New 'non-financial' benefit sanctions begin today
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
New "non-financial" benefit sanctions starting today are about having "more tools available" than the current options, says the minister for social development.
But the Greens spokesperson for social development says it's "misleading" to label them as non-financial, because the impacts of those sanctions will be financial.
Ricardo Menendez March also criticised Louise Upston for going ahead with the change, despite a note by officials it could risk increasing financial hardship, a statement the Minister rejects.
From today, two new sanctions can be applied when someone on a main benefit does not meet their obligations.
The first was 'Money Management,' where someone who did not comply would have half their benefit put on a payment card for four weeks.
"The card can only be used at approved shops for groceries, transport, health, and education-related items," said Upston.
People would still get the remainder of their benefit, as well as any supplementary assistance, directly into their bank account.
Upston called 'Money Management' a "non-financial sanction" and said it would only be available to clients for their first offence, if they are in "active case management" or have dependent children.
Those who do not meet that criteria would have a regular financial sanction imposed as before.
The other new sanction - 'Community Work Experience' - meant those who did not meet their work obligations might have to complete at least five hours per week for four weeks of work with community or voluntary sector organisations.
Ministry of Social Development staff will consider a client's circumstances before deciding on and imposing the new sanction to ensure it is the best option for a client.
"These very fair and reasonable sanctions will allow clients to continue receiving their full benefit, instead of the 50 per cent reduction they would have experienced with a financial sanction," Upston said.
Upston said she had heard people were concerned, particularly if there was a household with children, if a benefit was reduced. This legislation provided more options, she said, and the new sanctions stay in place for four weeks, "which will support their efforts to find a job."
The
Regulatory Impact Statement for the legislation
had outlined a payment card "exacerbates the risk of a client facing hardship".
But Upston "utterly rejects" that, "because if you have 100 percent of your benefit with 50 percent of it on a card, that is still better than only getting half your benefit or no benefit" - referencing the previous sanction options available.
She called it a "sensible move" and said the new measures will "encourage people off welfare and into work," but couldn't say exactly how many people would move into work as a result of this policy.
"The new sanctions will ensure accountability in the welfare system for people who don't meet their obligations, while also recognising that reducing benefits isn't the answer for everyone."
But only about 1.2 percent of beneficiaries are currently not complying - about 4000 people at the end of April 2025 - and Upston said there are "only 288" children affected within those 4000 people.
It was not possible to know exactly how many people would have these new sanctions imposed because it depended on decisions by case managers, but the intention is to get people into work, she said.
"I want them to realise we're serious about them taking the steps to find a job, and if they don't, there's a consequence," said Upston.
"At the end of the day, we want fewer people on welfare and more people in work."
When asked how many of those not complying would likely move into work as a result of a new "non-financial" sanction, Upston referenced numbers from the past year showing an increase in the number of people leaving the benefit for work.
"It's up 11 percent on the same time a year ago" she said, which was "great news", but was not able to quantify how this policy would make a difference.
Green MP Ricardo Menendez March has ridiculed the changes.
"The minister has been misleading the public around the impacts of this sanction not being financial, they are financial, and they will cause harm in our communities, which is why the Greens will repeal it as soon as we get into power."
He said people would not be able to access financial assistance such as hardship grants, and the "end result will be families unable to afford their rent, their bills and potentially leaving countless of families at risk of homelessness".
RNZ reported in March
that government data had showed beneficiaries sanctioned with money management cards will often be unable to pay rent, putting them at risk of homelessness.
March raised this issue, saying the average person on the job seeker benefit paid more than 50 percent of their income on rent, and those impacted by the sanction would be "unable to afford to keep a roof over their head or put food on the table".
Upston acknowledged some people may get supplementary financial assistance as well, to cover rent that was more than half their income, and if that was the case, "they will not be an appropriate candidate for money management". She said Community Work Experience might be a better option for them and those decisions were for MSD case managers.
March referenced the Regulatory Impact Statement for the Bill outlining the changes and the potential for hardship to increase, saying the Minister's heart was "rotten to the core" for going ahead with the changes.
"She knows benefit sanctions do not work.
"She has been told by her own officials that things like compulsory money management can risk increasing hardship, has been told by beneficiaries that these kind of policies don't work, and she does not care."
Upston said in response she did care for people, their futures and their opportunities.
"I'm very committed to ensuring more New Zealanders are in work than on welfare. And I care deeply.
"I don't want to see people trapped on welfare. I want to see them and their families get ahead. And that is because I care."
