Sweeping benefit changes 'horrifying'
KATE CHAPMAN
What do you think of proposed changes to the welfare system?
Relevant offers
Proposed welfare reforms that aim to push people into work are "vile" and the punitive sanctions on beneficiaries will only put further strain on community organisations, advocates say.
Eight Cabinet ministers have been appointed to the ministerial group that will consider the Welfare Working Group's 43 recommendations.
Prime Minister John Key said yesterday that National would campaign on any changes the ministerial group decided on.
The Welfare Working Group aimed to cut the number of people on a benefit from 360,000 to 100,000 by 2021. It suggested the creation of a single Jobseeker Support benefit to replace the dole, domestic purposes, sickness and other benefits. All but the seriously ill and disabled would be required to find work.
The Government has ruled out requiring women who have a child while on a benefit to return to work when their baby is 14 weeks old, but all other recommendations remain on the table.
They include tying the benefit to a requirement ensuring parents make their children go to school and get regular health checks; cutting payments to those with alcohol and drug problems who refuse treatment and providing long-term reversible contraception.
The Group's report was released on February 22, the same day as the fatal Christchurch earthquake and the Government response was delayed as a result.
Mr Key said the Government, like many New Zealanders, believed the welfare system was working as it should.
He refused to comment on specific recommendations, except to say the 14-week requirement made him "uneasy".
Former Green MP Sue Bradford said she was terrified about what might come from what she dubbed the biggest welfare shake-up since the 1930s.
"It's likely that a substantial part, if not all, of the (Working Welfare Group chair Paula) Rebstock recommendations will form part of National's welfare strategy for the election."
The reforms aimed to increase the harassment of beneficiaries and to interfere with their lives even more, Ms Bradford said. "Given that we have 271,000 jobless at the moment, that it's not about getting jobs for people, it's about harassing them to the point that they're going to go off the benefit regardless."
If implemented, the reforms would push people further into crime, alcohol and drug abuse, mental health problems and suicide.
There were no jobs for people to go into and the Government would be better focusing on improving training, Ms Bradford said.
Taking away the 14-week threshold option may be a way for the Government to introduce another recommendation that all parents on benefits be required to look for work when their youngest child is one, rather than the current three years.
She said the changes were "vile" and "absolutely horrifying".
Salvation Army Major Campbell Roberts said monetary sanctions against beneficiaries who did not meet certain requirements would put pressure on community organisations.
"What's going to happen to them during that period of time ... children still have to be cared for, there's still got to be food in the house."
There was also nothing in the Welfare Working Group's report about the value of caring for children, Mr Roberts said.
Access to childcare services was particularly difficult in low socio-economic areas and was often a great distance from the home and work.
WORKING ON WELFARE
The Welfare Working Group's recommendations include:
Requiring mothers who have a baby while on a benefit to go back to work when their additional child is 14 weeks.
Providing beneficiaries with long-term reversible contraception.
Requiring single parents to look for 20 hours work a week once their youngest child is three and 30 hours a week when the youngest turns six.
Tying the benefit to a requirement that solo parents ensure their children go to school and get regular health checks.
Requiring 16 and 17-year-olds on a benefit to be in education, training, paid work or a combination of the three.
Providing teen parent facilities so teenage mothers can continue their education.
Requiring beneficiaries aged under 18 to live with a responsible adult or under adult supervision.
Cutting benefits for people with drug and alcohol problems who refuse to attend treatment and counselling services.
Beneficiaries who do not meet work test, drug and alcohol and other requirements would have their payments cut for two weeks by 25 per cent for the first breach, 50 per cent for the second and completely for the third. A fourth failure would result in a 13-week stand-down.
The high-powered ministerial group includes:
Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennet
Finance Minister Bill English
Justice Minister Simon Power
Health and State Services Minister Tony Ryall
Education Minister Anne Tolley
Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce
Women's Affairs Minister Hekia Parata
*Comments have been closed on this story.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Man, NZ is stuffed. No work for too many beneficiaries, economy on a knifes edge and not enough insulation from world economic events. I'd go to Aussie, if I could afford to!
