zealand Information Release –
Marriages, Civil Unions and Divorces: Year ended December 2016 (3 May 2017)
at 6.
144 Bill Boddington and Robert Didham “Increases in
childlessness in New Zealand” (2009) 26 J Pop Research 131 at 140.
145 “First cohabiting union” is where the participant’s first
relationship was cohabitation rather than marriage.
146 Ian 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).
147 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 55.
148 Arunachalam 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.
149 DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and FT Shannon “A
Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown” [1984] Journal of Marriage
and Family 539 at 542.
150 DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and FT Shannon “A
Proportional Hazards Model of Family Breakdown” [1984] Journal of Marriage
and Family 539 at 543.
151 Lixia 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
2003, 17% had separated and 14% had married.
152 Simon 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.
153 Simon 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–
389.
154 Simon 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-
389.
155 Statistics New Zealand “Divorces involving children
aged under 17 years (marriages and civil unions) (Annual-Dec)” (May
2017)
<www.stats.govt.nz>.
156 Information 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>.
157 DM 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.
158 David 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.
159 David M Fergusson, L John Horwood and Michael Lloyd
“The Effect of Preschool Children on Family Stability” 52 (1990) 531
at 536.
160 David M Fergusson, L John Horwood and Michael Lloyd
“The Effect of Preschool Children on Family Stability” 52 (1990) 531
at 536.
161 Simon 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.
162 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.
163 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 5. Note this is not a representative sample.
164 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.
165 Ian 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.
166 Rachael Hutt “New Zealand’s Sole Parents and their
Marital Status: Updating the Last Decade” (2012) 38
NZ Popul Rev 77 at 83.
167 Statistics New Zealand "First Marriages, Remarriages, and Total Marriages (including Civil Unions) (Annual-Dec)" (May 2017)
168 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 238–239.
169 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 32.
170 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development,
2004)33.
171 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
32.
172 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 32.
173 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 33.
174 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 56.
175 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet
Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A
Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at 238
– 239.
176 Ian 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,
2004) at 72–74.
177 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 72–73.
178 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
72–73.
179 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
73.
180 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
73.
181 JM 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.
182 Megan Gath Identifying stepfamilies in longitudinal data (Statistics New Zealand, Working Paper No 16-
01, 2016) at 5.
183 Jeremy 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.
184 DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood and ME Dimond “A Survival Analysis of Childhood Family History” (1985)
47 Journal of Marriage and the Family 287 at 293.
185 Jeremy Robertson Addressing the challenges of stepfamily life (Families Commission, Report No
8/14, April 2014) at 5.
186 Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in
New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, 2008) at 104.
187 For 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).
188 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 7.
189 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.
190 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and
households (November 2014) at 6.
191 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and
households (November 2014) at 6.
192 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.
193 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 250–251.
194 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 45.
195 Superu Families
and Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 132.
196 Superu Families and
Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 128 and 132.
197 Superu Families and
Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 128–129.
198 Superu Families and
Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 128–129.
199 Adolescent 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.
200 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 6, Table
1.
201 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 5.
202 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 5.
203 Statistics New Zealand Characteristics of Same-sex
Couples in New Zealand (2010) at 12.
204 Statistics New Zealand Characteristics of Same-sex
Couples in New Zealand (2010) at 12.
205 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November
2014).
206 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 43.
207 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 43 and 45.
208 Superu 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%).
209 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November
2014).
210 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about families and households – tables (November
2014) at 19.
211 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.
212 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 at
19.
213 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 at
19.
214 Families Commission Tupuna Ngā Kaitiaki Mokopuna: A
resource for Māori grandparents (Research Report 05, September 2012) at
42.
215 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet
Sceats The New Zealand Family from 1840: A
Demographic History (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 2007) at
258.
216 The 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.
217 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About families and
households (November 2014) at 18.
218 Families Commission Tupuna Ngā Kaitiaki Mokopuna: A
resource for Māori grandparents (Research Report 05, September 2012) at
42–43 and 49.
