Creche

Victoria University has offered the services of a creche to its student-parents from 1967. Since then, the struggle to be incorporated into the university system has succeeded. From small beginnings as a voluntary-provisionally licensed creche in Plunket rooms, then in a private house, it progressed after a year's break (due to inadequate facilities) to being conducted in 1969 in the Boyd Wilson Pavilion. Now the bright, established creche is situated on Fairlie Tee., within easy walking distance of the campus. The success of the creche can be determined by the 100% pass rate of the parents using it. Yet the increasing number of parents needing to use the facilities in itself poses a problem. 67 Fairlie Tee is not big enough to cater for the children needing the service. The age range of the children requires that sleeping rooms be provided for infants, separate from the more boisterously creative activities of the 3 to 4 year olds. It is difficult to continue such a large scale operation without at least three full time, qualified supervisors, which raises the problem of how the wages of these persons can be met. At present the University pays the wages of one of the supervisors, 540.0 per week.

An emergency meeting to confront these issues was called by the Creche Association last Thursday week Mrs. Glenis Bush, who has been involved with the creche since its inception, reported back the key factors to be taken into account. The function of the Creche was to provide a service whereby student-parents can attend university with the minimum strain upon their parental obligations. Basically, the Association wanted to operate a creche within a set budget with the University Council's help. Lillie assistance was forthcoming from the Child Wellane Department, as they are rarely involved with child care centres of a creche nature. Mrs. Bush commended the University Council for the co-operation it had shown in acknowledging its responsibility to help in providing such a service, and its generous provision of the house, and equipment. So the immediate problem was to devise a fair fee contribution towards the service by those student-parents using it. At present the enrolment fee is $35.00 per child, a year, with some reduction in the additional cost for more than one child. The fee contributes towards meeting some of the cost of running the Creche, yet it is still quite inadequate, even though the sum is considerably for many students.

The $35.00 fee entitles each student-parent to use the Creche for five hours a week, which means that this caters for three hours of lectures, one tutorial, leaving one hour free per week to use the library. Any student-parent doing more than one stage I unit must therefore pay extra for the additional time required. To lake a typical case of a person doing a Science degree: For the first term the fee covers 10 weeks at 51.0 per week, the second term of 12 weeks, and the third term of 13 weeks (including examinations) also at $1.00 per week. But a science unit requires a student to do lab work, and for a student doing one Stage II and one Stage I. a total of 15 hours is worked. Therefore, the student has to pay another 15c per hour for the extra 10 hours. Thus the total amount paid per year is actually $82.50. This in turn is in addition to $100 subject fees, (as many part-time students have already used up their Fees and Allowance bursary). $19.00 Students' Association Fees and at least $40.00 for text books, a total of $241.50. Government assistance, through the family benefit is only $1.50 each week which in this case does not even cover the weekly expense of using the Creche.

Of the 70 student-parents enrolled, there are many different factors contributing towards their individual reasons for needing to use the Creche. There are full-time male student-parents who make use of the facilities for their children during lectures and page break tutorials, while their wives are working full or part time to provide income for the family unit. Other cases involve parent-students who are both earning part-time, and who have to make a decision at the beginning of the academic year as to whether they can both afford to go to university, or only one of them. Solo parents find the fee a particularly heavy burden, but the service is so necessary for their continuing their studies, they have little option. Mrs. Bush felt that a fee could be decided upon that look these considerations into account. She also was interested in following up an idea that the Social Science faculties such as Education, Psychology, and Sociology could use the Creche for case studies and observation purposes, so that the Creche could contribute to the academic side of the university as well.

An informal discussion with Mr. I.H. Boyd, the Director of Student Welfare Services, revealed nothing new about the financial state of the University. There is wide spread difficulty in meeting costs, and it is mooted that there is to be an increase in the Students' Association fee as one measure to compensate for them. The new and expanding creche service seems to be caught by the squeeze on financial resources. Mr. Boyd was sympathetic to the Creche's aims and problems, and suggested that discussions immediately ensue with the University Council, with a view to setting up a permanent committee on the subject.

