New social security bill ‘discriminatory’

Press, 30 August 1978, Page 6

New social security bill ‘discriminatory’

PA Wellington Women would still be discriminated against under the new Social Security Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament earlier this month, says the Government member of Parliament for Raglan, Ms Marilyn Waring. Ms Waring, one of two National women members told a Tawa Rotary Club that the bill provided for married female breadwinners to receive payments of the married-couple rate of sickness and invalid benefits, to include payment for a nonqualified husband. But it would not amend the unemployment benefit provisions for married women. The Cabinet had decided it would “not be appropriate at this stage to provide for married women to receive the married-couple rate of unemployment benefit to include payment for a non-qualified husband,” she said. In the Cabinet’s view, that could have lead to abuse of the benefit. "It would for example, allow payment of an unemployment benefit in respect of a dependent husband where a married man had become voluntarily unemployed in the knowledge that his wife’s chances of obtaining suitable employment were less than his own.” But, Ms Waring said, there was little in the way of supportive reliable data to back that up.

She called for the provision of more data and information to back up policymaking in the family and broader social area. She said a Department pf Statistics report compiled in the last six months of 1977 had found that “much of the policy in the family area was based on an intuitive approach or assumption, and there was little in the way of supportive reliable data.” There was, she said, a need for more background material against which to assess submissions, and legislative and policy proposals, particularly in the field of labour. “Detailed statistics are needed on the whole sphere of unemployment, both registered and unregistered, as well as those engaged on special Government works.” Ms Waring said that in 1976 there had been more than 10,000 women actually unemployed but not registered. The figures, she said, came from the 1976 Census, but were not shown in the Labour Department figures for the period. “I am interested to know why 10,067 women unemployed according to the Census were not registered unemployed according to the figures held by the Department of Labour. “One reason often given is that the male breadwinner can receive payment for his wife, whereas there is no provision for a female bread-

winner to receive payment for a husband.” She was critical of the Social Security Act which, she said, limited an unemployed wife to a $36.90 per week level of benefit, “whereas if the situations were reversed, the male spouse would be entitled to $37.80 per week plus the dependentchild allowance. “It is possible, however, that the commission, in its discretion, would grant the female spouse, in addition to the statutory benefit, a discretionary allowance for the dependent children under the hardship provision. “This scale provides for a benefit of $26.52 for the first dependent child, plus a certain amount for each additional dependent child.” She said the provision relating to the housekeeper allowance applied only to a male having care of dependent children. Ms Waring said social research into the problems of unemployment and social welfare were of “vital concern, particularly when social phenomena are so complex that it is usually very difficult to assess the success of a scheme in relation to the predictions of research and development.” Spending large sums of money on family-related welfare programmes, without providing the resources for an effective statistical information system, was difficult to justify under any circumstances, she said.