Welfare reforms discriminatory, Attorney-General finds

BY MARTIN KAY
Last updated 15:28 24/03/2010

Relevant offers

Politics

Click Here
Treaty obligations to stay in SOE sales law McCully email thief could be Kiwi PSA disappointed Key won't discuss cuts Delays in privatising ACC work account No background checks on Education ministry staff Labour fears for Kiwis in ministry shake-up Defence staff eye leaving as morale falls No run on Kiwi farms - Key Crown account deficit soars Maori Party warns Government over SOE sales

National's flagship welfare reforms have been found to unfairly discriminate against 43,000 solo mums and dads.

In a report just tabled in Parliament, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says the reforms breach the Bill of Rights Act on three grounds by discriminating on the basis of sex and family and marital status.

He finds the breaches cannot be justified under the Act.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett and Prime Minister John Key yesterday announced wide-ranging welfare reforms that will introduce work tests for sole parent domestic purposes beneficiaries whose youngest child is six or over.

They will be required to be available to work for 15 hours a week from September 27 and will lose half their benefit if they do not take reasonable offers of employment or refuse to try and find a part-time job.

There are 43,000 DPB beneficiaries in the category affected by the change, which is in the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill expected to have its first reading in the next fortnight.

As Attorney-General, Mr Finlayson, a minister in the National Cabinet, is responsible for reviewing legislation to determine whether it conforms with the Bill of Rights Act.

A finding that it breaches the Act does not mean the legislation cannot be passed by Parliament.

Labour deputy leader Annette King said the findings were an "embarrassing blow" to Ms Bennett.

She also questioned why the report was tabled the day after the welfare bill. Normally, Bill of Rights Act reports are tabled at the same time as the legislation they relate to.

"Despite legal advice alerting the Government of major flaws in their proposal from a senior minister, John Key and Paula Bennett went ahead with their dog whistle that the unemployed don't want to work.

"Paula Bennett has been exposed. She cares more about looking tough than addressing the real issues facing those on benefits.

"Surely these concerns were raised at Cabinet this week, so why didn't we hear anything from Paula Bennett or John Key on this yesterday? Did the Government deliberately hold back this information?"

Mr Finlayson says the DPB reforms discriminate on the grounds of sex as they place additional obligations and sanctions on widowed men with children compared to widowed women.

Widowed men with children cannot get the widows benefit (WB) - which will not be work-tested - but can get the domestic purposes benefit-solo parent (DPB-SP), which will come under the new regime.

"The introduction of the part-time work test for the DPB-SP for people caring for children over the age of six, but not the WB, means that widowers are subject to additional obligations and associated sanctions. This is a distinction based on sex," Mr Finlayson finds.

Ad Feedback

The distinction between DPB recipients with children over six and women on the widow's benefit also discriminated on the basis of marital status as solo parents who had always been single or lost their partner through divorce or separation faced work tests, but not those who were widowed.

There was also discrimination on the basis of family status as women on the domestic purposes benefit-women alone did not face work tests, while those with children over six did.

Mr Finlayson finds the discrimination cannot be justified under provisions of the Act which allow reasonable limits on particular rights or freedoms if they serve an important and significant objective' and there is a rational and proportionate' connection between the limitation and the objective.

"The stated objective of the [welfare] bill as a whole is to create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment.

"While this is an important and significant objective, the different treatment of people on the DPB-SP compared to women on the WB and DPB-WA does not serve this objective because it does not create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment."

112 comments
Post a comment
Sick Prick   #112   12:08 pm Mar 20 2011

Yes, I know what people think of beneficiaries, I have seen it from both sides. I once worked for WINZ, I used to check up on DPB recipients, and from my 8 years in that job, 25% were not entitled, ie living with partners, earning but not declaring, false addresses, multiple identities, you name it. But WINZ cut the number of investigators in half as a budget saver (??!!). There are now BILLIONS of dollars going to waste, but it will cost millions to sort that out. I have been on the invalids for years since then, due to long term health problems which medical science can't sort out. The main problems in this country are the supine government willingly giving our jobs to foreigners because they are too stupid to understand the value of work to New Zealanders. There are plenty of industries waiting to be kick started with government investment, the healthy unemployed can be far better utilised in public works (think the old PEP schemes), let DPB mums provide childcare for others looking for work, come on we should be a community working TOGETHER. This is an emergency, the country needs rebuilding every bit as much as Christchurch. Don't pile up debt for future generations. Workers have a right to see able bodied beneficiaries doing their bit for their country. Other problems are financial organizations able to use fancy accounting to hide debt, the stock market is a fantasy land, Government bailing out banks when they have acted hugely irresponsibly, businesses able to take jobs offshore without having to pay the cost penalty equivalent to keeping jobs in NZ, foreign companies repatriating profits from NZ (including Aussie banks) - all of these costs are more than beneficiaries take out of the economy, but at least they spend it here in NZ, so GST goes back to Government. And yes, liable parents should pay more.