All this uncertainty and difficulty in New Zealand, a society supposedly founded upon the Welfare State principle. There is thought to be an evolution away from social reform and charity attitudes towards a social planning and social welfare orientation. There are of course different ways of perceiving how such activities should be undertaken, and C.A. Oram divides these attitudes into three groups. Firstly, there is the notion that no drastic change is necessary in the economic system, but the State should interfere to modify and supplement social welfare operations. The second viewpoint ascribes no serious faults to the economic system. The Government's main concern should be to see that every facility operating is encouraged to continue its good work. The underlying assumption is that people generally are able to make provision for their own welfare the number requiring and deserving assistance is small, so it can mainly be left to voluntary bodies. Finally there is the attitude that social work can be regarded as charitable activity, rather than as recognising it as a public service, directed for the welfare of the whole community. New Zealand's Welfare State was originally founded on the first ideal expressed above, yet subsequent governments' inaction in certain areas, has favoured a policy-rationalisation wavering between the second and third ideals.

The United Nations has shown a concern about the pursuit of social welfare planning by governments. At a U.N.S.E.C. Conference back in 1965, the final report outlined guidelines for governments establishing or extending their social welfare services for the family, children, and youth. The planning of social programmes needs to be integrated, in order that overlapping and duplication of services is avoided. The government must be geared towards being receptive of, and responsive to, changing human needs and social conditions, and set up a balanced network of social services towards this end. Ultimate responsibility for the welfare services needs to be at government level, with planning councils functioning to plan and co-ordinate the services. This would ensure that the level of competence achieved by the welfare services is of an even quality throughout the different agencies, and that there is an adequate approach to the problems the welfare services are meant to help to resolve.

Where voluntary organisations arc useful is that they highlight the needs that are not being catered for by the existing welfare services. But an over reliance on such organisations to solve problems has very real disadvantages. Their activities are often thin, and unevenly spread throughout the country, with a city orientated bias. Limited financial resources make it difficult to maintain standards. There is an uncertainty as to how to fulfil their role adequately, and in some cases a voluntary organisation can overlap a service already available. If public funds are used to assist such organisations, then there should be some way that the community can be ensured that the service provided will be a viable one.

The growth of such voluntary organisations, and the innumerable appeals, collection days and such that wind on through the year, shows the extent to which the Government has allowed the above mentioned difficulties, outlined by the U.N., to eventuate. The Government has also managed to 'neatly' side-step its obligations towards such ventures as university creches, (or for that matter, creches of any kind) by having related organisations such as kindergartens and play centres being administered by the Education Department. A recent phenomenon, the creche (which is designed along the lines of a play centre, rather than having obvious educational leanings), falls neither under the category of education, nor precisely into the child-welfare slot. A child in a creche at a university is not deprived, in fact its presence there indicates intelligent parents with a concern for their child's welfare. So none of the $1,165,042 grant to the Free Kindergarten Associations, the $59,190 grant to the N.Z. Federation of Play Centres, and the $300 to the N.Z. Free Kindergarten Federation will filter through to assist with the creches being expanded at Victoria, Auckland. Otago, and Canterbury Universities nor will these funds be used to promote creches in places of work for those women entering the work force.

In pursuing this policy, the Government is 'cutting off its nose to spite its face'. New Zealand suffers from a shortage of skilled manpower, with the result that there is an increasing number of women entering into the work force on a full or part-time basis to fill the gaps in occupations not determined solely by sex. As it is to the advantage of any community to have a skilled and educated work force, it would be economically advantageous for the Government to take a more active role in the establishing and administering of centres such as university creches to promote higher educational attainment among women. So that women are able to contribute more meaningfully towards their community, instead of being restricted to being population-producing units, steps will have to be taken to provide creches at places of work. Where the place of employment is large scale such as a factory, or a company, it could be operated on the premises, but in smaller scale work places the creche could be operated for a group of small businesses (imagine the Cuba Mall shop assistants having their children catered for in a Display Centre creche, for example). To prevent the system being abused, creches for working mothers would probably not cater for infants under 2 years.

However, the issue as it stands as to who should be responsible for the provision and maintenance of welfare services for the community must rest historically, economically, and logically with the Government. Some financial contribution is necessary from those using the facilities provided. But the responsibility for maintaining a permanent service in some areas (and university creches is only one example), is at present unfairly placed on people who have a social conscience, and the ability to succeed in stimulating a response of a voluntary nature from other people in similar circumstances. For a permanent and stable overall welfare service to exist, the Government should re-examine its ability to cater for the social needs of the community it has been elected to serve. Its present failure is an another indictment against the validity of its being in office.