New ‘Non-Financial' Benefit Sanctions Begin Today
Article – RNZ
A money management sanction putting the benefit on a card for approved spending, and a volunteer work requirement, could be put in place for four weeks., Political reporter
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
New Zealand's invisible children
When Helen Clark's Labour government brought in a law that would create waves of undocumented children, even the immigration experts had no idea of the impact it would have on thousands of lives. The 2006 Citizenship Amendment Act ended automatic citizenship for children born here to overstayers or parents with temporary visas. It was also supported by the National Party. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont has been working in the sector for more than 25 years but only recently discovered the fallout from the law. 'It never really occurred to me that this would actually be a problem,' he says. 'It was only really when these children started coming forward that I thought 'This is really unusual, I wonder how many other children are in this sort of situation'. 'It is only recent because these children are now finishing high school and realising that their life has now come to an end, they don't have any options as to what to do.' They are called 'the invisible children', says RNZ immigration reporter Gill Bonnett. They are mainly children of overstayers or temporary visa holders from Pacific countries, India or China. She's known about them for many years but they have been hidden or protected by their parents and communities. 'These people don't want to come forward because they are scared about the consequences of doing so and they don't want to speak up either in the media or necessarily don't want to put their case in front of immigration officials in case it means that they or their parents get deported.' The case of Daman Kumar brought the issue to light, she says, when he bravely spoke to RNZ Asia reporter Blessen Tom two years ago. At the time, the teenager's voice was disguised and he went unnamed for fear he would be deported to India, along with his parents. This year he hit the headlines and his identity was revealed when he was on the verge of deportation. 'He'd been able to go to school okay but when it came to thinking about university or work he realised that he had nowhere to go,' says Bonnett. To further complicate the matter, Kumar's sister was unaffected because she was born before the 2006 law, meaning she is legally a New Zealand citizen. And it is not unique to the Kumar family, Bonnett says. She explains to The Detail what was happening in New Zealand when the law was brought in, including the sense of moral panic. At the time Helen Clark said she was concerned about incidents of people flying to New Zealand for a short time and having babies here to ensure they gained passports, known as 'birth tourism'. Clark said the government would be silly not to look at this, given what other countries were doing. 'They call it the 'anchor babies',' says Bonnett. 'The idea that if your child had citizenship that later on in life you might be able to get citizenship yourself or that you would just be bestowing good privileges on them for later on.' She says there were concerns on both sides of the ledger at the time: one side about birth tourism, where a child born on New Zealand soil would automatically get citizenship, and on the other side concerns about children who had lived here all their lives but didn't have citizenship. It is not clear how many children are undocumented, but McClymont says it could be thousands and the number will keep growing. 'Every year now more and more children are going to be coming out of high school and realising that they can't study, they can't go and get jobs because it would be a breach of the law for employers to employ someone who's here unlawfully. So they can't work, they can't study, they can't travel, they just simply cannot do anything.' McClymont says he has not had a satisfactory response from the Government to his suggestion that New Zealand follow Australia and Britain by giving children birthright citizenship after 10 years of habitual residence. 'Really, it's hard to see what the justification is for punishing these children. Nobody is making the argument that these children have done something wrong and that they deserve to be punished. 'The only potential argument is that these children are being punished as a deterrent for others against having children here in New Zealand,' he says. 'It's just unfathomable as a society that we can actually do this to children and use them for this purpose. There doesn't seem to be any moral justification whatsoever for treating them so badly.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Zealand's invisible children
Photo: janfaukner/123RF When Helen Clark's Labour government brought in a law that would create waves of undocumented children, even the immigration experts had no idea of the impact it would have on thousands of lives. The 2006 Citizenship Amendment Act ended automatic citizenship for children born here to overstayers or parents with temporary visas. It was also supported by the National party. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont has been working in the sector for more than 25 years, but only recently discovered the fallout from the law. "It never really occurred to me that this would actually be a problem," he says. "It was only really when these children started coming forward that I thought 'this is really unusual, I wonder how many other children are in this sort of situation'. "It is only recent because these children are now finishing high school and realising that their life has now come to an end, they don't have any options as to what to do." They are called 'the invisible children', says RNZ immigration reporter Gill Bonnett. They are mainly children of overstayers or temporary visa holders from Pacific countries, India or China. She's known about them for many years, but they have been hidden or protected by their parents and communities. "These people don't want to come forward because they are scared about the consequences of doing so and they don't want to speak up either in the media or necessarily don't want to put their case in front of immigration officials in case it means that they or their parents get deported." The case of Daman Kumar brought the issue to light, she says, when he bravely spoke to RNZ Asia reporter Blessen Tom two years ago . At the time, the teenager's voice was disguised and he went unnamed for fear that he would be deported to India, along with his parents. This year he hit the headlines and his identity was revealed when he was on the verge of deportation. "He'd been able to go to school okay but when it came to thinking about university or work he realised that he had nowhere to go," says Bonnett. To further complicate the matter, Kumar's sister was