Child-care aid ‘scandalous’

Press, 30 July 1980, Page 10

Child-care aid ‘scandalous’

Child care — a personal view by DORIS CHURCH, spokeswoman on child care for the Christchurch National Organisation for Women, and a working mother whose family includes a pre-school daughter.

Working women with pre-school children or young children, are suffering because the Government refuses to recognise that education of the preschool child is its responsibility. Equal opportunities for women in the work force are not even a possibility until adequate provisions are made tor childcare.

In the last ten years there has been an increase in the numbers of women with young children in the work force. During this time pre-school child-care centres have grown in numbers throughout the country.

Parents and centres are feeling the strain of increased costs and demands to increase the .standards of centres from the Department of Health, Many centres are being forced to close. The standard required, I believe, is much more than is expected in our Kindergartens, playcentres and - schools.

Without childcare, women do not have equal work opportunities with other workers. What angers us is that most employers, and society,

are quite happy to use a woman’s labour, and profit from her stability, maturity and experience. But they do not want to take any. responsibility for any family, commitments the women may bear A few businesses which already provide childcare know from experience that production is increased when these facilities are available.

Government departments employing large numbers of women have the worst record when it comes to providing child care facilities.

It is absolutely scandalous that the Government gives more than $2O million in aid to private schools but child-care centres do not qualify for an equivalent grant. Most mothers who use childcare centres have no choice between the freestate schools and private paid tuition. Mr Gair, Minister of Social Welfare, whose department administers and sets standards for child care centres, does not see it as his department’s responsibility. This is in spite of the fact that working women not only

save the Department of Social Welfare, in many cases, from paying out Domestic Purposes Benefit. They also pay taxes from which they cannot reap any rewards in the pre-school education system.

The Government gets a double bonus from these women and children. They collect taxes, but provide no education in return. Most pre-school children of working mothers cannot use Kindergartens and playcentres. Many courts also see fit to take the present maintenance provisions to mean that now women are in a position to pay maintenance. But they do not consider that child care or school expenses should be a shared expense when the woman works.

What a marvellous opportunity child-care centres are to begin an enriched educational programme with very young children. The Department of Social Welfare, I have been told, think that many child-care centres provide the right environment for children. They place many children in these private centres. This is done where the mother is unable to cope, because of sickness, or when it is warranted by family circumstances.

Of course, the Department pays the cost of care, but it is very much cheaper than they would get in the same care in state-run institutions.

It costs $894 a year to have a five-year-old day pupil at the most exclusive private school.

An under-five-year-old at a day care centre costs $1440 and for an under-two-year-old -1920. The high cost of day care for pre-school children of working mothers is forcing women to find alternative care in private homes. Supervision of this ■type of care is difficult and as a consequence I believe it is putting many pre-schoolers at risk. At day-care centres the costs range from $3O to $4O a week. Private homes offer cafe for as little as $lO to $l5. The centres are by no means making money from this activity, ’' but what woman with a takehome pay of $lOO can afford $4O per week. chod< care costs, not counting' transport costs to the centre. ' / ?

Existing centres are-ex-pensive, scarce, and too far from places of work for the majority of. women. I want to make these suggestions . for change:

1. Review of government policy on childcare which would bring New Zealand in line with other

enlightened Western tries. ;;

2. An equivalent amount of money to be spent on child care as is presently being spent on private school education.

3. The present’ unemployed could be trained and used for before-and-after-school care. 4. Department of Education administration of , child-care centres.

5. Employers to be required to provide placements for children of working parents.