Welfare reform in the radical sixties

What is poverty

Hardship was judged by comparing Family Assistance with the survival cost of a family of three.

Figures quickly showed why these families were falling apart: State assistance for children under 17 years had not risen for 11years; for mothers not for 14 years - and could not be paid if she had $400 in the bank or owned a car.

While the family's financial state was being assessed, Emergent Family Assistance was paid - at an even lower rate.

The male basic wage, $32.70 a week in May 1966, indicated the cost of living. However, while the basic wage had risen 60 per cent since1952, State assistance had not increased at all. And family assistance payments were the maximum allowed, not even at basic wage level. Family income was not allowed to exceed Family Assistance payments there was no incentive for Mum to earn.

When dietician Mrs Fogarty listed the cost of food requirements for a parent and three children it transpired they would receive less than needed for an adequate diet, let alone other living expenses.

Another anomaly: while the State would pay $19.50 per week for three children to live in a foster home they would fork out only $7.50 pw for them to stay at home.

So even when receiving the official allowance it was frequently necessary in Queensland to approach charitable bodies, but often they did not have sufficient funds. 'Deserted Wives' were provided for more adequately in all other States.

RECOMMENDATIONS presented to the CSSQ Executive Committee on 12 April 1967 :

Abolish Emergent Family Assistance;

When a man goes to jail the Commonwealth Government to pay widow's pension to his spouse;

Non-British migrant women able to apply for a widow's pension after one year;

Welfare payments to keep pace with the basic wage;