In regards to the Community Work Experience sanction, Menendez March said community organisations did not support it. He said being subjected to these sanctions put people under more stress and made it harder for people to enter into employment.
"This just shows that sanctions like community work experience are all about cruelty and stamping down on the poor, rather than supporting people into employment."
Labour leader Chris Hipkins also criticised the move, saying it was "mean and petty" to impose sanctions on people in order to try and get them into jobs that "don't actually exist".
"Actually, they [the government] should be focused on creating jobs, rather than punishing people for not taking jobs that aren't there."
He said things were "getting harder under this government," pointing to the Treasury forecasted unemployment getting higher.
ACT leader David Seymour, whose party campaigned on the policy, said the benefit is "there for bad times, not for a long time," and if someone wants the freedom to spend cash "get a job like the other five out of six working age New Zealanders".
Seymour said he was proud to see his party's policies reflected in the government's agenda, showing if you "campaign hard" and release ideas and policy throughout opposition "you really can make a difference".
Seymour said no country can succeed with one in six working age people on a benefit, and ACT had long campaigned on giving "money in kind instead of cash".
"We've got to start introducing mutual obligation if you don't show up and actually look for work, we'll stop giving you cash, and we'll start giving you the things you need in kind on a plastic card.
"If it's not acceptable to stop the benefit altogether, then in kind payment is one way of sending the message: if you want the freedom to spend cash as if it's your own, then you should earn it yourself."
Seymour acknowledged there should always be support if someone is facing a challenging time, but he expected people to "meet the taxpayer who's paying for all this halfway".
Also from today, some people and their partners will have to have a completed Jobseeker Profile before their benefit can be granted, and an obligation "failure" will now count against a person for two years rather than one.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The NZ economy is still sick, doubts are growing about the Govt prescription
Are these the right antibiotics? Are the antibiotics making me feel sick? I do feel a little better I think. But it's taking longer than I expected. Maybe I should see the doctor again. Or am I just being impatient? Ugh, so much uncertainty. Hopefully, those who've tuned in for a fresh read on the state of the economy can see where this is going. Never let a metaphor go by, I say! Anyway, here's me and the New Zealand economy, both sick in the midst of a miserable wet winter and worrying about whether our recoveries have stalled. A run of negative data has knocked the wind out of the nation's sails. The bad vibes are being pushed along by a strong political current. Both the left and right are telling us that the Government has prescribed the wrong medicine. The left blames the Government for cutting spending into a downturn. The logic is pretty simple. Any good Keynesian will tell you, when demand in the private sector falls, that's the time for the Government to come to the party. Borrow a bit more, don't slash and burn civil service, hire more teachers and nurses, build more stuff ... it won't be inflationary because it won't be crowding out private sector competition, which is in recession. The trouble is, we're still in the aftermath of the last big spend-up, which went on too long. Labour's stimulus, once we got through the initial Covid shock, did clash with a private sector boom and exacerbated inflation. That muddied the political narrative. It made it inevitable that the incoming centre-right coalition would cut back despite the extra damage that would do to economic growth. In the context of using fiscal policy to drive economic prosperity, you can make a good case that successive governments have got things completely arse about face. You'd expect this argument from the left. But Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are being savaged even more aggressively from their right flank. The monetarists, the supply-side guys, the neo-liberals, (whatever you want to call them) are berating the Government for not dealing with the national debt and Crown deficit by administering a Rogernomics-style reboot of the whole economy. I doubt that would make the current downturn any more pleasant, but they argue it couldn't be much worse. And the payoff would be longer-term gains as the economy found a more productive and financially secure baseline. Both arguments can be compelling and, if nothing else, add to the concern that the current strategy of subtle market-oriented tweaks risks underdelivering on all sides. But through all of this gloom, one thing we need to remember is that most economists still believe the foundations of recovery are in place. Step back a bit from the mess of ugly recent economic data – the second quarter sucked, we get it! What are we actually experiencing? The labour market is tough. Unemployment is rising, and new job creation is almost non-existent. But this is not a surprise. In fact, while economists do get things wrong, they've been forecasting unemployment to be about where it is now for more than a year. We know it's one of the last pieces of data to turn in any recovery. Unfortunately, it is now overlapping with an unwanted and unexpected spike in inflation. Like a jump scare in the final scene of a horror movie, food prices (with rates and power, and insurance) have conspired to pause Reserve Bank rate cuts and rattled our faith in the recovery. Then there are tariffs and global unrest and all of that. It's not