Updated: 15 Dec 2009

---

Introduction

Fifty years on, is New Zealand a better place to live?

In December 2009 Consumer magazine marked 50 years of publication. We've looked back at life in New Zealand over the last 50 years and highlighted some of the social, economic and environmental changes.

Are we healthier, wealthier and wiser?

Gains and losses

The first Consumer was published in 1959. New Zealand had a population of 2.3 million; every school child got free milk; open fires were the main source of home heating; nearly 20 percent of households cooked on a coal range; 19 percent didn’t have a flush toilet; and nearly 50 percent had no refrigerator or washing machine.

Fifty years on, indoor plumbing is now "standard issue"; electric ovens have replaced the coal range; school milk is long gone; and heat pumps are fast becoming the preferred method of home heating (though our housing stock remains woefully insulated).

Huge gains have also been made socially and economically: we’re smarter, richer and living longer to enjoy what we have. Changing attitudes have also opened up more opportunities for participation in society, particularly for women.

Life expectancy

Life expectancy has increased by around a decade since 1959. Gender and ethnic gaps are closing, although life expectancy for Maori continues to lag behind that for Pakeha - despite significant gains for Maori women. 

 

Educational attainment

We’re better educated than ever before: teenagers are staying at school longer and the proportion of the population with a bachelors degree or higher qualification rose from eight percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2008.

But ...

But among the gains, there have been losses. As in many OECD countries, the gap between rich and poor has grown, and more households now live in relative poverty.

Guide to the graphs

• Our data is sourced from the Ministry of Social Development and Statistics New Zealand.

The cost of living

The income gap

In the immediate post-war decades, a booming economy and full employment coupled with generous state assistance saw real incomes increase while inequality decreased. All this began to change from the mid-1970s as economic conditions worsened and the political upheavals of subsequent decades saw social assistance programmes axed or cut back. 

Official figures show that between 1988 and 2008 the ratio of high-income households to low-income households increased markedly. In 1988, high-income households earned 2.24 times those at the bottom. By 2008, top-income earners were pocketing 2.59 times more.

Over the same period the proportion of the population living in low-income households rose from 9 to 14 percent. Low income is defined as real disposable income (after tax and housing costs) that’s below 60 percent of the median – otherwise known as the “poverty line”.

Housing

Rising housing costs are among the factors putting pressure on Kiwis' disposable income. Since 1988, the proportion of households spending more than 30 percent of their disposable income on housing has doubled. Those hardest hit have been low-income households. 

Power costs

Spiralling electricity costs have also had a bigger impact on low-income households. In 1988, the poorest households were spending 4.2 percent of their income on energy; by 2007, this figure had jumped to 6.8 percent.

Middle- and high-income households are also spending more, but for them the rise hasn’t been as steep. Households at the top of the socio-economic ladder now spend 2.5 percent of their income on energy compared with 1.9 percent in 1998.

It’s likely the amount all households spend on energy would be significantly higher if we heated our homes to a healthy temperature. The World Health Organisation recommends a minimum indoor temperature for living areas of 18°C and for bedrooms 16°C. Many Kiwi homes are routinely below these temperatures.

Food

According to Statistics NZ, food prices have generally kept pace with inflation over the last 50 years. But there are exceptions. Eggs are almost one-third the price they were back in 1959. Butter and sugar are cheaper than 50 years ago. Milk and white bread are more expensive.

 Prices have been adjusted for inflation.

Guide to the tables

• Our data is sourced from the Ministry of Social Development and Statistics New Zealand.

The environment

In 1958, New Zealand “harvested” 183 humpback whales, yielding 1373 tons of whale oil, 400 tons of whale meat and 120 tons of bone dust. We’ve since given up the whale meat and belatedly embraced conservation of these, and other endangered animals.

But despite efforts over the last 50 years, distribution of key native species has continued to decline. Our national bird, the kiwi, has been reduced to 17 percent of its pre-human range, mohua (yellowhead) to five percent, and the kōkako to a dismal two percent.

Department of Conservation figures show threatened native plants and animals now number 2788. And we’re still losing native vegetation, critical for the survival of many indigenous fauna. Between 1997 and 2002, native hardwood forest declined by 1.22 percent, manuka and kanuka forest by 0.45 percent, and tall tussock grassland by 0.10 percent.

We also face the prospect of rising greenhouse-gas emissions – something that didn’t figure 50 years ago. Gross emissions have risen 22 percent since 1990. We have the dubious distinction of ranking 5th highest out of 27 OECD countries for greenhouse-gas emissions per person. 

International trends

According to OECD research, in more than three-quarters of OECD countries the gap between rich and poor has grown over the past two decades. The organisation’s October 2008 report Growing Unequal? concluded that the economic growth of recent decades has benefited the rich more than the poor. Social changes, such as the increase in single-parent households, have also had an impact on income distribution.

International sucesses

Some countries have fared much better than others in the poverty stakes and many are doing better than us. The OECD says the countries that do best combine high rates of social spending – including high benefits paid to jobless households – with an emphasis on facilitating access to work for those without it

The standout successes are Denmark and Sweden, which have the lowest poverty rates in the OECD. In 2004, spending on social-assistance programmes as a percentage of GDP was 28 percent in Denmark and 31 percent in Sweden. Our social spending was 18 percent of GDP in 2003 and we have a poverty rate twice that of Denmark or Sweden.

Reducing New Zealand poverty

The Ministry of Social Development’s latest household-incomes report credits the Working for Families tax package with helping to reduce the level of poverty here. According to the ministry, without the introduction of Working for Families in 2004 the proportion of the population with low income would be significantly higher than it is today (see Low-income households table).

But the package hasn’t managed to bring levels back to those seen pre-1990; and current economic conditions are likely to be placing new pressures on at-risk households. The Families Commission says those most likely to be struggling to make ends meet are single-parent families and two-parent families where only one is earning.

In contrast, those aged over 65 are least likely to fall below the poverty line. The commission says the 65+ age group continues to benefit from the social-assistance programmes of the post-war decades. Most now live in freehold houses with universal superannuation providing a guaranteed income.

Report by Jessica Wilson.