Director of Social Welfare defends staff inquirers

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34130, 17 April 1976, Page 1

Director of Social Welfare defends staff inquirers

The Director of Social Welfare at Christchurch (Mr M. Lyons) has come to the defence of his staff after criticism of their methods of investigating solo mothers.

*‘l have never had a valid allegation of improper conduct brought to my notice.” Mr Lyons said. “I am, of course, prepared to receive one and to discuss this with interested parties or the proper authorities.”

The Minister of Social Welfare (Mr Walker) announced on Thursday that since March 23, almost 130 solo mothers had had their domestic purposes benefit reduced—an estimated saving of 5350,000 a year.

A National Organisation of Women spokesman (Ms J. Steincamp) is reported to have said that a meeting organised by a committee set up to investigate the plight of solo mothers had been ••shocked” by some of the stories it heard about ••snooping” Social Welfare officials in the benefits depar: ment.

She spoke of officials being outside people's houses as early as 6 a.m. and searching houses to find evidence that a solo mother was living in a de facto re-; lationsnip.

Contentious cases The Christchurch chairman ot the Solo Parents’ Association (Mr G. Nuttall) is also on the committee. He agreed that some of the stories he had heard were shocking, but many of themi had yet to be substantiated. There was some vocal criticism of the Social Welfare Department, he said, although most of the people at the meeting had gone to listen and to ask questions. A main area of criticism, said Mr Nuttall, was that when a solo parent made initial contact with the Social Welfare Department the person behind the counter was often young, and although that person might be confident in dealing with average problems he or she

lacked the ability to deal] with those faced by solo parents, Mr Nuttall said. Mr Lyons said that the contentious cases were those in which a third party complained. The complaints were received from all sorts of people, including parents, children, neighbours, and tradesmen. There were also anonymous and malicious callers.

Investigations, he said, were made with caution, tact, and sensitivity by experienced social workers and field officers.

“They have no right of entry,” said Mr Lyons, “but it is rarely refused, and they look into private areas only on asking permission — usually to check male occupancy. They are interested only in blatant signs of this, and realise that even if these were found there may ‘be an innocent explanation. “Naturally, the people visiited re on edge, and misinterpret our intentions and Ip actices. Extensive reading iof our reports indi; : a careful and considerate, approach and keenness by all staff to 'teip *' e right peop'e ar.d to preserve a proper measure of consistency in an iarea open to anxiety and |misinterpretation.” Retraining

Th- upsurge in this work in the last few years had made drastic inroads into the department’s other activities, and reflected a change in family habits suggesting “ar gloomy future” for hundre'. of children affected, Mr Lyons said. Meanwhile, a r " istchurch lawyer, Ms J. Rotherham, fias suggested that opportunity be given to solo mothers to retrain so that they can

work once their children are at school. Ms Rotherham said that a lot of solo mothers would like to be self-supporting once their children went to school, but did not have the qualifications to enable them to support themselves and their children.

The desperate shortage of child-care facilities for children after school and during the school holidays was another problem. “If these are not available, a solo mother can rarely hold down a responsible job which would allow her to become self-supporting,” Ms Rotherham said. “The amount which a solo mother can earn before her benefit abates is $2l. and is too low. 4 No incentive’ “There is no incentive for a solo mother to obtain on-the-job training or experience in order to work towards becoming self-sup-porting,” she said. “Even if she accepts that she may have to work for very little for some time, in order to become self-supporting in the future, it is now very difficult to find a job which pays only $2l a week. If such jobs are available, are reluctant to "train someone who is working only three half-days a week."

Ms Rotherham also suggested that the difficulties faced by families which were splitting up could be more easily overcome if the court system was changed. A system of family courts should be set up to make things easier for the persons involved.

Men might be more cooperative about paying

maintenance if their obligations were decided in a more congenial atmosphere than at present. Ms Rotherham said. The breakdown of marriage tended to create more social problems than legal ones, so that social workers ■ could probably be involved in the decision-making as well as magistrates. The Department of Social Wlfare could also make greater use of attachment orders whereby maintenance was taken out of a man’s wages before he received them. Legal remedies “People do not receive benefits unless they have pursued their legal remedies,” Ms Rotherham said. “Most women who get a domestic purposes benefit have obtained maintenance orders against their husbands. The State is thus subsidising them, not supporting them. ; “A lot of solo mothers are working full-time or parttime and are not receiving benefits. Most of these women have husbands who pay maintenance. Most men. in fact, are responsible about their maintenance obligations.” The Social Security Commission could make greater use of its power to allow a person’s maintenance obligations to be settled by written agreement, Ms Rotherham said. A man was more likely to want to pay maintenance if he had agreed to pay it rather than having been ordered to pay it. Mr Nuttall also suggested that maintenance payments should make up a percentage of the working spouse’s wage so that if a person’s income was raised, so was the maintenance. This would take a lot of “heartache” out of a mothers’ having to sue her former husband to get more money.