Family Needs and Family Desires: Discretionary State Welfare in New Zealand, 1920-1970

Abstract

This thesis discusses the welfare state and families in twentieth-century New Zealand. Through an analysis of the work of three government agencies in the Departments of Education, Maori Affairs and Social Security, it focused on the delivery of welfare services in the home and community via the personalised casework of social workers. Such services stand in contrast to the larger and better known system of benefits and pensions based on statutory entitlements. The number of discretionary cases increased markedly from 8,219 to more than 58,855 between 1920 and 1970, although over the same period the number of principal statutory benefits leapt from 23,852 to 681,178. Discretionary services began as an adjunct to state pensions but by the 1950s they had developed into a broad supplement to the larger Social Security system. Although always a smaller component of the welfare state, the ratio of benefits to discretionary cases moved from 18:1 to 12:1 by 1970, thus constituting a bigger portion of total welfare provision over time. The needs and desires of families, and the way that agencies of the state responded to them are the focus of this study. The predominant role of women as recipients and providers of discretionary welfare services and the increasing focus on the achievement of a gendered, domestic familialism is explored. This thesis argues that the articulation of need and notions of what 'welfare' was and who should be responsible for it broadened considerably over the period to encompass the intangible as well as the tangible, well-being as well as having sufficient income or adequate shelter. Rather than taking over families' functions, the state in the form of social workers helped families negotiate an increased range of functions. The welfare state and the familial social system constituted each other. The distinctive timing and institutional framework of Maori discretionary welfare services, changing state expectations and the strong 'racial' dimension to discretion form a key aspect of this study. Between 1944 and 1950 the total number of Maori cases had reached 62,000 out of a total Maori population of around 110,000. The malleable nature of need was absolutely central for Maori. Maori need was linked to poorer material conditions—housing, income, assets and access to education and jobs—and the social consensus surrounding ways to deal with race 'up lift' and the imperative for 'development'. Maori discretionary welfare consequently covered a much wider range of needs and desires than it did for Pakeha. At the same time individual Maori had to battle continually to establish entitlement and legitimate need and officers were required to mount public relations exercises on behalf of their clients. State assistance had a much larger positive effect on Maori compared with Pakeha, because Maori living conditions were generally so much worse. The Provision of discretionary welfare for Maori families demonstrates the particularity of New Zealand provision in international terms. Unlike in Australia and North America, where social work services inflicted change upon indigenous clients and children and families were deliberately dislocated, Maori welfare officers had Maori needs at the forefront of their work and intervened in ways that made their work both acceptable and extremely useful to Maori families, even though it invited greater scrutiny of those families.