really surprising that it all feels bleak. So it's a bit ironic to be writing an optimistic take on the economy, especially given the rough week stuck at home that I've just had. My view wouldn't have been so upbeat if I hadn't been woken from my sick bed on Friday morning by a text from investment bank HSBC's Australian head of communications. He was asking how far away I was from my scheduled meeting with their global chief economist, Janet Henry and and Australia-New Zealand chief economist Paul Bloxham. Oops ... I was a long way away. But they kindly let me Zoom in later, and I'm very glad I did. As anyone with Australian cousins will know, sometimes it's healthy to be slapped in the face with a slightly condescending, external view of the New Zealand condition. Bloxham told me his forecasts currently make him one of the gloomiest economists on Australian growth. However, he's one of the most positive on New Zealand growth. Last year, New Zealand had the single largest contraction of any economy in the developed world, Bloxham points out. That inevitably comes with a hangover. But if you believe in the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy, which he does, there is no reason to assume the cycle won't turn. 'I suspect why I'm a little bit more upbeat than others is I sit in Sydney and watch it from the outside and go: hey, you've got two big forces at work that are set to continue to lift growth and give you a recovery.' No prizes for guessing those two forces – falling interest rates and booming agricultural commodity prices. The money flowing into the rural economy must eventually flow through to the cities and lift growth, Bloxham says. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (my words, not his). We've had a big downswing, which means we're due a pretty big upswing to get back to trend, he says. And we've got monetary policy and the terms of trade in place to drive that cyclical upswing. 'All cycles look different. We always ask the same question going through: oh, it's not quite happening as quickly as we thought. 'The question you ask yourself is: is that because it's not working? Is it that interest rates aren't going to have the same effect? That a positive-terms-of-trade shock won't have the same effect? Or are things just a bit different this time around?' Great question. And look, the sun's finally out and I think my head's clearing. Time to go for a walk and ponder it all. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Heather du Plessis-Allan: Is the Govt so desperate they announce any half-baked idea?
Of all of the above, it's the ban that's going to give them ongoing headaches. On the face of it, it's great retail politics. Everyone hates being stung 2% for using the credit card at the sushi shop. But there will be consequences. The surcharge is there because it costs to use your credit card. Someone has to pay for it. Either you or the retailer. Currently, it's you in the form of the surcharge. After the ban, it'll be the retailer. And we're talking a lot of money. Interchange fees alone – the fees Visa and Mastercard charge – suck nearly $1 billion out of NZ businesses a year. Add what retail banks charge on top of that and we're talking several billion apparently. One retailer reckons they were paying $2500 a month just in merchant fees. That's $30,000 a year. They realised they were basically subsidising everyone's credit card loyalty schemes. So, they introduced the surcharge. No savvy small or medium-sized retailer will suck up a cost like that. If they can't get that back through a surcharge, they'll get it back by upping the price on products. So, while the Government can sell the story that they're saving consumers money through the ban, they're not. Pity the poor travel agents especially. Let's say they book flights to London for a family of four at the cost of $15,000. If the family put it on the credit card, which most of us would do, there is a $225 merchant fee. Once the ban kicks in, the travel agent will essentially be helping the family pay for their holiday. So, you can see why retailers are up in arms. They're so angry they've managed to mobilise the country's chambers of commerce into banding together in a statement criticising the ban. Their point is a fair one: the Government should really be dealing with the source of the problem, which is banks and credit card companies charging too much for a basic service. Ministers choosing to beat up on Kiwi retailers instead of sorting out big foreign bankers is bizarre. Even more so because SME owners are traditionally National Party and right-leaning voters. The Government is burning its own support base here. Which brings us to the weirdness of this. It should have been entirely predictable that this would blow back badly. So, why did they do it? Are they so desperate to get good coverage that they take any half-baked idea pitched at them by a minister at the weekend to announce the following Monday? Did they run out of time to interrogate the idea before announcing it? Or did they anticipate all the problems but ignore them in their desperation to get a cost-of-living announcement out? It also begs the question, why are they so panicked? The answer is probably that it's not just the Government's vibe that has shifted. It's the country's vibe too. It's the middle of this Government's term and the middle of winter and the tail end of a very long and hard recession. The goodwill towards the coalition Government is suddenly depleting. It's possibly recoverable. Summer and an economic recovery should improve things again. But even when we're warm and flush, it won't stop the Government stuffing things up itself if it keeps making weird announcements like this. Watch now for how they get out of this. And they'll have to. They can't be doing this to their own voter base just months out from next year's election.
