New Zealand

Before the 1950s, New Zealand was seen as a generous welfare state because it was among the first to introduce a fully state-funded old-age pension (in 1898) and a family allowance (in 1926). New Zealand governments also introduced benefits for widows and deserted wives before Australia did (Baker and Tippin 1999, p. 32). A close examination of how much was being paid and to whom reveals that New Zealand was not as generous as its politicians claimed (McClure 1998). The original family allowance covered only a fraction of child-rearing costs and was paid only to low-income families with three or more children. Furthermore, it was only for married mothers, who needed their husband's signature upon application because this allowance was seen as a supplement to the family wage rather than a payment for care. New Zealand introduced a universal family allowance in the 1940s (along with other English-speaking nations) and in 1973 improved benefits for lone mothers (as did Australia).

In the mid-1980s, the Labor government began a series of reforms designed to improve the flagging economy and reduce public debt. When the conservative National government came to power in the 1990s, they introduced more privatization, electoral reform, university tuition fees, user fees for health services, and major cuts to social assistance (Kelsey 1995; Cheyne et al. 2000). Policy reform was rapid and motivated by economic concerns, but families were expected to adapt. Low-wage workers and people on benefits, in particular, felt the negative effects of cost cutting, including relatively deprived Maori and Pacific Island families and low-income mothers (Shirley et al. 1997).

The National government accelerated social program restructuring throughout the 1990s and gave it an overtly moral emphasis (Higgins 1999). In 1998, the coalition government proposed a Code of Social and Family Responsibility that gave directives to parents in child raising and appeared to blame the poor for their circumstances (Higgins 1999; Larner 1999). A wide consultation process was initiated, but the Code was never enacted into legislation because of public opposition. Nevertheless, the political exercise gave the clear message that the National government did not intend to expand social provision, but rather would focus on welfare-to-work strategies (Baker and Tippin 1999).

Since then, the Labor government has made minor improvements to childcare subsidies, but childcare remains expensive by international standards. There was no paid maternity or parental leave in New Zealand until 2002, which encouraged mothers to opt out of the workforce. Housing standards, child safety records, and average family income are lower than most member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and social benefits tend to be targeted to the poorest families. Walter Korpi (2000) studied eighteen industrialized countries and found that New Zealand ranked eighteenth in terms of government support for dual-earner families and seventeenth in terms of general family support.