219 Adolescent 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.
220 Adolescent 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.
221 Families Commission Tupuna Ngā Kaitiaki Mokopuna: A resource for Māori grandparents (Research Report 05, September 2012) at 11 and
18.
222 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 8.
223 Michelle Poland and others Moving On: Changes in a year in family living arrangements (Families Commission, Research Report No 2/07, February
2007).
224 Superu Families and Whānau Status
Report 2014
(June 2014) at 133.
225 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 130.
226 Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 1N(b).
227 Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 18.
228 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 147.
229 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 147.
230 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 147.
231 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 147.
232 Ian Pool, Arunachalam Dharmalingam and Janet Sceats The
New Zealand Family from 1840: A Demographic History (Auckland University
Press, Auckland, 2007) at 264.
233 Susan 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.
234 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 51.
235 The 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
New Zealand Economic Papers 41. The workforce
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>.
236 Based 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.
237 The 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>.
238 Paul 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
2014) at 2.
239 Russell T Ross “Disaggregate Labour Supply
Functions for Married Women in New Zealand” 21
New Zealand Economic Papers 41 at 50.
240 Families 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.
241 Sophie 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
1998 and 2009 (March 2012).
242 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New
Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 9.
243 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New
Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 22.
244 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the New
Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand, February 2015) at 12 and
23.
245 The 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.
246 OECD LMF1.3: Maternal employment by partnership status
– tables (26 September 2016).
247 OECD LMF1.3: Maternal employment by partnership status
– tables (26 September 2016).
248 Ministry of Social Development New Zealand Families
Today: A Briefing for the Families Commission (2004) at 86.
249 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
41–42.
250 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
44.
251 Sheree 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.
252 According to the Household Labour Force Survey,
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:
Statistics New Zealand “Labour Force Status by Sex
by Reason for Leaving Last Job (Annual-Dec)”
(February 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
253 Statistics New Zealand “Not in LF by Sex by Reason for
Not Seeking Work (Qrtly–Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec)” (August 2017) <www.stats.govt.nz>.
254 Paul 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.
255 Sheree 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.
256 Sheree J Gibb and others “The Effects of Parenthood on
Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women” (2014) 35
J Fam Econ
Iss 14.
257 Sheree 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.
258 Sheree 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.
259 Sheree 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.
260 Sheree 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.
261 Sheree 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.
262 Sheree 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.
263 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Census QuickStats about work
and unpaid activities (March 2015) at 31.
264 Statistics
New Zealand Time Use Survey: 2009/10
(June 2011) at 5–6.
265 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.
266 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. 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
spent in paid employment, while the Statistics New
Zealand time use survey did.
267 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 69.
268 Statistics New Zealand Time Use Survey: 2009/10 (June 2011) at 5; and 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 69.
269 Susan 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
2013 (July 2013) 95 at 110.
270 Statistics New Zealand “Household Labour Force Survey – Labour Force Status by Sex by Reason for Leaving Last Job (Annual-Dec)” (February 2017)
271 This 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).
272 Centre for Longitudinal Research Key findings: Dads and
work (University of Auckland, September 2016).
273 Families Commission Families and Whānau Status
Report 2013 (July 2013) at 15.
274 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 43.
275 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged
65 and over (June 2015) at 25.
276 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 84.
277 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 84.
278 For 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.
279 The 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).
280 Statistics New Zealand
Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016).
281 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 4.
282 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 5.
283 In 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.
284 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 27.
285 Bryan 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.
286 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 49.
287 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 49.
288 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982
to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017)
at 42.
289 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 42.
290 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 42.
291 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 66.
292 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 67.
293 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 33.
294 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 33.
295 Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 2.
296 Statistics 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.
297 Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 4.
298 Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 3.
299 Statistics New Zealand “Wealth patterns across ethnic groups in New Zealand” (4 November 2016)
300 Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth Statistics:
Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 9 and 11.
301 Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 9.
302 Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 - tables (June
2016).
