New sanctions drive benefit accountability: Govt
The minister said that it's now mandatory for some people and their partners to have a completed Jobseeker Profile before their benefit can be granted, also from today.
'And an obligation failure will now count against a person for two years, instead of one,' Upston said.
'These very fair and reasonable sanctions will allow clients to continue receiving their full benefit, instead of the 50% reduction they would have experienced with a financial sanction.'
The introduction marks the launch of the second phase of the Traffic Light System.
The first phase was launched last year to help beneficiaries better understand their obligations and what they need to do to stay on track.
'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,' Upston said.
'Around 98% of beneficiaries are complying with their obligations – those who don't are the ones who need to consider the increased consequences.
'Overall, these changes will ensure we have a welfare system proactively supporting those who can work to get off the benefit and into employment. This will contribute to the Government's target to have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support by 2030.'
The minister recognised the efforts of frontline Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff working with job seekers.
'I thank MSD staff who have undergone training to support clients around the Traffic Light changes,' Upston said.
'We know the faster we can help beneficiaries find suitable employment, the better the outcomes for them, their families, our communities and our economy.'
Two more non-financial sanctions, Report Job Search and Upskilling, will become available to some clients in October this year, further expanding the Traffic Light System.
Non-financial sanctions will only be available to clients for a first-obligation failure if they are in active case management or have dependent children. If they do not meet this criteria, they will have a financial sanction imposed as before.
These clients will also need to have an appointment with the MSD within five working days and meet any other eligibility criteria.
MSD staff will consider a client's circumstances before imposing a non-financial sanction, to ensure it is the most appropriate option for the client.
Young people getting the Youth Payment or Young Parent Payment will be assigned a Traffic Light colour, so they can easily see if they're on track with their obligations. No other Traffic Light System-related changes will apply to these beneficiaries or young partners with youth activity obligations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
31 minutes ago
- RNZ News
'It's a matter of when not if' New Zealand recognises a Palestinian state, David Seymour says
David Seymour says there would be some hope of a discussion about recognising Palestine as state if Hamas released the Israeli hostages and demilitarised. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says recognising Palestine as a state is a complex decision that should not be rushed, but "it's a matter of when not if" New Zealand does so. Seymour said there would be some hope of starting a discussion about recognising a Palestinian state if Hamas released the Israeli hostages and demilitarised. "New Zealand's government position remains the same as it always has been, it's a matter of when not if we recognise a two state solution and we will be having discussions over the next fortnight or so over whether there should be any change on that position." France, the United Kingdom, Canada and now Australia , have all declared an intention to recognise a Palestinian state at a United Nations summit next month. Asked why New Zealand was delaying this decision, Seymour said "we shouldn't assume that other countries are right". It was a very complex situation and it was important to take time to come to a sound decision, he said. "It's not just a question of what are you actually recognising, what conditions do you place around that, it's also a question of okay so after you've done this what happens next?" It was easy to by horrified by the violence in the Palestinian territories shown on television and social media and to be driven to want to take action, he said. "It doesn't mean that any old solution is the correct one." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Govt's Empty Words Do Nothing To Stop Genocide In Gaza
The Government's announcement that it will 'formally consider' Palestinian statehood in September simply continues to delay any meaningful action. 'If the Government believes what it says about a two-state solution, it can and must recognise Palestine statehood, immediately,' says Green Party co-leader, Chlöe Swarbrick. 'Palestinians cannot eat empty statements. 'Aotearoa has a proud history of standing up for human rights and justice, even when powerful allies disagree. Most UN member states already recognise Palestine. 'The Greens put forward a motion in Parliament to do this in 2021. National and ACT voted it down. Four years later, those same parties are tying their own hands to do the most basic things. 'The bare minimum New Zealanders should expect from their representatives is to put substance behind words. Last September, Aotearoa stood with 123 UN Member States to support a resolution calling for sanctions against those responsible for 'unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in relation to settler violence.' 'The Greens have drafted a Bill to sanction Israel. The only thing in the way of this law passing, right now, is identifying just six out of 68 Government members willing to stand on the right side of history. 'Palestine needs our action. The people of this country have been mobilising every week for two years demanding it. Luxon's Government can and must act - they are the only thing standing in their own way,' says Chlöe Swarbrick.
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Scrapping petrol tax could be transformative. But will it?
Comment: The way we currently get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles – as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week, offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet – by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said 'it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often'. And on the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16 percent of income compared with 9 percent or higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute 'fairly' (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue generating for Government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the Government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs don't escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads doesn't force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials, is to ensure that it's easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we don't need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view – this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said, 'This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future proof how we fund our roads for decades to come'. This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it?
