Improving social welfare

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32637, 19 June 1971, Page 16

Improving social welfare

The main theme of the report by the Association of Social Workers is that social services in New Zealand should be improved and that the first step towards this should be better co-ordination of existing services. The report, “ Social Welfare at “the Crossroads”, makes no claim to offer a final answer to the complex problems it describes as urgent. Indeed, many of the criticisms that the report directs against the proposed amalgamation of the Social Security Department and the Child Welfare Division seem equally applicable to the model of a social welfare department described in the report The association has not been able to resolve the important question of whether it would be wise to include the Social Security Department in a new department of social welfare. There are good arguments for and against mixing the staff and functions of agencies dealing with financial security and with other aspects of social welfare. On balance, the arguments seem to favour such a merger; but the association, strongly opposing the Government’s intention of joining the Social Security Department and the Child Welfare Division as a first step towards a fully co-ordinated welfare department, expresses no preference.

The association knows the problems; and it must be assumed that the general statements it has made about deficiencies in the present fragmented system of administering welfare services are soundly based. There is undoubtedly ample evidence of waste, confusion, and of failure to deal with the core of problems—because symptoms rather than causes are being attacked. The association must be given credit for producing a report that surveys the present inadequacies of the system and for attempting to define a new and more effective plan. It is to be hoped that the report will encourage the Government, and its advisers in the departments dealing in various ways with social welfare, to grapple with the problems posed in the report. These are already acknowledged by the Government. A Royal Commission, as proposed in the report, should not be needed to find the answers. Ministers and departmental officers with sufficient vision and expert knowledge should be able to chart a fresh and more rewarding course.

Although the association is concerned about the efficiency of services to repair social ills, it has also shown special interest in the social development of the community; it recommends the setting up of a Ministry that would concern itself more generally with community well-being; it would advise and encourage other agencies of government to promote better social development. The idea has its attractions; yet it is worth reflecting that a Government, as a whole, has considerable responsibility for social development. It might be unwise to relieve the conscience of ainy Minister or departmental officer of responsibility that belongs to them all. This is not the intention of the association, of course; but it might be risky to rely on the persuasiveness of one Minister and a small Ministry attempting to oversee the whole working of government. < More importance might be attached to awakening a livelier social conscience throughout the whole community. The report is in one sense a dismaying commentary on the diversion of social responsibility from the individual to the State. Professional services are unquestionably needed; voluntary welfare work fc also important; the dilemmas and difficulties arising in urban society are challenging, and often acute. The association acknowledges all these points. But real progress in social welfare must come from within the community itself, from individual concern and action, from the revitalising of family relationships, and from less self-centred personal behaviour. These will not come automatically from administrative efficiency and more generous State spending.