303 Statistics New Zealand Household Net
Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 10.
304
Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 10.
305
Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.
306
Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.
307
Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.
308 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing (March 2014) at 12. The census first started collecting information about homes held on trust in
2006.
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.
310 Statistics New Zealand Household Net
Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.
311
Statistics New Zealand Household Net Worth
Statistics: Year ended June 2015 (June 2016) at 11.
312 Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns
1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at
18.
313 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing
(March 2014) at 12.
314 Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns
1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at
29.
315 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing
(March 2014) at 14.
316 Families 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.
317 Department 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-
ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and
Pacific people June 2016) at 34.
318 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 62.
319 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 62.
320 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 62.
321 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in
indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2016 (Ministry of Social
Development, July 2017) at 60.
322 Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in
New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, 2008) at 98.
323 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing
(March 2014) at 14.
324 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
33.
325 Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns
1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at
19.
326 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
50–51.
327 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
51.
328 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing
(March 2014) at 14.
329 Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns 1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at 18.
330 Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns
1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at
18.
331 Statistics New Zealand Changes in home-ownership patterns
1986–2013: Focus on Māori and Pacific people June 2016) at
20.
332 M 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-
41.
333 Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation
in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 5.
334 Statistics New
Zealand Private superannuation in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 6.
335 Statistics New
Zealand Private superannuation in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 8-9.
336 Statistics
New Zealand Private superannuation in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 8-9.
337 Statistics
New Zealand Private superannuation in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 9.
338 Based on average KiwiSaver Balance (ANZ Investments estimate). See ANZ Close the gap – NZ Women’s progress to an #equalfuture (2016)
<www.futurewise.anz.co.nz>.
339
Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 9.
340 Statistics New
Zealand Private superannuation in
New Zealand (April 2017) at 9.
341 Statistics New Zealand Measuring the gender pay gap
(June 2015) at 3.
342 Statistics New Zealand “Gender pay gap smallest since
2012” (press release, 1 September 2017).
343 Gail Pacheco, Chao Li and Bill Cochrane Empirical
evidence of the gender pay gap in New Zealand (Ministry for Women, March
2017) at 7.
344 Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of
motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter
(February 2017) at 6.
345 Statistics 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.
346 Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of
motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter
(February 2017) at 12.
347 Statistics New Zealand and Ministry for Women Effect of
motherhood on pay – methodology and full results: June 2016 quarter
(February 2017) at 13.
348 See 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.
349 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 87-88.
350 Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March
2005) at 9–10.
351 Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March
2005) at 10.
352 Mathew Arcus Intergenerational and Interfamilial Transfers of Wealth and Housing (Centre for Housing Research, Aoteaora New Zealand, March
2005) at 10.
353 Bryan 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.
354 Applying 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.
355 See 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) .
356 MJ 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).
357 For more information about the Working for Families dataset
see Statistics New Zealand IDI Data Dictionary: Working for Families research
data (September 2015).
358 MJ 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.
359 MJ 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.
360 MJ 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.
361 MJ 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.
362 MJ 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.
363 MJ 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.
364 MJ 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.
365 MJ 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.
366 MJ 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 134-135 and 186.
367 MJ 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.
368 MJ 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.
369 MJ 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.
370 MJ 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.
371 MJ 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.
372 MJ 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.
373 MJ 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.
374 MJ 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.
375 MJ 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.
376 MJ 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.
377 MJ 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.
378 MJ 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.
379 MJ 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.
380 MJ 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.
381 MJ 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.
382 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 5.
383 Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent
families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 11.
384 Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent
families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 11.
385 Statistics New Zealand “Age group and sex of sole parent, for one parent with dependent child(ren) families in occupied private dwellings, 2001, 2006,
and 2013 Censuses” <nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz>.
386 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2014
(June 2014) at 128.
387 In 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).
388 Ministry of Social Development Sole parenting in New
Zealand: an update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage (July
2010) at 13.
