Family benefit row erupts

Press, 25 September 1987, Page 1

Family benefit row erupts

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

, in Wellington

His suggestion that the family benefit should be scrapped has put the Minister of Social Welfare, Dr Cullen, at odds with other members of the Government and drawn fire from the Opposition.

Dr Cullen has suggested scrapping the family benefit and using the $3OO million a year saved to increase payments to low-income families. The family benefit is universal, and Dr Cullen said that the money could be used more appropriately by increasing Family Support payments by $lO a week for each child. That would target the assistance better than family benefit was. , The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has been directed by its Minister, Mrs Shields, to seek public comment on Dr Cullen’s suggestion. This decision follows up not only Dr Cullen’s suggestion but a discussion in the briefing papers prepared by the Social Welfare Department. Mrs Shields said her own preference at this stage was to let the family benefit continue, and that she would have to be convinced of the need for any change. The suggestion will be discussed at the next meeting of the Government’s caucus of women members of Parliament, to be held during the first week in October. The chairwoman of that caucus committee is a new member of Parliament, Ms Elizabeth Tennet (Island Bay). She declined to comment on Dr Cullen’s suggestion until the committee had met. There was no support for Dr Cullen from the Human Rights Commission. A member of the commission, Ms Rae Julian, said the matter had been debated for many years. The balance of opinion had always been that the family benefit, no matter how inadequate the amount, was a payment to women outside the paid work force. Such women might in cash terms be wealthy or poor, but unless they had money paid

direct to them they were entirely dependent on the family breadwinner if they were women choosing to stay at home to look after children, she said. The Under-Secretary of Social Welfare, Mrs Annette King, agreed that the family benefit should be reviewed, but was wary of Dr Cullen’s suggestion. She was more critical of the small amount of the family benefit — $6 a week — than that it was universal. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, attacked Dr Cullen for "his sneaky trick in introducing an item on Labour’s secret agenda in this way.” National had no policy to change the family benefit, but was prepared to review its attitude should the Royal Commission on Social Policy want to make changes, when it reported late next year. "This suggestion by Dr Cullen seems like a 1987 version of the national superannuation surtax Labour sprang on us after the 1984 General Election,” he said. "I have been telling everyone for a long time that Labour had a secret agenda, and scrapping the family benefit after the election and without warning is part of it. “If Dr Cullen is flying a personal kite it is an irresponsible thing for a Minister of Social Welfare to be doing,” Mr Bolger said. "If it really is already Government policy, this is a very sneaky way of introducing it.” Even if the idea itself had been part of his departmental briefing papers, the Minister had still had the option of rejecting it. There was no reason why Dr Cullen should be moving ahead of the Royal Commission on this policy aspect, he said. Dr Cullen said the idea had been floated two weeks ago by the Opposition spokesman on social welfare, Mr Venn Young (Waitotara).