This article examines some of the policies and assumptions behind the government’s fiscal policies and family support.

The responsibility for dependent children has become lost in a ‘no mans land’ somewhere between the wages system, the government, and the family itself.

Of particular concern is the erosion of the real value of income, allowance and other support (eg. child care, refuges etc.) for poor families. Alongside the government’s oft quoted concern for the needy has been the actual fall in wellbeing of those most in need (eg. single parents, the unemployed, low income families) while other more traditional family notions have been supported (eg. dependent spouse rebate). In some instances this redistribution has occurred through active policies (eg. family allowances) while in other cases they have come about by ‘non policies’ (eg. failure to index allowances for single parents).

Notes for Talk at Conference on Women and Taxation Organised by United Nations Association of Australia Melbourne 12-14 June 1981

Last year, on behalf of the National Women’s Advisory Council, I undertook an exploratory survey to obtain information on the ways in which married couples arrange their financial affairs. Much of social policy is based on the assumption that husband and wife pool their income and that the welfare of an individual family member can be determined by reference to total family income irrespective of its source. This assumption is convenient to policy makers and social analysts which is a probable reason for its perpetuation. But this does not justify its continued use in the absence of supporting evidence. The survey was motivated by a concern that social policy decisions, which at present are made on largely intuitive grounds, should, rather, be based on facts about the extent to which families pooled income and shared in its benefits.

When Care-Force was first established in Preston in 1976 we had the noble objective of creating a community based family agency providing a range of supportive services to develop and strengthen family functioning and prevent children having to go into institutional care. We aimed to be flexible, respond to family needs as we found them, supplement rather than duplicate any other services available in the community and find new ways of working with family problems.

We feel that in some ways we have been able to carry out some of these objectives, but there have been difficulties and frustrations which have hampered the planning and development of the services we have tried to create.

Between the writing of my article and its publication in the last issue of Australian Child and Family Welfare my critique of St Nicholas Hospital was overtaken by events.

On September 4th the State Government announced that it was proposing to demolish St Nicholas, sell the site and rehouse the residents in small family group homes in the community. This has since then been confirmed as official government policy.