AI use for job seekers: Defaulting to a 'computer says no' situation
Photo:
RNZ / Quin Tauetau
Using AI algorithms to to renew expired Jobseeker benefits automatically could result in 'computer says no' discrimination, experts are warning.
Cabinet has agreed to introduce a suite of new obligations and sanctions for job seekers this year, and halving the time people can be on the benefit from a year to six months is among the proposed changes.
That would effectively double the workload for Ministry of Social Development staff processing re-applications and the ministry said it plans to use automatic decision making to roll these over.
MSD said such AI would not be used to decline Jobseeker Support benefits - that decision would be made by a staff member.
Victoria University of Wellington professor and AI expert Dr Simon McCallum said the potential for bias was too great.
"There are certainly areas to be concerned about," he said.
"Once an automatic decision is made the human won't think fresh about the situation, they'll just use whatever the computer says or default to a 'computer said no' situation."
McCallum said human empathy can be inhibited by such a process.
"When you are the human who just gets a group of people who are potentially problematic your mindset shifts into a 'I'm dealing with people who are problematic' and you get that expectation issue."
He said such automated decisions would need human oversight in a way that could make them less efficient.
AI expert Dr Karaitiana Taiuru specialises in the effect of automated decision making on indigenous and vulnerable communities.
He said it all comes down to the data and algorithms used and if that reflects the nuances of such groups of people.
"The data MSD has could very easily reflect bias against Maori, Pasifika and immigrants so in the ideal world companies and organisations would use those same communities to consult on the algorithms they're using, or how the automated system will work."
Taiuri said that should be the first step.
"MSD really needs to consult properly with all communities that will be impacted by this and I'm sure if they do this will be a cost saver but there has to be that human investment in the project first."
He also said a standard developed for MSD's use of such technology needed an overhaul.
"There is an issue here. MSD are saying they've got some safeguards from 2022 automated tools and AI have significantly changed in the last three years."
MSD said it is reviewing the standard in consultation with the privacy commissioner.
MSD is a co-signatory to The Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand, which outlines the ways in which government agencies should demonstrate transparency and accountability in the use of data.
Under the charter, agencies agree to making sure their data is fit for purpose by understanding its limitations and identifying and managing bias - to name a few.
But Taiuru said the charter can not be enforced.
"AI in New Zealand is not being regulated so it is up to individual departments on how they handle automated AI systems and if they choose not to follow guidelines they don't have to."
MSD deputy chief executive for organisational assurance and communication Melissa Gill said it was important to make sure the ministry used automatic decision making carefully and responsibly.
"Our automated decision making process for regranting benefits uses a series of simple checks to check whether a client meets the legal requirements to have their benefit regranted."
She said the process did not include demographic information or profiling about people on benefits.
Gill said the automated process would not decline a benefit regrant, and beneficiaries would still be able to re-apply for their benefits in person.
"The redesigned 26-week reapplication and the use of automatic decision making in this way can make it easier for clients to do many of the basic things they need to do, without having to repeat information they have already given us, or repeat activities already completed. This allows us to focus on the interactions with clients that will help get them into work."
MSD said its Automated Decision Making Standard was introduced in 2022 after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission and the University of Otago Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy.
"It provides a framework for good practice and introduces specific automatic decision making safeguards, including the requirement that our clients get their correct entitlement and are not discriminated against," Gill said.
"Where appropriate, we are able to consult with external reference groups to help achieve this. MSD has access to a range of reference groups who we can involve when this be required."
Gill said MSD used the Standard to assess the shortened regrant process, and no specific concerns about bias or discrimination were identified.
"As a result, there was no need to consult with external reference groups."
AUT computer science professor and AI expert Dr Edmund Lai said some degree of bias is unavoidable in both human and computer systems.
He said using automatic decision making to rollover benefits at the expiry date should not be a problem.
"If the tool is used in exactly that way I don't see any problems because you're just saving manpower for screening all the routine cases where reapplication is successful and then a human will look at those other ones and rexamine those cases."
He said it would need human safeguards.
Law changes are needed in order for the government to introduce new obligations and sanctions for job seekers.
A new clause in the Social Services Amendment Bill, which has passed its first reading, vastly expands the decisions that can be made by automated systems to include sanctions.
MSD said it did not plan to use generative AI or automated decision making in that way.
Both the Salvation Army and Law Society have called for the clause to be scrapped, in submissions to the select committee considering the bill.