unaffected because she was born before the 2006 law, meaning she is legally a New Zealand citizen. And it is not unique to the Kumar family, Bonnett says. She explains to The Detail what was happening in New Zealand when the law was brought in, including the sense of moral panic. At the time Helen Clark said she was concerned about incidents of people flying to New Zealand for a short time and having babies here to ensure they gained passports, known as "birth tourism". Clark said the government would be silly not to look at this, given what other countries were doing. "They call it the 'anchor babies'," says Bonnett. "The idea that if your child had citizenship that later on in life you might be able to get citizenship yourself or that you would just be bestowing good privileges on them for later on." She says there were concerns on both sides of the ledger at the time, concerns on one side about birth tourism, where a child born on New Zealand soil would automatically get citizenship, and on the other side concerns about children who had lived here all their lives but didn't have citizenship. It is not clear how many children are undocumented, but McClymont says it could be thousands and the number will keep growing. "Every year now more and more children are going to be coming out of high school and realising that they can't study, they can't go and get jobs because it would be a breach of the law for employers to employ someone who's here unlawfully. So they can't work, they can't study, they can't travel, they just simply cannot do anything." McClymont says he has not had a satisfactory response from the government to his suggestion that New Zealand follow Australia and Britain by giving children birthright citizenship after 10 years of habitual residence. "Really, it's hard to see what the justification is for punishing these children. Nobody is making the argument that these children have done something wrong and that they deserve to be punished. "The only potential argument is that these children are being punished as a deterrent for others against having children here in New Zealand," he says. "It's just unfathomable as a society that we can actually do this to children and use them for this purpose. There doesn't seem to be any moral justification whatsoever for treating them so badly." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
Scoop
15 hours ago
- Scoop
More Kiwis Oppose Than Support Government's Pay Equity Changes, New Poll Shows
Article – RNZ Nearly two thirds of the public believe the government should have first sought feedback on the controversial change, the latest RNZ Reid Research poll shows., Deputy Political Editor More New Zealanders oppose than support the government's shake-up of the pay equity regime, and a clear majority think the public should have been consulted first, a new poll shows. The latest RNZ Reid Research survey found 43.2 percent of respondents were against the overhaul, compared to just 25.5 percent in favour. Nearly a third – 31.3 percent – remained unsure. On the question of consultation, 68 percent said the government should have first sought feedback, with only 18.6 percent saying no. The remainder – 13.4 percent – were undecided. That opinion carried through to voters' party preferences, with even a slim majority of ACT voters agreeing that there should have been consultation, despite the changes being championed by Workplace Relations Minister and ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden. The poll also indicated limited public comprehension: just 49.7 percent said they understood the changes, 38.2 percent admitted they did not, and a further 12.1 percent were unsure. More than half of those who claimed a lacked of understanding still expressed an opinion about the policy: 38 percent said they opposed it and 13 percent said they supported it. Respondents were surveyed from 23 May through to 30 May, capturing the immediate reaction to last month's Budget and the $12.8 billion of savings made from the coalition's pay equity pivot. Van Velden had announced the overhaul several weeks earlier, before passing legislation through all stages under urgency. Among the key changes: a new merit test was introduced, as well as a greater focus on whether employers could afford higher wages. The threshold to lodge a claim was lifted, and job comparisons across different industries were restricted. Along with the changes, the coalition also extinguished the 33 claims already being considered under the previous scheme. The government argues the regime had expanded beyond its remit, becoming too costly and confusing. The opposition parties and unions says the changes will make it harder for those in female-dominated sectors to achieve fair pay. The RNZ Reid Research result follows a similar question asked in the latest 1News Verian Poll, released on Tuesday. It found 45 percent opposed the pay equity changes, compared to 39 percent in support, and 16 percent who did not know or wouldn't say. Speaking to RNZ, van Velden said she had received mixed feedback but believed the community now recognised that the changes were necessary. 'It's always going to be a difficult conversation,' she said. 'We have fixed resources, we have to make those difficult decisions on behalf of New Zealanders.' And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he would not do anything differently if given the chance again. 'We made some pretty tough decisions to go through under urgency. But we had to fix a very unworkable and unaffordable law. It had got completely out of whack.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis suggested some of the public opposition or lack of understanding could have been driven by Labour promoting 'misinformation'. 'Labour have had a very confused position, and their hyperbole in claiming that we were ending equal pay has ultimately done a disservice to them and the people they're seeking to represent, because it's basically untrue.' But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said that was sheer desperation. 'Women up and down the country have a right to feel angry,' Hipkins said. 'The government cut billions of dollars that was otherwise going to be going into low paid women's pay packets, and now they're just desperately trying to deflect attention away from that.' The latest RNZ Reid Research poll showed National and ACT losing support, and without the numbers – even with NZ First – to form a government. ACT leader David Seymour said he did not put much stock in any one poll but acknowledged the recent pay equity changes could be on some voters' minds. 'Doing what is right is what is politically popular in the long term, and even if I'm wrong about that, good policy is worth it anyway. 'We have left New Zealand with a more sensible pay equity regime focused on actual gender-based discrimination, and I think that's worth it.' This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.