389 Ministry of Social Development Sole parenting in New
Zealand: an update on key trends and what helps reduce disadvantage (July
2010) at 13.
390 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris Mothers in the
New Zealand Workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 13.
391 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 57.
392 Arunachalam Dharmalingam and others Patterns of Family
Formation and Change in New Zealand (Ministry of Social Development, 2004)
at 57.
393 This 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.
394 Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent
families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 4.
395 Bryan 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
and F for further explanation of poverty rates.
396 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About income
(September 2014) at 30.
397 MJ 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.
398 Ministry of Women’s Affairs E Tu Ake! Stand Tall and
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,
2010) at 6; and Families Commission The kiwi nest:
60 years of change in New Zealand families
(Research Report No 3/08, June 2008) at 66.
399 See, 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.
400 MJ 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.
401 OECD LMF1.1: Children in households by employment status
(December 2015) at 4.
402 Families 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.
403 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 539.
404 Sophie Flynn and
Magdalen Harris Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 8.
405 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris
Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 8.
406 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris
Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 22.
407 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris
Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 23.
408 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris
Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 24.
409 Sophie Flynn and Magdalen Harris
Mothers in the
New Zealand workforce (Statistics New Zealand,
2015) at 25.
410 Statistics New Zealand Time Use Survey: 2009/10
(June 2011) at 18.
411 As at March 2017: Ministry of Social Development
Sole Parent Support – March 2017 Quarter (March
2017) at 1.
412 Families Commission Economic wellbeing of sole- parent
families (Issues Paper 03, 2010) at 14.
413 Families Commission The kiwi nest: 60 years of change in
New Zealand families (Research Report No 3/08, June 2008) at 67.
414 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 539.
415 Statistics New Zealand Women at work: 1991 – 2013
(2015) at 7.
416 Statistics New Zealand Women at work: 1991 – 2013
(2015) at 33.
417 New 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
2016 (2016) at 28.
418 New 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
2016 (2016) at 25–26.
419 Karen Witten and others The New Zealand Rental
Sector (BRANZ, Report ER22, August 2017) at 31.
420 Susan 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
34.
421 Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,
2014) at 69.
422 Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,
2014) at 72.
423 Bryan Perry Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982
to 2016 (Ministry of Social Development, July 2017)
at 71.
424 Bryan 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,
2010) at 11.
425 Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats About housing
(March 2014) at 14.
426 Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,
2014) at 94.
427 Lixia Qu and others Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra,
2014) at 8
428 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 539.
429 See 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
2013 (July 2013) 19.
430 Statistics New Zealand
National Population
Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (October 2016) at
6.
431 Statistics New Zealand National Population
Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (October 2016) at 7.
432 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged
65 and over (June 2015) at 7.
433 Statistics New Zealand New Zealand life expectancy
increasing (2015) cited in Statistics New Zealand Private superannuation
in New Zealand (April 2017) at 5.
434 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged
65 and over (June 2015) at 9.
435 Statistics New Zealand
National Population
Projections: 2016(base)–2068 (October 2016) at 7.
436 Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats About people aged
65 and over (June 2015) at 8.
437 Families Commission
Families and Whānau Status
Report 2013 (July 2013) at 16.
438 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 47.
439 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 47.
440 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 47.
441 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 47 and 49.
442 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 49.
443 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 49.
444 Natalie Jackson “Commentary on the family wellbeing of different ethnic groups” in Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016 (July
2016) 46 at 49.
445 Superu Families and Whānau Status Report 2016
(July 2016) at 79.
446 Statistics New Zealand Subnational Population
Estimates: At 30 June 2016 (October 2016) at 3.
447 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 48.
448 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 48.
449 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 48.
450 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 48.
451 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 49.
452 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 49.
453 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 49.
454 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 49.
455 National 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.
456 National 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.
457 National 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.
458 National 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.
459 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 49.
460 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
2013 (July 2013) 19 at 50.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/lawreform/NZLCSP/2017/22.html