The Salvation Army's submission stated that automatic decision making "cannot account for the complexities we often see in the individuals we support", such as financial hardship, addictions, mental health issues or unstable living conditions.
The Law Society wants the clause allowing the expanded use of AI to be dropped entirely.
"This raises significant concern about how the use of automated systems will apply where the sanctions provisions involve some form of evaluative judgement, for example those relating to money management and community work."
The AI experts RNZ spoke to said while they supported using technology for good ways to automate decisions, using such AI for sanctions would come with risks.
Lai said it would not be an appropriate use of the technology to cut benefits or decide other monetary sanctions.
All agreed such use of the technology would need human oversight and that is not currently regulated.
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
RNZ News
34 minutes ago
- RNZ News
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it, what does it propose and what's next?
The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced by ACT Party leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ Graphic / Nik Dirga Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward , Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said . "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025 . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles ". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Similar bills have been introduced by ACT before and failed. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. The full Regulatory Standards Bill is available online. Photo: Screenshot / Parliament The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions . Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots' . Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act , the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement , the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner . A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. Bryce Wilkinson. Photo: RNZ / Kate Gudsell Writing for the New Zealand Institute , Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written . "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom . "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. Winston Peters and New Zealand First may hold the fate to the bill's passage. Photo: Facebook / Winston Peters Here's what happens next . The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September , Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill , also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scientists hit back over PM's 'worthies' comment
By Eloise Gibson of RNZ A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower New Zealand's methane emissions target. Paul Behrens, the global professor of environmental change at Oxford University, said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish. My point was very clear - those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24% and 47% by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the Prime Minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14% to 24% by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb say yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5°C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel, atmospheric scientist Laura Revell, said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35% because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Unemployed Asians battle 'lazy' stigma in silence
Photo: JES2UFOTO The stigma surrounding joblessness is deterring many Asian individuals from seeking financial assistance from the government during times of unemployment. New Zealand's unemployment rate held steady at 5.1 percent in the March quarter, but Asian workers have been fearing the worst as the job market tightens. As unemployment fears persist, losing a job isn't just about lost income - it also comes with shame. In many cases, the community stigma of being out of work can stop them from seeking financial help. A December 2024 report from the Ministry for Ethnic Communities found that just 32 percent of unemployed people in New Zealand received Jobseeker Support in 2021. Among Asian individuals, the number was even lower - just 1 in 5 received unemployment benefits. An Indian woman who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the stigma surrounding unemployment resigned from her role at an IT management firm in March, citing relentless work pressure and deteriorating health. Although it was important to network when looking for employment in New Zealand, the Auckland-based woman confided in a solitary friend about being jobless, fearing that the deep-rooted stigma associated with unemployment in her community would only add to her stress. "In India, there's an inferior feeling," she said. "What is the use of migrating to such a big country if you don't have a job?" Photo: RNZ / Quin Tauetau In some cases, she said it was easy to pick up on the assumptions that were being made about her. "You know, people look at you with those eyes - 'Oh, you migrated to New Zealand and you're still struggling? You don't have a job?'" The woman kept her unemployment a secret from Indian relatives in New Zealand, fearing she would also be judged. "I have a family over here [in New Zealand]," she said. "The stigma I feel is an instant judgement that would come from them like: 'What happened? Why did you resign from your job? Why did you lose the job? Were you not working hard enough?'" The woman experienced intense stress after resigning from her job, particularly since her bedridden mother in Mumbai relied on her for financial support. Nevertheless, she was reluctant to apply for financial support from the government. "[Indian individuals] look down on you," she said. "They say, 'You're dependent on the government to fulfill your expenses.' "They judge you: 'Oh my God, you don't want to work. You're a lazy person, that's why you go to Work and Income and demand money from them. If you were a hardworking person, you wouldn't have lost your job or have been dependent on Work and Income.'" Photo: RNZ The woman's husband, who declined to be named due to similar concerns, lost his job earlier in the year. He shared the same sense of shame. "At the moment, we haven't informed anyone that we're jobless," he said. "That's sad because if we tell someone that we're jobless, suddenly the behavior of the opposite person changes. "Especially in our community, if we tell them that we don't have a job, their behaviors, their conversations, their body language becomes ... 