Christina   #111   11:52 pm Dec 05 2010

The DPB is discriminatory in that only sole parents get it in the first place. At home partnered parents have no income in their own right. Their partners are taxed as if they were single, i.e. their income is theirs alone. The non-employed at home parent has no legal claim to a share if it. So what are they supposed to live on? If the govt won't extend the DPB to ALL non-employed parents, then at least recognise their partnerships vis-a-vis the tax income sharing Bill!

dave   #110   07:21 pm Oct 02 2010

fascist anti-democratic legislation. Long live the Dole

Tom   #109   01:05 pm May 09 2010

What most people fail to realise is that there is simply not enough suitable jobs for those on benefits. These work-first policies ignore significant issues such as: 1. Those who stay out of paid work to support dependent family members 2. That sole parents, even if they manage to find a job, usually find this lacking in adequate support for their family 3. That being on a benefit is not a lifestyle choice. In fact research points to the contrary - those on benefits usually take on jobs at the first opportunity they get. One only has to look at the thousands of people who lined up simply for the 160 available jobs at Countdown.

Concerns about dependency and the high cost of welfare is exaggerated, particularly for political purposes - and we seem to be fostering a culture where the mentality of blaming those for their misfortune has become a norm.

Instead what we need is an economic policy that creates suitable jobs for these beneficiaries - ones with flexible hours and long-term prospects, unlike the current low-paid and temporary jobs that, even so, are in high demand.

What?   #108   09:18 pm Mar 25 2010

If a man's wife dies and he is left with children then he goes on the DPB and is work tested. If a wife's husband dies she goes on the WB and is exempt from work testing.

A man cannot go on the WB.

millymolly   #107   07:26 pm Mar 25 2010

OH YIKES HOW EMBARRASSING!!! EVERY DAY I MARVEL AT THE LACK OF COORDINATION IN THIS GOVERNMENT. C'mon Mr Prime Minister try to be the leader you pretend to be!

Toot   #106   10:46 am Mar 25 2010

when i'm old enough to get the dole i'm gonna do this car up and drive outa here

exeman   #105   01:17 am Mar 25 2010

It not great news for DPB users but WB get secure life and exemption it not fair for those disadvantages as should be balance those situations should be respected as I am concerned this would affect children upbringing and their future need life extension support.

Now we face uncertain future pending Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill in parliament.

Sam   #104   01:00 am Mar 25 2010

According to National’s reason behind its Welfare Reform Policy, discriminatory against persons on the DPB and other benefits is justified if it serves a greater good. It just so happens that the majority of persons on the benefit are overrepresented by non Europeans who happens to be minority ethnic groups as well as those carrying an ailment of a kind.

Therefore discrimination against minority groups whether by ethnicity or by illness is justified. Thus the National’s Welfare Reform Policy of 2010 by the Min of Social Development Paula Bennett under the rule of none other than the smiling axe man PM is not only a racist policy but also discriminatory against persons with an illness.

Madeleine   #103   12:54 am Mar 25 2010

Oh boo hoo, discrimination!!! Harden up, people. Welfare isn't an entitlement, it should be there for times of need and for people that actually need it -- not to live off for years!

Why doesn't the government just make up some crappy jobs that people can do, anything to get them out of the house and make them work - like boring office work or hard labour if they're too stupid for that. Roadworks etc. Then they get their benefit/dole payments for that? Better than just sitting around the house all day and doing nothing! At least then it would encourage them to look for a better job. Oh, but that will never happen, will it? Because all the PC do-gooders will be up in arms "It's against their rights!!!1111 Omg!!!"

People in this country need to get real. We are accruing millions of dollars worth of debt a week just to pay for people who are too lazy to work. People think that the government has a never-ending supply of money, and should supply them with everything...but I've got news for you - they don't! It's countries like China that are paying for the cigarettes and alcohol of career beneficiaries, and we're paying it back with HUGE interest. People are so stupid.


Show 53-102 of 112 comments

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers
Opinion poll

Rate the Government's restructuring of the public service:

Good - it's a bloated bureaucracy

Bad - they're cutting too many staff

Vote Result

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content

Pagani blog pointer small

John Pagani - Left leaning

Don't set Treaty back 25 years

The Whip blog pointer small

Andrea Vance and John Hartevelt on politics

More complex questions on Crafar