Dialogue: But what about social policies such as the DPB?

By PATRICIA SCHNAUER*

No one disputes that our child abuse figures are horrifying. The arguments start only when we ask why. Sure, Maori need help to solve the problem. But it is naive to think it is only a Maori problem. Child abuse is a New Zealand-wide problem. New Zealanders should start demanding answers to the question of how the country has ended up with escalating child abuse figures.

One answer is that we are in this mess because of a social experiment gone sadly wrong. We are suffering the consequences of poor social policy-making of successive governments over two, if not three, generations.

The issues are complex and the questions are difficult. But the statistics are too damming to ignore.

Is the fact that New Zealand has the second-highest teenage birth rate among developed countries, with young Maori women five times more likely to have a baby than Europeans, a contributing factor to our escalating child abuse?

Why is it that 16,471 women and children sought safety at a women's refuge last year?

How come Maori women aged between 15 and 24 are seven times more likely than non-Maori to be assaulted?

Some say Maori abuse is due to "post colonial traumatic stress disorder." Others describe it as irresponsibility. Others say it all comes down to poverty. But other countries have been colonised and also suffered world wars.

They have experienced real hardship and poverty but their people don't abuse their children like we do. Indeed, the converse is true. In those poorer countries, children are generally nourished and cherished.

So let's dig deeper. Could it be that our social welfare system has actually become the cause of our problems and not the cure? Take the domestic purposes benefit, which has affected the behaviour of many New Zealanders. In 1973, about $19 million was paid to 17,000 people on the benefit. It supported women who had become accidentally pregnant and who had no financial support to keep their babies.

It was also paid to help women leave violent relationships. It provided an important safety net.

Today, the benefit costs almost $1.5 billion a year and is paid to about 110,000 beneficiaries. Almost 300,000 women and children are supported by it. While the cost to taxpayers is significant, the social impact is even more alarming. Despite $184 billion being spent on social welfare in the past 28 years, child abuse, crime, violence and poverty are all increasing.

The domestic purposes benefit may have an unintended impact in that it causes some people to change their behaviour to take advantage of what the state is offering. Two key groups, fathers and teenagers, are particularly susceptible.

First, some men father children without any sense of their responsibility to provide ongoing emotional or financial support. They ask themselves: "Why should I pay for my children when the Government will do it for me?" The result is $384 million in unpaid child support. Since 1994, there has been a 60 per cent increase, from 8700 to 14,000, in the number of women who will not or cannot name the father of their child.

Secondly, some teenage girls view having a baby as a career option. In 1973, getting accidentally pregnant wasn't difficult. But today contraceptives are widely available and accidental pregnancies should occur rarely. Yet figures do not support that.

In 1997, 7365 women under 20 got pregnant, of whom 2962 had abortions. Those figures suggest that a majority of young girls under 20 who got pregnant had their babies. Arguably, the benefit encourages this to happen, by paying far more than the dole.

Add these statistics to the fact that a New Zealand Medical Journal study found that Maori teenagers were three times more likely to get pregnant than non-Maori. It's no wonder that 41 per cent of Maori children end up living in one-parent families, compared with 24 per cent of all children.

Thousands of children are brought up by immature young women, many of whom have been abused themselves. For some, the only purpose of having children is to qualify for the benefit and thereby provide a meal-ticket.

Some of the shocking home-alone cases stem from young girls having babies they don't know how to care for. A mother in her early 20s can end up struggling to survive, with several children all with different fathers.

Ultimately, people can have as many children as they like, but parents have a responsibility to provide a decent living for those children. Parents should not have children only to lock them into state dependency.

Regrettably, our social policy has sapped the initiative and personal responsibility from so many people. Inter-generational state dependency has become an acceptable lifestyle for them. James Whakaruru's natural father was reported as saying: "Work sucks, I'd rather be a movie star." This attitude has contributed to the highest rate of dysfunctional families and subsequent child abuse in our history.

Good social policy should discourage teenage pregnancy, not pay to sustain it. It should encourage education and employment opportunities, so that the cycle of disadvantage, particularly for Maori women, can be broken.

Good social policy should deliver and improve the health of all our children. If that includes mandatory reporting of child abuse, let's try it. One thing is certain: whatever our social policy provides now is not working. The community cannot stand by and let these policies continue. We simply have to do better.

* Patricia Schnauer, a public law specialist, is a former Act MP.