'Oh, these people, they don't have a job. They might ask for money or some kind of favour. So better to stay away from them or to look down upon them.' "We are highly qualified," he said. "We have around 15 to 16 years of professional experience. But unfortunately, we can't even open up to people from our own community." The man said he applied for Jobseeker Support from Work and Income in May, driven by mounting financial pressures on his family. Nevertheless, he still feared being judged by members of his community. "Of course, people will judge you," he said. "That's the reason why we haven't told anyone about it. It's terrible. I'm hiding me and my wife." He said changes were needed to foster greater inclusion and empathy towards people who were unemployed. "[Unemployment] can happen to anyone," he said. "Stop looking down on people who don't have a job, it's not that they're doing it for fun. ... Instead of changing your behavior, help them." Eva Chen, co-founder of the Wellbeing Charitable Trust, said the organization had been supporting unemployed migrants since 2020, with a particular focus on the Chinese community and Muslim youth. Chen said the stigma surrounding unemployment was common in many Asian cultures, and multiple barriers often prevented migrants from applying for Jobseeker Support after losing their jobs. Eva Chen Photo: Supplied "Asian migrants have a tradition of saving money," she said. "A lot of people believe they'll find a job before they run out of money. That's also why not many people go and apply for Jobseeker." She said the media's inaccurate portrayals of beneficiaries had contributed to harmful misconceptions. "You know how our media has been prototyping Jobseeker beneficiaries as lazy, not working hard or not actively looking for jobs," she said. "That's why when people need help, they don't want to be seen like that. "And maybe some of them have been criticized or have [themselves] criticized those groups of people in the past, so they're hesitant or reluctant to step out of their comfort zone and seek help." Chen called for greater empathy and outreach, saying cultural stigma often leaves unemployed immigrants suffering in silence. "Most people receiving Jobseeker Support aren't receiving it permanently," she said. "They will try to apply for jobs. As soon as they find a job, they would just get out of the system and move onto a career pathway. "There's no need to criticize them. Because you've never been in other people's shoes, [you] don't know what their story is." She said government financial support should not be viewed as shameful when people are genuinely struggling and in need of help. "Compared to your mental health and well-being, your family's well-being, and the stigma, I would suggest putting your family's well-being first," Chen said. "There's no shame in applying for Jobseeker Support. It helps families get through difficult times." Angela Wilton Photo: Supplied Angela Wilton, chief executive of Belong Aotearoa, said a lack of awareness about New Zealand's welfare system also contributed to the guilt many migrants felt about accessing government support. "Many communities come from countries where there aren't social safety nets to fall back on," Wilton said. "It's something that's not necessarily the norm for some people." She said migrants also faced multiple barriers when trying to navigate the welfare system. "Accessing services is really difficult for many," she said. "It could be their English is limited, they're hesitant to approach a Work and Income office or even transport - getting to Work and Income might be tough. Maybe when they do get there, they feel dismissed or reluctant to express the difficulties they're facing." Wilton said New Zealand should strengthen its social safety net to better reflect real needs and improve the visibility and accessibility of support services. She said the public should be reminded that accessing support is a civic right, not a form of charity. Jeet Suchdev, chairperson of the Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust, agreed. Suchdev said the eligibility criteria for receiving support from the Ministry of Social Development were currently overly strict. He said a more comprehensive support system should be established for unemployed individuals, including workshops and counselling services. Suchdev also called for greater empathy to help break the stigma surrounding unemployment in the community. "Awareness should be created," he said. "People can lose their job, but they shouldn't be neglected. They should not be treated as ... are worth nothing." Jeet Suchdev Photo: Supplied According to the December 2024 report, the percentage of Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American and African people receiving Jobseeker Support has remained stable since 2018 - despite an increase in the working-age population and the economic impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Graham Allpress, group general manager for client service delivery at the Ministry of Social Development, said Jobseeker Support was a weekly payment designed to assist people who were looking for work or were currently unable to work. It included individuals engaged in part-time employment. Allpress said the ministry provided a range of support services beyond financial assistance for those who have lost their jobs, including help connecting with employers, preparing for new roles and, in some cases, financial support to transition into work. "Anyone who comes on to Jobseeker Support will come to our Kōrero Mahi seminars , which will set them up to look for a job, prepare for interviews and then get ready to start their new job," he said. "We may also provide a dedicated employment case management service for clients that need more intensive support with their job search ." He said the ministry's services were available to a broader group than just those who were unemployed, and that anyone struggling to make ends meet was encouraged to reach out and explore the support they might be eligible for.