Labour stuffed the country with unaffordable social lollies, now we are reaping the whirlwind......shows what can happen when a history teacher is made finance minister & a career academic is put in the Prime Ministers chair.....Cullen & Clark for the uninitiated.
Something must be done & some of these measures need to be implemented but certainly not all, the time for heartlessness is not upon us yet. Gradually implementation is the only way....otherwise we'll turn into a dog eat dog society. No sense in increasing the underclass overnight.
The moaners wanting to axe murder bene's are unrealistic & silly. Be thankful you have bread on the table today, some of us Kiwi's don't........ Be happy you have a way of paying the power bill this month, some out there don't. Most of all, stop bleating, ungrateful sods.
So people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol and not seeking help will have their benefits cut. So, what will they do then for money? I can see more and more prisons coming to an area near you... This is not a strategy for getting people off drugs and alcohol, this is a recipe for criminal disaster.
@ Kkim #354 - 'benefisheries' hahaha, classic!
Agree with some of it but not all. Unfortunately the employment situation is critical already, so how on earth will 3/4 of the current benefit receivers be able to find a job iof their benefits are cut. While the theory is a good one, the practicality of it is not right at this time. However there are some very good points re drug users and others unwilling to try and improve themselves. If mothers can get a job !X!?/ access to childcare is in a critical state now, it's exhorbitantly expensive, because the funding is ridiculously low. The only result will be more children left to fend for themselsves, theft, burglaries, crime will explode. Get off your high horses and really think it through ministerial group.
Lets face it, if the beneficiaries don't like it then they would go out and get a job. I like the idea of drug testing every time they show up for their cheque. I'd hate to think my tax dollars are wasted on some bum getting high. But how about working for the benefit, councils could set up groups to clean grafiti (often caused by the bums with no jobs or their kids who run wild), at least contribute to society in some way.
There are plenty of jobs available out there so stop the complaining about 'where are all the jobs going to come from'. There are currently almost 10 000 jobs on Trademe and that's probably about 10% of the jobs out there. And if you can't find a job then create a job. Go fishing and then sell your fish like the rest of the world!
the 'doll bludger' is a folk devil, and a cause for moral panic. i caution everyone to think first before condoning a policy which will have a direct consequence of increasing crime rates. there are commutative relationships between these types of policy and increasing criminal activity.
Sofo #343 - Let us know what skills you have and what you can offer an employer. You might be surprised.
this is great that now the government finally is going to sort out these issues. i have worked all my life and i am sick of supporting some of these welfare cases. there are genuine cases out there that i do not have an issue with but the ones that are milking the system your time has finally come
Murder sentence 'not excessive'
Death threat emails 'clearly a hoax'
Climber dies in Fiordland fall
School bus crash accused in court
Heavy rains, wind pound country
Man jailed for crossbow, machete incident
Engineer denies conflict of interest'
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Foreign Affairs Ministry confirms 305 jobs to go
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Major courts overhaul proposed
Foreign Affairs Ministry confirms 305 jobs to go
Mob cancels star's performance
Kiwis not up with online security
Helena Bonham Carter 'honoured'
New hope for kiwifruit growers
Gender non-conformity linked to abuse
Nelsen cleared to lead NZ against Jamaica
Robinson starts for Chiefs against old team
Man's childhood comic collection fetches $4.2m
Rate the Government's restructuring of the public service:
Newest First
Oldest First


John #320 You must be joking. Who do you think pays the tax that give the benefits? It is not the beneficiaries! The $3b went to people who have worked hard and saved in many cases for the their retirement and did not deserve to lose money in a Labour environment that knew the issues with the finance companies but chose to do nothing. If by wealthy you mean working yes then we did get a tax cut. A Labour government is carnage for those wanting to get ahead by working and not by bludging.